Scorched earth

[K]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

[Meglobob]

Russia throughout history has used scorched earth policy as a war winning tactic. Time after time, it has pillaged, burned crops, destroyed anything of value to an invading enemy. Then, when the invading force is out of supplies, starving and suffering from the dreaded russian winter it strikes with overwhealming force.

So scorched earth is a valid tactic but as far as dominions goes, probably only Ermor, Ashen Empire could use such a tactic as effectively as Russia does.

Note I am not suggesting Russians are the walking dead or anything...

[KissBlade]

There's nothing wrong with scorched earth. Heck that's the entire advantage of LA Ermor. (oh look you conquer and get nothing) Personally it's happened to me quite often and I've never found anything wrong with it. If anything it makes it easier to take them down cause they're also razing their own buildings. In fact, that's the main reason why I usually try not to use the tactic myself but once you get to big endgames, the games always end up being scorched earth anyway since it's difficult to hold that many provinces. It's one of those things you factor in during war.

[VedalkenBear]

I tend to agree with KissBlade. There is nothing inherently dishonorable or 'bad sportsmanship' about scorched earth. It is a legitimate military policy, and while it may seem spiteful, if I am going to lose to someone, I would prefer to see them not be the eventual winner. If by denying them my intact infrastructure, I can cause them greater difficulties down the road, why shouldn't I?

Of course, this tactic is much more effective if as people have said you make this official 'foreign policy'. Therefore, people are dissuaded from ever attacking you because they won't get anything for it. Combined with judicious tribute, you can set up a diplomatic state where they are getting something for not attacking you, and they have the promise they will get nothing if they do attack you. Psychologically, that is a strong incentive to not attack you. Now, of course, if you are a nation famous for its endgame, then this tactic would be less effective since your own motives beyond survival are suspect...

Hmm, I seem to be rambling now.

[BigandScary]

Historically, scorched earth policies are used as a way to slow down and hamper an enemy. The defending army pillages its farms to deny supplies and burns forts to deny shelter and fortifications. Some examples include MegloBob's Russians and the destruction of Fort Ticonderoga during the French and Indian war. The major difference between this and what is described here is the idea behind it. Scorching one's own nation is done in the hope that it will allow for the nation's survival. If defeat is undeniable, then it is meer spite, and reflects poorly on the player.

[llamabeast]

There's some confusion in this thread about what kind of 'scorched earth' policy we're referring to. It could either be:

1) A tactic to increase the probability of winning the war.

2) A change of tactics once the player has already given up all hope of winning, with the sole intention of making life miserable for the opponent, and without respect for the wellbeing of your own falling nation. Hence not just fighting hard but doing odd things like encouraging third parties to take your land etc..

I think Baalz was really asking about (2). (1) seems obviously reasonable to me - (almost) any tactic is fine if it helps. (2) just seems spiteful though. If it is to discourage people attacking you in future games then I also don't like it - I don't think it's fair to carry things from one game to another.