This is just to see what you guys think about this. I propose a "Fortification" card. What this would do:

- increase the defensive kill rate from a certain territory
- set amount of turns
- Set percentage or amount it would rise or to 100
- can transfer troops in/out of that territory, but not attack from it during this time
- would be null once someone else captured it

I have a new card idea too: Bombing Card
-Bombards emeny territoryes, what are not fogged, wasteland or neutral and reduce emeny armies
-Set a percentage of emeny armies reduction (50% is default)

Very good idea

There's also the rebellion card idea: It turns any territory into an AI that belongs to no team.

Kubaorlo, that and similar things have been suggested over and over. There are multiple features on Uservoice that are different variations of this if you'd like to vote for them (community > feedback > Uservoice)

Praising your own idea is kind of meh though..

like never hear someone say they have an idea, describe it, then say it's a terrible idea.. the fact your saying it makes it apparant you think it's good ;)

I have a terrible idea for a card:

Superman card - turns any territory into Krypton. When your team controls it, you are invincible. Your armies can not be defeated. If you lose it, your armies immediately have ZERO effectiveness.

I see no flaws in this argument, but it is a terrible idea. I would never vote for it.

Hehe^
How about a Blitzkrieg card: Brings attack kill rate way up

@Kubamorlo, Moros, Boomer:
There are lots of new card ideas (many of which have been proposed before / are already on UV). Of course you have every right to propose your ideas, but maybe it would be better to do so in separate threads? Otherwise this one could get quite messy.
(Also Boomer, that's a pretty misleading name; the entire idea of blitzkrieg is attacking the enemy when he's off-guard and/or deep into/behind enemy lines (impossible with standard WL rules / already accomplished by turning multi-attack on). Increasing kill rate has little to do with it; if I saw a blitzkrieg card I'd expect it to let (some subset of) my armies multi-attack in a game where that is otherwise not allowed. Especially when combined with dropping all your reinforcements into a single territory that turn, *that* would be worthy of the name "blitzkrieg".)

@EagleBlast:
To increase your chances of people not "hijacking" your thread, it can help to put a very succinct description of your card in the thread title.

---

Ok, back on-topic. There are a few issues which need working out:

- If you lose a territory, then recapture it before the card expires, is it still valid? Technically you answered this with "would be null once someone else captured it". Then again, I am sure that means "the new owner does not take advantage of the card (and, is not limited by the no-attack clause)", but unsure whether it was *intended* to cover the recapture scenario.
- What happens when you play two of these on the same territory, do the effects stack (like multiple sanction cards)? Or is it simply not allowed, or...?
- To make things really interesting, have you considered allowing the kill rate to be increased above 100%?
- Do you just want to increase the defensive kill rate, or also lower the offensive kill rate? (Again, technically you've answered this, but I cannot know whether you thought about it and decided against it, or never even considered it.) Just going by the name of the card, lowering offensive kill rate makes even more sense than increasing defensive kill rate...
- Is this played at the start or end of a turn? Playing it at the start of a turn is much more powerful (you *know* it will be played when you still control that territory and it will be a nasty surprise for your opponents, who only see the Fortification when the turn plays out and they can't cancel their (potentially suicide) orders any more. Basically, I'm talking about the difference between [Abandon and Blockade cards](http://wiki.warlight.net/index.php/Abandon_Card_and_Blockade_Card).
- While not extremely critical, if you can propose a way to mark fortified territories that would of course make your proposal sound that much better. :)

yeah, I'll answer you in order ;)

- once you lose control of the territory (through being attacks, gift card, etc.) the cards effects would be gone. The person who took control of it would not get any of the effects, and the effects would stay gone if you were to reclaim that territory

- that would not be allowed

-yes I have. That's what I meant by increasing it by a number or percent ( i.e. 100% fortification on 70% kill rate would result in 140% kill rate) but there could also be an option to increase it to a certain percentage (100% kill rate)

- no, as others mentioned there could be another card to raise attack kill rates, but this makes most sense to me as defensive kill rates only.

- no, it would be played like a blockade card, starting its effect on your next turn

-perhaps a black circle around the amount of armies? or a star over them?

Boomer, that doesn't really describe blitzkrieg though...

Imho, Blitzkrieg would be perfect for a short term MA ability.. since blitzkrieg was often used to puncture a front line and then sweep around to cut off supply lines.. something a short term MA could easily accomplish.. I mean.. if we had supply lines..

*note, this was written before I read RvW's post*

I agree that end of turn is most logical, and the survivability of the card makes the most sense the way Eagle described it.. there could be some discrepency if you recaptured it during the same turn.. many fortifications are destroyed when captured, and just as many are built to defend in a certain direction.. the former is why they should have to have lost control *by the end of the turn* and not just during the turn.. the prior is why the attacker will generally never have any bonus from it..

Obviously it will never be exactly precise, but I foresee them acting like the Maginot line did in ww2. This line was worthlessly placed to help Germany, but invaluable to France..

An additional idea could be to have it not be removed when someone captures it, but have it only defend along one(multiple selectable?) connection(s), meaning that capturing it from behind would be easier then capturing it from the front, so that your enemy couldn't hold onto it once captured without a significant force, while you could hold it with a smaller force

we could add a card (slightly changing what moros said) where the neutrals fight you and your enemys instead of sitting there watching themselves die but only ever have a income of 5 or something like that

|> there could be some discrepency if you recaptured it during the same turn

The way I see it, if you recapture a territory during the same turn (or even, play the fortify card on a territory which you don't control *yet* but are pretty sure you'll capture during the next turn), then you control the territory *when the card is actually played*, so it would make sense for it to work in that case.

|> An additional idea could be to have it not be removed when someone captures it, but have it only defend along one(multiple selectable?) connection(s), meaning that capturing it from behind would be easier then capturing it from the front, so that your enemy couldn't hold onto it once captured without a significant force, while you could hold it with a smaller force

This directly ties into two other suggestions; per-connection kill-rate modifiers and allowing (to map makers) the creation of one-way connections. I didn't see any news about either being "approved" by Fizzer for inclusion into WL...

i oppose all ideas of a airstrike card because if u spy ateri u card just strike it and well war will get very messy because u have upper hand in the war.a fortification sounds good against suicide attacks

RvW, I presume like many other cards it would have a duration affect, and I had meant that response for if you captured it in later turns while the effect was already active.

How about if there was a nuke card.
You target the card on a territory and it and a number of surrounding territories become neutral and wastelands. For example u target a territory and it becomes a wasteland of 20 and every territory that touches it becomes a wasteland of 10.

MEGA:

- To keep things organized it would be nice if you could start a new thread (preferably with a title which is a little more descriptive than just a generic "new card idea"...).
- Such a card has been proposed (numerous times) before; I'm pretty sure there's a few UserVoice suggestions already which you can vote for.
- Personally I would never use such a card (as in: add it to a game / join a game which has it), because it's ridiculously overpowered: it's effects are huge (if well-aimed you should be able to take out at least three bonuses, which (thanks to the wastelands) would take multiple turns to re-conquer) and there's absolutely no defence against it.
The only "reasonable" use I can think of is a game where each player gets one at the beginning of the game and its weight is zero (read: you'll *never* get another one, kind of similar to NOD's nuclear missile in the first C&C game), meaning you'll have to be extremely careful when to use it and, when used, gives you the huge disadvantage of not having one any more while your opponent still does.
Of course, even that would only work with two players (or two teams). Well, maybe with 3 players/teams some interesting things can happen too... But in a big FFA, the first players to be eliminated will just (in their last turn) toss nukes randomly all over the map, completely destroying carefully-planned strategies of players they couldn't even *see* yet...
Anyway, if such a card existed at all, I'm afraid many (new) players would add it to their games, thinking how awesome it is to use it, not fully realising their opponent will get to use it *against* them as well.

But you would be able to determine how strong the wastelands are, or even set them to 0. Or you could only use it on territories you can see (by touching it, or with spy/survey/recon cards).

seems better than the airstrike idea and would seem like a weakened sanction fused with abandon or blockade(depending if happens at the beginning of the turn ).

RvW, I think I would make a game with 50 of these, and see who can reliable nuke the other person to death first..

@RvW

OK, didnt know the idea had been proposed b4.
The things is, its a nuke, it's not a weapon thats used every day. You could set it so that u get it in 30 pieces, so that you only get one after 30 turns. Its a card that ends the game and I think it would be fun.