AUTO SURRENDER???????

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

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

Well, glad to see you think so highly of me!

I played LD as the Germans just a while back. Had all my armor destroyed. But all my infantry had taken over all of the objective flags and had an excellent foothold on the town and raining lead on the reinforcement infantry up on the hill from the rear end of the town after killing or making every city defender surrender. The Amis still had TWO Hellcats, but what good are they after they have picked off all of my armor? You can't hold objectives with Tanks! Not when your friendly neighborhood Grenadier squad has a few Panzerfausts in hand.

I've found out that it really doesn't matter how much armor you or the enemy has left. If your or your enemy's infantry has been decimated, then there isn't much of a chance for victory.

In a PBEM CE game against Germanboy, I still had two shermans left, and a last bit of infantry left that I took the German woods in front of the church, that I knew I was defeated when his infantry that was massed up in the German right woods came down and ran back across my rear, taking objective flags. Without enough infantry, a victory is not very viable.

So in your case, letting a lot of your infantry to die rather quickly, what is a few Hellcats, (TDs mind you) gonna do against a town full of infantry?

I'm not even going to go there about the Morale level. That should be self-explanatory. 32% Morale, COM'ON!

You just got your ass kicked and you're whining that the surrender algorithm decided for you that to continue the battle was a lost cause. So get over it!

[This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-18-2000).]

[Guest tom w]

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok

but...

Whats the difference between all of your units being routed broken or paniced and an "auto surrender"

IF that difference is that you can still command your

good tank then I can see your point. I know not all your units

were routed or broken (if I understand correctly).

SO for competitive play then I can see trying to play on.

Has any one ever seen a Tank disobey orders and mutiny

or retreat? Can tank or vehicle crews break, or panic?

I have not seen that in the demo.

OK I can see no more auto surrender as long as vehicle

crews can also panic and break. SO I say no to the

auto surrender but yes to every individual unit (including

all vehicle and weapon crews) breaking panicing or surrendering.

I have seen the AI surrender its troops to me in CE.

So is it ok if individual troops surrender as long as the

whole scenario does not just stop and auto surrender on you?

-Tom W

Philly just Scored BTW, it 2-2 Philly vs. Buffalo

[SS_PanzerLeader]

OB&G

I will avoid voicing my true thoughts of you

Basically I'm making a valid point in relation to comptetive games, You have already demonstrated your inante ability to piss people off, including people that have worked hard for this community and BTS. I will not sink to your level as my submarine is in the shop; so try somebody else

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

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

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Tom W ,

Yes basically if my units indiviually are getting the crap kicked out of them, I see the reasons why they surrender

But comptetitively If i have units that are holding their own and giving me some chance to salvage a better level of defeat, this OPTION to fight on should be mine not the AI's

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Guest tom w]

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

I will avoid voicing my true thoughts of you

Basically I'm making a valid point in relation to comptetive games, You have already demonstrated your inante ability to piss people off, including people that have worked hard for this community and BTS. I will not sink to your level as my submarine is in the shop; so try somebody else

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just curious?

But, to whom were you directing your comments above?

-Tom W

[SS_PanzerLeader]

That was meant for OB&G since hes decided to get nasty with someonelse

Sorry for the confusion Tom

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

SS_PzLdr, not to harp on this, but........

Have you heard of the old Vulcan proverb, "Why fight a losing battle?"

OK, maybe there should be an option to continue in a so-called Multi-player Competitive match, but in REALITY, if you start getting your ass kicked early on and it takes reinforcements to continue the fight and there's not enough INFANTRY resources to achieve enough victory goals, then what's the point?

Besides, in the after action report, doesn't the computer tabulate victory results by number of casualties and objective points? OK, so then what if you've achieved several objectives, but you don't have much of a fighting force left and the enemy hasn't taken the percentage of casualties that you have taken, who's the winner?

I think what you're really talking about here is a Pyrric Victory isn't it? You've taken the objective, but lost a great deal of men and equipment doing so.

That's like the after action reports of Vietnam. The Tet Offensive for example, America claimed a victory because of a high Vietnamese body count, but they lost the campaign for what they lost in installations and/or morale.

Being that your morale was 32%, would be about the same as claiming victory for Tet, so you kill some more Germans with your Hellcat and a few more infantry squads, how does that change what you have lost previously?

Just trying to be real here. I think the game looked at your earlier poor performance and decided what it did based on that.

[SS_PanzerLeader]

OB&G again I will stress this I am not interested in changing anything for normal play - but for multiplay this should be implemented as an optiont hat can be disabled

Since I dont get reinforcements until turn ten in LD the whole thing is alosing battle until the reinforcements come - They are dropped ina KNOWn location

If this same kinda thing happens in COMPEtitiVE games people are gonna start hating it TRUST ME - I'm a vet of CC2 with Probably a thousand ladder games under my belt, and this is a problem for comptetive play IMHO. When the game starts making final surrender decisions people WILL find away to exploit this in scenario design I guarantee it, Just like you will have people trying to figure out how to hack CM. A harsh reality but fact

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

Nevermind.

[This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-18-2000).]

[von shrad]

Not that it helps you much SS, but I recall reading a post from BTS stating that the game will be allowed to continue even after the battle has already been decided.

It has been several months since I've heard anything about this feature so I dont know if its IN.

SS, I seem to recall you bouncing back from what I thought was a total defeat for you in CE.

PS...you and OBG behave...you are both members after all. Its ok to disagree, but I know you are both better than flame wars.

K

[Guest tom w]

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

That was meant for OB&G since hes decided to get nasty with someonelse

Sorry for the confusion Tom

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem

Good Game by the way

the AI does not do what you are doing...

Ever

[SS_PanzerLeader]

STUKA!!!!!!

where ya been bud ? what happened to our game?

YEs I do like to bounce back in the endgame, a favorite thing of mine for soem reason ;P

HEhe you are right that is why I didn't flame BTW

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Guest aaronb]

Hi, SSPL.

I've played CC2 competitively (locally, not on the net), so your point about having the final say is well-taken. You _want_ the final say.

However, since morale is simulated, you don't actually get the final say at either the squad, platoon, or scenario level. If you did get the final say at the scenario level, why not the squad level? Because your simulated men have lost their simulated will to fight. It's not a problem in competition, just another part of the winning equation: conserve your morale. Your opponent is in the same boat.

As for doing 'major damage' with your remaining Hellcat: the only reason you know you can roam the battlefield is perfect OOB knowledge about your opponent, because you've played the scenario before. The AI has no such perfect knowledge, and makes its decisions based on casualties, objectives, and likely ability to achieve any further gains. And, as Moon has pointed out, one Hellcat won't even know where the infantry is to shoot at. The best you can do is 'area target' likely buildings. Fog of War at work. And get too close once, boom. Grenade in the fighting compartment.

From the tone (and frequency) of your posts you're where we have all been in a wargame: frustrated and raring for one last shot or two. I suggest that things will look better in the morning.

Well, at least you've revved the board up a bit and kept things more-or-less civil.

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von shrad:

Not that it helps you much SS, but I recall reading a post from BTS stating that the game will be allowed to continue even after the battle has already been decided.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yes, I forgot about that! There ya go SS! So now you can go have your cookie!

Got Milk?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PS...you and OBG behave...you are both members after all. Its ok to disagree, but I know you are both better than flame wars.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yes, but it's soooo fun!

I didn't mean to get into flame wars, but whining after the computer decided you were beaten when IT decided that you didn't have enough resources to change the fact much, then that's where it gets childish.

[Guest KwazyDog]

SS, I do see your point and have from your first post, its just that I cant agree with it

Honestly, I think that you could be over analysing this becuase youve played this game dozens of times. Honestly, to have a morale of 13% by turn 10 luck must have really been against you, it is something that would rarely happen. I dont see why this is such a big problem in competitive play. If I was playing and had a game where I got beat up and my troops surrendered on me Id take it as a lesson learnt, not a feature I want disabled

You say that as supreme commander you want the final descision as to wether you troops surrender which I understand from the point of view you are taking but realistically that is not an option a commander has. The situation you describe could very well be 1 in a 1000, as I have honestly never seen a tank surrender. I think for something to be as big as a problem as what you are claiming, it really need to be seen more than once

Just my opinion SS, I do respect yours too

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

Good point AaronB, that's basically what I've been trying to say. Since we all pretty much know the opposing OOB, but the AI still assumes that it doesn't know, then what else does it have to go on? That is why it "called" the game.

[von shrad]

SS, I have been oh-so-busy lately. Please forgive me. We will have our game. How bout a blind Gold demo scenario. We'll agree on leaving one of the new battles alone to play sight unseen.

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have never seen a global morale around the 13% mark... but if I had a game where is got down that low Id be treating my troops like eggs, they are ready to shatter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, when mine goes below 50% I start treating them like eggs. Anyone with a modicum of familiarity with history will tell you that that kind of casualty rate is large let alone 87%. Most commanders will call off any action long before that occurred. Perhaps "Auto-surrender" is the wrong description I prefer to view it as conceding the field of battle to the enemy, not that it has happened to me, yet

What makes CM such a great wargame is that the realism makes it more like a military simulation and the history buffs among us can see our reading coming to life instead of shouting: "No! goddamn that could not possibly happen at the monitor" like in some other games If you want that realism then you have to accept the whole package because a mixture of realism and ridiculous abstractions is just plain....ridiculous.

Now SS I understand your perspective but your suggestion that people who are participating in a competitive pursuit are not competitive unless they are in a ladder made me ROFL. Given the extreme nature of the example you are using, where you were clearly thrashed, it is hardly suprising that some people are characterising you as a sore loser.

Lighten up a bit, no offense meant to you SS(sookysooky)_Panzerleader

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

"Heaven sent and hell bent

Over the mountain tops we go

Just like all the other GI Joes

EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

[SS_PanzerLeader]

OB&G lol god how can you convery so much hippocracy in one statement

ANd I quote

I didn't mean to get into flame wars, but whining after the computer decided you were beaten when IT decided that you didn't have enough resources to change the fact much, then that's where it gets childish.

My god IF that isn't trying to start something

Whatever man I'm tired of trying to talk to you; your narrowmindedness shows in numerous other posts including the one on CANADA

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

Hi arron

you said:

However, since morale is simulated, you don't actually get the final say at either the squad, platoon, or scenario level. If you did get the final say at the scenario level, why not the squad level?

Simple because if I manage to lose morale on all my squads on an individual level then I will lose anyhow, It should not be a cut and dried decision by the AI on a BROAD sense.

The morale checks individually ahve major impact on individual squad actions etc, but to make the FINAL say that is jsut not right in my book. THE germans were getting their asses kicked prior to the BULGE their SUPREME commander ordered them to attack- they went -period - they didnt win but they gambled thats are real as it gets.

as for your statement here -

QUote:

As for doing 'major damage' with your remaining Hellcat: the only reason you know you can roam the battlefield is perfect OOB knowledge about your opponent, because you've played the scenario before

That same OOB is what got me in such bad shape in the first place

KWAZY DOG

You said

QUOTE:

I dont see why this is such a big problem in competitive play. If I was playing and had a game where I got beat up and my troops surrendered on me Id take it as a lesson learnt, not a feature I want disabled

HAVE you played many ladder games?

then you said:

You say that as supreme commander you want the final descision as to wether you troops surrender which I understand from the point of view you are taking but realistically that is not an option a commander has.

again look at who does the surrendering at the end of it all _ THe SUPREME COMMANDERS he tells his men to lay dowen their arms - that is how wars/battles end end - Otherwise troops could find themselves getting fragged or put in front of a firirng squad.

My points are made for COMPTETITIVE games only, a player should have the right to surrender when he sees fit in this style game

How are you gonna handle the players that use

their ammoless observers for cannon fodder - this aint realistic but It will happen

VON SHRADD np man man yah the GOLD sounds good think we had already planned onthat anyhow didnt we

[Kraut]

Hmmm ... i wouldn't like an auto-surrender option in any game. That is one major reason i think the cc4 campaign sucks bigtime (next to the BG system, the sucky infantry and at least 1000 other reasons). Ok, so cc4 has a "force morale", same thing ... it just completely destroys a game if you are holding on with your very last men, hoping to inflict as many casualties on the enemy as possible, and the comp decides to end it.

If this "feature" is tweaked enough that it only happens very rarely it could be acceptable, but then again, why even put it in? If you play someone who will fight on eventhough he only has a coupld men from a vehicle crew running around, then maybe you shouldn't play that person. So, forcing a battle to end is unnecessary and will cause more harm than good ...

MK

[Guest hunt52]

I would think that there would be some (not all) battles where the orders are fight to the last man regardless. Then you shouldn't auto surrender (a golbal "fanatacism" kind of think.)

- Bill

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Simon Fox

QUOTE:

Now SS I understand your perspective but your suggestion that people who are participating in a competitive pursuit are not competitive unless they are in a ladder made me ROFL. Given the extreme nature of the example you are using, where you were clearly thrashed, it is hardly suprising that some people are characterising you as a sore loser.

Well I'm glad you are amused, quite frankly I'm amused that you find non ladder play or tournament play competitive and by the fact that you find this to be some extreme example

what is so extreme you've lost me there

As far as your last comment - It was uncalled for, I plainly stated I was being beat And acknowledged RONS play

Had you bothered to read the entirety of the thread, you would have realized this wasn't the context of what the thread was about. But evidently you would rather take a crack at me as OB&G and ELVIS did and then adding a smiley to make it look better.

The whole thread has been about the AI and nothing to do with losing except for the fact the AI called the game. Evidently the facts of the situation doesn't matter though as you've formed your own opinion already

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[SS_PanzerLeader]

KRAUT

I was having trouble following your post are you for The Way it stands now

IE the AI will end the game for you in amultiplayer game whether you like it or not

Or against having that donw to you during agame?

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Guest KwazyDog]

Ok, Ill be honest here

With a global morale of 13% you really must have gotten beaten up pretty damn badly. If you troops didnt surrently on mass like they did, I really think they would have individually if they had any serious opposition.

How many men did you have left, 25 I think I read somewhere. The way I see it is that their surrender wasnt the commander saying 'ok boys, weve done our bestlets save ourselves' it was more a case of the troops themselves thinking 'Ah crap, what the hell, this guy is going to get us all killed, let save ourselves'.

It is such a RARE occurance that this happens (ok, I lied to be polite, Ive played dozens of CM games constantly over the last 6-7 months 99% against humans in all sorts of scenarios and have NEVER had my whole side surrender) that I feel that the extra realism it adds should be in there.

Oh, and Ive been playing wargames since I was 10, for over 15 years now and YES, I have many games on ladders and 95% of all of the games I have played in my life have been against human opponents.

[DEF BUNGIS]

I brought up this thread a little while ago.

I remember BTS stating that they really weren't sure what caculations the AI makes to surrender.

In my game, it wasn't me that auto surrendered, but the enemy AI.

So, here we are again.

What caculations does the AI make to justify a surreneder. Not to be pushy, but this is critical to game play. We, as players need to be aware of critical game ending situations.

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

Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all