Scorched earth

[thejeff]

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.)

[Reverend Zombie]

thejeff said:
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.

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?

[KissBlade]

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.

[thejeff]

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?

[Reverend Zombie]

thejeff said:
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.

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.

[thejeff]

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.

[PyroStock]

Don't self destruct on first contact.

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.

[KissBlade]

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