• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

When I say "Scorched Earth" what do you think of?


log in or register to remove this ad

jonesy

A Wicked Kendragon
First it makes me think of Babylon 5 and certain someone trying to deny certain something from his enemies.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
It makes me think of the retreating Russians burning their wheat fields to sabotage Napoloen's eastward advance in 1812 - he had planned on "living off the land".

So did the Germans in 1941. Someone wasn't reading their histories, were they?
 

jonesy

A Wicked Kendragon
So did the Germans in 1941. Someone wasn't reading their histories, were they?
Well, military commanders not reading histories is a common problem in military history. We used scorched earth against the soviets in 1939 and they weren't expecting it (Stalin having killed most of those dangerous history reading commanders of his). To be fair though, the Finnish version was to leave things looking fairly normal and then boobytrap every inch of it. You see a barn still standing, don't go in.
 




MatthewJHanson

Registered Ninja
Publisher
Thanks for the response all.

Here's the explanation:

I'm plotting to do a post-apocalyptic RPG setting and I've been brainstorming names for a long time. My current favorite is "Scorched Earth," which I like both because of the military policy, and because in the setting much of the Earth is literally scorched.

But then I remember the old DOS tank shooter game. I worried that people might think there's a connection between the two, or that I'm trying to make an RPG based on the PC game. While it seem as though a couple people thought of the PC game, most people's thoughts are more along the lines of what I was hoping for.
 


Bluenose

Adventurer
It makes me think of the retreating Russians burning their wheat fields to sabotage Napoloen's eastward advance in 1812 - he had planned on "living off the land".

No he hadn't. Napoleon wasn't stupid enough to think he could live off the land in Belarus - for one thing, his Polish allies had told him how poor it was and he'd already had experience of supply problems in campaigns in Poland. Immense efforts were made to get supplies and trains together, sufficient even if they had to advance as far as Smolensk to force the Russians to fight.

Then the Russians retreated from Smolensk with their armies undefeated. And Napoleon couldn't halt where he was - no supply depots existed, or would exist for weeks according to his commissariat. If he retreated, it was an obvious defeat and terrible for his prestige. Or he could advance into the Russian heartland, agriculturally richer than Belarus, try to pick up supplies there, and force the Russian army into a decisive battle. And we all know how that worked out.

Now if you want the person who advanced into Russia expecting to live off the land and got a nasty surprise as the Russian burnt villages/towns to deny him shelter and crops to deny him food, you have to go back a little more than a century to Charles XII of Sweden. His little adventure didn't work out well either.
 

Remove ads

Top