For any of you who are unfamiliar with a "Scorched Earth" tactic is:

In war, sometimes it is nessecary to retreat. If you have been defeated in battle and must withdraw, it would be clever to destroy anything that the opposing army could use to gain an advantage. This is a "Scorched Earth" Tactic.

Is it acceptable in WoL, after losing a decisive field battle, to quit and deny the victor his rightful spoils?
ie. Palisades on castle, Barracks, Towers.

Last Edited : Monday, 22 May 2006 - 17:29

My view, although obviosuly limited by relative inexperience, is that it comes down to your motives. If you are doing it purely to deprive them of spoils then you shouldn't do it but if you are doing it for resources to launch one last deffence then its fine.

Currently I have a game where my main castle has been taken so I am down to just a bare slab and barracks so I tried to dismantle as much of the castle as possible to pay for units and to errect towers, however if I hadn't got that other slab I wouldn't have done it as I would only be doing it through spite.

Like MS said, if you're doing it for strategic purposes, it's fine.

(1. If you can live to fight another day, depriving your enemy of resources helps you, and is thus ok.

(2. If you're ahead of your opponent in EXP, despite being about to be eliminated, and you want to make it harder for your enemy to get ahead of you EXP wise in future wars.

I'm in that situation right now with The Iceman, I'm tearing down walls to build more troops. etc. I have left the barracks and other buildings, though. I burned it all to the ground once and got yelled at, it isn't cool to do it for spite.

Hmm... this happened to me in a game...

I won a decisive field battle. I lost more units, but that didn't matter.

But when I continued advancing forwards, towords my enemies castle, he quit.
So there was no "strategy" there at all.
He might have done it to open other games, or something, but then again, he might have done it out of spite...

Then again he may have done it just because he was newer and knew he was going to lose and didn't know what quitting would do.

Ryan0002 is a level 100 campaigner... he seems to quit alot of campaigns...

He loses a lot lol

what the hell ever all your doing allowing soemone to take overa whole slab is hurting other players in the game i foguht a bunch of good players and they do it because if you want you can castle defend nearly 50 turns taking palisades down making 2 on 1's and stuff like that

If you yourself are still in the game, Tyler, it makes sense to deprive your enemy of that advantage.

I can even see the logic if you have clanmates in the game, and want to better their chances of winning.

But as for just "other players," who cares? Your opponent beat you, he deserves an advantage over enemy players. Unless you need to keep your opponent down, so that he won't pass your score (happens sometimes), let the other players fend for themselves

yeah but example i have 1 castle somone els ehas 3 im gonig to lose anyways no matter what why not just disband and destroy everything i mean for real your only hurting the other players either way but at least this way you dont hurt your score and this is a indivdual game so you dont hurt yourself and plus dont give him the advantage of already super barracks

I agree with your point about avoiding injury to your score. That is a valid reason.

I don't give a crap, however, if he gets an advantage after I'm dead. I'm dead, so who cares! If it doesn't hurt ME to give him an advantage, and nobody else in the game has earned a favor, I have no problem giving my opponent a rightful advantage.

I would say that the objective would be to destroy your enemies forces and him....the buildings you capture are just a bonus. If you make him quit you have accomplished your objective. Although I admit it sucks if someone rips everything down out of spite. At least you have defeated them and you will still be able to get their castle and resource buildings