I had this idea for a new card, i 'll call it the advanced-warning card for now.
It works like this:
you play the card on a territory, and the card doesn't do anything until it gets conquered, when it gets conquered the advanced warning card triggers, and shows you what happened there(it got conquered), this way, by using this card strategically, you can know when an opponent is about to come into contact with you before you actually come into contact with him/her, or you can know where an opponent is expanding.
Depending on settings you will either only see one of these things:
1) an order with the message that the territory got conquered.
2) an order with the message the territory got conquered and by who.
3) Visibility of the territory for one turn (You see it get conquered, you see by who, and with how many armies and defender/attacker-losses)

on the first two options i hope on some kind of sign on the map too to pinpoint exactly where it happened.

When checking "active cards" and visibility of opponents' cards played is checked in settings, it should only show how many advance-warning-cards somebody has set ready, not to where, and you should see it when you "trigger" such a card and where.
If another player who is not in your team triggers such a card and visibility of other players playing a card is checked in settings, you should see an order that such a card triggers but not where, unless you have visibility of the territory it was played on, then you can also see where it triggered.

Any thoughts, opinions, ppl thinking i m awesome and wanting to carry my babies ?
I 'll make a uservoice for this in a days after getting some feedback ;)

Pretty much a weakened surveillance card? I'm not sure it could add all that much to a game that a surveillance couldn't already. I am keen to see more cards, though. Maybe add more to surveillance settings such that it could model this more closely, like having a fog level and radius.

Huruey, I think you may have misunderstood... or I did.

I think the point was that this card would be in effect until the territory was captured, however long that may be. Surveillance cards are all turn-limited cards and are only beneficial if properly timed. This card could be used on the first turn and then left idle until the territory is taken.

Sounds brilliant

Yes, to point it out specifically, before the territory you played it on is conquered, you wouldn't see anything on it.

Sounds like a nifty idea.

this card does too much

Can you explain Iron? Except for the infinite duration it doesn't seem overly powerful. And remember, you can only play it on one territory at a time; if your opponent happens to use another route, it doesn't do anything at all!

Practically speaking, you should probably play this either on choke points (Hawaii) or very small bonuses (just one or two territories) which your opponent will likely conquer "while he's in the neighbourhood anyway" (Washington DC on USA Big). Especially this last option is interesting, since it would provide a strategic reason *not* to take a small bonus, or take a one-territory-longer route from one place to another in order to bypass possible "booby trapped" territories.

Say what you want, but this is one of the most creative and original card ideas I've seen in a while. (I'd strongly favour a version where the party triggering the warning gets to know at the very least they did so. Whether or not you tell them who set the warning is another matter, but you need to tell players their presence has been detected both to make the card not *too* powerful and to prevent lots of "cheater!!!111" flame wars and (superfluous) reports.)

RvW... minor correction. Hawaii would be rather pointless since it is visible from Indonesia or West US. To me, a better use would be on California when you are in Indonesia... that way you know a turn in advance if they may attack Hawaii.

I do like the idea of it triggering a warning that the trap has been tripped. Undecided if either party should know who played or set-off the card.

|> Hawaii would be rather pointless since it is visible from Indonesia or West US.

Ehm, I obviously meant if you started in Canada, Mexico or *East* US. (Even more obviously, it's been a while since I played that map... Oops, my bad! :| )

|> Undecided if either party should know who played or set-off the card.

Good point, it's very much debatable whether the game should even specify who set off the trap. After all, knowing someone *is* coming is already very valuable, even if you don't know who it is.

I like it, especially if it doesn't show you who attacked it. It's a small variation that could add some entertainment.

@BG - Gaspumper: Yes, i 'm actually thinking about removing the second option from the settings to keep it simpler and possibly less programming for Fizzer

@RvW & richard sharpe: i shall add the option to see that you triggered it but not who set it, together with the option that you don't even get a warning i think, since cards do need to be able to be set to their biggest advantage.
and thnx for the compliment.

i do think that in a FFA we should keep what other players see related to the settings used in the game ? Else there would come settings for that too and that wouldn't serve much purpose i think

powerneg, I think the second option would likely make it *easier* to program.. since all he'd have to do is have it show the attack order, as though coming through fog, for the first single turn in when it happened.. something which is already there which could be implemented into the card.. making the attack order appear anonymously would require additional effort.

So ehm, powerneg, did you decide on what you'd like to propose exactly? And if so, did you make a UserVoice posting already?

I Like it! i would prefer it to trigger but thats all so you dont know who or how many are comming for you. However options for number 2 and 3 would be good