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.