Had an idea for a game feature, just wanted to throw it out there to see what people think before submitting it to uservoice.

The principle is to have ways to valorize or devalorize a bonus through time.

My initial idea was that whenever a bonus gets broken it would devalorize (so anyone finishing it again would get less armies per turn).

My original reasoning for this was that whenever you attack something to conquer it completely you end up mostly destroying it's resources and end up with something less valuable afterwards.

Then i had the idea that this could also be a card (sabotage or investment).

Could make for some interesting tactics.

I think this would require a cap on the settings to how much a bonus can devalorize or valorize, a certain percentage of it's initial value. Otherwise the game could turn into a "dodge the completion of a bonus to avoid it's negative income" kind of game.

Well, just an idea, let me know what you think. If people find it interesting enough i'll submit it to uservoice.

An interesting idea. Perhaps a 50% value cap or something?

+1 to this idea.

This would lead to some implementation challenges when it comes to superbonuses but +1. I like it because it adds another dynamic to the gameplay, especially in games where there's an early counter and one player successfully takes another player's bonus. Sometimes the game ends too quickly that way.

Here's how I think it would look:

- Pillage Card: requires you to control at least one territory within a bonus by the end of the turn (and at the beginning)

- Sabotage Card: requires you to control the bonus at the end of the turn (and at the beginning)

- Investment Card: requires you to control at least one territory within a bonus by the end of the turn (and at the beginning)

- Infrastructure Card: requires you to control the bonus at the end of the turn (and at the beginning)

With the Pillage Card letting you devalue a bonus by an amount usually less than how much the Sabotage Card lets you (and a similar set up for Investment and Infrastructure). Basically set it up like the Abandon/Blockade cards which have different conditions for being used but also different percentages (with Abandons typically having lower multipliers than Blockades).

However, Pillage would be a massive headache for superbonuses. And so would Sabotage on a map like RoR.

Edited 6/28/2015 13:46:36

thanks for the feedback! anyone else has any thoughts on this?

I think this works best as a card, think of it as a sanction card- just for one bonus. That way it should also work with superbonus (like surveillance card), enable to adjust duration and percentage, and be simple to use/ hard to master. (also, just like sanc card a negative value increases the value of the bonus).

I quite like it :)

^ Ooh. Forgot about negative values. That would simplify things a bit!

You might want it to devalue simply over time. As if you are using up the resources of that land.

It doesn't make sense to me. You're not lengthening the game, it just makes it to where people who don't have a lot of armies in the first place have even less armies and less options.

On the other hand, if it worked according to theory, it would force people to reconsider taking a bonus, and they would rather take west China or east Russia.

My big problem however is that it further encourages an aggressive playstyle because reinforcement cards are that much valuable.

If you've ever played a game where regions lose their value over time, you'll know it just can't be implemented well. You end up with an empty map with the few players barely scavenging enough power to do anything.

Edit :
@ChrisCMU if it were implemented, that would be the proper way.

Edited 6/29/2015 19:31:08

I wouldn't see this in a strategic setting. I would think it is best used in a RP game as an optional setting only.

Ghengis: well, my idea was that a territory could only devalue so much. a fixed percentage. So a territory starting to be worth 4 could only be devalorized to 2 or valorized to 6 for example.

ChrisCMU: hmmm