Scorched earth

[konming]

I do not have a problem with this as long as it is given a warning first. Then it is your decision, whether to fight a costly war and gain very little or maintain the peace. After all, it is just a game, and anything within the rule certainly goes.

And I have to agree with the previous post. Why is this more "unsportmanship" than alliance beating up a single nation? If sportmanship is about fairness than this is just as unfair as it goes, certainly more than scorth earth tactics.

[IndyPendant]

Heh. Reading this thread is slowly changing my mind. Scorched earth as a discouraging diplomacy tactic. Hmmmmm... My fellow players in my MP game may be getting a message from me. *cough* : )

[Lingchih]

OK. Let's look at this from a realistic perspective. We may all say that we don't take each individual player into account, and are only roleplaying each nation. But really... so and so player may be subbing for me in some games. Or, so and so player may have helped me in past games. Or, so and so player may have ripped me in some past games.

I think that is why the Scorched Earth policy is employed. If you are friendly with they player that is beating you, you don't scorch earth. If you hate them, you do. Simple as that.

[Szumo]

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'm not sure whether this is an effective discouraging tacting - i've had it used against me a few times and it didn't discourage me much . Annoying other player is not why i do it either. As for setting taxes and pillaging, this allows to stockpile a lot of gold quickly - which you can send to other player to bribe them to help by attacking your enemies. More often than not that help comes too late, but it's worth to try.

And when you're about to get defeated, it's IMO quite right to send whatever have left to whomever you perceive as greatest enemy of your enemies. Gods should not go down quietly and peacefully, but cursing those who kill them with spite and hate

[llamabeast]

Again, I think it's worth distinguishing between different policies:

a) Fighting your damnedest, and making your enemy pay in his soldiers' blood for every inch he gets off you, while burning the land you're about to lose.

b) Doing out of character things which are bad for your nation as well like giving land to a third party.

I don't think anyone disapproves of (a) do they? Seems to me that's a good way to play - and fun, and realistic too. You never know, you might manage to turn the war around, and while there's still any hope, keep fighting! I love these dramatic situations where someone manages to hang on with only one province for half the game, killing vast numbers of their enemy's soldiers.

(b) just seems mean though, to me.

[jimkehn]

I have and will use scorched earth. I am with Stryke11. I don't feel it is my responsibility to aid the enemy in defeating my allies and me. I don't feel I have an obligation to help him get stronger as he is gobbling me up.