Scorched earth

[Rytek]

I hope you are not refering to my fight to the last stand in Dolphin as Argatha vs your Sauromatia? I never overtaxed or burned down anything. But as you say, you did choke on Argatha while ULM eventually won. I had a horrible position stuck in the corner that game and missed several turns while at war with Yomi's fire 9 dragon from turn 4 or so. ULM provided me with some magic equipment, but I paid for them in gems.
I actually consider it poor sportsmanship when you are losing to turn your game over to the AI. Too many players roll over without trying to fight it out. You never get better if you don't play out your losing hand. If I had turned over to the AI in that game I would never had seen your defense 36 Sorcerors or some of our combats in the cave province vs your overwhelming numbers of archers.

[Stryke11]

NOTE BEFORE YOU READ THIS POST:

I have never used the scorched earth tactics described by the original poster. I have given gems and items to the enemy of the person attacking me or people who have been honorable to me during games. Oh, and I'm no good at multiplayer, so YMMV. I'm the "set to AI" type because my I have enough to do that I'm not going to waste time on a losing battle when I can do something else.

OK:

Scorched earth is just as legitimate a tactic as a dual bless or any other implementation people get frustrated defending.

The way I see it, if someone attacks you and in so doing declares themselves your enemy, why on earth should you give them the benefit of your infrastructure? Spiteful? Sure, I mean, those guys just destroyed your empire, butchered you people, raped, pillaged. Why not be spiteful? Just bending over and not "scorching your earth" is weak, and if someone feels this tactic is bad sportsmanship then they are just whiny.

If you commit yourself to a war with someone, you are effectively committing yourself to any tactic they may choose to deploy. I don't feel scorched earth is any worse than ganging up on people via alliances, and no one has ever criticized that blatantly unfair tactic. Why? Because that's just life, dude. Honestly, complaining that you lost the game because someone used scorched earth tactics is bad sportsmanship in my opinion, not the tactics themselves. If you're going to beat someone up, you need to finish them - that is YOUR responsibility. They are under NO obligation to smooth the path of your victory over them and to suggest that they should be is absolutely ridiculous.

[RamsHead]

Stryke11 said:
NOTE BEFORE YOU READ THIS POST:

I have never used the scorched earth tactics described by the original poster. I have given gems and items to the enemy of the person attacking me or people who have been honorable to me during games. Oh, and I'm no good at multiplayer, so YMMV. I'm the "set to AI" type because my I have enough to do that I'm not going to waste time on a losing battle when I can do something else.

OK:

Scorched earth is just as legitimate a tactic as a dual bless or any other implementation people get frustrated defending.

The way I see it, if someone attacks you and in so doing declares themselves your enemy, why on earth should you give them the benefit of your infrastructure? Spiteful? Sure, I mean, those guys just destroyed your empire, butchered you people, raped, pillaged. Why not be spiteful? Just bending over and not "scorching your earth" is weak, and if someone feels this tactic is bad sportsmanship then they are just whiny.

If you commit yourself to a war with someone, you are effectively committing yourself to any tactic they may choose to deploy. I don't feel scorched earth is any worse than ganging up on people via alliances, and no one has ever criticized that blatantly unfair tactic. Why? Because that's just life, dude. Honestly, complaining that you lost the game because someone used scorched earth tactics is bad sportsmanship in my opinion, not the tactics themselves. If you're going to beat someone up, you need to finish them - that is YOUR responsibility. They are under NO obligation to smooth the path of your victory over them and to suggest that they should be is absolutely ridiculous.

I agree 100%.

I use scorched earth tactics when I feel I no longer have any chance of winning against someone. I prefer fighting to the bitter end and making my opponent's conquest of me as unpleasant as possible. I don't do it out of spite, and I don't do it to discourage people from attacking me in future games. I generally don't deconstruct forts though, because keeping them up will usually make them waste more time.

[Baalz]

Rytek said:
I hope you are not refering to my fight to the last stand in Dolphin as Argatha vs your Sauromatia?

No, of course not. As Llamabeast point out, I'm not talking about doing things that screw up your opponent to give you a better chance of winning, and I'm not talking about fighting to the bitter end. You were a great opponent and I appreciate the extra effort you put in to playing until the bitter end - it's almost always more fun to play against a person than the AI and I know it's not the most fun thing to do to keep playing after you've been crippled.

Szumo said:
I do scorched earth tactic when i'm ganged up upon so badly that i have no chance of surviving. Did it in Afterthought and in Nuance, both times Baalz was one of the people attacking me, so i might be the one who is he mainly referring too - or not

I don't really want to get into "so and so annoys me", but FWIW I wasn't really talking about you, probably for no other reason than your scorched earth haven't really inconvenienced me too much because of how things played out. This does get to the crux of my question though, and Nuance provides a good example if things had played out differently your scorched earth could have been extremely annoying. If, for the sake of argument, I had attacked you by myself in Nuance and been winning while Arco successfully attacked Abyssia then your scorched earth would likely have had the result of leaving me in no position to have any chance of challenging Arco for the win. This seems just spiteful, why do you want to do your best to make sure I lose to Arco (who, for the sake of those not in the game, had chilly relations with Szumo)?

So, to be clear, I'm not talking about fighting until the end, I'm not talking about trying to screw over somebody who violated a NAP, and I'm not talking about doing things that give you a short term boost when you've still got a slim chance of pulling something off. I'm talking about actively doing your best to destroy value for the intent of screwing up the person who is invading you, out of character (nobody is talking about LA Ermor), and with no gain to you. Sending gold/gems to unrelated parties, razing labs/castles, pillaging your capital (when you have no use of the gold), etc. These actions are not justifiable within the framework of "I'm trying to win and I fight to the end".

Why, at the point that you decide to throw in the towel, do you want to do your best to make sure I lose against the next guy I fight? This is the part that seems to me like very bad sportsmanship, and I'm trying to understand what the justification is. The closest thing to a justification I've seen seems to be that you're (in character) bitter about being invaded. This seems like a pretty weak justification if you haven't really been roleplaying up until the end. The people saying they do it just to make the conquest of them as unpleasant as possible haven't really answered my question as to why - is it because you're bitter about losing, or is it because you want to deter aggression in the next game?

Again, to reiterate as many people seem to have missed my intent, I'm *only* talking about things done solely for the purpose of spitting in the eye of the guy who has defeated you.

[Szumo]

Baalz said:
I don't really want to get into "so and so annoys me", but FWIW I wasn't really talking about you, probably for no other reason than your scorched earth haven't really inconvenienced me too much because of how things played out. This does get to the crux of my question though, and Nuance provides a good example if things had played out differently your scorched earth could have been extremely annoying. If, for the sake of argument, I had attacked you by myself in Nuance and been winning while Arco successfully attacked Abyssia then your scorched earth would likely have had the result of leaving me in no position to have any chance of challenging Arco for the win. This seems just spiteful, why do you want to do your best to make sure I lose to Arco (who, for the sake of those not in the game, had chilly relations with Szumo)?

I assumed you were acting together. You gave me notice of NAP right after my war with Arco broke out. NAP ended right about when i started to lose that war - badly (for example, losing 130 commanders in one battle).
I hardly scorched earth any lands i expected you to take really, mostly because at that point i hadn't many forces able to scorch left. I did scorch a lot of provinces trying to slow down Arco's invasion though. If you had attacked by yourself, i would not be in an obviously losing position and would have no immediate reason to use scorched earth tactic anyway. As my ally Machaka was overwhelmed quickly by Arco, and only other nation left was Abyssia, i gave over 30k gold i gained from overtaxing and pillaging to Abyssia as soon i heard he gave NAP termination notice to Arco.
General rule i try to follow is to always go against the most likely winner (Arco in this case). I found this very disappointing someone would rather ally with winning player at this stage of game

[sector24]

Some people actually feel better knowing that the person who beat them was the person who beat everyone. It makes you feel better to lose to the winner than to some chump that got slaughtered by a bigger chump etc. I'm not sure a psychological argument is a valid reason for this type of behavior.

[PyroStock]

Perhaps see it as their last dying wish. When people request to be buried with their expensive jewelry it doesn't do them any good when they're dead and they're not doing it to financially hurt their heirs.

Perhaps it's not so much they want to see you lose, but rather they want to see player x win. When they throw in the towel I don't see the difference between them giving all their gold/gems to their conqueror or their conqueror's enemy or someone else.

Those are just some ideas, but basically unless the person actually says they're doing it to hurt/spite you I wouldn't assume that's the case. They could have a rational reason or an irrational reason completely unrelated to bad sportsmanship/spite. They've failed... and been defeated, give them the benefit of the doubt.

You could inquisitively ask that person directly in private after the game. That's the best way to get into their head.

[Amhazair]

I'll be turn this argument on it's head now I'm afraid:

I, as the person playing the game, have never yet been angry at another player, or spiteful, or anything along those lines. Possibly I might admire his tactics that led him to be able to beat me, and if the interaction with him (on the forums, by PM, or otherwise) was fun I (still as the person) might hope he goes on to win the game.

I, as the player (as opposed to the person playing the game described above) will - obviously - do anything I can think of that will allow me to beat my opponent. But, if/when that happens to fail I actually see it not only as justified, but actually as my duty to the game and all the other players to try and hurt my opponent(s) as badly as possible, by any means I can think of. Mostly this resolves about using my troops to directly do as much damage as they can before they die, and try to gain as much time as possible. I can't remember ever going so far as to pillage my own provinces for that purpose (usually, by the time I'm actually ready to throw the towell, all troops I've got left are besieged inside a fortress, as part of one of the doing damage/gaining time tactics) without the possibility to pillage ), but I definitely won't rule out doing it in the future.

[Stryke11]

Ok Baalz, I'm not sure if you didn't find anything in my post to be "justification" but here in my mind is the justification.

Player A is at war with Player B. Player B wins, and it is obvious Player A is out. Player B is directly responsible for Player A's loss, and removal from the game (soon). Therefore, player A thinks "Gee, I'd still be playing the game and doing well were it not for Player B killing me. Therefore, I will do everything I can to make sure that Player B loses to Player C, since I am done anyway."

You see, if you are going to lose, and therefore by definition cannot win, you cannot derive satisfaction from winning, BUT, you can derive satisfaction by causing the person who denyed you the win a denial of their own chances to win. You see this as "bad sportsmanship," and I see it as you being a wuss. If you don't want these types of tactics being used against you, I suggest you become Player C, the one that doesn't declare war, waits things out, and gets the help from defeated nations. Or, you can be a "just" opponent and be so respected by your foes they choose not to use scorced earth on you.

I guess you see it as why is Player A making it so hard for me to finish him off, while helping Player C, who he doesn't even have a relationship with. The answer is that YOU are the one who is attacking Player A, not Player C. That's good enough justification for me.

[Reverend Zombie]

Spike the canon, burn the supplies, scuttle the ship.

Consider it the unconventional phase of the war--the one that starts after the organized military has been defeated in the field.

You're not liberating the people of the player you have conquered, after all, why should they give you anything that is in their power to prevent...

And as always, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.