Scorched earth

[NTJedi]

Baalz said:
I’m curious as to what people’s take on scorched earth tactics are in MP? Specifically I’m referring to actions taken for no reason other that to hurt your opponent after the point you’ve given up any hope of holding them off. Destroying labs/castles, setting tax rates up and pillaging your own population, inviting other uninvolved people to please take your provinces – I’m not talking about raiding, I’m talking about just trying to do your best to screw the guy who’s beat you so that he’ll be weaker against the next guy he fights.

Within multiplayer you want to do whatever is possible so other players will not go to war with you in future games. This means being a great ally and being a dreaded enemy. If your enemy has you thinking, "I REALLY don't like conquering you" then he's doing a good job of convincing you not to attack him in future games.
And in regards to your opponent giving provinces to other players... well this relates to the quote, "My enemies enemy is my ally". He knows your future enemies and will give them provinces... another way to make you remember how it's not fun conquering him.

Consider future games against opponents... you want other gamers thinking they'll receive lots of spoils of war battling you OR very few spoils of war? Personally I want other gamers thinking they'll receive very little... anything to discourage them declaring war on me in future games.

** If you're truly into capturing spoils of war... then when you go to war strike fast and hard! March all front line armies into his nearby provinces. Have flyers and/or stealthy armies strike and capture the provinces behind the front line provinces. Then have Thugs, SCs, and teleporting armies strike and capture other key provinces which can be easily secured.

One Final Thought... when you are at war with your clever enemies they will try and make sure you don't gain anything by winning.
"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning. -- -- General George S. Patton "

[sum1lost]

NTJedi said:

Within multiplayer you want to do whatever is possible so other players will not go to war with you in future games. This means being a great ally and being a dreaded enemy. If your enemy has you thinking, "I REALLY don't like conquering you" then he's doing a good job of convincing you not to attack him in future games.
And in regards to your opponent giving provinces to other players... well this relates to the quote, "My enemies enemy is my ally". He knows your future enemies and will give them provinces... another way to make you remember how it's not fun conquering him.

Consider future games against opponents... you want other gamers thinking they'll receive lots of spoils of war battling you OR very few spoils of war? Personally I want other gamers thinking they'll receive very little... anything to discourage them declaring war on me in future games.

** If you're truly into capturing spoils of war... then when you go to war strike fast and hard! March all front line armies into his nearby provinces. Have flyers and/or stealthy armies strike and capture the provinces behind the front line provinces. Then have Thugs, SCs, and teleporting armies strike and capture other key provinces which can be easily secured.

One Final Thought... when you are at war with your clever enemies they will try and make sure you don't gain anything by winning.
"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning. -- -- General George S. Patton "

I don't know about anyone else, but I've avoided playing games with people because of things like this. I'm here to play a fun game first, win second. So, my behavior won't be to discourage them from attacking, but to encourage them to play again.

[NTJedi]

sum1lost said:
I don't know about anyone else, but I've avoided playing games with people because of things like this. I'm here to play a fun game first, win second. So, my behavior won't be to discourage them from attacking, but to encourage them to play again.

See your internal issue is that you believe you are 100% entitled to the ownership of the labs, castles, and gold income of your dying enemies. As a result you are annoyed when an opponent denies you of possible spoils of war. However you fail to understand this is a game of war where pillaging, destruction, disease and scorched earth is part of the game. The developers provided these ugly sides of war as part of the game.

Long long long ago I've known when conquering an enemy the only guaranteed spoils of war are the magic sites... praise your lucky astral stars Illwinter did not allow the pillaging of magic sites.

Bottomline: If you cannot accept the ugly sides of war which exist within this games context then you either need to find players willing to play by your "DIFFERENT" set of rules, play solo against the AI or switch games.

[sum1lost]

NTJedi said:

See your internal issue is that you believe you are 100% entitled to the ownership of the labs, castles, and gold income of your dying enemies. As a result you are annoyed when an opponent denies you of possible spoils of war. However you fail to understand this is a game of war where pillaging, destruction, disease and scorched earth is part of the game. The developers provided these ugly sides of war as part of the game.

Not really, but thanks for attempting to tell me that I have issues, and what they are. Clearly, anyone who holds a different view to yours must have 'issues'.
Scorched earth is a tactic meant to ensure a nation's survival by preventing opponents from continuing an attack. I can accept that. I've set my lands on fire to prevent attack. But doing it to discourage attacks in what is meant to be a separate game- in a way that discourages survival- I'm not so hip with that attitude.
And, yes, I do feel that I am entitled to a fun game. I find fun games online. You probably think that you, too, are 'entitled' to a game in which scorched earth is cool bannanas. Okay- so go and play in matches where everyone recognizes that as a legitimate tactic, whiel I go play in the matches where it isn't. Not playing me won't kill you, you know.

NTJedi said:
Long long long ago I've known when conquering an enemy the only guaranteed spoils of war are the magic sites... praise your lucky astral stars Illwinter did not allow the pillaging of magic sites.

I'm not sure how this is neccasary or constructive in any way. To be honest, it seems rather pompous and condescending, while little of value. Perhaps you will explain to me why I am wrong in thinking this.

NTJedi said:
Bottomline: If you cannot accept the ugly sides of war which exist within this games context then you either need to find players willing to play by your "DIFFERENT" set of rules, play solo against the AI or switch games.

I think I made it pretty clear that I have no problem finding players willing to play nice. My rules aren't different. They aren't even rules. They're a set of agreements in which the different players ensure that they want to play the same sort of game. I'm not sure why this is so terrible by your lights. You like scorched earth, so you use it. I don't, so I find games where people are less likely to use it. Problem solved. No need to get pissy and tell me to leave the MP community over it.

[KissBlade]

I would actually be quite frustrated if the player gave as little fight as you proposed Baalz. War is suppose to be taxing and expensive. Say you play in a game against a similarly skilled opponent. You take one of his provinces and you KNOW you can't hold it. There's a lab there. What'd you do? Burn it down obviously. Raise taxes to 200, etc. The fact that you are picking on a nation that you expected to just "roll over and die" and then whining that they're not rolling over the way you want is silly IMO. I deal with scorched earth very simply. If I war, I expect to wipe them out before they know what's going on. If a nation is going to scorched earth itself while fighting, all the easier since I'll just let him self destruct. Gold isn't even that relevant in the game compared to gem income anyway. The reason I'm so flustered at this topic is that you don't realize it's VERY VERY ANNOYING when a weak player just rolls over and dies because that upsets game dynamic even MORE. There were MP games I've played where I literally predicted, "if player A starts next to player B, player A will win the game".

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

... On the flip side of the question, when is going AI okay?

[Reverend Zombie]

Lazy_Perfectionist said:
... On the flip side of the question, when is going AI okay?

For sure when you are down to your last castle, and can't summon or recruit!

[Lingchih]

Lazy_Perfectionist said:
... On the flip side of the question, when is going AI okay?

For sure not when you are one of the top nations, and you just decide the game has become boring for you (re: Man in one of Zachariah's games a few months back).

I generally go AI when I am down to my capitol, I'm in the red financially and can't recruit, and I have no chance of making a comeback. Although I have gone AI earlier in a few games that I knew I was going to lose. I'm sorry for that though, and will endeavor to stick with games longer in the future.

[Burnsaber]

KissBlade said:
I would actually be quite frustrated if the player gave as little fight as you proposed Baalz. War is suppose to be taxing and expensive. Say you play in a game against a similarly skilled opponent. You take one of his provinces and you KNOW you can't hold it. There's a lab there. What'd you do? Burn it down obviously. Raise taxes to 200, etc. The fact that you are picking on a nation that you expected to just "roll over and die" and then whining that they're not rolling over the way you want is silly IMO. I deal with scorched earth very simply. If I war, I expect to wipe them out before they know what's going on. If a nation is going to scorched earth itself while fighting, all the easier since I'll just let him self destruct. Gold isn't even that relevant in the game compared to gem income anyway. The reason I'm so flustered at this topic is that you don't realize it's VERY VERY ANNOYING when a weak player just rolls over and dies because that upsets game dynamic even MORE. There were MP games I've played where I literally predicted, "if player A starts next to player B, player A will win the game".

I second this.

I've used Scroched Earth once in a recent MP game. My neighbour managed to luck out with indy mages (he basically had good access to path level 3 mages in ALL paths expect blood) and managed to get to artifacts first. His research chart was way off to skies. Then war becan. I really didn't have much anything to bring against his armies, they were almost invincible to me. He had me beaten in every category, gem income, research, income.. It was like Germany against Poland in WW2. What should I have done? Just said, "well done, go ahead and win the game" and go AI? That wouldn't have been really too much fun for me.

Instead I decided to give other players in that game a fighting chance against this monster nation and commenced operation scorched earth, complete with forging Implementor Axes, sending raiding forces, trying to cripple his armies with "Bone Grinding" and just trying to cause general mayhem. I sended my magical items to other nations as a way to try to balance the scales of power.

It's obvious that Implementor Axes are meant to be forged and used, since they're actually in the game. If someone doesn't like that, he can just house rule them out.

EDIT: I didn't actually have any grudges or any feelings of spite against the player who invaded me. He managed to become powerfull by being a much better player than me and having some luck on the side. I have nothing against that. I just didn't have anything to bring against him (due to some mistakes on my part). IMHO it would have felt like cheating towards other players in the game if I just had given my stuff for free to the monster nation.

[NTJedi]

sum1lost said:
Scorched earth is a tactic meant to ensure a nation's survival by preventing opponents from continuing an attack. I can accept that. I've set my lands on fire to prevent attack. But doing it to discourage attacks in what is meant to be a separate game- in a way that discourages survival- I'm not so hip with that attitude.

Frequent gamers in multiplayer games have traits they'll be known to do either common or frequently. For example some gamers are known to not be trusted while others trusted. If I'm known to pillage my lands that's one more reason not to declare war on me within future games. My actions are completely within the context of the game, expecting someone to limit their options during a game is as you would say "not so hip".

sum1lost said:
And, yes, I do feel that I am entitled to a fun game. I find fun games online. You probably think that you, too, are 'entitled' to a game in which scorched earth is cool bannanas. Okay- so go and play in matches where everyone recognizes that as a legitimate tactic, whiel I go play in the matches where it isn't. Not playing me won't kill you, you know.

Methods for a scorched earth were provided by the developers and have been around since the original game. You have fun in the limited games where scorched earth is banned, effectively policed by the host and one or more gamers defends questionable scorched earth actions.

sum1lost said:

I'm not sure how this is neccasary or constructive in any way. To be honest, it seems rather pompous and condescending, while little of value. Perhaps you will explain to me why I am wrong in thinking this.

I will explain my quote with more detail for you to understand. When playing a game I know many gamers will scorch the earth as I conquer their empire and I'm happy just receiving the gem income while any extra gold income or structures are extra gravy... thus I conquer a scorched earth and see a glass as half full. When you conquer a scorched earth you are a sad panda for the lost structures and lost gold which leaves you feeling unhappy as you see the glass as half empty. This quote is constructive as I'm trying to make you understand that you should be happy with what you've captured instead of unhappy with what's been lost... hopefully now you see the value. No intentions of pompous and condescending.

sum1lost said:

I think I made it pretty clear that I have no problem finding players willing to play nice. My rules aren't different. They aren't even rules. They're a set of agreements in which the different players ensure that they want to play the same sort of game.

You are requesting limitations on gameplay... limitations which cannot be effectively monitored and policed. Not every player will know your exact boundaries and new players may not be aware what is outside of your expected boundaries. I'm glad you found a group of players for following a 'No Scorched Earth' set of rules.

sum1lost said:
I'm not sure why this is so terrible by your lights. You like scorched earth, so you use it. I don't, so I find games where people are less likely to use it. Problem solved. No need to get pissy and tell me to leave the MP community over it.

That's not what I said !! My final quote listed three options and you are currently using one of those options.
The only terrible side is by expecting players NOT to use scorched earth you are limiting their gameplay options... basically the games in your realm must all have pretenders who will not destroy it's own people and structures out of spite of another conquerer. This means no gamers with characteristics such as Khan Noonien Singh... who will sacrifice everything to bring down an enemy. I see no harm in a group of disgruntled Mr. Rogers fighting over territory in one big neighborhood.