name : 'Agitation'

targets : player

cost : 10 turns

stacking : 3

duration : 24hrs

description : Upon casting, the notorious agitators Marx and Spender arrive in the targets Hide-out, stirring up the workers to demand better pay, conditions and such-like : as a consequence, all production there-in falls by 5% for the duration of the curse.

notes : It is intended a 'mirror' card should also exist which boosts production for the duration of the cast : thus the effects are not unlike the current 'Antagonize' and East/West India Company on trade.

better yet. a rare that just up and kills 10% of the workforce in a players hideout. or 3% across the board.

I like this, however since Hideouts are secret there should be a chance of it not succeeding based upon personal knowledge or the lack of that knowledge. The impending raiders would have to know where the Hideout is in order to inflict their damage. I would suggest you must enter a port location and not be informed as to whether it succeeded or not. Since the Hideouts are supposed to be a secret, you should not be revealed as to if the raiders found the Hideout. You would not know if it was successful unless you already knew the location through some sort of intelligence. If you knew it was successful or unsuccessful in a specific port through a blind effort people could find the location of your Hideout by casting the card in all ports.

Over all with some tweaking +1

If the card is just cast on the player, it will not reveal the location of the Hide-Out : once the caster has to guess the location, then you open the hide-out to discovery via process of elimination : makes it all to complex, in my view : the card was intended as a form of 'antagonise' which would inflict a similar form of damage in the new goldsmith and resource (when they arrive) buildings. That existing card works well enough as a 'universal' curse : likewise, the 'mirror' card 'Workers Paradise' works just as universally as any of the trade company cards (EIC/WIC and so on).

I like the idea of the card but respectfully suggest 15 turns to cast and max stack of 2 for a gain of 10% overall and the same for its mirror card.

The reason I would give for the stack of two is the fact these are high end goods and we would not want to see the quality sacrificed for quantity

Danik you make a good point about simplicity. However, if you are going to say people are raiding the hideout it only makes sense they would have to know where the Hideout is. Your point also does help insure the secrecy of the Hideout where my suggestion would ultimately make it known. I give you that point also.

I still believe 2 is enough to stack. I also believe it should have a chance to fail.

But that is my opinion. It is not worth much where my wife is concerned so why should here be different.

I still say #1 with tweaking.

Kart

If you factor in a chance to fail then you are including the fact that they would need to know the port but not giving anything away. Kinda like saying, go do this, i dont know were so pick a port at random and check there. Moving forward when hideouts are no longer based in any specific port you would not be able to pick a port so the card would need to be tweaked.

thank you all for your responses ; they are all good points.

the 'knowing the port' aspect : it would be nice to have an element of 'skill' in casting this card : but hide-outs have to stay hidden ( for now) : the knock-on effect of gaining the knowledge of its whereabouts would extend so far beyond the scope of this card, it would be unbalanced beyond measure. How to reconcile this, well, as Shaydo suggests, a chance of a 'misfire' would introduce that : so, for visualisations sake : your cast has sent your trouble-makers to a random port, unknown to you, and their labours produce 'success' or 'failure' : perhaps even that outcome is not revealed to the caster?

I'm happy to change the stacking to 2 @ 5% loss of production.

Cost of use : I tried to balance it a bit against other cards : 8-10 turns seemed right for a 24hr duration

MAj's idea for an actual loss of workers is interesting, but maybe that's another card (or pair : versions of Transport Immigrant/Black Death, perhaps, targetting workforce). Such a card combined with 'Terrorize' would be rather annoying for the victim : the chance element is that the 'terrorize' cast must be targetted at a port, the skill would be guessing which one!

Loki wrote:I like the idea of the card but respectfully suggest 15 turns to cast and max stack of 2 for a gain of 10% overall and the same for its mirror card.

The reason I would give for the stack of two is the fact these are high end goods and we would not want to see the quality sacrificed for quantity

I agree with this- 2 stacks at 5% each. There must be NO indication whether you picked the correct port or not. The card would only have the effect on the port it was cast. No need for a % chance to succeed since the player needs to do the work to find the hideout.

All in all I really like the idea of voodoo that benefits from knowing the location of a player's hideout.

O God the Humanity! Rare 10

3% of target players workers die in a fire.

And then when you go to the hideout, your buildings are all on fire and you have to repair them.