## Intro

Now that the ladder has been live for a week, I'd like to get feedback on the potential addition of the Blockade card to ladder 1v1 games.

*Note: Any big changes to ladder settings like this will be announced on the WarLight blog at least one week before they take effect. This gives time to prepare so nobody is caught off guard.*

## Abandon Card

I've seen many people use the abandon card in 1v1 games. I like how the abandon card can be used to block off areas of the map. This tends to prolong games and create more of an ebb and flow, and also allows players who are behind to make glorious comebacks sometimes.

The thing I don't like about the abandon card is how a well-predicted abandon can eat up a large enemy stack. The problem with this in 1v1 is that a big stack hitting a big abandon is such a powerful move that it usually decides the game. This ends up putting more emphasis on prediction of your opponents moves than I like.

## Blockade Card

The blockade card gives the same benefit as the abandon card (prolonging games) without the detriment of being able to eat opposing stacks. I think it works well in 1v1.

## Settings

I'm thinking that blockade cards should be fairly rare. In an average length game I'd like to see each player only get one. In long games, getting two each seems reasonable.

Of course, it would be delivered on a fixed schedule (no luck involved in what type of card you get.)

Using the initial-card-pieces gives us some more flexibility in determining when they arrive that isn't currently used by the existing cards.

Currently the reinforcement arrives on turn 5, delay on 5, priority on 6. I'm thinking the first blockade card should arrive on turn 7, and then subsequent cards every 10 turns after that (17, 27, etc.)

The settings for this would be a blockade card in 10 pieces, minimum 1 piece per turn, and start with 3 pieces.

## Feedback

Please post whether you are **for** or **against** this change and why. The "why" part is important - your vote holds more sway if your reasons are convincing.

I think the card would make games more interesting. It would also allow for more pre-planning which I always prefer. For example Racing to a choke-point, such as Iran, while allowing your opponent to get the early spreading advantage could be worth it. Same goes with Hawaii and other spots.

I guess the one thing I miss is Asia being such a non-factor. I think I've only played in one game (vs Scott) were all of West China has been captured. With the blockade going for larger sets could be worth it if you know you only have one front to cover. In addition, it also gets more interesting when there is "dances" around these larger areas.

Lastly, it would have to be worth while. Every income matters so I likely wouldn't want to spend more then 5 income for a blockade, especially if used early. So if its used I think it should be in the 350%-500% range. It is a blockade after all and not a few sandbags layed across a trail.

I'm noticing much faster games too. I'd like a balanced map with more territories in it (like increase every bonus by 1 (except US since it's already +1). Turn 7 is fine. If the game isn't decided before then you have something to play for to try to reverse.

200% or less has always been a largely useless setting for using abandon/blockade to close a checkpoint since you'll lose 30% defending. E.g. You abandon 20 at 200% and the abandon kills 28. So you get a 40% boost to your kill at the cost of the terriroty and the use of the armies. Not a game changer the way even a 250% would work -- 20 kills 35. I've always felt the abandon or blockade should be close to double the kill rate of the armies themselves, otherwise it's not worth it. Once you get above 300% it may be too powerful, especially if it's an abandon.

Ins um -- yes to the card and make it at least 250%.

I Like it, abandon is a lot more strategic, but I agree that blockade is better in a 1v1 because abandon can ruin a 1v1. I think Blockades would change the strategies without affecting the outcome of many games, But it would make some close games a lot more interesting.

500% is way high, I'd say 250-350 would be good, and maybe instead of gaining them you could just start with one.

Oops, I forgot to mention the army increase percentage! I think about 300% (tripling the armies) sounds about right.

I think the blockade card would be good addition to the 1v1 ladder, and around 300% sounds good too.

I'm pro nor contra towards a blockade card, but certainly against abandon, I think everybody mentioned the reasons for that before.

However, a card I'd love to see in the ladder, is an airlift, although also rather rare (every 8 turns?). This gives especially very interesting situations when there are two choke points and in combination with the blockade card it may be a very powerful weapon.

**+1** for blockade

Bumping this to make sure the weekday-only players see it. Also, I made a typo. The reinforcement card is in 4 pieces, not 5.

I'm in favor of each player having a single blockade card that you start with and you never acquire pieces for them after that point, similar to the blockade tourney. I'd make it 300-400%.

I think having that card gives players who get rolled on turn 1 or 2 by a blazing start to still have a chance by blockading whatever area they got beaten in and focusing elsewhere. Currently if someone gets a bonus and breaks one of your bonuses on turn 1 or 2 (as has been the case in many of my wins and losses) the other player is pretty much screwed. The blockade card could potentially help alleviate that. I've now lost 3 games that were over on turn 1 or 2, and I've won plenty of games where I did that same thing to my opponent on turn 1 or 2. It's starting to happen in a high percentage of games I'm playing on Medium Earth and I don't find those games enjoyable, even from the winning side. I think the blockade card could help alleviate that.

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