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

im not a big fan of changing the current ladder, especially after only a few weeks.

The ladder wouldn't change, the map would rotate. These changes wouldn't have to happen immediately, just keep changing the map up every month or so to keep it fresh.

I want a bigger, slower medium earth map ("new and improved medium earth - now with more territories") regardless of whether it's a ladder map. I've had a lot of those 2 turns and it's over games and they're really annoying. Especially for a ladder where a quick win by a less skilled player can haunt you forever.

You could make it 224% and still pull off Randy's possum strategy.

I agree 100% with Imp's new position (180 degree reversal). Players are getting wins on the ladder purely by a counterpick strategy that they would otherwise never get.

With only 3 starting spots, successfully blindsiding an opp's initial expansion spot will decide the game most of the time. With 4 starting spots, harder to get bonuses or fewer counterpick possibilities, the player could battle back. But here you clear your initial bonuses in 2-3 turns and if you can take one of your opp's spots it's doubly damaging (because they have to clear a neutral 4 to replace it elsewhere. That lead is only overcome very rarely and even a mediocre player will win from there nearly all the time.

An abandon/blockade would help because it would allow the picked player to at least blow up its busted bonus (but only if the percentage is high enough -- 200% would be totally insufficient).

Something needs to done or the integrity of the rankings will be skewed.

picking spots and reading the map take skill too.

that having been said.. i find since i got owned by your counter picks in our two games Duke, that I spend more time looking for counter-picks then i do for my picks i think..
so much that it's irritating when it goes awry

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1214889

notice my picks showed that i *knew* he was in India..

Counterpicks are absolutely part of the game. I've found myself agonizing over starting selections now and either passing on, or being overly cautious with, supposedly prime positions early in the game. And I've taken a position thinking I was counterpicking, and found that the other guy didn't even take the bonus I was trying to bust. If you don't plan ahead for that, you're the one who falls behind. Have fun being in a bonus with a ten point wasteland. If you want to take that kind of gamble to beat someone, and they outthink you (or had a different plan in mind from the get go), then skill has prevailed.

What the counterpick tactic really does is keep the game from being "whoever gets Mexico wins" (or whichever territory is the prime one in that game). And that's important when you have random wastelands on a smaller map, or else the guy who gets the first pick gets way too big an advantage.

If you want to eliminate luck, that's fine. But don't say we have to take a skill element out of the game because you haven't mastered the skill.

sadly, Duke is one of the best counter-pickers i've had the privledge of playing with, lol.

and personally, i try not to pick counter-picks with wastelands if possible... I'd rather them have Mexico with wastelands in W-E US and SA, then pick a counter-pick in those locations.. \*albiet your not likely to get good counter-picks in all those spots but still*

Bostonfred is definitely right that counterpicks are an essential part of the game. Adding a blockade card doesn't change that fact, it just gives more options to the player who got destroyed by one so the game isn't over purely based on starting spot selection, but that some amount of actual game play can occur as well. The person who countered and broke an initial bonus still has a huge advantage in the game, even with the blockade card, they just don't have a complete auto-win like is the case right now.

But Impaller, wouldn't that make taking a counter-pick as a strategy less viable? If the region is just going to be blockaded, why even bother? Step back further and develop... And why bother using a wrecking ball strategy? Your opponent is just going to go all Russia on you and burn their own land if you manage to break through. I think it degrades the strategic integrity of the game to have such a card in use.