Buffer. It creates a Buffer Zone between you and your enemy, I think buffer zone is already a real term.

Edited 9/7/2015 03:43:52

Amplificator.

Positive feedback technological population growth.

I still prefer the original name. Most of these proposed names are closer to renaming the Blockade card than the Abandon card.

The only proposal I've seen that actually makes sense is Minefield. If the name *must* be changed, then Minefield is the only good proposal for a new name that I've seen.

It doesn't fit with the warfare-type theme here. You have the reinforcement card, blockade card, airlift card, then the....... the........ the scorched earth card?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth

Scorched Earth would make more sense if it reduced the bonus to 0. Attacking an area that has been "scorched" shouldn't potentially kill of the entire attacking army. It would possibly make more sense for the blockade card.

Minefield implicates using up resources (troops), losing control of the area (becoming neutral), a dangerous area for everyone (multiplicity), and also a decision made by you (playing the card), as opposed to some of the suggestions like "natural disaster" that would imply randomness.

"rebellion" could be good as it is a neutral territory that tries to remain that way by strong defence

UN intervention card?

Scorched Earth would make more sense if it reduced the bonus to 0. Attacking an area that has been "scorched" shouldn't potentially kill of the entire attacking army. It would possibly make more sense for the blockade card.

Same could be said for wastelands. As I see it, 'armies' are an abstract concept anyway, and in the case of wastelands, they are used up to restore the land to productive state. Same would be the case for scorched earth lands. You use up 'armies' to ruin the land, and the enemy uses up armies to fix it again.

Yeah, but the abbandon cards main use is to trick opponents into running into it as a trap. A wasteland or scorched earch etc shouldn't kill an army that wanders into it, while "repairing it" takes resources, I agree, but that would be a conscience decision, and more akin to the blockade card (I think a better name for blockade, in fact)

Neutral armies often represent neutral armies, only defending their own land, so I like the idea of rebellion/revolt/partisan/guerilla too.

Edited 9/9/2015 03:00:56

A wasteland or scorched earch etc shouldn't kill an army that wanders into it

Tell that to Napoleon. lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth#Napoleonic_Wars

In 1812 Czar Alexander I was able to render Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion of Russia useless by utilizing a scorched-earth retreat method, similar to that made by the Portuguese.[17] As Russian forces withdrew from the advancing French army, they burned the countryside (and, allegedly, Moscow[18]) over which they passed, leaving nothing of value for the pursuing French army. Encountering only desolate and useless land Napoleon's Grand Army was prevented from using its accustomed doctrine of living off the lands it conquered. Pushing relentlessly on despite dwindling numbers, the Grand Army met with disaster as the invasion progressed. Napoleon's army arrived in a virtually abandoned Moscow, which was a tattered starving shell of its former self due largely to the use of scorched-earth tactics by retreating Russians. Having essentially conquered nothing, Napoleon's troops diminished.

A wasteland or scorched earch etc shouldn't kill an army that wanders into it, while "repairing it" takes resources, I agree, but that would be a conscience decision, and more akin to the blockade card (I think a better name for blockade, in fact)

After re-reading what you wrote here and reconsidering, I do think you might have a good point about how Blockade could/should be renamed also, perhaps to Scorched Earth.

So, perhaps:
Abandon -> Trap or Entrap (or Minefield, or Undermine, or Sabotage, or something similar)
Blockade -> Scorched Earth (or Waste/Lay Waste, or Ruin, or Raze, or similar, perhaps even to Abandon).

Though I'm not totally sure of this, because, historically, scorched earth policies have been used often in the face of superior advancing armies to slow them down/disable them, so it still fits with the mechanics of the current Abandon card. On the other hand, your point about whether to pursue/clean-up being a conscious decision is a good one, IMO. That's why I suggest Trap/Entrap, since that emphasizes that the costs are not consciously chosen, but 'sprung' upon the pursuer. Only problem with trap/entrap is that the 'trap' doesn't lay in wait like most traps; they either blunder into it immediately, or the 'trap' is immediately revealed and it is no longer a 'trap', but merely an obstacle. Again, I'm reminded of 'obstruct' as being a pretty good word for one of the two cards.

Edited 9/11/2015 02:46:24

Some other possibilities based on that idea:

Quagmire (or just mire; like minefield, but fits any historic era), pitfall (either literally or figuratively), block (as opposed to blockade, block being mostly a verb, blockade mostly a noun; similar to obstruct), hazard, gambit, impasse, hamper, impede, hinder, obstacle, barrier/barricade

Perhaps we could narrow things down to a small number of proposed card name changes (either just Abandon, or both Abandon and Blockade simultaneously) and just focus on debating those proposals, and/or perhaps doing a vote/poll.

I was thinking of going through the thread and counting up everyones choices to help narrow it down/reach a consensus.

Also I was going to respond to your Napoleon comment with a clip from Bill and Ted, where they tell him they don't think his plan will work... But I couldn't find a good clip and then I forgot about it :(

Tell that to Napoleon. lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth#Napoleonic_Wars

A modern army does not live off the land and such a tactic would no longer cause loss of troops. IEDs, mines, etc, do

Edited 9/11/2015 05:38:45

A modern army does not live off the land and such a tactic would no longer cause loss of troops. IEDs, mines, etc, do

I feel compelled to reply that, again, armies are pretty abstract of a concept in the game. You can also think of them as resources/manpower/equipment/etc. For example, in one of the Gulf Wars, Iraq used scorched earth tactics by igniting several oil fields, forcing the US and allies to expend resources (aka 'armies') to stop the fires and clean up the mess. In this case, it didn't defeat the attacking forces (as in the case of Napoleon), but it did force them to unexpectedly use up significant resources they would not otherwise have had to spend. Thus, to me it reminds me of the Abandon card mechanics.