Eliminating a scorched earther=poor sportsmanship

[Reverend Zombie]

You've clealy beaten me, proving you are the better player. I am making things as difficult for you as I can, destroying my infrastructure, seeking allies to protect my lands, and pillaging my territory so your troops will starve and be unable to replenish their ranks.

Why perist in attacking me at this point--just to rub my nose in my defeat? That's poor sportsmanship!

And it doesn't benefit either one of us.

Call off your attack, and let me rebuild as a client state! You'll understand if I choose another player to become a client of, right? You attacked me after all.

With the war at an end, you can turn your resources and armies to building up for the next opponent, and don't have to worry about wasting resources to capture those last few pillaged wastes of mine.

You'll be the stronger for being such a generous victor, and a much better sport, to boot!

[Meglobob]

The only good enemy is a dead enemy!

No mercy!

Unless of course you defeat me on the battlefield, in which case I will suggest, 'talks'.

[Reverend Zombie]

Meglobob said:
The only good enemy is a dead enemy!

No mercy!

Ah, is this a RP justification or a (supposed) play-to-win justification?

If the latter, can't you see that this behavior is self-destructive--I see no reason for it other than spiteful "running up the score" against someone alredy defeated--and it's going to hurt you, too!

[Szumo]

The main point is: it's not actually going to hurt you, too

[Reverend Zombie]

Szumo said:
The main point is: it's not actually going to hurt you, too

Why all the fuss in the other thread, then, I wonder?

[Meglobob]

Its the common sense justification, if you leave another nation alive (if only barely) he could always play along with intent of revenge, should he get the chance.

[cleveland]

Reverend Zombie said:
Why all the fuss in the other thread, then, I wonder?

The other thread discussed a "F-U" style campaign, where the opponent is just trying to be nasty to you, rather than trying to win/put up a good fight.

I agree with Reverend Zombie that scorched-earth is a valid tactic and can occasionally be the best course of action.

But when used as part of a greater campaign of dirty tricks (e.g. slave-collar suicide squads) that injure both players without any tangible benefit, the player is just being mean. It's the same as knocking the board over at the end of Monopoly...unnecessary and pathetic.

Sore loser = poor sport = crappy opponent.