AUTO SURRENDER???????

[BFCElvis]

"I was on turn 13 IIRC that gave me alot of

time with HE to even the score."

If that was all you had left against me you wouldn't even see my infantry to "even the score" They would protect themselves in postions where they could not be seen to be on the recieving end of HE (since it said you had no infantry on that side of the river) and if you did cross the river with your Hellcat to come after my infantry you would expose yourself to fausts and schrecks most likey losing your Hellcat. All it would take would be to rush 3 healthy squads at the Hellcat after it crosses the river. It can only shoot in one direction at a time. Someone will put a cap in your Hellcats ass with a faust even if the beta is not as willing to shoot them as I have heard. Then it's mop up infantry time.

Dude, it sounds like you were in no shape to continue the battle. As far as I understand ladder scoring if the game ended when it did and the score was say...75-150..but you were able to play on and it ended 25-100 because you burned your last few units to hurt your opponant your score on the ladder would be pretty much the same.

------------------

"Tryin to be so so bad is bad enough, don't make me laugh by talkin tough" EC

[BFCElvis]

Oh yeah I was taking a shot at you with my 1st post ....just teasin ya man. I couldn't resit.

------------------

"Tryin to be so so bad is bad enough, don't make me laugh by talkin tough" EC

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Moon that open top hell cat just punched through enemy lines and took out two tanks - Im aware of its capabilities

Elvis yes I knew you were taking a shot at me and quite frankly I believe you would take an opposing viewpoint against me no matter what the issue

As far as this statement went

If that was all you had left against me you wouldn't even see my infantry to "even the score" They would protect themselves in postions where they could not be seen to be on the recieving end of HE

******************

try gaurding some VLS and be hidden at the same time lol - sorry No matter what you think had the auto surrender not been there with a full squad and and some remnants I coulda reduced the point spread, obviously you are'nt an X cc2 ladder player or you would probably see my point, that is if you cared to

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Colin]

Hey I'm still with SS_Pzldr here. A Hellcat has no problem takin' out 3 HT's and can most like cause some casualty's on the troops.

I've held off assaults with just one Hellcat before.

------------------

Visit my webpage!

http://cm4mac.tripod.com

[Guest Captain Foobar]

SS PanzerLeader:

I think I understand why you are frustrated. I respect your opinion, but I think that auto-surrender is probably for the best.

This is a GREAT example of the current ambiguity existing in CM right now. The question:

What level of control are we simulating? and

How do the commands available, and battlefield input reflect this?

Many people are of the opinion (correctly so)

that we are simulating bits and pieces of many people throughout the chain of command. From the squad leader, up to the Battalion commander. We give commands, but they alter them, and sometimes simply disobey. (the bastards )

We do give movement orders for squads, we receive their visual recon data, but we dont decide if they have the balls to hold their ground and fight.

I feel pretty comfortable with this general definition of the simulation.

SS. Although your grievance is with the auto-surrender function, I think that the same logic applies in that case as it would with a squad who bug out on you.

( You better hope Peng doesnt read this thread, he'll call you a little whining Wussyboy )

Die Alot Now

[SS_PanzerLeader]

thanks collin

I think most CC2 players are gonna see my point here too

When you play competitively the ULTIMATE decision to end the game should be the players and players alone

I am an honorable player IF I have no AT I will surrender

If I have an empty tank I will surrender

IF I have ammo I have a chance

And games that go down to the wire are fun

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Guest tom w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SS_PanzerLeader:

thanks collin

I think most CC2 players are gonna see my point here too

When you play competitively the ULTIMATE decision to end the game should be the players and players alone

I am an honorable player IF I have no AT I will surrender

If I have an empty tank I will surrender

IF I have ammo I have a chance

And games that go down to the wire are fun

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

your first turn awaits you....

(check your e-mail)

in the Tom W vs. SS_Panzerleader PBEM Close Encounter Beta Demo Scenario Battle......

For the record:

Tom W = The Yanks

and

SS_Panzerleader = Krouts

-Tom W

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Capt Foobar,

I think you misjudge me If my squad surrenders its one thing and to me a necessary part of the game, not interfering with competitive playability. BUT>>>>>>> for ALL my troops to throw in the towel and the AI just surrender my game That jsut doesn't wash with me - Wait till some of the more unscrupulous players get to playing ladders

and they start EXPLOITING this problem in their scenario design_ I Think you will be awful pissed off when ya get a sucker map

Trust me this comes from seeing it happen in CC2, I know this is a different game butthere are alot of similaritiesas far as playability

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Oh BTW I ain't whining _ i feel this is a legitimate concern for competitive multiplay

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Guest tom w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SS_PanzerLeader:

Oh BTW I ain't whining _ i feel this is a legitimate concern for competitive multiplay

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok lets talk about the auto surrender "feature"

Is it the same for both sides?

I assume it is?

What are the factors that trigger it?

I think it should be in the game but I would

like to know exactly what causes it.

If BOTH sides know exactly how to trigger

it than playing with the intend to cause an

auto surrender sounds like a very good

stratedgy to me. I would be very interested

in knowing how an "unscroupuless" player could

set up a map or scenario to "take adavantage" of this

feature?

just curious?

It sounds like a form of "cheating" to me?

(i.e. building a scenario to take advantage of

the auto surrender function).

I don't doubt for a minute that if it

can be done the unscroupuless will

exploit it...

And I think that is a real cause for concern.

-Tom W

[Black Sabot]

Ok,

I can see where the forced surrender would be warranted, but i still have to agree with SS.

If i understand this correctly, your losses dictate your global morale. And your global morale then is the deciding factor when the AI chooses to surrender. Well, this brings up my earlier question. Does the AI consider the remaining units 'quality' when it makes its surrender decision.

Consider this...

If SS had 25 ELITE men and a Tiger left, and his opponent had 2 platoons of green troops and 4 HTs, then SS has a more than reasonable chance of turning the situation around.

However, if the AI simply views his losses without taking into consideration all other factors, then he will be penalized unfairly.

I would like to hear your opinions on this

[Moon]

Black Sabot - not 100% sure on this, but I think that the global morale is calculated based on point value of your units. Since elite units cost more...

SS_Panzerleader: you're right, the Hellcat is great to destroy enemy tanks, but against two platoons of infantry? I'll be happy to play this one out against you...

And once again: the surrender level of the AI has been deliberately set pretty low (lower than "realism" might suggest) with competitive play in mind. But there really should be a limit. What about the guy on the other end? I'd be just as pissed when I feel that I have crushed the enemy, but because he simply refuses to surrender to a lost cause he manages to neutralize that last victory flag with a bunch of beaten up stragglers...

BTW, I am not even sure that one Hellcat would have been enough to claim a flag for you...

[SS_PanzerLeader]

I was facing SS troops that had been in combat - I dont think they were in sad shape in any way

BUt.. they had lost ALL their tanks, where i still had mine full to the brim of HE (hadnt used any YET) This tank had also fired AP four times with three kills

My 12 man squad had never fired a shot and i had a mortar in Ok shape with 23 rounds HE

I also had some guys on the brink of death

BUT I was BEHIND him with my tank and running freely and unopposed - My odds of winning - virtually none - odds of a draw - slim but not impossible, odds of reducing the victory status to minor were much better , and the odds of dropping it to a major were huge

As far as the scenario manipulation goes

in comptetive play like it or not we are gonna draw some shady characters sooner or later -

this is an angle for Scenarios to be designed around,

for example

IF A player has a scenario set up similar to LD and you play it blind - odds are GREATLY in his favor if he is deceptive in representing the game. Even with full disclosurethe odds and still are better for him. I'm sure this morale issue can also be a problem by playing the angle of troop quality.

If you morale falls quicker because you didnt happen to catch the fact that he had crack troops and you had Conscripts, all of a sudden morale is the deciding factor in the game not your play . I'm sure as time goes on more deceptive means of exploiting this will surface, and unfortunately honest players like myself will eventually be taking the brunt of this. The argument that we are all nice people here won't wash either because there are players out there that will have NO PROBLEM taking any angle they can to win, It sucks but its fact.

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Moon Ihad already taken one flag _ they would have to move intheopen to retake it should I decide to hold it - And you desire to play it out was mine also that is mypoint

I was doing VERY well with that tank - and was quite upset after smoking two tanks and about to remove several halftracks from play that I was denied this opportunity

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Fionn]

Scott C,

Aye but if I remember correctly apart from the reinforcing platoon you had 2 panicked men running around being chased by halftracks and an SS Panzergrenadier squad. All your other men were dead and your global morale was 2% .

If I was a reinforcement who crested a hill to see 150 dead US in a village, HTs racing after the 2 survivors and 3 tanks and 2 platoons of infantry ensconsed in the village I think I might surrender too

[Guest tom w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SS_PanzerLeader:

I was facing SS troops that had been in combat - I dont think they were in sad shape in any way

If you morale falls quicker because you didnt happen to catch the fact that he had crack troops and you had Conscripts, all of a sudden morale is the deciding factor in the game not your play . I'm sure as time goes on more deceptive means of exploiting this will surface, and unfortunately honest players like myself will eventually be taking the brunt of this. The argument that we are all nice people here won't wash either because there are players out there that will have NO PROBLEM taking any angle they can to win, It sucks but its fact.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would not suggest for a minute that"we are nice people" but it seems that the design of scenario to exploit the auto surrender

function could be avoided by only playing scenarios constructed

by a nuetral third party, I'm not sure I why would agree to play a competitive "ladder" game with legitmate bragging rights at stake when I suspect the other party could be customizing scenerio that is little more than a trap for a set -up for an

auto surrender...

Would there not be some ruling or governing body to ensure that

such scenarios were never legitamized as vehicles for ladder

competition or am I just too naive?

I suspect that there will be for sure players who will naturally

seek any form of advantage they can get. (I play board games

with ONE all the time, I know their type) but I was really hoping this game would be free of cheating.

I think this is a valuable disccusion but the auto surrender

function should stay once it has been documented for all to

see exactly how it works.

-Tom W

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Tom,

Unfortunately no game is ever free from cheating and this will be no exception, although it is admittadly a sad state of affairs. I love playing ladder games because most players are prety kool and the competition is exciting, but there it that small majority of A**(&holes that will be up to no good .

Even if we find away to eliminate this problem the ultimate act of surrender belongs in the hand of the player NOT the computer in a Competitive game IMHO

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Guest KwazyDog]

One thing I think isnt being considered here is that you killed all of the enemy tanks that you KNEW were in the area

Imagine this, you are a lone hellcat with your infantry around you that arent particulary happy (13% moral), youve just killed 2 tanks, you can see German infantry and armoured vehciles by the bucket load behind you (the same as you being behind them! ) and your buddy training just got wasted in the other M10. And DAMN, that WAS a Tiger burning there, there has GOT to be another on the way. Its giving me goosebumps even thinking about being in that situation, hehe

I have never seen a global morale around the 13% mark (but I havnt played as many game as you guys probably have due to other CM stuff Ive been doing ) but if I had a game where is got down that low Id be treating my troops like eggs, they are ready to shatter.

Imagine is you were really the commander and things were in that situation. The humane thing would really be to pull back. Sure, you may be able to hold with that one M10 and a handful of troops, but with those SS troops coming in you are really going to get hurt.

I see a global morale of 13 represent troops whom feel they are desperately fighting for their lives and could break at any moment.

Sorry PanzerLeader, I think the AI made a descent call on the one Oh, and remember the percenteages to win have changes since the beta demo, hehe, possible along with the chances for your entire side to surrender. And remember, in 6 months and probbaly thousands of battles played, no one has ever bought this up before

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 04-18-2000).]

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Kwazy dog you are looking at things from a realisitc Grognard standpoint nothing wrong with that if thats your cup of tea, my point is for COMPETITVE play only, I see final surrender as the SUPREME commanders OPTION . the SUPREME commander being ME

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

SS_PzLdr, nothing personal, but maybe you just suck and are afriad to admit it.

If you were lame enough to let your troops get butchered that early and not pull them back for a better defense, then what else could the computer assume?

[SS_PanzerLeader]

OH BTW KRAZY my hellcat wasn't just sitting ther with his infantry around crying to mama ;P

He was behind enemy lines running rings around the enemy (literally) and getting enemy tank kills - if they were that damn sacred they shoulda REFUSED TO MOVE in the first place

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[SS_PanzerLeader]

OB&G considering the quality and tone of your posts, I will take your last comment as further reinforcement of the opinion of you I had already developed No offense taken

[Guest KwazyDog]

Fair enough PanzerLeader, each to their own and I dont think anyone is going to changes your opinions

BUT I really feel that even from a competitive standpoint, realism need to be considered as this is a wargame. In reality, if your men thought that they were going to die if they didnt surrender, they could very well surrender. That is something you as a commander need to take into consideration. If you are greatly outnumbered until reinforcements arrive, them pull back all of your units into the centre of the town and watch the enemy die as they try an assult. When you reinforcements arrive, assult then. Its all part of being a realistic game I feel, and it adds another element of a real war situation....push your men too far and no matter how good they are they will break.

I understand you opinions SS, and have no problems with them, dont get me wrong, but I really feel that this is another aspect of CM that makes it stand out Also, really, its so rare that if you dont like it it shouldnt really hinder your enjoyment of CM

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Krazy Dog,

I'm not bothered by the fact you don't agree with me - i don't think everyone will, especially those that really have no interest in competitive style play

You said this:

BUT I really feel that even from a competitive standpoint, realism need to be considered as this is a wargame.

**************

Realism is greatly simulated, but in a cometitive game I should have the final decisionof surrender.

Also I had my troops way back and hidden, to avoid be slaughtered, it didnt help - and having to wait til turn ten to get reinforcements, with them appearing in a known location downt help much either. Then for the Ai to take control and surrender my forces when I am doing well with the remnants is lame - sorry But in ladder match points matter

For realism, troops should refuse to move if their morale is that low - not let me get behind enemy lines waste two tanks and then pull the rug out

If the AI let me get the tank behind enemy lines to take out 2 enemy tanks their mroale was good enuff - why the Heck would it fall further with two tank kills ? cmon! do you see my point ? :eeK:

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Lorak]

Ok, I have to chime in here. I love ladder play, and enjoy climbing it. But i think SS is pointing out why a lot of people here refuse to play in ladder games. People get so involved with "points" that the "game" loses all its fun. I've loved all my PBEM games thus far, and the friendships made during them are great. I was hoping that could carry over to ladder play with the ranking being a judge of skill more than a rating. But if the ranking means so much that I'm forced to continue a PBEM game for an extra week or two just so someone can save 10 or 20 points to his rating.... Then to Hell with it. Personaly I couldn't care less if i was rated 1800 or 1780. It is just a yard stick to measure yourself against. This is a wargame, not tribes, quake,rouge spear, where those ladders to me, have a totally diffrent meaning.

Just my opinion.

Lorak

------------------

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub