Scorched Earth, or not?

[Hot_Enamel]

I would not support this.
It is a valid Civ game tactic.

Gifting cities to "warp" units is a far more important issue thats needs to be debated.

[ZargonX]

Wait a minute...ZargonX posted here...then GhengisFarb...

This isn't the strat forum?

D'oh...I'm the one in the wrong forum.

Carry on...

Hey... just what are you trying to say? I've posted in the Strat forum once... or twice

[Theseus]

I hope that at some point the lessons learned in MP in fact WILL be posted / discussed in the Strat forum.

GF, stop deleting things. Or at least give a reason...

Deleted because Theseus is a prissy b*stard.
Deleted because Vox is gonna win anyway.
Deleted because UnO won't be posting as much.
Deleted because Archers really should have zero-bombard.
Deleted because panag said so .... Have a nice day ...
Deleted because Team Tabemono ate my post. Really.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
I would not support this.
It is a valid Civ game tactic.

Gifting cities to "warp" units is a far more important issue thats needs to be debated.

Haven't you ever done this in SP?

I have. I've also gifted cities to third parties to buffer against an unexpected agressor.



I also don't support any ban on razing cities. But thats easy to say when they aren't our natural cities

[Master Zen]

Nathan is it just me or I sense you simply just want to keep Bob intact with all their cities for GS?

Razing is a valid strategy IMO, we might have laughed at Trip for doing it (we still do) but it's something that happens. I've had to raze cities in PBEMs so they don't fall into enemy hands, just as nations in history left their countryside in ruins.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Russia didn't use scorched earth in 1812?

[Theseus]

I say, raze away. But then, I am sort of a warmonger.

[Aeson]

The possibilities of abandonment, gifting, or razing of cities adds a lot to the game IMO. I think this is something for diplomatic channels, to be agreed between teams (before or during war) as gentlemen agreements.

In the absence of such an agreement... Raze the world... someone will rebuild.

Deleted because Team Tabemono ate my post. Really.

Mmmmm...

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Haven't you ever done this in SP?

I have. I've also gifted cities to third parties to buffer against an unexpected agressor.

When in SP, have you ever done it ?

Gfting a city to an AI, (for the sole purpose of moving troops), and then somehow convincing the AI to gift the city back ?

Please tell me, because I am yet to find an AI willing to do it.


Warping units back to your capital when you gift a city, was to ensure that the AI or Human player was not so disadvantaged by losing so many units.

GS's use of it with Inchon to bulk move troops, was exploiting the game mechanics. Not illegal because we have no rules set up for this game...but certainly taking advantage of a programming flault.

IMO

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Nathan is it just me or I sense you simply just want to keep Bob intact with all their cities for GS?

Actually... I thought it was because he wanted to ensure there were GS citizans left when GoW invaded Little Bob.

[Theseus]

H_E, I have done it... in fact I've done it more over the last several months as I've played more of the late game, bigger maps, and thus IC invasions.

In AU 402, if I had kept playing past 1500AD, this was to be a standard part of my battle plan.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel



When in SP, have you ever done it ?

Gfting a city to an AI, (for the sole purpose of moving troops), and then somehow convincing the AI to gift the city back ?

I've certainly gifted cities to third parties that were undefendable.

Such as, one of those island cities far away with no defense that I get in a peace deal. My enemy lands next to it, I gift to another civ.

Or, an unexpected declaration of war, my units are scattered, I gift a border town to a very weak civ to serve as a buffer. I get a ROP with them, can attack through their territory and the enemy can't really attack back effectively.

Sure the AI won't trade you back. Eventually I will take it by force, that's why I only gift to a weak civ.

I've never used this to move my army around, but could see using it if the army was far from my homeland or needing a desperate heal deep in enemy territory.

[Hot_Enamel]

OK - I dont seem to be making myself clear....


I think the following is an exploit of the game.

GS gifting Inchon to RP so that they can bulk move troops.
Then RP gifting the city straight back.


Gifting cities to stop advancing armies is cheezy...but OK
Gifting cities under surrender terms if fine

Gifting cities for the sole purpose of warping troops is abuse.

IMO

P.S. again.. nothing illegal was been done by GS, as this was not covered in any agreed rules at the start of the game.

P.P.S .. yes gentlemen..I have used gifting cities in SP.

[Aggie]

I would like to say I won't urge razing, but can't say with absolute certainly I won't. It depends on many factors such as location and defendablity. For example if I get an lightly defended city only to see an insurmountable force about to attack I will probably raze rather than let it go to my enemy. Generally I keep cities, but there are legitamate reasons to raze.
Aggie

[Tiberius]

Nay from me

Razing cities (own or enemy's) is part of the game and aside from rolepaying ("save the civilians!") it isn't worse than other tactics already used in this game (city gifting to deny them from a 3rd party, troops teleporting, etc). Besides, why didn't you protest when Lux burned their own cities?

Sure, I wouldn't be happy myself if someone came and burned Lego cities, but then, it'd be our own fault too. Gentlemen, face it, this is part of the game, unless we ban it from the beginning in some sort of UN regulations, or "code of honour" or call it anyhow.

Probably one of the most important lessons from this first DG is this: when people play, a UN must be created, laws must be outlined and rules must be enforced.

[Darekill]

Well burning citys especially those of enemys is a part of the game even in singleplayer. So why on earth should it be forbitten. Just to please the enemy?

I for myself will never abandon a ND city. I may be forced to do this by my team. But I think I'm free to raze any city of the enemy I feel wil benefit me.

The city gifting and troop teleporting case is a different one and I don't think that the designers thought we should use it the way that rP and GS has done it.

I don't complain about it since it was not forbidden and it worked for them. There is a price however if you do it. We all know that there is a price for every "clever" move we make. If we are willing to pay it then we should do it.

You are always in danger to get fooled once but you think twice if they try to fool you twice and I think the willingness to accept NAP'S is about to sink dramatically right now.....