Scorched earth

[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"

[Agema]

I don't think you should take games personally in real life.

But I think it's quite valid to take defeat personally in game terms. Why not - dare I use the term in a wargame forum - "roleplay" your nation? Why not "punish" your vanquisher by laying waste to your territory, give all your gems and items to an ally, or invite neighbours to take your provinces? A game does not have to be a huge mechanical clicking and whirring of logical cogs.

For what's worth, I think you'd get more out of it by scorching only what you can't hold, and using what you can hold (if only temporarily) trying to make your opponent's victory as difficult as possible, which will probably inconvenience him considerably more. You might do better to hand all your gems to someone on the condition they intercede on your side in the war, even giving them provinces so they can get to the battlefront.

I'm also highly sympathetic to switching to AI, I see it as analogous to resigning in chess. Once you're certainly doomed, I think you really could just switch your attention elsewhere - like a new game - rather than waste minutes of the day.

[lch]

Going AI when there's ultimately nothing you can do is okay, going AI while you could still harass another player makes it way too easy for him to take advantage of your stuff. Though the time has to be factored in, of course, I agree to that.

[Aezeal]

Reading this thread I can't help thinking: scorched earth SEEMS like a good idea

[Agrajag]

Reading this thread I can't help thinking: Scorched Earth was one hell of a game, its a real classic.

[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!