Eliminating a scorched earther=poor sportsmanship

[Reverend Zombie]

You've clealy beaten me, proving you are the better player. I am making things as difficult for you as I can, destroying my infrastructure, seeking allies to protect my lands, and pillaging my territory so your troops will starve and be unable to replenish their ranks.

Why perist in attacking me at this point--just to rub my nose in my defeat? That's poor sportsmanship!

And it doesn't benefit either one of us.

Call off your attack, and let me rebuild as a client state! You'll understand if I choose another player to become a client of, right? You attacked me after all.

With the war at an end, you can turn your resources and armies to building up for the next opponent, and don't have to worry about wasting resources to capture those last few pillaged wastes of mine.

You'll be the stronger for being such a generous victor, and a much better sport, to boot!

[Meglobob]

The only good enemy is a dead enemy!

No mercy! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Unless of course you defeat me on the battlefield, in which case I will suggest, 'talks'. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Reverend Zombie]

Meglobob said:
The only good enemy is a dead enemy!

No mercy! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif




Ah, is this a RP justification or a (supposed) play-to-win justification? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

If the latter, can't you see that this behavior is self-destructive--I see no reason for it other than spiteful "running up the score" against someone alredy defeated--and it's going to hurt you, too!

[Szumo]

The main point is: it's not actually going to hurt you, too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Reverend Zombie]

Szumo said:
The main point is: it's not actually going to hurt you, too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif



Why all the fuss in the other thread, then, I wonder? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

[Meglobob]

Its the common sense justification, if you leave another nation alive (if only barely) he could always play along with intent of revenge, should he get the chance.

[Sombre]

Not if he's going scorched earth on you. He can't come back from that, so why not leave him alone?

Not that I agree with this, but this thread does highlight a crucial problem with the logic in the other thread.

[thejeff]

If he's damaged himself enough that he can't come back to be even a minor threat, then he won't be any trouble to finish off. And at least you get the magic sites.
And he's too weak to be any help as a client state.

If he's that weak, someone else will finish him anyway and you'll have less of a buffer against them.

[Stryke11]

Reverend Zombie for the win!

[KissBlade]

That's way I've always viewed scorched earth. Yes the gains are less but it's also significantly easier to conquer a nation with no forts, no labs, no mages ...

[Ulf]

i dont have the game yet. but from my point of view, from other games, i would rather say a scorched earth player is the bad mannered one.
i think it is bad mannered to delay and weaken a clear winner without having any chance to win yourself. pillaging your provinces so he doesnt get good ones looks like a poor revenge for me.

[Networkingguru]

Ulf said:
i dont have the game yet. but from my point of view, from other games, i would rather say a scorched earth player is the bad mannered one.
i think it is bad mannered to delay and weaken a clear winner without having any chance to win yourself. pillaging your provinces so he doesnt get good ones looks like a poor revenge for me.



Eh, I don't like the tactics, but there are parallels in real life (Vlad the Impaler, for example). This is, technically, a war game. And I don't remember anyone coming up with a Geneva convention for this thing, so in my mind, anything goes. If the guy wants to destroy his nation so it's no good to you, all you can do is try to take it before he can complete the job. Poor sportsmanship? Maybe. But if his back is up against the wall and he has no hope, how can you really blame him?

[hnchrist3]

Dom3 is a "Highlander" game:
There can be only one.

Scorched Earth is more than just being annoying. If you are my (apparent) conqueror, why should I just let you? In fact, isn't it my DUTY to make things as hard as I can on you? What do you want, mere surrender?

Besides, maybe it isn't just you. I remember a game where my home lab was destroyed nearly every other turn, for no reason than just pure malice from the depths. Constantly rebuilding it was an immense drain on my cash, making me very weak at the start.

In the end, Scorched Earth is a tactic, just like any other. The fact that 'you don't like it' is just too bad. Pick another target then. "Knowing" that I am going to lose is no reason for me to lie down and take it.

Is it not my RESPONSIBILITY to fight to the end?
If so, then 'spoiling it for you' is the least of my worries.

Either way, you are going to get me. The difference is how hard I make it for you. If I make it easy then do not the other contenders have a claim of unfairness against me?

--H

[cleveland]

Reverend Zombie said:
Why all the fuss in the other thread, then, I wonder? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif



The other thread discussed a "F-U" style campaign, where the opponent is just trying to be nasty to you, rather than trying to win/put up a good fight.

I agree with Reverend Zombie that scorched-earth is a valid tactic and can occasionally be the best course of action.

But when used as part of a greater campaign of dirty tricks (e.g. slave-collar suicide squads) that injure both players without any tangible benefit, the player is just being mean. It's the same as knocking the board over at the end of Monopoly...unnecessary and pathetic.

Sore loser = poor sport = crappy opponent.

[Serenity]

I approve scorched earth. Good way to stop attacks is to make the attacks cost more than is gainable thru them.

Btw yeah slave collar suicide squads should be instaban from house games. :S

[Sensori]

I think in Dominions just base scortched earth doesn't work that well. You need to implement other things to it which aren't exactly true to its real life counterpart - such as raiding the enemy's lands and burning HIS temples, HIS labs, HIS fortresses down, while pillaging, taxing 200% and so forth if he does not follow, in effect forcing him to follow instead of invading your heartlands which might be in crazed troop building phase (reanimating ghouls as Lanka is a good enough excuse to kill off your home province IMO, not to mention having 200% tax with patrollers to maximize your own income).

Doing anything you can to postpone the inevitable is... Well, encouraged by the way this game is played, just the way you do it depends so much on the playstyle of your opponent. Defending your lands against much more powerful nations (and crazy aggressive players) is pointless when you can do much more damage in the enemy's lands with relative ease, for instance.

[Ozymandias]

>Btw yeah slave collar suicide squads should be instaban from house games. :S

Slave collars and magical eyes & hearts won't be picked up if your army has no free misc slots. But slave collars slightly reduce all your combat stats, greatly reduce magic resistance and leadership, and completely strip magical ability in exchange for a large boost to morale. I think that they are clearly intended to be used in a sacrificial manner.