AUTO SURRENDER???????

SS_PanzerLeader · April 19, 2000

KWAZYDOG

thats kool I'm glad you have experience in ladders, and I do hope you are right that this is a VERY VERY rare thing. But if it happens once in 100 that is too much for me

Being experienced in ladders I would think you would appreciate the value of points and their impact on your position (which I think is why we all play the ladder )

IF you are playing a crucial game and all of a sudden you are in a position to reduce the amount of damage done to your rating, when its taken from you, you don't think you will find this annoying>?

On another point _ If you play someone in a ladder match in a blind PBEM and they nail You with a scenario that is set up to take advantage of this AUTO SURRENDER feature - DO you not think when you troops start crumbling and the AI throws in the towel for you, that will bug ya? Especially if ya still had some fighting left in ya?

then you said this

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'.

I also had a tank at full ammo that had just removed two enemy tanks from play _ i hardly think that is a deterrent to morale

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

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

April 19, 2000

It looks like SS does have a point, others are not recognising that and putting forward opinions about realism and so on. We should address his point.

Now there are merits to both arguments - if there was no auto surrender in the game i am sure many people would complain that is is not realistic to have every battle fought to the last man, and rightly so of course. The auto Surrender should be there IMHO.

On the other hand there are many instances where commanders issued orders to fight to the last man, our friend Adolf was famous for it, he would never retreat or surrender and his commanders were afraid to suggest it. So some could argue it is realistic.

Anyhow it is in Multi-player games that SS is making a point, and this is where we should listen - I have never played CM yet as i am waiting for the gold demo release but i would see it as a simple issue of requesting BTS to add the option of turning off Auto Surrender before playing a MP game. If both players agree it should be ok. Maybe I am being too simplistic here, and BTS may argue that it is not possible anyway, but maybe you could ask? Would anyone see problems with this? I hope i am not treading on anyones toes here.

CDIC

SS_PanzerLeader · April 19, 2000

AHH There is a GOD!!!!! someone clearly sees my point

Captitalistdoginchina

thanks man you hit the nail right on the head, for some reason Only a few are seeing my simple request. I just wanted an OPTIONAL feature so that before a match two players cold agree to fight til the end THats all I really don't think it will unbalance the game, but I'm not doing the coding so I could be way off base. I do see potential problems in COMPETITVE play without it as an option and that is all I was trying to point out, not complaining about losing as some have implied

Thanks for taking the time to see where I was coming from I don't want to take this entirely out of CM just would like to eb able to disable it for LADDER

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

BFCElvis · April 19, 2000

OK I have to speak up again. I have never played a ladder before (I have noticed SS is not even on the CM ladder) so I may be the one who is naive. But isn't the spirit of a ladder to determine who wins games more often than others so you can have braggings rights and also select people to play against that might be the same skill level as you are?

If you are down to 13% morale I don't care what you have left you are beat and you are beat bad. You have no reason to continue the battle as you are only wasting your time and your opponants time. 25%...30%...different story but 13% you are for all intents and purposes dead already. That has been my experience with CM. I have had the decency to surrender long before it came to playing that noise out.

Sorry doginchina but if you haven't played CM yet you have no idea how beat up your troops are if you get the global morale that low.

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

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

April 19, 2000

Like I said SS I do see your point, but its just not one I agree with Just a couple of points

'IF you are playing a crucial game and all of a sudden you are in a position to reduce the amount of damage done to your rating, when its taken from you, you don't think you will find this annoying>?'

I can understand what you are saying, dont get me wrong, but what you are suggesting is to make CM less realistic to allow for you to score more points for ladder games. This would really get some people out there upset I feel. Another thing to consider is that maybe you should have withdrawn? You would have gotten the points for saving your troops at the end of the battle instead of fighting on in a battle that from your best judgement you would have had little chance in doing well in. I know people dont really consider withdrawing in CM an option as a battle is a single battle, but if you really are going for points, there is a time when retreat will be more valuable than, well, surrender or near to it.

'DO you not think when you troops start crumbling and the AI throws in the towel for you, that will bug ya? '

No quite honestly, becuase I screwed up big time to let them get in that state anyway

Please SS dont take that the wrong way, we all have games when things really dont go as planned

'I also had a tank at full ammo that had just removed two enemy tanks from play _ i hardly think that is a deterrent to morale '

Unless I read wrong, a tank that from the sound of things could be described as cut off behind enemy lines

Dan

Renaud · April 19, 2000

I've played maybe 15 AI games, no multiplayer. I never was surrendered by the AI, the computer was a few times though. It seems pretty rare. Panzer stumbled upon a situation where the general AI surrender calculations didn't work out perfectly. But as with any abstaction, you are going to see some situations where the AI reaches a decision that seems nonsensical.

I mainly intend to fight AI operations and battles only, and make scenarios, so putting in an option for the hardcore ladder gamers doesn't bother me. For AI games I favor if anything a higher chance of autosurrender. But in the interests of historical realism I could imagine a flag for certain troops making them fanatical from the start and never surrendering...here we go with the wannabe game designer mission creep.

Ren

April 19, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Elvis:

OK I have to speak up again. I have never played a ladder before (I have noticed SS is not even on the CM ladder) so I may be the one who is naive. But isn't the spirit of a ladder to determine who wins games more often than others so you can have braggings rights and also select people to play against that might be the same skill level as you are?

If you are down to 13% morale I don't care what you have left you are beat and you are beat bad. You have no reason to continue the battle as you are only wasting your time and your opponants time. 25%...30%...different story but 13% you are for all intents and purposes dead already. That has been my experience with CM. I have had the decency to surrender long before it came to playing that noise out.

Sorry doginchina but if you haven't played CM yet you have no idea how beat up your troops are if you get the global morale that low.

I'm with Elvis here! Great point!

OK, now SS_PanzyLeader, seems that what you should really call yourself, put yourself on the winning side. Now if the opposing side is down to a measily small force, do you REALLY want to spend, say, 10 more turns/rounds, tracking down their remenents or wouldn't you rather have the AI call for surrender.

Your whole argument is based on if your losing. Which it seems like your confidence is at about that level. You never once consider the point if your winning. I know I don't wanna waste my time searching for that last remaining man on a MG crew or HQ. That's stupid.

So instead of CRYING that you basically F**KED up at the beginning of the scenario and lost a majority of your troops, don't go crying to me that you wanted to fight it out to your last man. Just as "what's his face" suggested that YOU ARE A SORE LOSER!

In fact, you're the close-minded individual about this, not listening to the "other side".

One thing in this world that really pisses me off is when people just start crying over **** that just ain't gonna happen or stuff that just doesn't go their way. So shut up and take your defeat like a man!

Quit crying and saying, "Oh I still had this and that, but I f**ked up royally early on and now the computer "AUTO-SURRENDERED" me! OH BOO the F**KING HOO JESUS!

April 19, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CDIC:

On the other hand there are many instances where commanders issued orders to fight to the last man, our friend Adolf was famous for it, he would never retreat or surrender and his commanders were afraid to suggest it. So some could argue it is realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might be realistic to order it, but it sure ain't realistic to expect it to happen ... at least at a tactical (ie CM) level.

Sure, Hitler ordered 6th Armee to stand fast, and it got them screwed. But that's at the strategic level. Someone, somewhere must have decided they'd had enough and called it quits for the encirclement to occur.

From personal experience I've been in games that I just wanted to end, but I wanted to see the final screen more, so I just kept plodding along waiting for it to end. Frankly, I would have preferred it if the AI had decided it was all over and surrendered my forces ... but it wouldn't . I can imagine playing games against a beaten opponent that just won't give up, and getting more than moderately annoyed

In the demo we have, the AI only appears to surrender in exceptional circumstances, so I would contend that it ain't broken.

If this became a selectable option, I believe it would be open to abuse just as much as a selectable security setting for game security to cut out the third email per turn. IOW, pressure could be applied to play with options you don't want. Currently, it isn't an option, so no discussion required.

In summary: my position is leave well enough alone. YES to AI Surrenders, and NO to selectable setting.

Regards

Jon

PS. despite the shallow treatment given above, I'm reasonably familiar with the history of Op Uranus and don't need a history lesson. Thanks.

PPS. SSPL - despite our previous exchanges this isn't a dig just for the sake of it {extends olive branch}

PPPS. From this whole thread I like Loraks post the best. Agree with you 100% ...

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

Ubique

April 19, 2000

And one more point.

If it is all you want is to keep plodding along to pick up points in a Ladder Match, need I remind you that this isn't NASCAR. In NASCAR, if you wreck your car, you can come back out and run a few laps to pick up points, but you're not going to have a chance to win.

In a Ladder Match, the object is, is it not, to defeat your opponent and have the largest point spread possible? So for one side to continue on after he is soundly defeated to pick up extra points is going to make the Victor extremely displeased.

April 19, 2000

Someone asked about tanks retreating.

Well i've noticed this! i'll explain the situation.

I was test-bedding CE as the Germs, trying a cute tank rush theme that I had concoted. Well the first time I tried it, i rushed the tanks, and placed them into position, then advanced them into their well-sought hull down positions. Well the action turn showed the tanks advance, see most of the yanky tanks, fire a shot each, and then pop smoke and retreat! Next turn they were told to advance again and they went to the same positions and then 'freaked out' and backed away.

I ditched that test-bed and tried again, and they worked just fine. The difference? The second time I got all the german infantry to advance with the Tanks and take the positions I would want them to in a real game. Result was the tanks behaved.

I guess I can only describe the tanks behaviour in the first test-bed as "nervous".. with no troops around they were understandably nervous of showing themselves! I was impressed with this aspect of the AI, and it shows 'combined arms' are really essential. Also, you can't rely on a sole tank to change the outcome of the battle for you.

Just an interesting annecdote

PeterNZ

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

.C O M B A T. .V I S I O N.

* Film From The Front *

http://combatvision.panzershark.com/

Simon Fox · April 19, 2000

"extreme"

Well given the circumstances of your force as you describe them I would certainly consider them 'in extremis'. Especially given the relatively healthy nature of the opposition as related by Ron.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I just wanted an OPTIONAL feature so that before a match two players cold agree to fight til the end<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may feel misunderstood but I am sure most people were aware that this was one of your points, they just didn't agree with it and didn't want to see two different sets of rules operating simultaneously for ladder games. Your protestations that you had a chance are another point you make frequently and given the circumstances of your force were so extremely bad that it is difficult to conceive of any alternative outcome.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I know people dont really consider withdrawing in CM an option as a battle is a single battle, but if you really are going for points, there is a time when retreat will be more valuable than, well, surrender or near to it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A great point KwazyDog. Some creative scoring would make things more interesting. Certainly it would be interesting to see if one could get stand alone scenarios to play more like operations by appropriate design of the scoring system. Of course you need players the be aware of how the scoring system operates .

SS,

As for your other responses to my post it may be that having read other threads where you have demonstrated a capacity to deal with some jesting at your expense, myself, Elvis and OBG may have thought you could take it. My point was that irrespective of your intent it was entirely possible to misconceive your posts as whinging, not that I actually thought you were. Yes I was 'taking a crack' at you and the was not there to 'make it look better' but to indicate it was meant in fun. That's what all those smileys are there for after all: to give a clear indication of the intent of a statement that might otherwise be misunderstood because the written word cannot convey the subtlety which comes with the spoken word. 'Taking the piss' is a national trait here, especially when people get all puffed up and serious about the relatively inconsequential. Sorry, but I just couldn't resist the complete absence of self-depreciation and tried to jolt you out of it. Obviously I failed miserably

[This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 04-19-2000).]

oops

[This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 04-19-2000).]

April 19, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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

Yeah, it is a pretty extreme reaction for a group of soldiers. However, everything I have heard proposed, leads me to believe that competition maps will be provided by a 3rd party, and thoroughly screened.

I believe it would be very very hard to successfully exploit this feature in an existing map, much more so in a fresh blind one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Trust me this comes from seeing it happen in CC2, I know this is a different game but there are alot of similaritiesas far as playability <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OMG, you just gave me a CC4 flashback. I found an unwinnable scenario in that game, where my ENEMIES global surrender costs me the game. He surrendered, ending the match WHILE ON THE VICTORY FLAGS !! GRRRR!!! :mad

But back to your situation, I guess I am just having a hard time believing your battle was winnable at that point, as your troops told you unanimously. A case of blind CM faith on my part

Mark IV · April 19, 2000

A selectable setting for auto-surrender would be nice for grudge matches, but should it count toward ladder ratings? If the AI decides your guys run up the white flag, OK, click to play on. But if you opt to continue, shouldn't there be an asterisk after the final score?

This is really about auto-mutiny. You, the commander, still have some ideas, but the troops have had enough. How is this different than a squad, ordered to Move to a building and getting incoming from all sides, opting to return to the treeline, instead? It's just a larger scale. When units are Captured, would you want an override option for them to draw bayonets and charge instead? 1 in a jillion times it would work, but is it worth modeling?

I just got beat (actually, a draw) by the AI in CE. Screw it, I was "trying something". Personally I can't believe the AI didn't chuck it before GT40. I had 187 casualties, all 3 StuGs knocked out, morale of less than 25% (2 VL), and whacked only 2 Sherms for my efforts (f***ing 'schrecks missed 13 tries at one, 5 consecutive under 87m). I was still able to make a Conscript 'schreck creep up on a Sherm at the tail end and I thought the 'puter was generous at that (he got wiped).

I can't imagine personally motivating troops to continue under those conditions.

If this happened to me on a regular basis (it doesn't) I would not participate in ladder play (actually, I don't, so far). If these results were customary I would give it up. If I played jillions of games and this (or an auto-surrender) happened, I would dismiss it as an anomaly, and be satisfied that my overall excellent performance would render this particular episode statistically insignificant.

So I think that auto-surrender is one of those rare but statistically predictable occurences of war that sucks, but sucks in a realistic manner (13%, it's over, dude). Kinda like setting everything up right, but being right where those 240mms come down. Play again? Insert 50 cents to continue...

Kraut · April 19, 2000

People ... the simple fact is that no matter how realistic a "feature" might be, it will suck big hairy buttox if that feature destroys good gameplay.

So if the computer decided to surrender my forces for me, this would completely piss me off and probably ruin a good game.

Basically, BTS, is there a "feature" that ends a battle for you (ie. surrenders) if your global morale is too low (i really havn't seen it in the beta demo)? If not, then i guess we're wasting out time here ... lol

MK

John Hough · April 19, 2000

I rather like the auto-surrender thing, my problem is not with wanting to hold off the surrender until I can inflict a few more casualties, but rather wanting to hold off until I can retreat everyone I can off the map. In a riesburg game I was playing a while back, I got smashed (as the germans), had no chance of holding on to the village and started pulling back. Of course, as guys exited the map, my global morale dropped, and I was left with the shattered remnants of a platoon 20 m from the map edge surrendering... Not a big deal for the score, but I would have liked to have saved those poor little polygon dudes...

-John

Darryl · April 19, 2000

My vote (as if I have one) is to allow 'auto surrender' (for lack of a better term) to be toggled on, or off.

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

Darryl

Moriarty · April 19, 2000

Interesting thread here.

I once lost a game with only 4 men left standing, crawling or running like a (insert your favorite phrase here) and the game didn't give up on me. Must've been a bunch of masochists to put up with that much pain and still have a level of global morale higher than 13. Maybe it's because the globe got so small.

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with Lorak—I enjoy playing for the game's sake (tactics and strategy) and the people I've gotten to know across the world because of it.

However, I also understand the position of SS_Panzerleader and those who have a more intense competitive fire burning in them. For them, I think a toggle to switch off the auto-surrender is probably worthwhile. I yield to their experience in ladder games and the lengths (read that possible abuses in scenario design) to which such systems drive some people.

I also appreciate Simon Fox's observation that SS_Panzerleader has shown himself able to take a jibe or two in good humor.

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

I'm drinkin' wine, I'm eatin' cheese and catching some rays, you know. — Oddball

[This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 04-19-2000).]

Moriarty · April 19, 2000

Interesting thread here.

I once lost a game with only 4 men left standing, crawling or running like a (insert your favorite phrase here) and the game didn't give up on me. Must've been a bunch of masochists to put up with that much pain and still have a level of global morale higher than 13. Maybe it's because the globe got so small.

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with Lorak—I enjoy playing for the game's sake (tactics and strategy) and the people I've gotten to know across the world because of it.

However, I also understand the position of SS_Panzerleader position and those who have a more intense competitive fire burning in them. For them, I think a toggle to switch off the auto-surrender is probably worthwhile. I yield to their experience in ladder games and the lengths (read that possible abuses in scenario design) to which such systems drive some people.

I also appreciate Simon Fox's observation that SS_Panzerleader has shown himself able to take a jibe or two in good humor.

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

I'm drinkin' wine, I'm eatin' cheese and catching some rays, you know. — Oddball

Herr Oberst · April 19, 2000

Coming late, I have trudged through 4 pages of posts.

SSPZL: I can see your point.

Others: Respect someone else's opinion if you want your own to be taken seriously.

As an option for multiplayer, I think it would be good. For "realism" players, leave it on. For "hardcore" ladder players, let them turn it off.

A successful end game is often difficult to play out, but to deny the possibility denies the playing style of a certain group of players. It also unfairly biases ladder play if the points standings are so critical but the player is not in control of those points.

As for the "setup" scenarios that have unfair advantages built in, perhaps ladder play should include the old "If you cut the cake, I choose the pieces" method. One player suggests the scenario, the other chooses sides. Then any "weasel" player has only a 50% chance of landing his unfairly advantaged side for play.

Optionally, is there a group of players who would be willing to review OOB's and classify the scenarios? Perhaps even handicapping the points for one side or the other?

My own $0.02 american.

Moon · April 19, 2000

Could somebody maybe explain me how the auto-surrender feature can be exploited for laddder play? I don't get it, but then - maybe I'm just a tad slower...

The reason why I don't understand is this: if somebody decides to trick you into an unfair scenario where you lose 90% of your men within ten turns, you will be pissed and he will be a cheater - no matter if the AI (your men) decide to surrender or not. You will also lose, one way or the other (and with CM's current victory calculations I doubt that you can revert a major defeat to a minor one with a handful of men left, to be honest). So taking out the auto-surrender feature doesn't help at all.

In fact, taking it out has other implications, too. I've asked this a few dozen posts ago but it seems to have gone unnoticed: what if you beat the crap out of an opponent and then have to see him refuse to give up and instead use his last beaten up stragglers to dispute a victory flag - knowing that the game ends in a few turns? I'd be mightily mad about this as well, and not from a realism but from a competitive gameplay point of view.

Lastly - the auto-surrender feature (somebody asked for this) IS in. But, as anything else within CM, it's fuzzy: there is no rule "13% global morale and yerr out" - it can be 13%, it can be 5% or 15%.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>OMG, you just gave me a CC4 flashback. I found an unwinnable scenario in that game, where my ENEMIES global surrender costs me the game. He surrendered, ending the match WHILE ON THE VICTORY FLAGS !! GRRRR!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Different game - different rules. In CM, when one side surrenders, it doesn't matter which victory locations it was sitting on. It's different for cease-fires, of course.

Martin

von Lucke · April 19, 2000

Damn, Lads! This thread has certainly ballooned out of all proportion since I last checked in.

SS: Many others have contributed words of sage advice here, so I'll try not to repeat them. All I have to say is: UNLEARN!

CM is not CC. CM strives for realism. (Think sim, not game). In CM you do not play the all-knowing, all-controlling God of the Battle-field! Learn to use the tools at your disposal and work within their limitations. Know the system and use it to your advantage. So what if auto-surrender is enabled in "Competitive Ladder Play"? It just means that if you open up a severe can o' whup-ass on yr opponent the game will be over all that quicker and you can move on to the next. (I must insert here that in the many times I have played the Demo --- against human and AI --- I have only ever seen a forced surrender once).

You seem to be basing your case for an auto-surrender toggle on the desire to be able to inflict as much casualties as possible on the enemy in order to narrow the "point spread". Well, what makes you think you'd be immune to any further casualties yourself?If you feel the need to fight it out to the bitter end, only play ladder scenarios that feature Elite units in Fanatical situations --- I don't think you'd have to worry too much about auto-surrendering in that case.

And as far as playing a Ladder game against someone in a scenario designed by said other person, I can only ask: Why? Do you intend to loose? 'cuz there's no other reason for you to handicap yourself that way. And as far as people who feel the need to hack the code in order to give themselves an unfair advantage (other than being needle-dicked loosers with severe self-esteme problems)--- well, they usually find themselves forever banished from whatever ladder they once might have been listed on.

Oh, and Lorak: You right, bro! I agree with you 100%!

[This message has been edited by von Lucke (edited 04-19-2000).]

Jarmo · April 19, 2000

Intresting topic. First I disagreed with SS, and I still disagree

with his reasoning. BUT, I'm leaning towards agreeing that his

forces shouldn't have surrendered. For realism's sake.

In that particular situation, US on the hill, germans occupying

the village, it would have been easy for US troops to walk

away from the fight. Retreat is better than surrendering.

Now I know there's no "autoretreat", and never will be either,

so it's hard to say what would be the right thing to do.

And I wonder if fanatic troops will autosurrender...

DanE · April 19, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

BUT, I'm leaning towards agreeing that his

forces shouldn't have surrendered. For realism's sake.

I think we are all in agreement here that the battle was over at this point. All that was left was a fight to reduce the point "spread". Not much realism in that, IMHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

In that particular situation, US on the hill, germans occupying the village, it would have been easy for US troops to walk away from the fight. Retreat is better than surrendering.

As was said earlier, we need to unlearn when it comes to CM. Once the battle is lost, it is better to retreat your forces off the map instead of sending them on a suicide mission to try to gain a few points.

Were the defeated US troops being retreated in this situation? No. They were being used in an unlikely manner given everything that had happened to them in the previous 12 minutes.

The US force was nearly wiped out in a little over 10 minutes of fighting. Would the remaining 25 men and 1 TD really feel like standing their ground to a superior force that has just overwhelmed their defenses? Would that lone TD actually go BEHIND enemy lines when his only support were 25 "shocked" troops and some mortar shells?

The above is my view on the subject and I am in no way saying that the above is the only view on the subject. It is simply my view.

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

Dan

April 19, 2000

Hmmmmm, I have yet to have this happen to me.

I do know that Forced Morale ending a game is a VERY usfull tool in CC4 to make campaigns and operations work. It also has a sound basis in historical research.