Eliminating a scorched earther=poor sportsmanship

[Reverend Zombie]

Szumo said:
The main point is: it's not actually going to hurt you, too

Why all the fuss in the other thread, then, I wonder?

[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.

[cleveland]

Reverend Zombie said:
Why all the fuss in the other thread, then, I wonder?

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.