Scorched earth

[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]

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?

[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:

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.

[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:

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.)