Scorched earth

Gregstrom · #1 November 15th, 2007, 06:06 PM

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.

K · #2 November 15th, 2007, 06:26 PM

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.

Edi · #3 November 15th, 2007, 06:53 PM

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.

IndyPendant · #4 November 15th, 2007, 06:53 PM

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. ; )

Hadrian_II · #5 November 15th, 2007, 06:54 PM

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.

K · #6 November 15th, 2007, 07:10 PM

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.

DigitalSin · #7 November 15th, 2007, 07:13 PM

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

OmikronWarrior · #8 November 15th, 2007, 08:09 PM

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.

HJFudge · #9 November 15th, 2007, 08:15 PM

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

Zylithan · #10 November 15th, 2007, 09:06 PM

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)