Re: Scorched earth
 

You mean horror mark the SC pretender whose leading the charge? Uh, yeah, of course you do that.

Playing the Game the Developer\'s Made
 

He's sabotaging his own provinces, labs and castles. I don't see much difference between this and the guy who "sabotages" you to lose by fighting you to the bitter end.

...because those are all situations where the player isn't following the rules and/or attempt to do harm via means outside context of the game. The scorched earth tactic is within the context of the game. I never posted in the Dark Knight thread because others there all covered my points. A clever quote from that thread that holds true here too...

Re: Scorched earth
 

Within multiplayer you want to do whatever is possible so other players will not go to war with you in future games. This means being a great ally and being a dreaded enemy. If your enemy has you thinking, "I REALLY don't like conquering you" then he's doing a good job of convincing you not to attack him in future games.
And in regards to your opponent giving provinces to other players... well this relates to the quote, "My enemies enemy is my ally". He knows your future enemies and will give them provinces... another way to make you remember how it's not fun conquering him.

Consider future games against opponents... you want other gamers thinking they'll receive lots of spoils of war battling you OR very few spoils of war? Personally I want other gamers thinking they'll receive very little... anything to discourage them declaring war on me in future games.

** If you're truly into capturing spoils of war... then when you go to war strike fast and hard! March all front line armies into his nearby provinces. Have flyers and/or stealthy armies strike and capture the provinces behind the front line provinces. Then have Thugs, SCs, and teleporting armies strike and capture other key provinces which can be easily secured.

One Final Thought... when you are at war with your clever enemies they will try and make sure you don't gain anything by winning.
"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning. -- -- General George S. Patton "

Re: Scorched earth
 

I don't know about anyone else, but I've avoided playing games with people because of things like this. I'm here to play a fun game first, win second. So, my behavior won't be to discourage them from attacking, but to encourage them to play again.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I pretty much consider this a worse justification than "I'm a sore loser". This is no different than "I'll give you death gems in game A if you give me water gems in game B".

Then, by definition they're a poor sport. Even in a game, not everything is justifiable by "I'm doing whatever brings me the most fun" because it's a MP game. That's why I feel sportsmanship factors in - I also feel like griefers in MP games are pretty much the scum of the earth.

Yes, this is a good summation of my feelings, secondarily only to my own fun I feel an obligation to do whatever I reasonably can to facilitate the good time everyone is having - including whoever conquers me. That's why I don't understand the whole "I'm gonna make life as miserable as I can for whoever had the audacity to attack me in a war game, and hope they lose". Some of the people posting in this thread seem to legitimately have RP reasons for this behavior, but honestly the majority seem to be using the RP justification as a very thin excuse for poor behavior.

In response to several other posts, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but there is a big difference between doing whatever you can to win, and after you've decided you've lost doing whatever you can to sabotage the guy who beat you. No one, in any context, is arguing that you shouldn't do everything you can to win and fight to the bitter end. Beating that straw man up is getting a bit tired.

Re: Scorched earth
 

People are motivated to receive rewards for their efforts. Part of the fun of conqueroring another persons territory is you then get there income and infrastructure. If everyone destroyed these as they are being conquered, there would be no gain for anything anybody acomplishes in the game. With no gain, there is less fun.

So by using scorched earth, you will be ruining the fun for everyone else.

Re: Scorched earth
 

See your internal issue is that you believe you are 100% entitled to the ownership of the labs, castles, and gold income of your dying enemies. As a result you are annoyed when an opponent denies you of possible spoils of war. However you fail to understand this is a game of war where pillaging, destruction, disease and scorched earth is part of the game. The developers provided these ugly sides of war as part of the game.

Long long long ago I've known when conquering an enemy the only guaranteed spoils of war are the magic sites... praise your lucky astral stars Illwinter did not allow the pillaging of magic sites.

Bottomline: If you cannot accept the ugly sides of war which exist within this games context then you either need to find players willing to play by your "DIFFERENT" set of rules, play solo against the AI or switch games.

Re: Scorched earth
 

No. Scorched Earth is more akin to "I know player X has used the copy-paste of Bogus' troops. I don't think that's fair and it ruins my fun, but since it's allowed on this server I must take that into consideration." Verbally offering a gift in one game to receive a favor in another is different... "If I scorch the earth in this game to minimize player A's spoils of war will you scorch the earth in game 2 to minimize player B's spoils of war?"

That aside, I would think one would be very careful whether they wanted to use scorched earth for that reason as it could backfire... "There's that guy who used scorched earth last game... I won't trade with him... I'm going to go elephant rush him now... I will ally with player C who I know can be trusted."

Therefore, no one should play Ermor so there is more fun. In the Dark Knight thread it was clear some felt that that tactic ruined their fun. It's all subjective what each individual finds fun.

If all the players and/or whoever runs the server tells everyone the "unacceptable tactics" (like Velusion does on his servers) and what is banned that's fine. Otherwise,

Re: Scorched earth
 

Not really, but thanks for attempting to tell me that I have issues, and what they are. Clearly, anyone who holds a different view to yours must have 'issues'.
Scorched earth is a tactic meant to ensure a nation's survival by preventing opponents from continuing an attack. I can accept that. I've set my lands on fire to prevent attack. But doing it to discourage attacks in what is meant to be a separate game- in a way that discourages survival- I'm not so hip with that attitude.
And, yes, I do feel that I am entitled to a fun game. I find fun games online. You probably think that you, too, are 'entitled' to a game in which scorched earth is cool bannanas. Okay- so go and play in matches where everyone recognizes that as a legitimate tactic, whiel I go play in the matches where it isn't. Not playing me won't kill you, you know.

I'm not sure how this is neccasary or constructive in any way. To be honest, it seems rather pompous and condescending, while little of value. Perhaps you will explain to me why I am wrong in thinking this.

I think I made it pretty clear that I have no problem finding players willing to play nice. My rules aren't different. They aren't even rules. They're a set of agreements in which the different players ensure that they want to play the same sort of game. I'm not sure why this is so terrible by your lights. You like scorched earth, so you use it. I don't, so I find games where people are less likely to use it. Problem solved. No need to get pissy and tell me to leave the MP community over it.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I would actually be quite frustrated if the player gave as little fight as you proposed Baalz. War is suppose to be taxing and expensive. Say you play in a game against a similarly skilled opponent. You take one of his provinces and you KNOW you can't hold it. There's a lab there. What'd you do? Burn it down obviously. Raise taxes to 200, etc. The fact that you are picking on a nation that you expected to just "roll over and die" and then whining that they're not rolling over the way you want is silly IMO. I deal with scorched earth very simply. If I war, I expect to wipe them out before they know what's going on. If a nation is going to scorched earth itself while fighting, all the easier since I'll just let him self destruct. Gold isn't even that relevant in the game compared to gem income anyway. The reason I'm so flustered at this topic is that you don't realize it's VERY VERY ANNOYING when a weak player just rolls over and dies because that upsets game dynamic even MORE. There were MP games I've played where I literally predicted, "if player A starts next to player B, player A will win the game".

Re: Scorched earth
 

... On the flip side of the question, when is going AI okay?

Re: Scorched earth
 

For sure when you are down to your last castle, and can't summon or recruit!

Re: Scorched earth
 

For sure not when you are one of the top nations, and you just decide the game has become boring for you (re: Man in one of Zachariah's games a few months back).

I generally go AI when I am down to my capitol, I'm in the red financially and can't recruit, and I have no chance of making a comeback. Although I have gone AI earlier in a few games that I knew I was going to lose. I'm sorry for that though, and will endeavor to stick with games longer in the future.

Re: Scorched earth
 

On this note though, I am against the idea of "giving provinces" to other players. Gem/item/gold trading to your allies I can understand. Province trading is annoying simply because if you have a NAP with who the province is given away too, you're essentially "off limits" to them. Also province donating pretty much prevents you from ever coming back the game yourself if you're the one doing it.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I can't believe people can actually get upset if someone has a scorched earth policy when it is completely acceptable for over half the player base in a game to dog pile a single player.

Kissblade grats on post 777, this monkeys gone to heaven.

Re: Scorched earth
 

Frequent gamers in multiplayer games have traits they'll be known to do either common or frequently. For example some gamers are known to not be trusted while others trusted. If I'm known to pillage my lands that's one more reason not to declare war on me within future games. My actions are completely within the context of the game, expecting someone to limit their options during a game is as you would say "not so hip".

Methods for a scorched earth were provided by the developers and have been around since the original game. You have fun in the limited games where scorched earth is banned, effectively policed by the host and one or more gamers defends questionable scorched earth actions.

I will explain my quote with more detail for you to understand. When playing a game I know many gamers will scorch the earth as I conquer their empire and I'm happy just receiving the gem income while any extra gold income or structures are extra gravy... thus I conquer a scorched earth and see a glass as half full. When you conquer a scorched earth you are a sad panda for the lost structures and lost gold which leaves you feeling unhappy as you see the glass as half empty. This quote is constructive as I'm trying to make you understand that you should be happy with what you've captured instead of unhappy with what's been lost... hopefully now you see the value. No intentions of pompous and condescending.

You are requesting limitations on gameplay... limitations which cannot be effectively monitored and policed. Not every player will know your exact boundaries and new players may not be aware what is outside of your expected boundaries. I'm glad you found a group of players for following a 'No Scorched Earth' set of rules.

That's not what I said !! My final quote listed three options and you are currently using one of those options. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif
The only terrible side is by expecting players NOT to use scorched earth you are limiting their gameplay options... basically the games in your realm must all have pretenders who will not destroy it's own people and structures out of spite of another conquerer. This means no gamers with characteristics such as Khan Noonien Singh... who will sacrifice everything to bring down an enemy. I see no harm in a group of disgruntled Mr. Rogers fighting over territory in one big neighborhood.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I second this.

I've used Scroched Earth once in a recent MP game. My neighbour managed to luck out with indy mages (he basically had good access to path level 3 mages in ALL paths expect blood) and managed to get to artifacts first. His research chart was way off to skies. Then war becan. I really didn't have much anything to bring against his armies, they were almost invincible to me. He had me beaten in every category, gem income, research, income.. It was like Germany against Poland in WW2. What should I have done? Just said, "well done, go ahead and win the game" and go AI? That wouldn't have been really too much fun for me.

Instead I decided to give other players in that game a fighting chance against this monster nation and commenced operation scorched earth, complete with forging Implementor Axes, sending raiding forces, trying to cripple his armies with "Bone Grinding" and just trying to cause general mayhem. I sended my magical items to other nations as a way to try to balance the scales of power.

It's obvious that Implementor Axes are meant to be forged and used, since they're actually in the game. If someone doesn't like that, he can just house rule them out.

EDIT: I didn't actually have any grudges or any feelings of spite against the player who invaded me. He managed to become powerfull by being a much better player than me and having some luck on the side. I have nothing against that. I just didn't have anything to bring against him (due to some mistakes on my part). IMHO it would have felt like cheating towards other players in the game if I just had given my stuff for free to the monster nation.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I'll always used scorched earth and expect it in return. If you attack me expect for me to do everything in my power to make your life unhappy!

War is War!

Re: Scorched earth
 

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.

Re: Scorched earth
 

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:
and:

Re: Scorched earth
 

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.

Re: Scorched earth
 

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?


[/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?

Re: Scorched earth
 

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.)

Re: Scorched earth
 

Almost any action a player takes has the potential to hasten his defeat.

Who's to judge?

In your Marverni (or Marignon/Jotunheim example)...what is the acceptable alternative, assuming the razing was un-acceptable to you?

Re: Scorched earth
 

I'm very confused by the extreme tactics you've listed so I can't say how I feel about them having never encountered them before. If anything, it seems an easier province to conquer if he was to get rid of his fort and lab before hand leaving nothing to defend with.

Re: Scorched earth
 

As I said, "no longer aimed at"
One can certainly make mistakes, take risks, etc.
It's a question of intent. Judge for yourself. I'm not advocating rules that someone should enforce.
It seems to me you're quibbling here.

For my example, nearly anything else. Accept the NAP I'd offered. Look for allies. Bribe someone to attack me. Hold on to the castle and fight it out as long as you can.
I don't know, surprise me.
Don't self destruct on first contact.

And it's not unacceptable. I accepted it. I just didn't understand it. Where's the fun in suicide?

Re: Scorched earth
 

I'll also point out that if 3 players remain and somehow *only* player A's scorched earth tactic will cause player B to lose the game then regardless what player A does he *will* cause someone to lose.
Player B, "He's crippling himself and scorching earth just to minimize my winnings and try to cause me to ultimately lose!"
Player C, "He's just rolling over & giving player B all his castles, labs and provinces in perfect condition just to try to cause me to ultimately lose!"

Self-destruction to protect your allies, trading partners or even strangers isn't unsportsman-like. From the perspective of the other players, one could only hope the only guy close enough to jump on the grenade would do so for the others if he was going to die anyways.

If one needs something they do not currently own to win a game, whether it's a global spell, several artifacts or some castles, income and labs, then the burden is only on them to try to obtain it. If their spoils of war are less than expected then they expected too much.

Re: Scorched earth
 

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?

Re: Scorched earth
 

I don't mean to quibble, just trying to find out what those opposed to scorched earth want the defeated player to do with his assets.

Self-destruct on first contact is a bit different that what the OP was talking about--sorry if I confused the issues.

Re: Scorched earth
 

Well, it was an extreme example to counter your "Almost any action a player takes has the potential to hasten his defeat." argument.

It did actually happen, though.

Re: Scorched earth
 

This sounds more of a problem due to him just giving up far too soon and not attempting any method, including the ones you listed, to survive. I doubt the other players enjoyed seeing him give up so soon either, especially next to your giants.

Re: Scorched earth
 

Oh yeah, belated thanks foodstamp for the happy 777 xD.

Re: Scorched earth
 

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.

Re: Scorched earth
 

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.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I'm not sure how you can determine intent, or police it.

Re: Scorched earth
 

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.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I won't scorch the earth if there is nothing for my country to gain personally by it e.g. it is not part of an overall path to victory.

So feel free to attack me.

I respect those who beat me - there is no better teacher than defeat.

Re: Scorched earth
 

Part of me always hopes the guy who attacked me ends up losing...
that said, I try not to be bitter, and I do see scorched earth with the sole purpose of seeing the other guy lose with no benefit to yourself as pretty lame. Particularly, as in Baalz' example, when you haven't even been invaded yet, the other party just canceled the NAP.
There no way to enforce something against this, but that doesn't mean we can't encourage people not to do it.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I always want those who beat me to win (usually), then I can claim 2nd place... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Scorched earth
 

That would benefit you, but if you want to convince people not to go scorched earth, you need to point out a benefit to them. I can't think of one. I don't think anyone in this thread has brought up a legitimate benefit of not doing it either.

I don't like the way people NAP up with two neighbours then attack the third, every time, with the help of their buddies. But there doesn't seem to be a good way to convince them not to do it.

Except maybe,.. scorched earth?

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.