Scorched earth

[Baalz]

I’m curious as to what people’s take on scorched earth tactics are in MP? Specifically I’m referring to actions taken for no reason other that to hurt your opponent after the point you’ve given up any hope of holding them off. Destroying labs/castles, setting tax rates up and pillaging your own population, inviting other uninvolved people to please take your provinces – I’m not talking about raiding, I’m talking about just trying to do your best to screw the guy who’s beat you so that he’ll be weaker against the next guy he fights.

To me, that feels a whole lot like really bad sportsmanship. On the couple of occasions I’ve been exposed to it, it has been incredibly annoying, in at least one case removing me from a decent shot at winning (you can do a surprising amount of damage when you start scorching earth the turn NAP notice is given then fight for maximum casualties on both sides). I’ve seen several people comment that it’s a valid tactic and I’d like to understand where that point of view comes from because to me it’s akin to trying to injure your opponent in a sports tournament after you lose your match so that he has less chance of winning the tournament. Don’t get me wrong, doing incredibly annoying things is often a great strategy for victory, but at the point you’re not working towards a victory and rather destroying yourself as fast as possible for no reason other than to destroy value it seems like all you’re being is a sore loser. On the flip side I know I’d rather not have an easy victory because my only competition had the bad fortune to invade somebody who got pissy at being invaded in a war game.

So, my question is how is this a valid tactic? Is it valid because you hope to deter aggression in a future game? That mindset seems little different than carrying alliances or trades from one game to another. Is it valid from a purely roleplaying POV? That argument might hold more water if it wasn’t the same players I see constantly pulling this stunt, and if they actually were roleplaying in their posts. Is it valid because we’re playing a war simulation, all’s fair? I call BS, we’re playing a computer game with other people solely for our mutual enjoyment. Overly offensive posts, hacking turn files, taking down the server when the host is eliminated, and secretly playing more than one nation are all completely intolerable because we’re not at war, we’re playing a game.

I don't really expect to change anybodies mind, people are gonna do what they're gonna do. Just curious what self justification those of you who do this use.

[Salamander8]

I've only done scorched earth once in an MP game, and that was just burning down 2 labs in Sophistry when the massively blessed giants were stomping my Arco butt hard, and even then I am not overly pleased I even did that much. If I ever am in the same situation I'd not do that again (although I did set myself to AI early in Evermore between frustration vs the blessing EA Oceania had and my grandfather's illness cutting my freetime down). I never have cranked my taxes up or destroyed any other buildings just to make my land worth less to an opponent though.

If I feel I am doomed, I do tell anyone I have had positive relationships with that I free them from NAPs and other agreements and that they should consider my territory up or grabs if they so wish. I also give allies/NAP partners my gems and magic items before going out, but not to anyone else. I would rather see an ally get my stuff than my conquerer if at all possible, but I don't involve anyone beyond friendly powers to do so.

[Lingchih]

I will raise taxes to 200% in war border provinces, and provinces that I know I am going to lose. I will also raze a castle and lab if I think I can retreat and still have a chance to win. But if I know I'm going down, I've never felt the need to totally scorch the earth. I'll generally leave my capitol intact for the eventual winner, and just go AI.

Maybe I'm just lucky never to have gotten so annoyed at an opposing player that I felt like scorching the earth. And I've never had it used against me, although this is probably more due to the fact that I usually lose.

[thejeff]

I can see doing it if you were betrayed or were trying to do what damage you could to help a loyal ally. Otherwise... I don't get it.

The only time it happened to me, though I haven't played a lot of MP, was very early in the game. He and I invaded the same indy province, I won. I offered NAP and borders, but got war instead. By the time I'd found it, he'd burned his castle, lab and temple. It still cost me to take it and since I got little out of the early war and took less indies because of it, left me behind and I never really caught up.
The war seemed to be for RP reasons, but I never figured out the preemptive self-destruction.

[quantum_mechani]

Personally, I am much happier if people fight dirty to the bitter end than the flip side of going AI as soon as things start looking bad. In my experience, it is that latter that throws games much more than the former.

[Gregstrom]

I'll fight on even from an obviously lost point in the game, trying to cause my opponent maximum discomfort with spells while they besiege my capital, but I don't see the point in scorched earth.

[K]

I'll do it when my opponent has broken a NAP, bargained in bad faith, or been spamming me with messages. In short, jerk behavior as payment for jerk behavior.

Otherwise, I'll do it to prevent a key asset from being in enemy control. For example, a site producing Wizards will have its lab burned and provinces overtaxed so that an enemy taking it won't get much use out of it before I can retake it.

[Edi]

I wouldn't go so far as pillaging my own provinces, but razing castles could be on the table, as well as burning down labs so the player defeating me is not going to get any benefit from my infrastructure. I will also very likely take a look at who his current worst enemy is or who he will be fighting next and that one is likely going to start getting all sorts of intel as well as choice items, gems and gold that I'm not able to use anymore.

Last time I played MP was Faerun Pirates in Dom2 and whoever it was who played Ulm stomped me badly (I was playing Helheim, which started in the Moonshaes). So Cainehill's Pangaea suddenly found itself in possession of somewhere around 30 skull mentors, a dozen skull staffs and a number of air items I had made, spread out over several turns. He also got a total of several hundred gems of various types since I could not use them for anything. I had a ridiculous gem income compared to the size of my territory and he was also happy to take a couple of provinces with big site concentrations, one of which had a Banefire Forge for the Construction bonus. I have no idea how that game turned out, but that sort of tipping of the scales is bound to have an effect.

[IndyPendant]

I too will use scorched earth tactics in only three very specific situations:

1) My opponent has negotiated treaties and/or deals and not held to them (i.e. is a scum-sucking liar ; ).

2) I have an exceptional ally (and not just a NAP-let's-jump-on-that-guy type of agreement) who would benefit from me putting up as much of a fight as I can.

3) The war is still undecided, and I might yet win with the extra coin produced from 200-taxing my provinces into oblivion. Or I don't want him to benefit from the castle he's going to take from me, when I might be able to turn the war around later. And so on, on that theme. (I'll worry about recovering from the unrest/loss of buildings/whatever afterwards.)

Other than that, I tend not to destroy my own provinces/buildings in the face of the enemy. However, I also (so far, anyway) will not go A.I. even if I know I can't win. (As the old saying goes, you learn much more from losing than from winning.) I wonder if everyone draws the same line between "fighting to the bitter end" and "scorched earth"? I'm betting...no. ; )

[Hadrian_II]

I usually give my gems and gold to some other player, and i invite others to invade me when i am beaten, but i dont burn down my own infrastructure and i dont pillage my own provinces.

[K]

On the flipside, I've had some very nice players send me gems and gold after I tromped them soundly, but I hope thats because I always blatantly declare wars and fight my wars alone. Pretty nice, actually.

[DigitalSin]

I want to see them implement something so that if you started scorching everything, your people rebelled and did the exact opposite. Of course, you would have to implement this in secret so all the scorchers would get a nasty little shock http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[OmikronWarrior]

If I thought I was going to loose, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Of course, my play style is more pacifist, build up what you have, don't waste resources trying to take from somebody else. Ergo, if you want to wage a war of expansion, I'm going to make sure it isn't worth the money. I mean half the game already is about doing nasty things to players.

[HJFudge]

Some tactics I'll use and are valid, some I wont. If I know I cant hold a fort, down it goes. If i let you keep it, it just aids you in beating me.

I'll do this even if I KNOW Im eventually gonna lose, because I want to live as long as I can and that means slowing your progress as much as possible.

If I can slow you down ENOUGH, it makes it more likely someone will jump on you while yer trying to take me down and distract you. If you are forced to move forces away from me, that means I can start to take some of your gains back and renew your assault.

Yes its annoying to get bogged down in a horrible, costly war but thats why you have to plan to take as much as possible in as little time as possible. Cost/Benefit ratio, ya know

[Zylithan]

I've not played much, and I've never done this.. in general IndyPendant's post makes sense.

I can also see someone saying ahead of time, if you attack me, I WILL do this... as that serves a diplomatic purpose within the current game, a deterrent, and could actually help you win I imagine if people avoid attacking you for someone else.

It's interesting to see how peoples' views on this seem similar and different to their views on breaking NAPs or using various tactics that other people consider exploits. (from other threads)

[Meglobob]

Russia throughout history has used scorched earth policy as a war winning tactic. Time after time, it has pillaged, burned crops, destroyed anything of value to an invading enemy. Then, when the invading force is out of supplies, starving and suffering from the dreaded russian winter it strikes with overwhealming force.

So scorched earth is a valid tactic but as far as dominions goes, probably only Ermor, Ashen Empire could use such a tactic as effectively as Russia does.

Note I am not suggesting Russians are the walking dead or anything... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[KissBlade]

There's nothing wrong with scorched earth. Heck that's the entire advantage of LA Ermor. (oh look you conquer and get nothing) Personally it's happened to me quite often and I've never found anything wrong with it. If anything it makes it easier to take them down cause they're also razing their own buildings. In fact, that's the main reason why I usually try not to use the tactic myself but once you get to big endgames, the games always end up being scorched earth anyway since it's difficult to hold that many provinces. It's one of those things you factor in during war.

[VedalkenBear]

I tend to agree with KissBlade. There is nothing inherently dishonorable or 'bad sportsmanship' about scorched earth. It is a legitimate military policy, and while it may seem spiteful, if I am going to lose to someone, I would prefer to see them not be the eventual winner. If by denying them my intact infrastructure, I can cause them greater difficulties down the road, why shouldn't I?

Of course, this tactic is much more effective if as people have said you make this official 'foreign policy'. Therefore, people are dissuaded from ever attacking you because they won't get anything for it. Combined with judicious tribute, you can set up a diplomatic state where they are getting something for not attacking you, and they have the promise they will get nothing if they do attack you. Psychologically, that is a strong incentive to not attack you. Now, of course, if you are a nation famous for its endgame, then this tactic would be less effective since your own motives beyond survival are suspect...

Hmm, I seem to be rambling now.

[BigandScary]

Historically, scorched earth policies are used as a way to slow down and hamper an enemy. The defending army pillages its farms to deny supplies and burns forts to deny shelter and fortifications. Some examples include MegloBob's Russians and the destruction of Fort Ticonderoga during the French and Indian war. The major difference between this and what is described here is the idea behind it. Scorching one's own nation is done in the hope that it will allow for the nation's survival. If defeat is undeniable, then it is meer spite, and reflects poorly on the player.

[llamabeast]

There's some confusion in this thread about what kind of 'scorched earth' policy we're referring to. It could either be:

1) A tactic to increase the probability of winning the war.

2) A change of tactics once the player has already given up all hope of winning, with the sole intention of making life miserable for the opponent, and without respect for the wellbeing of your own falling nation. Hence not just fighting hard but doing odd things like encouraging third parties to take your land etc..

I think Baalz was really asking about (2). (1) seems obviously reasonable to me - (almost) any tactic is fine if it helps. (2) just seems spiteful though. If it is to discourage people attacking you in future games then I also don't like it - I don't think it's fair to carry things from one game to another.

[Rytek]

I hope you are not refering to my fight to the last stand in Dolphin as Argatha vs your Sauromatia? I never overtaxed or burned down anything. But as you say, you did choke on Argatha while ULM eventually won. I had a horrible position stuck in the corner that game and missed several turns while at war with Yomi's fire 9 dragon from turn 4 or so. ULM provided me with some magic equipment, but I paid for them in gems.
I actually consider it poor sportsmanship when you are losing to turn your game over to the AI. Too many players roll over without trying to fight it out. You never get better if you don't play out your losing hand. If I had turned over to the AI in that game I would never had seen your defense 36 Sorcerors or some of our combats in the cave province vs your overwhelming numbers of archers.

[OmikronWarrior]

llamabeast said:
I think Baalz was really asking about (2). (1) seems obviously reasonable to me - (almost) any tactic is fine if it helps. (2) just seems spiteful though. If it is to discourage people attacking you in future games then I also don't like it - I don't think it's fair to carry things from one game to another.



Oh, no need to carry it from game to game, I think its realistic to want somebody who beats you to be in as weak a position as possible to win that game. Chalk it up to human nature. If you can't win yourself, you at least want to make a strong enough showing to stop your opponent. And realistically, how far can a player go in denying their enemy? Taxes at 200 will slowly increase unrest and lower population, but its nothing like LA Ermor's Dominion. Ditto with destroying castles and and labs. They can be rebuilt, or the attacker has enough for his own needs.

[Stryke11]

NOTE BEFORE YOU READ THIS POST:

I have never used the scorched earth tactics described by the original poster. I have given gems and items to the enemy of the person attacking me or people who have been honorable to me during games. Oh, and I'm no good at multiplayer, so YMMV. I'm the "set to AI" type because my I have enough to do that I'm not going to waste time on a losing battle when I can do something else.

OK:

Scorched earth is just as legitimate a tactic as a dual bless or any other implementation people get frustrated defending.

The way I see it, if someone attacks you and in so doing declares themselves your enemy, why on earth should you give them the benefit of your infrastructure? Spiteful? Sure, I mean, those guys just destroyed your empire, butchered you people, raped, pillaged. Why not be spiteful? Just bending over and not "scorching your earth" is weak, and if someone feels this tactic is bad sportsmanship then they are just whiny.

If you commit yourself to a war with someone, you are effectively committing yourself to any tactic they may choose to deploy. I don't feel scorched earth is any worse than ganging up on people via alliances, and no one has ever criticized that blatantly unfair tactic. Why? Because that's just life, dude. Honestly, complaining that you lost the game because someone used scorched earth tactics is bad sportsmanship in my opinion, not the tactics themselves. If you're going to beat someone up, you need to finish them - that is YOUR responsibility. They are under NO obligation to smooth the path of your victory over them and to suggest that they should be is absolutely ridiculous.

[RamsHead]

Stryke11 said:
NOTE BEFORE YOU READ THIS POST:

I have never used the scorched earth tactics described by the original poster. I have given gems and items to the enemy of the person attacking me or people who have been honorable to me during games. Oh, and I'm no good at multiplayer, so YMMV. I'm the "set to AI" type because my I have enough to do that I'm not going to waste time on a losing battle when I can do something else.

OK:

Scorched earth is just as legitimate a tactic as a dual bless or any other implementation people get frustrated defending.

The way I see it, if someone attacks you and in so doing declares themselves your enemy, why on earth should you give them the benefit of your infrastructure? Spiteful? Sure, I mean, those guys just destroyed your empire, butchered you people, raped, pillaged. Why not be spiteful? Just bending over and not "scorching your earth" is weak, and if someone feels this tactic is bad sportsmanship then they are just whiny.

If you commit yourself to a war with someone, you are effectively committing yourself to any tactic they may choose to deploy. I don't feel scorched earth is any worse than ganging up on people via alliances, and no one has ever criticized that blatantly unfair tactic. Why? Because that's just life, dude. Honestly, complaining that you lost the game because someone used scorched earth tactics is bad sportsmanship in my opinion, not the tactics themselves. If you're going to beat someone up, you need to finish them - that is YOUR responsibility. They are under NO obligation to smooth the path of your victory over them and to suggest that they should be is absolutely ridiculous.


I agree 100%.

I use scorched earth tactics when I feel I no longer have any chance of winning against someone. I prefer fighting to the bitter end and making my opponent's conquest of me as unpleasant as possible. I don't do it out of spite, and I don't do it to discourage people from attacking me in future games. I generally don't deconstruct forts though, because keeping them up will usually make them waste more time.

[konming]

I do not have a problem with this as long as it is given a warning first. Then it is your decision, whether to fight a costly war and gain very little or maintain the peace. After all, it is just a game, and anything within the rule certainly goes.

And I have to agree with the previous post. Why is this more "unsportmanship" than alliance beating up a single nation? If sportmanship is about fairness than this is just as unfair as it goes, certainly more than scorth earth tactics.

[IndyPendant]

Heh. Reading this thread is slowly changing my mind. Scorched earth as a discouraging diplomacy tactic. Hmmmmm... My fellow players in my MP game may be getting a message from me. *cough* : )

[Lingchih]

OK. Let's look at this from a realistic perspective. We may all say that we don't take each individual player into account, and are only roleplaying each nation. But really... so and so player may be subbing for me in some games. Or, so and so player may have helped me in past games. Or, so and so player may have ripped me in some past games.

I think that is why the Scorched Earth policy is employed. If you are friendly with they player that is beating you, you don't scorch earth. If you hate them, you do. Simple as that.

[Szumo]

I do scorched earth tactic when i'm ganged up upon so badly that i have no chance of surviving. Did it in Afterthought and in Nuance, both times Baalz was one of the people attacking me, so i might be the one who is he mainly referring too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif - or not http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I'm not sure whether this is an effective discouraging tacting - i've had it used against me a few times and it didn't discourage me much http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif. Annoying other player is not why i do it either. As for setting taxes and pillaging, this allows to stockpile a lot of gold quickly - which you can send to other player to bribe them to help by attacking your enemies. More often than not that help comes too late, but it's worth to try.

And when you're about to get defeated, it's IMO quite right to send whatever have left to whomever you perceive as greatest enemy of your enemies. Gods should not go down quietly and peacefully, but cursing those who kill them with spite and hate http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[llamabeast]

Again, I think it's worth distinguishing between different policies:

a) Fighting your damnedest, and making your enemy pay in his soldiers' blood for every inch he gets off you, while burning the land you're about to lose.

b) Doing out of character things which are bad for your nation as well like giving land to a third party.

I don't think anyone disapproves of (a) do they? Seems to me that's a good way to play - and fun, and realistic too. You never know, you might manage to turn the war around, and while there's still any hope, keep fighting! I love these dramatic situations where someone manages to hang on with only one province for half the game, killing vast numbers of their enemy's soldiers.

(b) just seems mean though, to me.

[jimkehn]

I have and will use scorched earth. I am with Stryke11. I don't feel it is my responsibility to aid the enemy in defeating my allies and me. I don't feel I have an obligation to help him get stronger as he is gobbling me up.

[Baalz]

Rytek said:
I hope you are not refering to my fight to the last stand in Dolphin as Argatha vs your Sauromatia?



No, of course not. As Llamabeast point out, I'm not talking about doing things that screw up your opponent to give you a better chance of winning, and I'm not talking about fighting to the bitter end. You were a great opponent and I appreciate the extra effort you put in to playing until the bitter end - it's almost always more fun to play against a person than the AI and I know it's not the most fun thing to do to keep playing after you've been crippled.



Szumo said:
I do scorched earth tactic when i'm ganged up upon so badly that i have no chance of surviving. Did it in Afterthought and in Nuance, both times Baalz was one of the people attacking me, so i might be the one who is he mainly referring too - or not




I don't really want to get into "so and so annoys me", but FWIW I wasn't really talking about you, probably for no other reason than your scorched earth haven't really inconvenienced me too much because of how things played out. This does get to the crux of my question though, and Nuance provides a good example if things had played out differently your scorched earth could have been extremely annoying. If, for the sake of argument, I had attacked you by myself in Nuance and been winning while Arco successfully attacked Abyssia then your scorched earth would likely have had the result of leaving me in no position to have any chance of challenging Arco for the win. This seems just spiteful, why do you want to do your best to make sure I lose to Arco (who, for the sake of those not in the game, had chilly relations with Szumo)?

So, to be clear, I'm not talking about fighting until the end, I'm not talking about trying to screw over somebody who violated a NAP, and I'm not talking about doing things that give you a short term boost when you've still got a slim chance of pulling something off. I'm talking about actively doing your best to destroy value for the intent of screwing up the person who is invading you, out of character (nobody is talking about LA Ermor), and with no gain to you. Sending gold/gems to unrelated parties, razing labs/castles, pillaging your capital (when you have no use of the gold), etc. These actions are not justifiable within the framework of "I'm trying to win and I fight to the end".

Why, at the point that you decide to throw in the towel, do you want to do your best to make sure I lose against the next guy I fight? This is the part that seems to me like very bad sportsmanship, and I'm trying to understand what the justification is. The closest thing to a justification I've seen seems to be that you're (in character) bitter about being invaded. This seems like a pretty weak justification if you haven't really been roleplaying up until the end. The people saying they do it just to make the conquest of them as unpleasant as possible haven't really answered my question as to why - is it because you're bitter about losing, or is it because you want to deter aggression in the next game?

Again, to reiterate as many people seem to have missed my intent, I'm *only* talking about things done solely for the purpose of spitting in the eye of the guy who has defeated you.

[Humakty]

As scorched earth is a realistic technique, and not some sort of exploit, I wouldn't have any moral problems to use it.
However, I think forts, and especially big ones, like citadel or fortified city, should take MUCH longer to raze, if I remember well it is 1 month for each of them, what is way too rapid.

[cleveland]

If you think someone is a poor sport, don't play against him again.

Eventually, nobody will else will either, and the problem is solved.

[Szumo]

Baalz said:
I don't really want to get into "so and so annoys me", but FWIW I wasn't really talking about you, probably for no other reason than your scorched earth haven't really inconvenienced me too much because of how things played out. This does get to the crux of my question though, and Nuance provides a good example if things had played out differently your scorched earth could have been extremely annoying. If, for the sake of argument, I had attacked you by myself in Nuance and been winning while Arco successfully attacked Abyssia then your scorched earth would likely have had the result of leaving me in no position to have any chance of challenging Arco for the win. This seems just spiteful, why do you want to do your best to make sure I lose to Arco (who, for the sake of those not in the game, had chilly relations with Szumo)?




I assumed you were acting together. You gave me notice of NAP right after my war with Arco broke out. NAP ended right about when i started to lose that war - badly (for example, losing 130 commanders in one battle).
I hardly scorched earth any lands i expected you to take really, mostly because at that point i hadn't many forces able to scorch left. I did scorch a lot of provinces trying to slow down Arco's invasion though. If you had attacked by yourself, i would not be in an obviously losing position and would have no immediate reason to use scorched earth tactic anyway. As my ally Machaka was overwhelmed quickly by Arco, and only other nation left was Abyssia, i gave over 30k gold i gained from overtaxing and pillaging to Abyssia as soon i heard he gave NAP termination notice to Arco.
General rule i try to follow is to always go against the most likely winner (Arco in this case). I found this very disappointing someone would rather ally with winning player at this stage of game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[sector24]

Some people actually feel better knowing that the person who beat them was the person who beat everyone. It makes you feel better to lose to the winner than to some chump that got slaughtered by a bigger chump etc. I'm not sure a psychological argument is a valid reason for this type of behavior.

[PyroStock]

Perhaps see it as their last dying wish. When people request to be buried with their expensive jewelry it doesn't do them any good when they're dead and they're not doing it to financially hurt their heirs.

Perhaps it's not so much they want to see you lose, but rather they want to see player x win. When they throw in the towel I don't see the difference between them giving all their gold/gems to their conqueror or their conqueror's enemy or someone else.

Those are just some ideas, but basically unless the person actually says they're doing it to hurt/spite you I wouldn't assume that's the case. They could have a rational reason or an irrational reason completely unrelated to bad sportsmanship/spite. They've failed... and been defeated, give them the benefit of the doubt.

You could inquisitively ask that person directly in private after the game. That's the best way to get into their head.

[Amhazair]

I'll be turn this argument on it's head now I'm afraid:

I, as the person playing the game, have never yet been angry at another player, or spiteful, or anything along those lines. Possibly I might admire his tactics that led him to be able to beat me, and if the interaction with him (on the forums, by PM, or otherwise) was fun I (still as the person) might hope he goes on to win the game.

I, as the player (as opposed to the person playing the game described above) will - obviously - do anything I can think of that will allow me to beat my opponent. But, if/when that happens to fail I actually see it not only as justified, but actually as my duty to the game and all the other players to try and hurt my opponent(s) as badly as possible, by any means I can think of. Mostly this resolves about using my troops to directly do as much damage as they can before they die, and try to gain as much time as possible. I can't remember ever going so far as to pillage my own provinces for that purpose (usually, by the time I'm actually ready to throw the towell, all troops I've got left are besieged inside a fortress, as part of one of the doing damage/gaining time tactics) without the possibility to pillage http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif), but I definitely won't rule out doing it in the future.

[Stryke11]

Ok Baalz, I'm not sure if you didn't find anything in my post to be "justification" but here in my mind is the justification.

Player A is at war with Player B. Player B wins, and it is obvious Player A is out. Player B is directly responsible for Player A's loss, and removal from the game (soon). Therefore, player A thinks "Gee, I'd still be playing the game and doing well were it not for Player B killing me. Therefore, I will do everything I can to make sure that Player B loses to Player C, since I am done anyway."

You see, if you are going to lose, and therefore by definition cannot win, you cannot derive satisfaction from winning, BUT, you can derive satisfaction by causing the person who denyed you the win a denial of their own chances to win. You see this as "bad sportsmanship," and I see it as you being a wuss. If you don't want these types of tactics being used against you, I suggest you become Player C, the one that doesn't declare war, waits things out, and gets the help from defeated nations. Or, you can be a "just" opponent and be so respected by your foes they choose not to use scorced earth on you.

I guess you see it as why is Player A making it so hard for me to finish him off, while helping Player C, who he doesn't even have a relationship with. The answer is that YOU are the one who is attacking Player A, not Player C. That's good enough justification for me.

[Reverend Zombie]

Spike the canon, burn the supplies, scuttle the ship.

Consider it the unconventional phase of the war--the one that starts after the organized military has been defeated in the field.

You're not liberating the people of the player you have conquered, after all, why should they give you anything that is in their power to prevent...

And as always, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Alneyan]

Amhazair said:
But, if/when that happens to fail I actually see it not only as justified, but actually as my duty to the game and all the other players to try and hurt my opponent(s) as badly as possible, by any means I can think of. Mostly this resolves about using my troops to directly do as much damage as they can before they die, and try to gain as much time as possible. I can't remember ever going so far as to pillage my own provinces for that purpose (usually, by the time I'm actually ready to throw the towell, all troops I've got left are besieged inside a fortress, as part of one of the doing damage/gaining time tactics) without the possibility to pillage http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif), but I definitely won't rule out doing it in the future.



Sounds like a great platform for the Gandalf Parker 'there's no I in surrender' manifesto. That pretty much sums up my own views too, in so far as my primary goal is to gain as much time as possible (I'd raze everything in sight, but I sorta need the buildings in place to save my own skin, alas).

I'll add that I normally don't make gifts to my neighbors; I tend to invest my resources for my own good, including such unoptimal uses as raising PD everywhere to converting non-Astral gems to another non-Astral gem type. I might send out the non-combat items on the turn before my magehold falls, but I usually prefer to strike a deal with another nation (the usual 'five hammers for a bag of storms so I can cast Wrathful Skies on that bloody army, and there's no time for haggling, so better hurry up if you want those hammers' deal).

[PyroStock]

IMO, the conquering player is also not entitled to the labs, castles or whatever the losing player has pre-battle anymore then he is entitled to his gems/gold/items. So complaining about losing something that you're not entitled to have and do not own is a bit of a stretch.

Some players like to "leave their mark" if they're going to lose and for some that's leaving a deep scar on their worst enemy nation, some cast armageddon(s), and others give generous gifts. It doesn't mean they are doing it because they're bad sports.

[Forrest]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif Wow, give all my gems, money and magical items to my destroyer at the end as a "well fought noble enemy" gesture warms my heart and fills me with pride over my honor. I always take life so my lands will grow and be better at the end. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif One thought. One item. Bane Venom Charm http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif

I will take death on my Pretender so I can spam this. Every province your army sits in will have a scout with one in it. Every province you attack will have a scout with one in it. Every castle you siege will have one in it. Every enemy you have will get one with your name on it. Even you will find your lab filling with them. You will cross your land with them just to get rid of them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif

From death's door I spit at thee.

Lychanthropos' Amulets shall cover the ground you walk on. /threads/images/Graemlins/Envy.gif

Eye's of aiming and eye's of the void shall hang on every tree http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Injured.gif

Rod's of the Leper king shall be every leader's weapon of choice http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

The spells of choice shall be Curse and Horror mark. My mages shall retreat so they can do it again in the next province. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Your troops will wither and die of old age before your eyes.

Burnt Earth? /threads/images/Graemlins/Campfire.gif I'll show you burnt earth /threads/images/Graemlins/icon49.gif

[Edi]

I draw the line at pillaging my own provinces, because I generally play the role of a more or less benevolent god (whether a genuine nice guy or an ironfisted tyrant who looks after his population for his own gain) and pillaging my own provinces would go counter to that. But the rest of it, gems, gold, items, provinces, they'd go to those who I favor over the one who defeated me. If I detest everyone else even more (in-game, of course), then I'd still go down fighting, but take my stuff with me. Or maybe even give it to the victor if I wanted him to win.

[Reverend Zombie]

Shorter Original Post?:

"I'm entitled to everything you own in pristine condition because I attacked you."

[Morkilus]

I don't consider the analogy to a tournament sports player valid at all. A tournament is by definition NOT a multiplayer game, and almost all non-duel, non-team Dominions games are. The point of a multiplayer game is to do the best you can, and maybe be the one on top when it ends; it is not a series of matches. There are alliances, 2-on-1's and 3-on-1's, and so on.

Besides, if a player wants to have fun and keep playing, there's no reason he should give up at any point just so the dominant player can have an easier time beating others. If you aren't having fun losing or see a point to it (roleplaying, "honor", or otherwise), find a replacement or simply go AI. Under ridiculously overbalanced circumstances such as 4-man pile-ons, I've gone AI when reduced to a few provinces, but I also think it's fun to give a dominant opponent as much hell as I can in the off chance that he'll leave me alone for a minute out of frustration. Otherwise I feel like it's throwing the game for no particular reason.

[konming]

Just a few random thoughts:

About "sore loser". While he may be sore because you attacked him and he lost, you are certainly also sore because he scorthed earth and cause you to lose as well. Do I sense another sore loser?

About "deter aggression". Losing an all powerful, artifact ladden SC to some soul slay or life for a life is frustrating. So you will think carefully before you do this again, although you are still going to use SC anyway. Losing a game when you beat up a much weaker guy or gang up on some poor soul, and got scorth earth, is also frustrating. And maybe that will teach you something - maybe next time you should try to befriend some weaker nation instead of beating them to death.

About "sportsmanship". Well, this is a sport that you mercilessly beat up weak guys and have shadowy alliance coming down on other players. It is certainly valid to "injure" the other player as long as you are in the game because "injure" each other is what you do in this game. Really I do not see anyone complaining seriously about an opponent being more of a cakewalk than he should be. So I guess this has much more to do with losing than with "sportmanship".

[Baalz]

Reverend Zombie said:
Shorter Original Post?:

"I'm entitled to everything you own in pristine condition because I attacked you."



Really, there's no need to make such an inflammatory and blatantly misrepresentative statement. I view Dominions as primarily a strategy game played by all for fun, and when I lose I congratulate my opponent and honestly wish him luck in the rest of the game. If the response is a screw you, I hope you die and get eliminated next, I don't think its too hard to see how some would view that as bad sportsmanship. My point is *so* not about being entitled to anything, I may be a bit biased but I think that's pretty obvious by my posts if you're not trying to deliberately misunderstand me.


Stryke11 said:
You see, if you are going to lose, and therefore by definition cannot win, you cannot derive satisfaction from winning, BUT, you can derive satisfaction by causing the person who denyed you the win a denial of their own chances to win. You see this as "bad sportsmanship," and I see it as you being a wuss.

....

The answer is that YOU are the one who is attacking Player A, not Player C. That's good enough justification for me.



Yep, you hit the nail on the head, I see it as bad sportsmanship to try to sabotage the guy I lost to so he subsequently loses. I don't get upset when somebody attacks me in a war game, and I don't bear them bad will if they do it successfully. I'm not sure why this causes you to claim I'm a "wuss", it's kinda the definition of poor sportsmanship. From wikipedia: "Poor sportsmanship can either be the winners "rubbing salt in the wounds" of the losers, or the losers expressing their frustration at not winning, even to the point of holding a grudge." The only real justifications for it I've seen on this thread are basically that people don't view it as a sport/competition/game, but rather a simulation/roleplaying experience. That's a valid position I guess, though I tend to see little enough roleplaying up until that point.

[Forrest]

You should not be mad at the person when the game is over because it is just a game.

If you brag when I hand you a easy win then you should brag when I bite your ear off and hand it back. If it kills you to kill me then I guess I fought the good fight. If you can't stand to have your body found laying next to mine then don't attack.

There are lots of terrible things put in this game just so you can spit at your killer from death's door. The point is to have fun winning or to have fun loosing.

[Reverend Zombie]

Baalz said:
I view Dominions as primarily a strategy game played by all for fun...



What if the thing that brings your beaten opponent the most fun, at that point, is bringing you down with him?


The only real justifications for it I've seen on this thread are basically that people don't view it as a sport/competition/game, but rather a simulation/roleplaying experience.



Here's a sport analogy for you: teams that are hopelessly behind in games don't just walk off the court or field--they continue trying to score against their opponent.

[BigandScary]

But do they try to take out the knee of the other team's top player so the team that beats them loses in the end?

[OmikronWarrior]

BigandScary said:
But do they try to take out the knee of the other team's top player so the team that beats them loses in the end?



You mean horror mark the SC pretender whose leading the charge? Uh, yeah, of course you do that.

[PyroStock]

Baalz said:
I see it as bad sportsmanship to try to sabotage the guy I lost to so he subsequently loses.



He's sabotaging his own provinces, labs and castles. I don't see much difference between this and the guy who "sabotages" you to lose by fighting you to the bitter end.


Overly offensive posts, hacking turn files, taking down the server when the host is eliminated, and secretly playing more than one nation are all completely intolerable



...because those are all situations where the player isn't following the rules and/or attempt to do harm via means outside context of the game. The scorched earth tactic is within the context of the game. I never posted in the Dark Knight thread (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=552483&page=&view=&sb=5&o =&fpart=all&vc=1) because others there all covered my points. A clever quote from that thread that holds true here too...

I don't have a lot of patience for trying to figure out what "acceptable" tactics are - if I can do it within the context of the game then it's fair play.

[NTJedi]

Baalz said:
I’m curious as to what people’s take on scorched earth tactics are in MP? Specifically I’m referring to actions taken for no reason other that to hurt your opponent after the point you’ve given up any hope of holding them off. Destroying labs/castles, setting tax rates up and pillaging your own population, inviting other uninvolved people to please take your provinces – I’m not talking about raiding, I’m talking about just trying to do your best to screw the guy who’s beat you so that he’ll be weaker against the next guy he fights.




Within multiplayer you want to do whatever is possible so other players will not go to war with you in future games. This means being a great ally and being a dreaded enemy. If your enemy has you thinking, "I REALLY don't like conquering you" then he's doing a good job of convincing you not to attack him in future games.
And in regards to your opponent giving provinces to other players... well this relates to the quote, "My enemies enemy is my ally". He knows your future enemies and will give them provinces... another way to make you remember how it's not fun conquering him.

Consider future games against opponents... you want other gamers thinking they'll receive lots of spoils of war battling you OR very few spoils of war? Personally I want other gamers thinking they'll receive very little... anything to discourage them declaring war on me in future games.

** If you're truly into capturing spoils of war... then when you go to war strike fast and hard! March all front line armies into his nearby provinces. Have flyers and/or stealthy armies strike and capture the provinces behind the front line provinces. Then have Thugs, SCs, and teleporting armies strike and capture other key provinces which can be easily secured.

One Final Thought... when you are at war with your clever enemies they will try and make sure you don't gain anything by winning.
"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning. -- -- General George S. Patton "

[sum1lost]

NTJedi said:

Baalz said:
I’m curious as to what people’s take on scorched earth tactics are in MP? Specifically I’m referring to actions taken for no reason other that to hurt your opponent after the point you’ve given up any hope of holding them off. Destroying labs/castles, setting tax rates up and pillaging your own population, inviting other uninvolved people to please take your provinces – I’m not talking about raiding, I’m talking about just trying to do your best to screw the guy who’s beat you so that he’ll be weaker against the next guy he fights.




Within multiplayer you want to do whatever is possible so other players will not go to war with you in future games. This means being a great ally and being a dreaded enemy. If your enemy has you thinking, "I REALLY don't like conquering you" then he's doing a good job of convincing you not to attack him in future games.
And in regards to your opponent giving provinces to other players... well this relates to the quote, "My enemies enemy is my ally". He knows your future enemies and will give them provinces... another way to make you remember how it's not fun conquering him.

Consider future games against opponents... you want other gamers thinking they'll receive lots of spoils of war battling you OR very few spoils of war? Personally I want other gamers thinking they'll receive very little... anything to discourage them declaring war on me in future games.

** If you're truly into capturing spoils of war... then when you go to war strike fast and hard! March all front line armies into his nearby provinces. Have flyers and/or stealthy armies strike and capture the provinces behind the front line provinces. Then have Thugs, SCs, and teleporting armies strike and capture other key provinces which can be easily secured.

One Final Thought... when you are at war with your clever enemies they will try and make sure you don't gain anything by winning.
"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning. -- -- General George S. Patton "



I don't know about anyone else, but I've avoided playing games with people because of things like this. I'm here to play a fun game first, win second. So, my behavior won't be to discourage them from attacking, but to encourage them to play again.

[Baalz]

NTJedi said:
Consider future games against opponents...



I pretty much consider this a worse justification than "I'm a sore loser". This is no different than "I'll give you death gems in game A if you give me water gems in game B".


Reverend Zombie said:
What if the thing that brings your beaten opponent the most fun, at that point, is bringing you down with him?




Then, by definition they're a poor sport. Even in a game, not everything is justifiable by "I'm doing whatever brings me the most fun" because it's a MP game. That's why I feel sportsmanship factors in - I also feel like griefers in MP games are pretty much the scum of the earth.


sum1lost said:
I'm here to play a fun game first, win second. So, my behavior won't be to discourage them from attacking, but to encourage them to play again.



Yes, this is a good summation of my feelings, secondarily only to my own fun I feel an obligation to do whatever I reasonably can to facilitate the good time everyone is having - including whoever conquers me. That's why I don't understand the whole "I'm gonna make life as miserable as I can for whoever had the audacity to attack me in a war game, and hope they lose". Some of the people posting in this thread seem to legitimately have RP reasons for this behavior, but honestly the majority seem to be using the RP justification as a very thin excuse for poor behavior.

In response to several other posts, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but there is a big difference between doing whatever you can to win, and after you've decided you've lost doing whatever you can to sabotage the guy who beat you. No one, in any context, is arguing that you shouldn't do everything you can to win and fight to the bitter end. Beating that straw man up is getting a bit tired.

[Sir_Dr_D]

People are motivated to receive rewards for their efforts. Part of the fun of conqueroring another persons territory is you then get there income and infrastructure. If everyone destroyed these as they are being conquered, there would be no gain for anything anybody acomplishes in the game. With no gain, there is less fun.

So by using scorched earth, you will be ruining the fun for everyone else.

[NTJedi]

sum1lost said:
I don't know about anyone else, but I've avoided playing games with people because of things like this. I'm here to play a fun game first, win second. So, my behavior won't be to discourage them from attacking, but to encourage them to play again.



See your internal issue is that you believe you are 100% entitled to the ownership of the labs, castles, and gold income of your dying enemies. As a result you are annoyed when an opponent denies you of possible spoils of war. However you fail to understand this is a game of war where pillaging, destruction, disease and scorched earth is part of the game. The developers provided these ugly sides of war as part of the game.

Long long long ago I've known when conquering an enemy the only guaranteed spoils of war are the magic sites... praise your lucky astral stars Illwinter did not allow the pillaging of magic sites.

Bottomline: If you cannot accept the ugly sides of war which exist within this games context then you either need to find players willing to play by your "DIFFERENT" set of rules, play solo against the AI or switch games.

[PyroStock]

pretty much consider this a worse justification than "I'm a sore loser". This is no different than "I'll give you death gems in game A if you give me water gems in game B".



No. Scorched Earth is more akin to "I know player X has used the copy-paste of Bogus' troops. I don't think that's fair and it ruins my fun, but since it's allowed on this server I must take that into consideration." Verbally offering a gift in one game to receive a favor in another is different... "If I scorch the earth in this game to minimize player A's spoils of war will you scorch the earth in game 2 to minimize player B's spoils of war?"

That aside, I would think one would be very careful whether they wanted to use scorched earth for that reason as it could backfire... "There's that guy who used scorched earth last game... I won't trade with him... I'm going to go elephant rush him now... I will ally with player C who I know can be trusted."


Sir_Dr_D said:
People are motivated to receive rewards for their efforts. Part of the fun of conqueroring another persons territory is you then get there income and infrastructure.
So by using scorched earth, you will be ruining the fun for everyone else.



Therefore, no one should play Ermor so there is more fun. In the Dark Knight thread it was clear some felt that that tactic ruined their fun. It's all subjective what each individual finds fun.

If all the players and/or whoever runs the server tells everyone the "unacceptable tactics" (like Velusion does on his servers) and what is banned that's fine. Otherwise,

Baalz said:
I don't have a lot of patience for trying to figure out what "acceptable" tactics are - if I can do it within the context of the game then it's fair play.

[sum1lost]

NTJedi said:

sum1lost said:
I don't know about anyone else, but I've avoided playing games with people because of things like this. I'm here to play a fun game first, win second. So, my behavior won't be to discourage them from attacking, but to encourage them to play again.



See your internal issue is that you believe you are 100% entitled to the ownership of the labs, castles, and gold income of your dying enemies. As a result you are annoyed when an opponent denies you of possible spoils of war. However you fail to understand this is a game of war where pillaging, destruction, disease and scorched earth is part of the game. The developers provided these ugly sides of war as part of the game.



Not really, but thanks for attempting to tell me that I have issues, and what they are. Clearly, anyone who holds a different view to yours must have 'issues'.
Scorched earth is a tactic meant to ensure a nation's survival by preventing opponents from continuing an attack. I can accept that. I've set my lands on fire to prevent attack. But doing it to discourage attacks in what is meant to be a separate game- in a way that discourages survival- I'm not so hip with that attitude.
And, yes, I do feel that I am entitled to a fun game. I find fun games online. You probably think that you, too, are 'entitled' to a game in which scorched earth is cool bannanas. Okay- so go and play in matches where everyone recognizes that as a legitimate tactic, whiel I go play in the matches where it isn't. Not playing me won't kill you, you know.


NTJedi said:
Long long long ago I've known when conquering an enemy the only guaranteed spoils of war are the magic sites... praise your lucky astral stars Illwinter did not allow the pillaging of magic sites.


I'm not sure how this is neccasary or constructive in any way. To be honest, it seems rather pompous and condescending, while little of value. Perhaps you will explain to me why I am wrong in thinking this.


NTJedi said:
Bottomline: If you cannot accept the ugly sides of war which exist within this games context then you either need to find players willing to play by your "DIFFERENT" set of rules, play solo against the AI or switch games.


I think I made it pretty clear that I have no problem finding players willing to play nice. My rules aren't different. They aren't even rules. They're a set of agreements in which the different players ensure that they want to play the same sort of game. I'm not sure why this is so terrible by your lights. You like scorched earth, so you use it. I don't, so I find games where people are less likely to use it. Problem solved. No need to get pissy and tell me to leave the MP community over it.

[KissBlade]

I would actually be quite frustrated if the player gave as little fight as you proposed Baalz. War is suppose to be taxing and expensive. Say you play in a game against a similarly skilled opponent. You take one of his provinces and you KNOW you can't hold it. There's a lab there. What'd you do? Burn it down obviously. Raise taxes to 200, etc. The fact that you are picking on a nation that you expected to just "roll over and die" and then whining that they're not rolling over the way you want is silly IMO. I deal with scorched earth very simply. If I war, I expect to wipe them out before they know what's going on. If a nation is going to scorched earth itself while fighting, all the easier since I'll just let him self destruct. Gold isn't even that relevant in the game compared to gem income anyway. The reason I'm so flustered at this topic is that you don't realize it's VERY VERY ANNOYING when a weak player just rolls over and dies because that upsets game dynamic even MORE. There were MP games I've played where I literally predicted, "if player A starts next to player B, player A will win the game".

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

... On the flip side of the question, when is going AI okay?

[Reverend Zombie]

Lazy_Perfectionist said:
... On the flip side of the question, when is going AI okay?



For sure when you are down to your last castle, and can't summon or recruit!

[Lingchih]

Lazy_Perfectionist said:
... On the flip side of the question, when is going AI okay?



For sure not when you are one of the top nations, and you just decide the game has become boring for you (re: Man in one of Zachariah's games a few months back).

I generally go AI when I am down to my capitol, I'm in the red financially and can't recruit, and I have no chance of making a comeback. Although I have gone AI earlier in a few games that I knew I was going to lose. I'm sorry for that though, and will endeavor to stick with games longer in the future.

[KissBlade]

On this note though, I am against the idea of "giving provinces" to other players. Gem/item/gold trading to your allies I can understand. Province trading is annoying simply because if you have a NAP with who the province is given away too, you're essentially "off limits" to them. Also province donating pretty much prevents you from ever coming back the game yourself if you're the one doing it.

[Foodstamp]

I can't believe people can actually get upset if someone has a scorched earth policy when it is completely acceptable for over half the player base in a game to dog pile a single player.

Kissblade grats on post 777, this monkeys gone to heaven.

[NTJedi]

sum1lost said:
Scorched earth is a tactic meant to ensure a nation's survival by preventing opponents from continuing an attack. I can accept that. I've set my lands on fire to prevent attack. But doing it to discourage attacks in what is meant to be a separate game- in a way that discourages survival- I'm not so hip with that attitude.



Frequent gamers in multiplayer games have traits they'll be known to do either common or frequently. For example some gamers are known to not be trusted while others trusted. If I'm known to pillage my lands that's one more reason not to declare war on me within future games. My actions are completely within the context of the game, expecting someone to limit their options during a game is as you would say "not so hip".


sum1lost said:
And, yes, I do feel that I am entitled to a fun game. I find fun games online. You probably think that you, too, are 'entitled' to a game in which scorched earth is cool bannanas. Okay- so go and play in matches where everyone recognizes that as a legitimate tactic, whiel I go play in the matches where it isn't. Not playing me won't kill you, you know.


Methods for a scorched earth were provided by the developers and have been around since the original game. You have fun in the limited games where scorched earth is banned, effectively policed by the host and one or more gamers defends questionable scorched earth actions.


sum1lost said:

NTJedi said:
Long long long ago I've known when conquering an enemy the only guaranteed spoils of war are the magic sites... praise your lucky astral stars Illwinter did not allow the pillaging of magic sites.


I'm not sure how this is neccasary or constructive in any way. To be honest, it seems rather pompous and condescending, while little of value. Perhaps you will explain to me why I am wrong in thinking this.


I will explain my quote with more detail for you to understand. When playing a game I know many gamers will scorch the earth as I conquer their empire and I'm happy just receiving the gem income while any extra gold income or structures are extra gravy... thus I conquer a scorched earth and see a glass as half full. When you conquer a scorched earth you are a sad panda for the lost structures and lost gold which leaves you feeling unhappy as you see the glass as half empty. This quote is constructive as I'm trying to make you understand that you should be happy with what you've captured instead of unhappy with what's been lost... hopefully now you see the value. No intentions of pompous and condescending.


sum1lost said:

NTJedi said:
Bottomline: If you cannot accept the ugly sides of war which exist within this games context then you either need to find players willing to play by your "DIFFERENT" set of rules, play solo against the AI or switch games.


I think I made it pretty clear that I have no problem finding players willing to play nice. My rules aren't different. They aren't even rules. They're a set of agreements in which the different players ensure that they want to play the same sort of game.



You are requesting limitations on gameplay... limitations which cannot be effectively monitored and policed. Not every player will know your exact boundaries and new players may not be aware what is outside of your expected boundaries. I'm glad you found a group of players for following a 'No Scorched Earth' set of rules.


sum1lost said:
I'm not sure why this is so terrible by your lights. You like scorched earth, so you use it. I don't, so I find games where people are less likely to use it. Problem solved. No need to get pissy and tell me to leave the MP community over it.


That's not what I said !! My final quote listed three options and you are currently using one of those options. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
The only terrible side is by expecting players NOT to use scorched earth you are limiting their gameplay options... basically the games in your realm must all have pretenders who will not destroy it's own people and structures out of spite of another conquerer. This means no gamers with characteristics such as Khan Noonien Singh... who will sacrifice everything to bring down an enemy. I see no harm in a group of disgruntled Mr. Rogers fighting over territory in one big neighborhood.

[Burnsaber]

KissBlade said:
I would actually be quite frustrated if the player gave as little fight as you proposed Baalz. War is suppose to be taxing and expensive. Say you play in a game against a similarly skilled opponent. You take one of his provinces and you KNOW you can't hold it. There's a lab there. What'd you do? Burn it down obviously. Raise taxes to 200, etc. The fact that you are picking on a nation that you expected to just "roll over and die" and then whining that they're not rolling over the way you want is silly IMO. I deal with scorched earth very simply. If I war, I expect to wipe them out before they know what's going on. If a nation is going to scorched earth itself while fighting, all the easier since I'll just let him self destruct. Gold isn't even that relevant in the game compared to gem income anyway. The reason I'm so flustered at this topic is that you don't realize it's VERY VERY ANNOYING when a weak player just rolls over and dies because that upsets game dynamic even MORE. There were MP games I've played where I literally predicted, "if player A starts next to player B, player A will win the game".



I second this.

I've used Scroched Earth once in a recent MP game. My neighbour managed to luck out with indy mages (he basically had good access to path level 3 mages in ALL paths expect blood) and managed to get to artifacts first. His research chart was way off to skies. Then war becan. I really didn't have much anything to bring against his armies, they were almost invincible to me. He had me beaten in every category, gem income, research, income.. It was like Germany against Poland in WW2. What should I have done? Just said, "well done, go ahead and win the game" and go AI? That wouldn't have been really too much fun for me.

Instead I decided to give other players in that game a fighting chance against this monster nation and commenced operation scorched earth, complete with forging Implementor Axes, sending raiding forces, trying to cripple his armies with "Bone Grinding" and just trying to cause general mayhem. I sended my magical items to other nations as a way to try to balance the scales of power.

It's obvious that Implementor Axes are meant to be forged and used, since they're actually in the game. If someone doesn't like that, he can just house rule them out.

EDIT: I didn't actually have any grudges or any feelings of spite against the player who invaded me. He managed to become powerfull by being a much better player than me and having some luck on the side. I have nothing against that. I just didn't have anything to bring against him (due to some mistakes on my part). IMHO it would have felt like cheating towards other players in the game if I just had given my stuff for free to the monster nation.

[Velusion]

I'll always used scorched earth and expect it in return. If you attack me expect for me to do everything in my power to make your life unhappy!

War is War!

[KissBlade]

Heh, yeah responding to Burnsaber, there have been numerous games where I've been fux0red as the number one nation and then getting completely trashed in a Pyrrhic war against a weak nation using scorched earth. It certainly left me pissed and annoyed at the time but ultimately it was, at least, a satisfying war. By putting up a fight, the player showed me that he was respecting my game because it would've felt A LOT more hollow winning the game against someone who just didn't put up a fight against a much more superior force. Heck, then I might as well play against a bunch of AI's.

[thejeff]

It seems that some of the people arguing for the scorched earth approach are equating it with putting up a good fight.

While the complaints about it seem to be more about tactics that don't even help you defend yourself, but just hurt your opponent after you're gone.
Over taxing and even pillaging provinces you're going to lose anyway to get money to buy troops to fight on is one thing, preemptively destroying your own economy before the enemy is even close to it is another. Sure your opponent will get less out of it since you'll have more time to kill the population off, but you'll have less money to fight with too.
Destroying a lab in a province you've taken so it can't be used against you makes sense, but I'd rather hole up in my castles and try to hold out as long as possible, using my labs to summon defenders rather than destroy the castles and labs to deny them to the enemy and get overrun faster. Sure if there are castles I can't even make a decent defense at, I'll burn them, but especially not the capital. I'd rather make a desperate hopeless last stand.

So, please, argue against the actual issue not the straw man of "just didn't put up a fight against a much more superior force"

From the original post of this thread:

Specifically I’m referring to actions taken for no reason other that to hurt your opponent after the point you’ve given up any hope of holding them off.


and:

doing incredibly annoying things is often a great strategy for victory, but at the point you’re not working towards a victory and rather destroying yourself as fast as possible for no reason other than to destroy value

[Baalz]

Yes, and to make things even clearer that this is an orthogonal discussion to putting up a good fight, my biggest frustration ever was an opponent giving up *before the first fight even happened* and turning all his efforts to destroying everything he had while I was waiting for the NAP to expire - I'm not talking about border provinces he thought he'd lose, he started pillaging his capital the turn I sent NAP notice. I'm talking about crippling yourself because you've decided your cause is lost and you are *solely* trying to reduce what the person who defeated you will gain after you're gone. Its really a matter of intent as obviously there is a lot of room for these type of actions as part of fighting to the last man. When you're saying "I'm doing this because you beat me and I therefore hope you lose". Pillaging the last of your population so you can giving large sums of gems/gold to the most likely opponent of your invader, inviting unrelated players to take your provinces while you leave them undefended, and razing your last castles are simply not part of fighting until the end as you are explicitly destroying yourself.

I do spot in this thread another justification, which is in the case that your invader is drastically more powerful than anybody else trying to bring him down a peg to make a more competitive game for everyone is really in everybody's best interest. That's a valid move, and I don't even really think anybody could be annoyed by that.

[Reverend Zombie]

thejeff said:
So, please, argue against the actual issue not the straw man of "just didn't put up a fight against a much more superior force"

From the original post of this thread:

Specifically I’m referring to actions taken for no reason other that to hurt your opponent after the point you’ve given up any hope of holding them off.





For those of us who view an attack in the game as sufficient justification to deny any benefit therefrom to the aggressor, can you or the original poster please tell us what behavior from the defender you find acceptable at the point that hope for victory is lost?



doing incredibly annoying things is often a great strategy for victory, but at the point you’re not working towards a victory and rather destroying yourself as fast as possible for no reason other than to destroy value



[/quote]

Where do you draw the line at which "non-optimal gaming behavior" becomes unsportsmanlike?

I could posit that an early attack on a neighboring player will leave me less likely to win due to the drain on my resources.

Am I therefore unsportsmanlike if I attack anyway, since I have engaged in action which lessens my chances of winning and have caused the attacked player no little annoyance?

[thejeff]

It's situational, of course.
From my point of view, it's when your actions are no longer aimed at survival, or even delaying your defeat, but actually hasten it. I've given examples of what the differences.
My main point was to distinguish between not using scorched earth tactics and not putting up a good fight.

You speak of denying any benefit to the aggressor. Would you also use scorched earth tactics if you had been the initial aggressor, but had been outfought and were losing?

I would not consider it unsportsmanlike to attack early. Maybe foolish, depending on the situation.
How about a Marveni player realizing he's started next to Helheim and immediately razing his castle and pillaging his lands, since he's certain to be destroyed and wants to make sure Helheim doesn't benefit? That seems to me the equivalent strawman on the other side of the argument.
(Though it did happen to me once, with Marignon and Jotunheim instead. Invaded the same Indy around turn 5, he refused my NAP offer and he'd destroyed his castle before my troops found it.)

[Reverend Zombie]

thejeff said:
It's situational, of course.
From my point of view, it's when your actions are no longer aimed at survival, or even delaying your defeat, but actually hasten it.



Almost any action a player takes has the potential to hasten his defeat.

Who's to judge?

In your Marverni (or Marignon/Jotunheim example)...what is the acceptable alternative, assuming the razing was un-acceptable to you?

[KissBlade]

I'm very confused by the extreme tactics you've listed so I can't say how I feel about them having never encountered them before. If anything, it seems an easier province to conquer if he was to get rid of his fort and lab before hand leaving nothing to defend with.

[thejeff]

As I said, "no longer aimed at"
One can certainly make mistakes, take risks, etc.
It's a question of intent. Judge for yourself. I'm not advocating rules that someone should enforce.
It seems to me you're quibbling here.

For my example, nearly anything else. Accept the NAP I'd offered. Look for allies. Bribe someone to attack me. Hold on to the castle and fight it out as long as you can.
I don't know, surprise me.
Don't self destruct on first contact.

And it's not unacceptable. I accepted it. I just didn't understand it. Where's the fun in suicide?

[PyroStock]

I'll also point out that if 3 players remain and somehow *only* player A's scorched earth tactic will cause player B to lose the game then regardless what player A does he *will* cause someone to lose.
Player B, "He's crippling himself and scorching earth just to minimize my winnings and try to cause me to ultimately lose!"
Player C, "He's just rolling over & giving player B all his castles, labs and provinces in perfect condition just to try to cause me to ultimately lose!"

Self-destruction to protect your allies, trading partners or even strangers isn't unsportsman-like. From the perspective of the other players, one could only hope the only guy close enough to jump on the grenade would do so for the others if he was going to die anyways.

If one needs something they do not currently own to win a game, whether it's a global spell, several artifacts or some castles, income and labs, then the burden is only on them to try to obtain it. If their spoils of war are less than expected then they expected too much.

[Reverend Zombie]

Baalz said:
Pillaging the last of your population so you can giving large sums of gems/gold to the most likely opponent of your invader, inviting unrelated players to take your provinces while you leave them undefended, and razing your last castles are simply not part of fighting until the end as you are explicitly destroying yourself.




To put your position positively, then, you want the player who you have attacked who is about to go down to defeat to

refrain from pillaging his provinces reserve undefended provinces for your armies leave all standing castles for you to take over

Is that an accurate statement of your position?

[Reverend Zombie]

thejeff said:
As I said, "no longer aimed at"
One can certainly make mistakes, take risks, etc.
It's a question of intent. Judge for yourself. I'm not advocating rules that someone should enforce.
It seems to me you're quibbling here.




I don't mean to quibble, just trying to find out what those opposed to scorched earth want the defeated player to do with his assets.

Self-destruct on first contact is a bit different that what the OP was talking about--sorry if I confused the issues.

[thejeff]

Well, it was an extreme example to counter your "Almost any action a player takes has the potential to hasten his defeat." argument.

It did actually happen, though.

[PyroStock]

Don't self destruct on first contact.



This sounds more of a problem due to him just giving up far too soon and not attempting any method, including the ones you listed, to survive. I doubt the other players enjoyed seeing him give up so soon either, especially next to your giants.

[KissBlade]

Oh yeah, belated thanks foodstamp for the happy 777 xD.

[Baalz]

Reverend Zombie said:

To put your position positively, then, you want the player who you have attacked who is about to go down to defeat to

refrain from pillaging his provinces reserve undefended provinces for your armies leave all standing castles for you to take over

Is that an accurate statement of your position?



No, it's not. These are examples of symptoms of an attitude and it misrepresents my point on more than one level to list them like that as it's much more about the intent than the behavior. Being a poor sport can be as trivial as whining in the forums about how unfair your loss was, and I feel actions taken under the justification "you beat me, therefore I hope you lose" are weak sauce. Clearly, on your last turn sending all your gold/gems to someone you have no previous relationship falls into this category, as does begging other neighbors to invade you before player A gets all the spoils, and clearly plenty of people raze/pillage etc. for the same reason. Nobody is suggesting you can't pillage your own provinces, nobody is suggesting the invader is entitled to you reserving anything for them, and nobody is suggesting you make things easy on anybody when they're trying to beat you. I am suggesting you congratulate the guy who bested you and thank him for a good game rather than whatever petty things can be done to sabotage him. That's what sportsmanship is about.

And with that, I'm done beating this dead, dead horse.

[sum1lost]

Not scorching earth away isn't the same as not putting up a fight. For the record. I haven't "rolled over" in any battle, but I have refrained from burning down my own lands in ways that make it harder for me to survive.

[Reverend Zombie]

Baalz said:

Reverend Zombie said:

To put your position positively, then, you want the player who you have attacked who is about to go down to defeat to

refrain from pillaging his provinces reserve undefended provinces for your armies leave all standing castles for you to take over

Is that an accurate statement of your position?



No, it's not. These are examples of symptoms of an attitude and it misrepresents my point on more than one level to list them like that as it's much more about the intent than the behavior.




I'm not sure how you can determine intent, or police it.

[thejeff]

You can't. And I think that's a large part of the problem with this discussion.

You seem to be looking for a specific list of things that must always (or never) be done and wondering how to enforce it. I don't have such a list and I don't want to enforce anything. Do whatever you want. Some things I'll think are cheesy tactics and poor sportsmanship. Oh well, I'll deal with it.

When you kill me, I'll fight to the end, defend any castles I can to the last man and try to pull tricks out of my ... hat to surprise you, but you'll probably get most of my castles in the end, since I can hold out longer in them. I probably won't pillage my provinces much, since I'd rather throw my troops at you.
If I beat you, it'll be quicker but I'll get less out of it, since you'll have killed off your population and destroyed your castles. I think it's petty, but whatever works for you.

[DonCorazon]

I won't scorch the earth if there is nothing for my country to gain personally by it e.g. it is not part of an overall path to victory.

So feel free to attack me.

I respect those who beat me - there is no better teacher than defeat.

[duke_commando]

Part of me always hopes the guy who attacked me ends up losing...
that said, I try not to be bitter, and I do see scorched earth with the sole purpose of seeing the other guy lose with no benefit to yourself as pretty lame. Particularly, as in Baalz' example, when you haven't even been invaded yet, the other party just canceled the NAP.
There no way to enforce something against this, but that doesn't mean we can't encourage people not to do it.

[Meglobob]

I always want those who beat me to win (usually), then I can claim 2nd place... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Sombre]

duke_commando said:
There no way to enforce something against this, but that doesn't mean we can't encourage people not to do it.



That would benefit you, but if you want to convince people not to go scorched earth, you need to point out a benefit to them. I can't think of one. I don't think anyone in this thread has brought up a legitimate benefit of not doing it either.

I don't like the way people NAP up with two neighbours then attack the third, every time, with the help of their buddies. But there doesn't seem to be a good way to convince them not to do it.

Except maybe,.. scorched earth?

[llamabeast]

You don't always have to point out a benefit to get someone to do something. Sometimes you can just say "I think it would be nice if people did this", and they will.

[thejeff]

And since there is only minimal potential benefit to doing it.
You've already lost in the current game by the time you're scorching the earth. The only possible benefit that's been raised is deterring attack in other games. It could have the opposite effect though... "That guy destroyed all his provinces when I beat him in the last game, I'd better kill him quick before he gets too many provinces."

Like the 2 reactions to LA Ermor. "I don't want to attack since there's so little to gain" and "Kill him quick before he destroys the world"

[lch]

I didn't bother to read through this thread. I have used scorched earth tactics in situations where I was being ganged by four players with no option left but to die, and I would do so again. I'd expect that everybody throws all that he has into a fight, teeth gnarling in the enemy, instead of the two worse choices: doing nothing and then going AI, or handing all the gems and gold to some other player. Both things throw off the scales very much in MP games, and people should not be able to rely on things like that. Especially not the "hey, let's be friends at the last minute" people that only hope for some share of the gems before the doomed player quits. Fight it to the bitter end!

[Agema]

I don't think you should take games personally in real life.

But I think it's quite valid to take defeat personally in game terms. Why not - dare I use the term in a wargame forum - "roleplay" your nation? Why not "punish" your vanquisher by laying waste to your territory, give all your gems and items to an ally, or invite neighbours to take your provinces? A game does not have to be a huge mechanical clicking and whirring of logical cogs.

For what's worth, I think you'd get more out of it by scorching only what you can't hold, and using what you can hold (if only temporarily) trying to make your opponent's victory as difficult as possible, which will probably inconvenience him considerably more. You might do better to hand all your gems to someone on the condition they intercede on your side in the war, even giving them provinces so they can get to the battlefront.

I'm also highly sympathetic to switching to AI, I see it as analogous to resigning in chess. Once you're certainly doomed, I think you really could just switch your attention elsewhere - like a new game - rather than waste minutes of the day.

[lch]

Going AI when there's ultimately nothing you can do is okay, going AI while you could still harass another player makes it way too easy for him to take advantage of your stuff. Though the time has to be factored in, of course, I agree to that.

[Aezeal]

Reading this thread I can't help thinking: scorched earth SEEMS like a good idea http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Agrajag]

Reading this thread I can't help thinking: Scorched Earth was one hell of a game, its a real classic.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Let's face it. We play Pretender Gods - mortals, demi gods, or immortals so power hungry that they are going for all out dominion, seeking to become the one true god.

Would any such go peacefully into the dark when faced with defeat? Would any such give a damn about protecting "his people" or "his nation" for other than ultimately selfish purposes?

I posit that that's unlikely to be the case. If defeat is inevitable or likely, letting the world burn and ruthlessly exploiting all resources at his disposal while doing his level best to deny his enemies any gains from his actions, with no concern whatsoever for the wellbeing of his people, is infinitely preferable. Now THOSE are the acts of a Pretender God.

It is not a question of victory or defeat, but of survival, and if there is nothing else, there is always revenge.

What Pretender God with respect for himself would not, with his last breath, curse his conqueror and gift as many of his remaining resources to the one most likely to avenge his death? A poisoned gift, it is vengeance delayed and uncertain, but it may be some comfort as the one who would be god fades from this world, his work undone.

Any Pretender God who'd spare his people and leave the land unhurt, thus generously gifting his enemies with rich spoils of victory should never have sought ultimate dominion in the first place.

This is not a game of nations, but of those who would be gods, and if there is one trait that that is common for the gods that humanity has come up with in its history, it is that most of them, when provoked, are vengeful far beyond mortal capabilities, the beings for whom "disproportionate response" is a way of life - or death, as it were.

[RedWurm]

I agree, and while it may have the additional benefit of discouraging aggression in other MP games, it is quite justifiable in terms of the game it is employed in.

For the losing nation, I don't doubt that, even in a relatively fair one-on-one fight, there is an understandable appeal in doing whatever you can to nobble your conqueror before your defeat. Your god is dead, your armies are slaughtered, your country is occupied. There doesn't yet seem to be the option of settling things in an amicable manner over drinks before retiring to the country with your last few worshippers. However fair the fight, you are dead, and however much the opponent deserves the victory, they sure as hell don't deserve to keep anything of yours that they are unable to take from you by force in the course of the war.

For the winning nation, during the next game you play - whoever it is against - you will realise that it would be sensible to consider that your opponent can use these tactics. If you're not prepared to prevent your opponent using it effetively and the overall gain of fighting a scorched-earther is not worth it, then don't go to war.

For the other nations, it may well end up critically weakening a dominant opponent and boosting a nation that was a little more polite to the losing player. If it doesn't, the only player who has lost is the conquered one, and it takes a bit of nerve to complain about winning a war without effectively disadvantaging yourself. If it does, maybe everyone will be a little more realistic about the cost of warfare in future.

So how is it annoying? If it is the investment of time and resources that worries you, surely it would be preferable to extort whatever you can from them and keep them alive if you can't conquer them easily. You know what's really annoying? It's when a nation with a decent shot at winning decides to destroy you and your country because you don't look like too much trouble and your gems might come in handy. If you want sportsmanship, set up an inter-pretender tennis tournament.

[vfb]

I think in the specific example Baalz gave, it sucked. He said the player didn't attempt to put up a fight at all, the player just did whatever he could to destroy his own lands and infrastructure. And that's even before any actual fighting began -- Baalz gave warning that he was terminating the NAP, and the other player started razing. The other player should at least try to be better than the AI.

How much fun would the game be if every time you invade a nation, instead of fighting back it just goes all Jonestown on you.

[jaif]

The devs could take a hint from civ and add client states to the game. If you are at war with someone and losing bad (say 1/2 income and 1/2 gem income and 1/2 army size, as a rough factor), then you get an option to surrender. If you do, your dominion disappears from all but your capital, you territory counts as your opponents, you pay a percentage tribute in money and gems (random gems every turn), and then you can fight on with your new ally.

That's just a rough sketch, but I think it would give an option to going AI and scorched earth. It also allows players to play to the bitter end.

-Jeff

[Agema]

Possibly. But then, you could just offer some of your gold and gems to someone every turn and fight on as a client state anyway - you don't need a specific game mechanic to from the developers to do that.