I am against this, but for no reason other than I dont like blockades depriving people of bonuses (namely me). I like trying to figure out the best to trick or maneuver your opponent out of your bonus. Blockade lets them sit there for one turn then it's game over.

If Warlight were dancing, blockade cards are my two left feet.

Impaller makes an excellent point though.

I like the current setup as it is, but if we were to add a blockade card, I'd prefer Fizzer's suggestion: 300% and arrives on the 7th turn.

If a blockade card were added, I would also like an airlift card to arrive on the 8th turn. This would balance things out between offense and defense, the blocked player can then swiftly move armies from a blocked region to another, where they can be of more use.

What if you were to get your first blockade card on turn 2, and then for really long games, maybe another around turn 18?

My first thought and only immediate concern, which wouldn't necessarily be true, but probably more true if it were in play earlier, is that it would give the person with the advantage more of an advantage. Like jacking an abandon and then blockading it for holding it off easy or something like that. Seems like in the early game it would diminish the game instead of improving it. So if you're going to add it perhaps make sure it doesn't come in too early. It could definitely make for some interesting play if you know someone is going to be coming at you from a certain direction and you can effectively wasteland it first changing up the map and dynamics of bonus busting and acquisition.

Meant jacking a bonus, not abandon, sorry for the error.

I personally think turn 2 is good, but potentially too late. I think you need it after the first turn. Your stated reason for having a blockade card is to prolong games, which I agree with. However, a lot of games are over on turn 2. Yes, the game may last to turn 7, but the blockade card becomes just a speed bump at that point and doesn't actually have an impact on the game.

I think a card on turn 1 or 2, and then not another one until like turn 14-15 seems very reasonable.

|>My first thought and only immediate concern, which wouldn't necessarily be true, but probably more true if it were in play earlier, is that it would give the person with the advantage more of an advantage. Like jacking an abandon and then blockading it for holding it off easy or something like that.

I disagree. If a person breaks someone else's bonus early in the game, the person whose bonus was just broken is significantly behind in the game and is going to be on the defensive. They have less income and in all likelihood less armies in that bonus that just got broken. They are almost always going to have to either try to stay alive in that bonus or just ignore it and focus elsewhere as the attacker conquers it. I don't think situations like you describe ever happen before something like turn 8, when both players have a higher income.

Ah yeah... good point and the jacked could use the blockade to then make it harder for the jacker to get the jacked bonus. Yeah, that could definitely work more in favor of the jacked than the jacker and balance things out a little.

|>"My first thought and only immediate concern, which wouldn't necessarily be true, but probably more true if it were in play earlier, is that it would give the person with the advantage more of an advantage. Like jacking an abandon and then blockading it for holding it off easy or something like that.

|>I disagree. If a person breaks someone else's bonus early in the game, the person whose bonus was just broken is significantly behind in the game and is going to be on the defensive. They have less income and in all likelihood less armies in that bonus that just got broken. They are almost always going to have to either try to stay alive in that bonus or just ignore it and focus elsewhere as the attacker conquers it. I don't think situations like you describe ever happen before something like turn 8, when both players have a higher income."

I think what he's trying to say is that now, at this point, the breaker now has an abandon card to use as he pleases, while the defender is out his.. the attack can then work towards blocking the defender, or charge into where he predicts he's at and blockade his bonus easier since he'll still have an income advantage *3 starting bonuses vs 2* albiet not as big a one as without the blockade card.

while this is an issues, i agree with impaller that it should come out earlier in the game.. course i can't name how many games a blockade card could of changed the entire play of the game.. I regularly let parts of my empire get devoured knowing i can take either a better part of his empire faster, or that i can break enough of his empire to be able to comeback and hold him off the next turn.. a blockade card could cause those situations to be significantly different

and I like you're idea of indenting what you're quoting, lol

Hmm.. perhaps starting the game with one is nice. I'm not sure if playing it first turn would ever happen.

Maybe start the game with one and get one every 17 turns after that, for long games?

|>Ah yeah... good point and the jacked could use the blockade to then make it harder for the jacker to get the jacked bonus. Yeah, that could definitely work more in favor of the jacked than the jacker and balance things out a little.

Right, this is exactly what I mean. I think it would help balance games a bit more.

|>Hmm.. perhaps starting the game with one is nice. I'm not sure if playing it first turn would ever happen.

|>Maybe start the game with one and get one every 17 turns after that, for long games?

I do doubt that one would ever be played on the first turn. I meant more like you would want one after the first turn to play on the 2nd turn. Example: You go for Antartica and someone blocks you from South Africa that you didn't expect. You might want to blockade a spot in south Africa that they aren't adjacent to and just focus elsewhere on the map, secure that they can't get that bonus at least for a while. In my recent game against Doushibag, I think I may have had a shot with a blockade card, because I could have blockaded in East Africa and still had a spot in the northern part of east Africa. Then I could have expanded and still had a spot in Africa to harass with, and potentially been able to come back. I still think it was a long shot, and against a player as good as he is I highly doubt I could have come back, but I do think the Blockade card would have given a fighting chance there.

You could blockade a 2 into a neutral 4 on your first turn (after attacking out) which, if done before your opponent found it, would lead them to assume you did not start at that location. I'm not sure if this could be turned into a winning strategy, but I like it since it's sneaky.

Hah, that is an interesting idea, but only 200% on the blockade card? Would be almost useless at that :(.

i think 200% would be better then anything higher, it's mean as a hindrence, nothing more, and in a strategic game every army matters many times. a blockade with 5 would equal out to a wasteland, which I don't think I've seen someone break a wasteland and win \*before the game was obviously won by an outside observer*

and if he does increase it, i encourage 400% purely for the continued possibility of what fizzer previously mentioned, lol

Imp -- I think that's a reverse of your prior stance on the ladder map. I want to slow it down too. 1 more territory in each bonus (except E & W US, NA and SA - which already have 1 more than the comparable starting sppots for their bonus size, would be good. Also maybe moving to neutral 3s instead of 2s. Blockade early and then very late is an idea. 2 and 14 is a good idea (I guess Randy could artificially make it just 1 card that appears at any given turn by starting with 1000 + X pieces and having the card come every 1000 + Y turns where Y is greater than X by the turn number you want).

Randy balanced the map by cutting away a lot of territories. I'm suggesting the same exercise but cutting 1 less where possible and increasing bonus amount where it's not. You get a better game if you have at least 6 viable starting spots and at least 3 viable counterpick spots.

if you increase neutrals to 3, i would recomend increasing the neutral starting spots to at least 5

It's 100% a reverse of my prior stance, but I've now lost like 4-5 games in this ladder that were over on turn 1 or 2, so... I feel like such a large percentage of games right now are decided by starting spot selection or how lucky you are on turn 1, and it's frustrating and bothersome to me.

I mean, I've won my fair share of those too, but I've lost far too many games where I felt like I had no chance of winning at all at this point where I'd like some sort of change to be made to limit those games.

Personally, I despise of abandon and blockade cards because in my opinion they dilute the strategy of the game. There are only so many different ways to each continent that it would be expected to block one way and if there is a wasteland already blocking another path to the continent it makes the game horrible. If the map was more open and there weren't a relatively small number of choke points I would be all for abandon and blockade cards as a way to wreck a bonus. I just hate the use of blockade cards to block choke points. Gaining control of the choke points is a major strategy and making people move their units all the way around the map it just plain stupid in my opinion. An airlift card would certainly be necessary or else I may not play the ladder anymore. Quite frankly, I just think blockade and abandon cards have no place on earth maps due to the small amounts of choke points.

-- Poop