|
|
|
 |
|

November 15th, 2007, 06:54 PM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bern, Switzerland
Posts: 1,109
Thanks: 14
Thanked 17 Times in 14 Posts
|
|
Re: Scorched earth
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.
|

November 15th, 2007, 07:10 PM
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 773
Thanks: 2
Thanked 31 Times in 28 Posts
|
|
Re: Scorched earth
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.
|

November 15th, 2007, 07:13 PM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney, NSW
Posts: 173
Thanks: 9
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Scorched earth
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 
|

November 15th, 2007, 08:09 PM
|
 |
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Texas/Ohio
Posts: 363
Thanks: 11
Thanked 72 Times in 21 Posts
|
|
Re: Scorched earth
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.
|

November 15th, 2007, 08:15 PM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 55
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Scorched earth
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
|

November 15th, 2007, 09:06 PM
|
 |
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 379
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: Scorched earth
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)
|

November 15th, 2007, 09:21 PM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,198
Thanks: 90
Thanked 32 Times in 22 Posts
|
|
Re: Scorched earth
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... 
|

November 15th, 2007, 10:06 PM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,055
Thanks: 4
Thanked 29 Times in 13 Posts
|
|
Re: Scorched earth
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.
|

November 16th, 2007, 02:50 AM
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 525
Thanks: 17
Thanked 17 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
Re: Scorched earth
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.
|

November 16th, 2007, 02:57 AM
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 483
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts
|
|
Re: Scorched earth
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* : )
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|