Scorched earth

[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.

[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.