Scorched earth

[Baalz]

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.

To me, that feels a whole lot like really bad sportsmanship. On the couple of occasions I’ve been exposed to it, it has been incredibly annoying, in at least one case removing me from a decent shot at winning (you can do a surprising amount of damage when you start scorching earth the turn NAP notice is given then fight for maximum casualties on both sides). I’ve seen several people comment that it’s a valid tactic and I’d like to understand where that point of view comes from because to me it’s akin to trying to injure your opponent in a sports tournament after you lose your match so that he has less chance of winning the tournament. Don’t get me wrong, doing incredibly annoying things is often a great strategy for victory, but at the point you’re not working towards a victory and rather destroying yourself as fast as possible for no reason other than to destroy value it seems like all you’re being is a sore loser. On the flip side I know I’d rather not have an easy victory because my only competition had the bad fortune to invade somebody who got pissy at being invaded in a war game.

So, my question is how is this a valid tactic? Is it valid because you hope to deter aggression in a future game? That mindset seems little different than carrying alliances or trades from one game to another. Is it valid from a purely roleplaying POV? That argument might hold more water if it wasn’t the same players I see constantly pulling this stunt, and if they actually were roleplaying in their posts. Is it valid because we’re playing a war simulation, all’s fair? I call BS, we’re playing a computer game with other people solely for our mutual enjoyment. Overly offensive posts, hacking turn files, taking down the server when the host is eliminated, and secretly playing more than one nation are all completely intolerable because we’re not at war, we’re playing a game.

I don't really expect to change anybodies mind, people are gonna do what they're gonna do. Just curious what self justification those of you who do this use.

[Salamander8]

I've only done scorched earth once in an MP game, and that was just burning down 2 labs in Sophistry when the massively blessed giants were stomping my Arco butt hard, and even then I am not overly pleased I even did that much. If I ever am in the same situation I'd not do that again (although I did set myself to AI early in Evermore between frustration vs the blessing EA Oceania had and my grandfather's illness cutting my freetime down). I never have cranked my taxes up or destroyed any other buildings just to make my land worth less to an opponent though.

If I feel I am doomed, I do tell anyone I have had positive relationships with that I free them from NAPs and other agreements and that they should consider my territory up or grabs if they so wish. I also give allies/NAP partners my gems and magic items before going out, but not to anyone else. I would rather see an ally get my stuff than my conquerer if at all possible, but I don't involve anyone beyond friendly powers to do so.

[thejeff]

I can see doing it if you were betrayed or were trying to do what damage you could to help a loyal ally. Otherwise... I don't get it.

The only time it happened to me, though I haven't played a lot of MP, was very early in the game. He and I invaded the same indy province, I won. I offered NAP and borders, but got war instead. By the time I'd found it, he'd burned his castle, lab and temple. It still cost me to take it and since I got little out of the early war and took less indies because of it, left me behind and I never really caught up.
The war seemed to be for RP reasons, but I never figured out the preemptive self-destruction.

[quantum_mechani]

Personally, I am much happier if people fight dirty to the bitter end than the flip side of going AI as soon as things start looking bad. In my experience, it is that latter that throws games much more than the former.

[Gregstrom]

I'll fight on even from an obviously lost point in the game, trying to cause my opponent maximum discomfort with spells while they besiege my capital, but I don't see the point in scorched earth.

[K]

I'll do it when my opponent has broken a NAP, bargained in bad faith, or been spamming me with messages. In short, jerk behavior as payment for jerk behavior.

Otherwise, I'll do it to prevent a key asset from being in enemy control. For example, a site producing Wizards will have its lab burned and provinces overtaxed so that an enemy taking it won't get much use out of it before I can retake it.

[Lingchih]

I will raise taxes to 200% in war border provinces, and provinces that I know I am going to lose. I will also raze a castle and lab if I think I can retreat and still have a chance to win. But if I know I'm going down, I've never felt the need to totally scorch the earth. I'll generally leave my capitol intact for the eventual winner, and just go AI.

Maybe I'm just lucky never to have gotten so annoyed at an opposing player that I felt like scorching the earth. And I've never had it used against me, although this is probably more due to the fact that I usually lose.

[cleveland]

If you think someone is a poor sport, don't play against him again.

Eventually, nobody will else will either, and the problem is solved.

[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.