Scorched earth

[Reverend Zombie]

Baalz said:

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.

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

[thejeff]

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.

[DonCorazon]

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.

[duke_commando]

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.

[Meglobob]

I always want those who beat me to win (usually), then I can claim 2nd place...

[Sombre]

duke_commando said:
There no way to enforce something against this, but that doesn't mean we can't encourage people not to do it.

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?

[llamabeast]

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.

[thejeff]

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"

[lch]

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!