Re: Scorched earth
 

You don't always have to point out a benefit to get someone to do something. Sometimes you can just say "I think it would be nice if people did this", and they will.

Re: Scorched earth
 

And since there is only minimal potential benefit to doing it.
You've already lost in the current game by the time you're scorching the earth. The only possible benefit that's been raised is deterring attack in other games. It could have the opposite effect though... "That guy destroyed all his provinces when I beat him in the last game, I'd better kill him quick before he gets too many provinces."

Like the 2 reactions to LA Ermor. "I don't want to attack since there's so little to gain" and "Kill him quick before he destroys the world"

Re: Scorched earth
 

I didn't bother to read through this thread. I have used scorched earth tactics in situations where I was being ganged by four players with no option left but to die, and I would do so again. I'd expect that everybody throws all that he has into a fight, teeth gnarling in the enemy, instead of the two worse choices: doing nothing and then going AI, or handing all the gems and gold to some other player. Both things throw off the scales very much in MP games, and people should not be able to rely on things like that. Especially not the "hey, let's be friends at the last minute" people that only hope for some share of the gems before the doomed player quits. Fight it to the bitter end!

Re: Scorched earth
 

I don't think you should take games personally in real life.

But I think it's quite valid to take defeat personally in game terms. Why not - dare I use the term in a wargame forum - "roleplay" your nation? Why not "punish" your vanquisher by laying waste to your territory, give all your gems and items to an ally, or invite neighbours to take your provinces? A game does not have to be a huge mechanical clicking and whirring of logical cogs.

For what's worth, I think you'd get more out of it by scorching only what you can't hold, and using what you can hold (if only temporarily) trying to make your opponent's victory as difficult as possible, which will probably inconvenience him considerably more. You might do better to hand all your gems to someone on the condition they intercede on your side in the war, even giving them provinces so they can get to the battlefront.

I'm also highly sympathetic to switching to AI, I see it as analogous to resigning in chess. Once you're certainly doomed, I think you really could just switch your attention elsewhere - like a new game - rather than waste minutes of the day.

Re: Scorched earth
 

Going AI when there's ultimately nothing you can do is okay, going AI while you could still harass another player makes it way too easy for him to take advantage of your stuff. Though the time has to be factored in, of course, I agree to that.

Re: Scorched earth
 

Reading this thread I can't help thinking: scorched earth SEEMS like a good idea http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Scorched earth
 

Reading this thread I can't help thinking: Scorched Earth was one hell of a game, its a real classic.

Re: Scorched earth
 

Let's face it. We play Pretender Gods - mortals, demi gods, or immortals so power hungry that they are going for all out dominion, seeking to become the one true god.

Would any such go peacefully into the dark when faced with defeat? Would any such give a damn about protecting "his people" or "his nation" for other than ultimately selfish purposes?

I posit that that's unlikely to be the case. If defeat is inevitable or likely, letting the world burn and ruthlessly exploiting all resources at his disposal while doing his level best to deny his enemies any gains from his actions, with no concern whatsoever for the wellbeing of his people, is infinitely preferable. Now THOSE are the acts of a Pretender God.

It is not a question of victory or defeat, but of survival, and if there is nothing else, there is always revenge.

What Pretender God with respect for himself would not, with his last breath, curse his conqueror and gift as many of his remaining resources to the one most likely to avenge his death? A poisoned gift, it is vengeance delayed and uncertain, but it may be some comfort as the one who would be god fades from this world, his work undone.

Any Pretender God who'd spare his people and leave the land unhurt, thus generously gifting his enemies with rich spoils of victory should never have sought ultimate dominion in the first place.

This is not a game of nations, but of those who would be gods, and if there is one trait that that is common for the gods that humanity has come up with in its history, it is that most of them, when provoked, are vengeful far beyond mortal capabilities, the beings for whom "disproportionate response" is a way of life - or death, as it were.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I agree, and while it may have the additional benefit of discouraging aggression in other MP games, it is quite justifiable in terms of the game it is employed in.

For the losing nation, I don't doubt that, even in a relatively fair one-on-one fight, there is an understandable appeal in doing whatever you can to nobble your conqueror before your defeat. Your god is dead, your armies are slaughtered, your country is occupied. There doesn't yet seem to be the option of settling things in an amicable manner over drinks before retiring to the country with your last few worshippers. However fair the fight, you are dead, and however much the opponent deserves the victory, they sure as hell don't deserve to keep anything of yours that they are unable to take from you by force in the course of the war.

For the winning nation, during the next game you play - whoever it is against - you will realise that it would be sensible to consider that your opponent can use these tactics. If you're not prepared to prevent your opponent using it effetively and the overall gain of fighting a scorched-earther is not worth it, then don't go to war.

For the other nations, it may well end up critically weakening a dominant opponent and boosting a nation that was a little more polite to the losing player. If it doesn't, the only player who has lost is the conquered one, and it takes a bit of nerve to complain about winning a war without effectively disadvantaging yourself. If it does, maybe everyone will be a little more realistic about the cost of warfare in future.

So how is it annoying? If it is the investment of time and resources that worries you, surely it would be preferable to extort whatever you can from them and keep them alive if you can't conquer them easily. You know what's really annoying? It's when a nation with a decent shot at winning decides to destroy you and your country because you don't look like too much trouble and your gems might come in handy. If you want sportsmanship, set up an inter-pretender tennis tournament.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I think in the specific example Baalz gave, it sucked. He said the player didn't attempt to put up a fight at all, the player just did whatever he could to destroy his own lands and infrastructure. And that's even before any actual fighting began -- Baalz gave warning that he was terminating the NAP, and the other player started razing. The other player should at least try to be better than the AI.

How much fun would the game be if every time you invade a nation, instead of fighting back it just goes all Jonestown on you.