Shadrach Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Hi, Just a question about if it's possible to continue a battle after the enemy surrenders? I assume there is some kind of limit to when the enemy has x number of units in routed or panic state, he will automatically surrender. However, for long battles I'd really like to see if my plan comes together and actually nail that last objective. For instance, I've been playing "Smoke em if you got em" and the enemy surrendered before I'd had a chance to make an advance on the factory itself, which was kind of a bummer. I know it's a bit of a strange thing but I really like to see some kind of closure apart from surrender. I'm even open to editing the save in an editor if that's what it takes, but it appears save games are not actually editable in the scenario editor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizou Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 No, editing saves is not possible. One way to have no surrender is to add reinforcement to the enemy and set their arrival after the battle ends. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Shadrach: You will find that if you are efficient in killing the enemy you will often end a game early with an enemy surrender and a Total Victory even if you did not gain all objectives. This happens often when a main objective is to exit units off the map. And I agree it is frustrating to have a game abruptly end early as one doesn't get the satisfaction of attaining objectives. Kinda like premature ejac. And it's certainly one of my "bones" to pick, heh. As Fizou said, to prevent the AI from surrendering, one has to encourage designers to add reinforcements that never actually arrive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 I don't get why you care. They're beat. Usually beaten past any rational point of surrender (they would have been, IRL, throwing up their hands/withdrawing in haste a while gone). Pushing on would very largely be an exercise in setting waypoints. Your plan has succeeded to the greatest degree possible: take that for the success that it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skwabie Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Would like that too, for example clearing an urban area. Opfor might be down in force but doesn't mean the stragglers won't still put up a fight. Although I can imagine it's one of those things "not high on the list".. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Womble, it's still fun to do mop up operations where the goal is minimal or zero further friendly casualties. Some of the most fun CMSF scenarios I played were ones where your side had overwhelming superiority, BUT the tricky bit was to ensure minimal or no friendly casualties. If all one cares about is "winning" regardless how, then presumably one could have a good friendly AI and simply choose a tactic or strategy, press GO and the game immediately tells you if you've won. You win, but was it fun? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Well that helped explain it to me. Yeah, sure did. And the dig about only caring about winning was really well done. Yeah. Because a force that's lost 90% of its effectives is really worth beating down some more. Yeah, the odd straggler might get a lucky first shot off before he's suppressed and then forced to surrender or killed, but there's little or nothing you can do about that; I've conducted my fair share of "mopping up" while trying to achieve a goal when the AI should have chucked in the towel a quarter hour ago. It just leads to frustration, same as in StarCraft when the enemy won't surrender because they plonked a random structure somewhere and you have to hunt down every last element. It's just a waste of time: if you've beaten the enemy, your tactics are good enough to keep the mopping up casualties to a minimum against Broken and fragmentary defense. It's not about "winning only", it's about doing something interesting: pounding an already-defeated opponent isn't interesting, it's just tedious and the flaws in the simulation generate frustration. I'll repeat: the game already puts me in the position where I have to do that to achieve a game-mediated resolution upon occasion, so I'm basing my assertion on an empirical observation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 I actually can see the OPs question. I was recently testing a scenario and there was a sizable enemy force holding out in a location and just as I was prepping for the assault the AI surrendered. At that point in the battle i'd already pretty much known I was going to win, however that final assault was potentially a tough one and I'd spent considerable time getting prepped. Yeah I won, but I really wanted to see if the assault I had been preparing was going to work. There were likely some good lessons for me to learn there... oh well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Womble: It wasn't supposed to be a "dig". I just wanted to point out that many of us enjoy the challenge of accomplishing missions with minimal casualties - and completing objectives is fun. CMSF was full of one-sided scenarios. You knew you could win. The challenge was to win with minimal casualties and economic use of ammo - esp in campaigns. Maybe there is a flaw somewhere if it becomes too easy to win a scenario by simply killing the enemy but not actually accomplishing objectives. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 Womble, it's still fun to do mop up operations where the goal is minimal or zero further friendly casualties. Some of the most fun CMSF scenarios I played were ones where your side had overwhelming superiority, BUT the tricky bit was to ensure minimal or no friendly casualties. If all one cares about is "winning" regardless how, then presumably one could have a good friendly AI and simply choose a tactic or strategy, press GO and the game immediately tells you if you've won. You win, but was it fun? The (obvious) difference is that CMSF is modern era and thus has a different mindset to taking casualties. But, besides that, if you are so gung-ho to play WW2 scenarios where the goal is to take as few casualties as possible, pull out the mission editor and show us all what you can do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 If it was CM1, it would be relatively easy to design scenarios. But, it took me 3 months to do one in CM1 days. My hat is off to people who have the time and dedication to spend months on making CM2 scenarios (let alone campaigns)... respect... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted August 9, 2014 Author Share Posted August 9, 2014 Thanks for answering my question guys, and I hope that some time in the future there will be an option to continue. It's just an option, and not having scenarios coded so the AI will never surrender (then the designer can just use Elite forces). I am sure all of us wargamers like to see what-if scenarios and this is all it's meant to do - just allow the player to see "What if..." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.