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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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
|