Scorched earth
 

I’m curious as to what people’s take on scorched earth tactics are in MP? 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. Destroying labs/castles, setting tax rates up and pillaging your own population, inviting other uninvolved people to please take your provinces – I’m not talking about raiding, I’m talking about just trying to do your best to screw the guy who’s beat you so that he’ll be weaker against the next guy he fights.

To me, that feels a whole lot like really bad sportsmanship. On the couple of occasions I’ve been exposed to it, it has been incredibly annoying, in at least one case removing me from a decent shot at winning (you can do a surprising amount of damage when you start scorching earth the turn NAP notice is given then fight for maximum casualties on both sides). I’ve seen several people comment that it’s a valid tactic and I’d like to understand where that point of view comes from because to me it’s akin to trying to injure your opponent in a sports tournament after you lose your match so that he has less chance of winning the tournament. Don’t get me wrong, 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 it seems like all you’re being is a sore loser. On the flip side I know I’d rather not have an easy victory because my only competition had the bad fortune to invade somebody who got pissy at being invaded in a war game.

So, my question is how is this a valid tactic? Is it valid because you hope to deter aggression in a future game? That mindset seems little different than carrying alliances or trades from one game to another. Is it valid from a purely roleplaying POV? That argument might hold more water if it wasn’t the same players I see constantly pulling this stunt, and if they actually were roleplaying in their posts. Is it valid because we’re playing a war simulation, all’s fair? I call BS, we’re playing a computer game with other people solely for our mutual enjoyment. Overly offensive posts, hacking turn files, taking down the server when the host is eliminated, and secretly playing more than one nation are all completely intolerable because we’re not at war, we’re playing a game.

I don't really expect to change anybodies mind, people are gonna do what they're gonna do. Just curious what self justification those of you who do this use.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I've only done scorched earth once in an MP game, and that was just burning down 2 labs in Sophistry when the massively blessed giants were stomping my Arco butt hard, and even then I am not overly pleased I even did that much. If I ever am in the same situation I'd not do that again (although I did set myself to AI early in Evermore between frustration vs the blessing EA Oceania had and my grandfather's illness cutting my freetime down). I never have cranked my taxes up or destroyed any other buildings just to make my land worth less to an opponent though.

If I feel I am doomed, I do tell anyone I have had positive relationships with that I free them from NAPs and other agreements and that they should consider my territory up or grabs if they so wish. I also give allies/NAP partners my gems and magic items before going out, but not to anyone else. I would rather see an ally get my stuff than my conquerer if at all possible, but I don't involve anyone beyond friendly powers to do so.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I will raise taxes to 200% in war border provinces, and provinces that I know I am going to lose. I will also raze a castle and lab if I think I can retreat and still have a chance to win. But if I know I'm going down, I've never felt the need to totally scorch the earth. I'll generally leave my capitol intact for the eventual winner, and just go AI.

Maybe I'm just lucky never to have gotten so annoyed at an opposing player that I felt like scorching the earth. And I've never had it used against me, although this is probably more due to the fact that I usually lose.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I can see doing it if you were betrayed or were trying to do what damage you could to help a loyal ally. Otherwise... I don't get it.

The only time it happened to me, though I haven't played a lot of MP, was very early in the game. He and I invaded the same indy province, I won. I offered NAP and borders, but got war instead. By the time I'd found it, he'd burned his castle, lab and temple. It still cost me to take it and since I got little out of the early war and took less indies because of it, left me behind and I never really caught up.
The war seemed to be for RP reasons, but I never figured out the preemptive self-destruction.

Re: Scorched earth
 

Personally, I am much happier if people fight dirty to the bitter end than the flip side of going AI as soon as things start looking bad. In my experience, it is that latter that throws games much more than the former.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I'll fight on even from an obviously lost point in the game, trying to cause my opponent maximum discomfort with spells while they besiege my capital, but I don't see the point in scorched earth.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I'll do it when my opponent has broken a NAP, bargained in bad faith, or been spamming me with messages. In short, jerk behavior as payment for jerk behavior.

Otherwise, I'll do it to prevent a key asset from being in enemy control. For example, a site producing Wizards will have its lab burned and provinces overtaxed so that an enemy taking it won't get much use out of it before I can retake it.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I wouldn't go so far as pillaging my own provinces, but razing castles could be on the table, as well as burning down labs so the player defeating me is not going to get any benefit from my infrastructure. I will also very likely take a look at who his current worst enemy is or who he will be fighting next and that one is likely going to start getting all sorts of intel as well as choice items, gems and gold that I'm not able to use anymore.

Last time I played MP was Faerun Pirates in Dom2 and whoever it was who played Ulm stomped me badly (I was playing Helheim, which started in the Moonshaes). So Cainehill's Pangaea suddenly found itself in possession of somewhere around 30 skull mentors, a dozen skull staffs and a number of air items I had made, spread out over several turns. He also got a total of several hundred gems of various types since I could not use them for anything. I had a ridiculous gem income compared to the size of my territory and he was also happy to take a couple of provinces with big site concentrations, one of which had a Banefire Forge for the Construction bonus. I have no idea how that game turned out, but that sort of tipping of the scales is bound to have an effect.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I too will use scorched earth tactics in only three very specific situations:

1) My opponent has negotiated treaties and/or deals and not held to them (i.e. is a scum-sucking liar ; ).

2) I have an exceptional ally (and not just a NAP-let's-jump-on-that-guy type of agreement) who would benefit from me putting up as much of a fight as I can.

3) The war is still undecided, and I might yet win with the extra coin produced from 200-taxing my provinces into oblivion. Or I don't want him to benefit from the castle he's going to take from me, when I might be able to turn the war around later. And so on, on that theme. (I'll worry about recovering from the unrest/loss of buildings/whatever afterwards.)

Other than that, I tend not to destroy my own provinces/buildings in the face of the enemy. However, I also (so far, anyway) will not go A.I. even if I know I can't win. (As the old saying goes, you learn much more from losing than from winning.) I wonder if everyone draws the same line between "fighting to the bitter end" and "scorched earth"? I'm betting...no. ; )

Re: Scorched earth
 

I usually give my gems and gold to some other player, and i invite others to invade me when i am beaten, but i dont burn down my own infrastructure and i dont pillage my own provinces.

Re: Scorched earth
 

On the flipside, I've had some very nice players send me gems and gold after I tromped them soundly, but I hope thats because I always blatantly declare wars and fight my wars alone. Pretty nice, actually.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I want to see them implement something so that if you started scorching everything, your people rebelled and did the exact opposite. Of course, you would have to implement this in secret so all the scorchers would get a nasty little shock http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Scorched earth
 

If I thought I was going to loose, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Of course, my play style is more pacifist, build up what you have, don't waste resources trying to take from somebody else. Ergo, if you want to wage a war of expansion, I'm going to make sure it isn't worth the money. I mean half the game already is about doing nasty things to players.

Re: Scorched earth
 

Some tactics I'll use and are valid, some I wont. If I know I cant hold a fort, down it goes. If i let you keep it, it just aids you in beating me.

I'll do this even if I KNOW Im eventually gonna lose, because I want to live as long as I can and that means slowing your progress as much as possible.

If I can slow you down ENOUGH, it makes it more likely someone will jump on you while yer trying to take me down and distract you. If you are forced to move forces away from me, that means I can start to take some of your gains back and renew your assault.

Yes its annoying to get bogged down in a horrible, costly war but thats why you have to plan to take as much as possible in as little time as possible. Cost/Benefit ratio, ya know

Re: Scorched earth
 

I've not played much, and I've never done this.. in general IndyPendant's post makes sense.

I can also see someone saying ahead of time, if you attack me, I WILL do this... as that serves a diplomatic purpose within the current game, a deterrent, and could actually help you win I imagine if people avoid attacking you for someone else.

It's interesting to see how peoples' views on this seem similar and different to their views on breaking NAPs or using various tactics that other people consider exploits. (from other threads)

Re: Scorched earth
 

Russia throughout history has used scorched earth policy as a war winning tactic. Time after time, it has pillaged, burned crops, destroyed anything of value to an invading enemy. Then, when the invading force is out of supplies, starving and suffering from the dreaded russian winter it strikes with overwhealming force.

So scorched earth is a valid tactic but as far as dominions goes, probably only Ermor, Ashen Empire could use such a tactic as effectively as Russia does.

Note I am not suggesting Russians are the walking dead or anything... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Scorched earth
 

There's nothing wrong with scorched earth. Heck that's the entire advantage of LA Ermor. (oh look you conquer and get nothing) Personally it's happened to me quite often and I've never found anything wrong with it. If anything it makes it easier to take them down cause they're also razing their own buildings. In fact, that's the main reason why I usually try not to use the tactic myself but once you get to big endgames, the games always end up being scorched earth anyway since it's difficult to hold that many provinces. It's one of those things you factor in during war.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I tend to agree with KissBlade. There is nothing inherently dishonorable or 'bad sportsmanship' about scorched earth. It is a legitimate military policy, and while it may seem spiteful, if I am going to lose to someone, I would prefer to see them not be the eventual winner. If by denying them my intact infrastructure, I can cause them greater difficulties down the road, why shouldn't I?

Of course, this tactic is much more effective if as people have said you make this official 'foreign policy'. Therefore, people are dissuaded from ever attacking you because they won't get anything for it. Combined with judicious tribute, you can set up a diplomatic state where they are getting something for not attacking you, and they have the promise they will get nothing if they do attack you. Psychologically, that is a strong incentive to not attack you. Now, of course, if you are a nation famous for its endgame, then this tactic would be less effective since your own motives beyond survival are suspect...

Hmm, I seem to be rambling now.

Re: Scorched earth
 

Historically, scorched earth policies are used as a way to slow down and hamper an enemy. The defending army pillages its farms to deny supplies and burns forts to deny shelter and fortifications. Some examples include MegloBob's Russians and the destruction of Fort Ticonderoga during the French and Indian war. The major difference between this and what is described here is the idea behind it. Scorching one's own nation is done in the hope that it will allow for the nation's survival. If defeat is undeniable, then it is meer spite, and reflects poorly on the player.

Re: Scorched earth
 

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.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I hope you are not refering to my fight to the last stand in Dolphin as Argatha vs your Sauromatia? I never overtaxed or burned down anything. But as you say, you did choke on Argatha while ULM eventually won. I had a horrible position stuck in the corner that game and missed several turns while at war with Yomi's fire 9 dragon from turn 4 or so. ULM provided me with some magic equipment, but I paid for them in gems.
I actually consider it poor sportsmanship when you are losing to turn your game over to the AI. Too many players roll over without trying to fight it out. You never get better if you don't play out your losing hand. If I had turned over to the AI in that game I would never had seen your defense 36 Sorcerors or some of our combats in the cave province vs your overwhelming numbers of archers.

Re: Scorched earth
 

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.

Re: Scorched earth
 

NOTE BEFORE YOU READ THIS POST:

I have never used the scorched earth tactics described by the original poster. I have given gems and items to the enemy of the person attacking me or people who have been honorable to me during games. Oh, and I'm no good at multiplayer, so YMMV. I'm the "set to AI" type because my I have enough to do that I'm not going to waste time on a losing battle when I can do something else.

OK:

Scorched earth is just as legitimate a tactic as a dual bless or any other implementation people get frustrated defending.

The way I see it, if someone attacks you and in so doing declares themselves your enemy, why on earth should you give them the benefit of your infrastructure? Spiteful? Sure, I mean, those guys just destroyed your empire, butchered you people, raped, pillaged. Why not be spiteful? Just bending over and not "scorching your earth" is weak, and if someone feels this tactic is bad sportsmanship then they are just whiny.

If you commit yourself to a war with someone, you are effectively committing yourself to any tactic they may choose to deploy. I don't feel scorched earth is any worse than ganging up on people via alliances, and no one has ever criticized that blatantly unfair tactic. Why? Because that's just life, dude. Honestly, complaining that you lost the game because someone used scorched earth tactics is bad sportsmanship in my opinion, not the tactics themselves. If you're going to beat someone up, you need to finish them - that is YOUR responsibility. They are under NO obligation to smooth the path of your victory over them and to suggest that they should be is absolutely ridiculous.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I agree 100%.

I use scorched earth tactics when I feel I no longer have any chance of winning against someone. I prefer fighting to the bitter end and making my opponent's conquest of me as unpleasant as possible. I don't do it out of spite, and I don't do it to discourage people from attacking me in future games. I generally don't deconstruct forts though, because keeping them up will usually make them waste more time.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I do not have a problem with this as long as it is given a warning first. Then it is your decision, whether to fight a costly war and gain very little or maintain the peace. After all, it is just a game, and anything within the rule certainly goes.

And I have to agree with the previous post. Why is this more "unsportmanship" than alliance beating up a single nation? If sportmanship is about fairness than this is just as unfair as it goes, certainly more than scorth earth tactics.

Re: Scorched earth
 

Heh. Reading this thread is slowly changing my mind. Scorched earth as a discouraging diplomacy tactic. Hmmmmm... My fellow players in my MP game may be getting a message from me. *cough* : )

Re: Scorched earth
 

OK. Let's look at this from a realistic perspective. We may all say that we don't take each individual player into account, and are only roleplaying each nation. But really... so and so player may be subbing for me in some games. Or, so and so player may have helped me in past games. Or, so and so player may have ripped me in some past games.

I think that is why the Scorched Earth policy is employed. If you are friendly with they player that is beating you, you don't scorch earth. If you hate them, you do. Simple as that.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I do scorched earth tactic when i'm ganged up upon so badly that i have no chance of surviving. Did it in Afterthought and in Nuance, both times Baalz was one of the people attacking me, so i might be the one who is he mainly referring too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif - or not http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I'm not sure whether this is an effective discouraging tacting - i've had it used against me a few times and it didn't discourage me much http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif. Annoying other player is not why i do it either. As for setting taxes and pillaging, this allows to stockpile a lot of gold quickly - which you can send to other player to bribe them to help by attacking your enemies. More often than not that help comes too late, but it's worth to try.

And when you're about to get defeated, it's IMO quite right to send whatever have left to whomever you perceive as greatest enemy of your enemies. Gods should not go down quietly and peacefully, but cursing those who kill them with spite and hate http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Scorched earth
 

Again, I think it's worth distinguishing between different policies:

a) Fighting your damnedest, and making your enemy pay in his soldiers' blood for every inch he gets off you, while burning the land you're about to lose.

b) Doing out of character things which are bad for your nation as well like giving land to a third party.

I don't think anyone disapproves of (a) do they? Seems to me that's a good way to play - and fun, and realistic too. You never know, you might manage to turn the war around, and while there's still any hope, keep fighting! I love these dramatic situations where someone manages to hang on with only one province for half the game, killing vast numbers of their enemy's soldiers.

(b) just seems mean though, to me.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I have and will use scorched earth. I am with Stryke11. I don't feel it is my responsibility to aid the enemy in defeating my allies and me. I don't feel I have an obligation to help him get stronger as he is gobbling me up.

Re: Scorched earth
 

No, of course not. As Llamabeast point out, I'm not talking about doing things that screw up your opponent to give you a better chance of winning, and I'm not talking about fighting to the bitter end. You were a great opponent and I appreciate the extra effort you put in to playing until the bitter end - it's almost always more fun to play against a person than the AI and I know it's not the most fun thing to do to keep playing after you've been crippled.


I don't really want to get into "so and so annoys me", but FWIW I wasn't really talking about you, probably for no other reason than your scorched earth haven't really inconvenienced me too much because of how things played out. This does get to the crux of my question though, and Nuance provides a good example if things had played out differently your scorched earth could have been extremely annoying. If, for the sake of argument, I had attacked you by myself in Nuance and been winning while Arco successfully attacked Abyssia then your scorched earth would likely have had the result of leaving me in no position to have any chance of challenging Arco for the win. This seems just spiteful, why do you want to do your best to make sure I lose to Arco (who, for the sake of those not in the game, had chilly relations with Szumo)?

So, to be clear, I'm not talking about fighting until the end, I'm not talking about trying to screw over somebody who violated a NAP, and I'm not talking about doing things that give you a short term boost when you've still got a slim chance of pulling something off. I'm talking about actively doing your best to destroy value for the intent of screwing up the person who is invading you, out of character (nobody is talking about LA Ermor), and with no gain to you. Sending gold/gems to unrelated parties, razing labs/castles, pillaging your capital (when you have no use of the gold), etc. These actions are not justifiable within the framework of "I'm trying to win and I fight to the end".

Why, at the point that you decide to throw in the towel, do you want to do your best to make sure I lose against the next guy I fight? This is the part that seems to me like very bad sportsmanship, and I'm trying to understand what the justification is. The closest thing to a justification I've seen seems to be that you're (in character) bitter about being invaded. This seems like a pretty weak justification if you haven't really been roleplaying up until the end. The people saying they do it just to make the conquest of them as unpleasant as possible haven't really answered my question as to why - is it because you're bitter about losing, or is it because you want to deter aggression in the next game?

Again, to reiterate as many people seem to have missed my intent, I'm *only* talking about things done solely for the purpose of spitting in the eye of the guy who has defeated you.

Re: Scorched earth
 

As scorched earth is a realistic technique, and not some sort of exploit, I wouldn't have any moral problems to use it.
However, I think forts, and especially big ones, like citadel or fortified city, should take MUCH longer to raze, if I remember well it is 1 month for each of them, what is way too rapid.

Re: Scorched earth
 

If you think someone is a poor sport, don't play against him again.

Eventually, nobody will else will either, and the problem is solved.

Re: Scorched earth
 

I assumed you were acting together. You gave me notice of NAP right after my war with Arco broke out. NAP ended right about when i started to lose that war - badly (for example, losing 130 commanders in one battle).
I hardly scorched earth any lands i expected you to take really, mostly because at that point i hadn't many forces able to scorch left. I did scorch a lot of provinces trying to slow down Arco's invasion though. If you had attacked by yourself, i would not be in an obviously losing position and would have no immediate reason to use scorched earth tactic anyway. As my ally Machaka was overwhelmed quickly by Arco, and only other nation left was Abyssia, i gave over 30k gold i gained from overtaxing and pillaging to Abyssia as soon i heard he gave NAP termination notice to Arco.
General rule i try to follow is to always go against the most likely winner (Arco in this case). I found this very disappointing someone would rather ally with winning player at this stage of game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Scorched earth
 

Some people actually feel better knowing that the person who beat them was the person who beat everyone. It makes you feel better to lose to the winner than to some chump that got slaughtered by a bigger chump etc. I'm not sure a psychological argument is a valid reason for this type of behavior.

Re: With my last breath, I spit at thee
 

Perhaps see it as their last dying wish. When people request to be buried with their expensive jewelry it doesn't do them any good when they're dead and they're not doing it to financially hurt their heirs.

Perhaps it's not so much they want to see you lose, but rather they want to see player x win. When they throw in the towel I don't see the difference between them giving all their gold/gems to their conqueror or their conqueror's enemy or someone else.

Those are just some ideas, but basically unless the person actually says they're doing it to hurt/spite you I wouldn't assume that's the case. They could have a rational reason or an irrational reason completely unrelated to bad sportsmanship/spite. They've failed... and been defeated, give them the benefit of the doubt.

You could inquisitively ask that person directly in private after the game. That's the best way to get into their head.

Re: With my last breath, I spit at thee
 

I'll be turn this argument on it's head now I'm afraid:

I, as the person playing the game, have never yet been angry at another player, or spiteful, or anything along those lines. Possibly I might admire his tactics that led him to be able to beat me, and if the interaction with him (on the forums, by PM, or otherwise) was fun I (still as the person) might hope he goes on to win the game.

I, as the player (as opposed to the person playing the game described above) will - obviously - do anything I can think of that will allow me to beat my opponent. But, if/when that happens to fail I actually see it not only as justified, but actually as my duty to the game and all the other players to try and hurt my opponent(s) as badly as possible, by any means I can think of. Mostly this resolves about using my troops to directly do as much damage as they can before they die, and try to gain as much time as possible. I can't remember ever going so far as to pillage my own provinces for that purpose (usually, by the time I'm actually ready to throw the towell, all troops I've got left are besieged inside a fortress, as part of one of the doing damage/gaining time tactics) without the possibility to pillage http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif), but I definitely won't rule out doing it in the future.

Re: With my last breath, I spit at thee
 

Ok Baalz, I'm not sure if you didn't find anything in my post to be "justification" but here in my mind is the justification.

Player A is at war with Player B. Player B wins, and it is obvious Player A is out. Player B is directly responsible for Player A's loss, and removal from the game (soon). Therefore, player A thinks "Gee, I'd still be playing the game and doing well were it not for Player B killing me. Therefore, I will do everything I can to make sure that Player B loses to Player C, since I am done anyway."

You see, if you are going to lose, and therefore by definition cannot win, you cannot derive satisfaction from winning, BUT, you can derive satisfaction by causing the person who denyed you the win a denial of their own chances to win. You see this as "bad sportsmanship," and I see it as you being a wuss. If you don't want these types of tactics being used against you, I suggest you become Player C, the one that doesn't declare war, waits things out, and gets the help from defeated nations. Or, you can be a "just" opponent and be so respected by your foes they choose not to use scorced earth on you.

I guess you see it as why is Player A making it so hard for me to finish him off, while helping Player C, who he doesn't even have a relationship with. The answer is that YOU are the one who is attacking Player A, not Player C. That's good enough justification for me.

Re: With my last breath, I spit at thee
 

Spike the canon, burn the supplies, scuttle the ship.

Consider it the unconventional phase of the war--the one that starts after the organized military has been defeated in the field.

You're not liberating the people of the player you have conquered, after all, why should they give you anything that is in their power to prevent...

And as always, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Re: With my last breath, I spit at thee
 

Sounds like a great platform for the Gandalf Parker 'there's no I in surrender' manifesto. That pretty much sums up my own views too, in so far as my primary goal is to gain as much time as possible (I'd raze everything in sight, but I sorta need the buildings in place to save my own skin, alas).

I'll add that I normally don't make gifts to my neighbors; I tend to invest my resources for my own good, including such unoptimal uses as raising PD everywhere to converting non-Astral gems to another non-Astral gem type. I might send out the non-combat items on the turn before my magehold falls, but I usually prefer to strike a deal with another nation (the usual 'five hammers for a bag of storms so I can cast Wrathful Skies on that bloody army, and there's no time for haggling, so better hurry up if you want those hammers' deal).

Re: With my last breath, I spit at thee
 

IMO, the conquering player is also not entitled to the labs, castles or whatever the losing player has pre-battle anymore then he is entitled to his gems/gold/items. So complaining about losing something that you're not entitled to have and do not own is a bit of a stretch.

Some players like to "leave their mark" if they're going to lose and for some that's leaving a deep scar on their worst enemy nation, some cast armageddon(s), and others give generous gifts. It doesn't mean they are doing it because they're bad sports.

Re: With my last breath, I spit at thee
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif Wow, give all my gems, money and magical items to my destroyer at the end as a "well fought noble enemy" gesture warms my heart and fills me with pride over my honor. I always take life so my lands will grow and be better at the end. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif One thought. One item. Bane Venom Charm http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif

I will take death on my Pretender so I can spam this. Every province your army sits in will have a scout with one in it. Every province you attack will have a scout with one in it. Every castle you siege will have one in it. Every enemy you have will get one with your name on it. Even you will find your lab filling with them. You will cross your land with them just to get rid of them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif

From death's door I spit at thee.

Lychanthropos' Amulets shall cover the ground you walk on. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Envy.gif[/img]

Eye's of aiming and eye's of the void shall hang on every tree http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/Injured.gif

Rod's of the Leper king shall be every leader's weapon of choice http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

The spells of choice shall be Curse and Horror mark. My mages shall retreat so they can do it again in the next province. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Your troops will wither and die of old age before your eyes.

Burnt Earth? [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Campfire.gif[/img] I'll show you burnt earth [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon49.gif[/img]

Re: With my last breath, I spit at thee
 

I draw the line at pillaging my own provinces, because I generally play the role of a more or less benevolent god (whether a genuine nice guy or an ironfisted tyrant who looks after his population for his own gain) and pillaging my own provinces would go counter to that. But the rest of it, gems, gold, items, provinces, they'd go to those who I favor over the one who defeated me. If I detest everyone else even more (in-game, of course), then I'd still go down fighting, but take my stuff with me. Or maybe even give it to the victor if I wanted him to win.

Re: Scorched earth
 

Shorter Original Post?:

"I'm entitled to everything you own in pristine condition because I attacked you."

Re: Scorched earth
 

I don't consider the analogy to a tournament sports player valid at all. A tournament is by definition NOT a multiplayer game, and almost all non-duel, non-team Dominions games are. The point of a multiplayer game is to do the best you can, and maybe be the one on top when it ends; it is not a series of matches. There are alliances, 2-on-1's and 3-on-1's, and so on.

Besides, if a player wants to have fun and keep playing, there's no reason he should give up at any point just so the dominant player can have an easier time beating others. If you aren't having fun losing or see a point to it (roleplaying, "honor", or otherwise), find a replacement or simply go AI. Under ridiculously overbalanced circumstances such as 4-man pile-ons, I've gone AI when reduced to a few provinces, but I also think it's fun to give a dominant opponent as much hell as I can in the off chance that he'll leave me alone for a minute out of frustration. Otherwise I feel like it's throwing the game for no particular reason.

Re: Scorched earth
 

Just a few random thoughts:

About "sore loser". While he may be sore because you attacked him and he lost, you are certainly also sore because he scorthed earth and cause you to lose as well. Do I sense another sore loser?

About "deter aggression". Losing an all powerful, artifact ladden SC to some soul slay or life for a life is frustrating. So you will think carefully before you do this again, although you are still going to use SC anyway. Losing a game when you beat up a much weaker guy or gang up on some poor soul, and got scorth earth, is also frustrating. And maybe that will teach you something - maybe next time you should try to befriend some weaker nation instead of beating them to death.

About "sportsmanship". Well, this is a sport that you mercilessly beat up weak guys and have shadowy alliance coming down on other players. It is certainly valid to "injure" the other player as long as you are in the game because "injure" each other is what you do in this game. Really I do not see anyone complaining seriously about an opponent being more of a cakewalk than he should be. So I guess this has much more to do with losing than with "sportmanship".

Re: Scorched earth
 

Really, there's no need to make such an inflammatory and blatantly misrepresentative statement. I view Dominions as primarily a strategy game played by all for fun, and when I lose I congratulate my opponent and honestly wish him luck in the rest of the game. If the response is a screw you, I hope you die and get eliminated next, I don't think its too hard to see how some would view that as bad sportsmanship. My point is *so* not about being entitled to anything, I may be a bit biased but I think that's pretty obvious by my posts if you're not trying to deliberately misunderstand me.

Yep, you hit the nail on the head, I see it as bad sportsmanship to try to sabotage the guy I lost to so he subsequently loses. I don't get upset when somebody attacks me in a war game, and I don't bear them bad will if they do it successfully. I'm not sure why this causes you to claim I'm a "wuss", it's kinda the definition of poor sportsmanship. From wikipedia: "Poor sportsmanship can either be the winners "rubbing salt in the wounds" of the losers, or the losers expressing their frustration at not winning, even to the point of holding a grudge." The only real justifications for it I've seen on this thread are basically that people don't view it as a sport/competition/game, but rather a simulation/roleplaying experience. That's a valid position I guess, though I tend to see little enough roleplaying up until that point.

Re: Scorched earth
 

You should not be mad at the person when the game is over because it is just a game.

If you brag when I hand you a easy win then you should brag when I bite your ear off and hand it back. If it kills you to kill me then I guess I fought the good fight. If you can't stand to have your body found laying next to mine then don't attack.

There are lots of terrible things put in this game just so you can spit at your killer from death's door. The point is to have fun winning or to have fun loosing.

Re: Scorched earth
 

What if the thing that brings your beaten opponent the most fun, at that point, is bringing you down with him?

Here's a sport analogy for you: teams that are hopelessly behind in games don't just walk off the court or field--they continue trying to score against their opponent.

Re: Scorched earth
 

But do they try to take out the knee of the other team's top player so the team that beats them loses in the end?