Eridani Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 SS - I've played plenty want me to prove it? I haven't had a good fight in a while scott.cragg@erols.com you be krauts -EridanMan [This message has been edited by Eridani (edited 04-20-2000).] [This message has been edited by Eridani (edited 04-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 20, 2000 Author Share Posted April 20, 2000 Ok eridan You are on Send me the setup I'll get to it tommorow _ although RON IS the true master of the germ attack in LD ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 As a member my 2 cents. I don't like auto-surrender, because it is unrealistic. Yeah, you heard right. Having auto-surrender IN the game is unrealistic. To have the entire force act as a single unit and suddenly decide to surrender is very unrealistic IMO. How are these separate platoons coordinating this action when the commanding officer is telling them to fight on? Tow W said (quite a few posts ago): > Whats the difference between all of your > units being routed broken or paniced and > an "auto surrender" A lot for me. One represents a general breakdown of command, control and morale, ie real life results from heavy losses. The other represents a higher level authority giving specific orders and coordinating units to surrender in unison. > IF that difference is that you can still > command your good tank then I can see > your point. That is one very good point. What if the game was part of an operation and you needed to 'exit' that tank for use in the next 'battle'? I would much rather just have the individual units start failing morale (because of a bad modifier for a low 'global morale' or some such). It would then gradually become clear to ANY commander what was happening...as his units began to panic, route and fall back by ones and twos. Instead of some fictitious coordinated 'auto-surrender' by the AI. With all this said...I must admit I have yet to have the AI auto-surrender my forces. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 I think youll find it only happens in very dire situations when you really have had the crap beaten out of your forces. I dont think it is unrealistic to think that within the space of a minute a handful of beaten up troops would surrender pretty much at the same time they saw others doing so close by. With a bit of digging you could probably find some examples of this, I have a couple from the buldge but cant remember details. Anyways, like I said in my last post, look at the gold demo before really getting upset with anything, the beta demos code is what, 6 months old now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 Is it just me or does SSPnzyLdr have a knack for starting threads that get long in the tooth? Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanE Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> hence my aprehension over the possibility of this feature being a detriment to the enjoyement of the game at a competitive level <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Isn't every game a competitive game? At least for me, everytime I play a game I play to win. Do I always win? Not by a long shot, but it is still a competitive game even if it isn't a ladder game. Also, it seems that the familiarity of the LD scenario may be playing a big part here. It appears the Germans are rushing the town at the beginning. While you may get lucky every once in a while with this tactic, in a blind scenario this type of move could lead to a huge mistake. Also, I don't think that last TD would be sent behind enemy lines if you didn't know what was waiting over there. As for the FOW option, I do not like that option either, but we are talking about autosurrender here. ------------------ Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 Wow 130+ pots I just had to get my name in here ------------------ CCJ aka BLITZ_Force My Hompage ----> http://www.geocities.com/coolcolj Double your immersion with my Tweaked Textures and Saving Private Ryan sound set mods for CM!! Check out my new Textures V2.0 photo Gallery and my music while your there, or grab a CM Wallpaper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest major_tom Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 Thanks Scott for quoting my post I have played CE as the allies vs the germans, against a human opponent on the hot seat and I made the Germans auto surrender. I had two good Shermans left and his infantry was Decimated and I was showing control of all Victory flags. the game auto-surrendered him and he did not like it very much either he's not contributing here because he does not have internet or e-mail but if he was he would sound pretty much like SS-Panzerleader Anyway, why not just let each and every unit bug out like it does now, one at a time, until they are all useless. Some of them can choose to surrender themselves to the enemy, no one seems to complain about that. So as long as being routed broken or paniced or surrending to near by forces is on case by case, a per unit basis there should be no problem. Is that correct SS-Panzerleader? -tom W <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: As a member my 2 cents. I don't like auto-surrender, because it is unrealistic. Yeah, you heard right. Having auto-surrender IN the game is unrealistic. To have the entire force act as a single unit and suddenly decide to surrender is very unrealistic IMO. How are these separate platoons coordinating this action when the commanding officer is telling them to fight on? Tow W said (quite a few posts ago): > Whats the difference between all of your > units being routed broken or paniced and > an "auto surrender" A lot for me. One represents a general breakdown of command, control and morale, ie real life results from heavy losses. The other represents a higher level authority giving specific orders and coordinating units to surrender in unison. > IF that difference is that you can still > command your good tank then I can see > your point. That is one very good point. What if the game was part of an operation and you needed to 'exit' that tank for use in the next 'battle'? I would much rather just have the individual units start failing morale (because of a bad modifier for a low 'global morale' or some such). It would then gradually become clear to ANY commander what was happening...as his units began to panic, route and fall back by ones and twos. Instead of some fictitious coordinated 'auto-surrender' by the AI. With all this said...I must admit I have yet to have the AI auto-surrender my forces. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 Personally I find the auto-surrender is a good feature. Without it we could end up with stupid "hunt the single survivor for 10 turns" outcomes to games. That's a total waste of time. Also, you must understand that the auto-surrender feature is tied into global morale tracking and that this global morale tracking impacts all your orders etc. Look at the alpha AAR again. By the time I was attacking the town I was down to about 30% global morale and my guys would hit the ground the instant anything near them fired. I had a VERY difficult time getting them to continue attacking. My point is that : 1) it isn't a simple case of JUST turning off auto-surrender and 2. auto-surrender is just the most extreme example of a system which is constantly in motion adjusting the responses of your units to fire... Order a unit to move across an open field under fire when ur global morale is at 100% . if they're good they'll do it and accept casualties to do it. Now try the same thing when your global morale is 10%. They'll hit the deck the instant they're fired on and crawl back into cover. FWIW any force which has a global morale of 10% is totally shattered and incapable of ANY type of offensive action whatsoever. They're barely even fit for sitting in foxholes anymore. SS-PL. If your guys were down to 8% the battle was already over. Stubborness and an unwillingness to accept defeat is good and is necessary in a good e-warrior BUT in this case the battle was, by any means of judgement, over. And FWIW if you ever want to take on a company of veteran Panzergrenadiers + HMGs + HTs with a Hellcat and 1 squad of infantry on the LD terrain I'd be delighted to show you just how quickly that hellcat would die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Weaver Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 I've played LD many times as Yanks, once as Krauts - what can I say, I'm partial to my team. I find that the Allies can easily defeat the AI Axis in LD if they don't expose their infantry too much. The great defensive terrain combined with the arrival of the three Hellcats really shifts the game in favor of the Allies, I think. If you keep your infantry moving and don't let them get shelled by tanks at range you'll do well. I'd like to see how I do against somebody in PBEM, though, so if anybody's up for a game of LD with me as the Allies please drop me a note. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraut Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: Without it we could end up with stupid "hunt the single survivor for 10 turns" outcomes to games. That's a total waste of time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nah ... fionn, this would only happen if you're playing some loser who is scared he'll lose it precious "ladder ranking". If you play such people it's your own fault. A honest opponent would admit defeat and not make you chase down those vehicle crews or that paniced reserve squad. I just don't want an epic battle to be ended by the computer, when there could still be a few interesting turns played. Suppose i'm pretty much beeaten, yet i still have a sizeable for left to *at least* have a chance to pull out a minor defeat instead of a major defeat. I doubt my opponent would view this as lame "chase da monkey" playing. I think in that kind of situation, playing on would make the whole scenario much more interesting as a whole. MK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 WOW! Man, every time I have come back here this thread has doubled in size. So here are my 2 bits worth... The AI surrenders in much the same way a good player would. When there is absolutely no hope of doing anything more than being killed it gives up. As Fionn pointed out, this is to stop the frustrating "hunt and destroy" endings that the vast majority of players find to be totally annoying. I don't have time to waste going around finding that last 1 man HQ unit, yet I want the game to end so I can see how well I did. If there was no auto surrender I would have to do this too frequently, and I say no thanks. Having watched the huge flame wars against Atomic because of this very issue (which was worse because of the way the AI played) I can say for sure that if did not include this feature there would be such a reaction to CM. As for realism... sure, it might not be totally realistic in all situations, but mass surrenders at this scale did happen quite often. OK, maybe not all on the same exact minute, but again we are trying to compress reality to avoid wasting the player's precious gaming time and thereby side step an area that has proved annoying to at least a decent chunk of gamers. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 It's time for the REAL Major Tom to sort out the situation! (just kidding major_tom!) Try as I might, I cannot get my golbal morale to be less than one digit. I have been close, but, not there yet:) Well, I do have to say that having the feature in the game is a good counter agent against a poor loser. I know that Panzerleader is expressing his distain because it surrenders before the game is actually up (ie. he had just recieved reinforcements of troops and tanks, then surrenders them, kind of like at Singapore!) and I am not calling him a poor loser, as he is winning our PBEM game, so, he couldn't be the loser:). But, it has already been said that this bug has been fixed. My understanding of the Auto Surrender, is, that it actually represents the commander instead of the troops. It takes control of the situation, kind of like a computerized conscience, (The General Percival in all of us!) and realizes all hope is up, and surrenders the troops to lessen further casualties. Without this feature people could defend multiple victory points and cheat individuals out of the total victory that they deserve. It would suck to have a Marginal victory where you killed 70% of your enemy with only slight damage to yourself as he manages to hold out in deep woods with the remnants of his force around VP. Given extra time (ie 10 extra turns) this force would have been easily demolished by overwealming numbers, but, CM cannot take this into account. I don't see how this would really be unfair in a LADDER game. If you lose horribly, you lose horribly. It affects everyone. I am sure ladder games will not be using the same scenario over and over. When everyone started playing LD for the first time (no matter what side), I am pretty sure you were in for a few nasty suprises, and your victories weren't total. LD, CE, and RB are all ingrained in our minds. It is like playing a game of chess, you know what moves to start out with, and you know what to do to counter an enemy move as you have seen it 100 times. Also, I am getting my bro over here tonight, to fix my e-mail so I can finish the remainder of my games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 20, 2000 Author Share Posted April 20, 2000 Well, I still hold my position even though Steve has posted his support for it the way it is, i can respect that its his game But that doesnt mean I like it I think anyone that would let you chase units around the board is a jerk anyhow - and I wouldnt play him either But.. If that person is doing damage to me then He should have the right to see what happens and being denied that right is sucking some of the fun right out of the game IMHO I guess since there will be no modification, the selection practices for competitiive play will become extremely Slow due to scenario scrutinization Even as it stands I still love the game _ jsut finnaly found an element I REALLY dont like Oh one other thing the AI will NEVER be able to accurately tell how efficient I can play When Backed into a corner, or on the ropes _ it is a shame this cannot be an option for two agreeing parties ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott C Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 SS_P: JOOC, how exactly could this in be exploited in scenario design? Since your global morale is determined by how many casualties you have taken, getting your global morale down requires killing off most of your troops. So, if someone were to try to "exploit" this, they would basically just have to set it up so you lost most of your troops very fast... in which case the map was unfair anyway. It just doesn't seem to me like it would make any difference whatsoever, since if you are in a position to be threatened by global surrender, you have lost already and your troops will not be combat effective. Also, you might be interested to know that I managed (after several tries) to set up roughly the situation you had - global morale 15% (but no surrender yet), US infantry effectively annihilated, 1 Hellcat remaining who had taken out all 3 tanks and 2 HTs in one turn (easy when you can make the Germans be stupid). Guess what? The Hellcat refused to fight - ran whenever any German infantry fired a rifle, and didn't fire at all. So, I strongly doubt you could have changed the score much, especially since Hellcats suck at attacking infantry. ------------------ Questions, comments, arguments, refutations, criticisms, and/or sea stories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 20, 2000 Author Share Posted April 20, 2000 Scott - the HELLCAT I had was firing jsut fine As far as the manipulation goes I answered this in a thread to moon - If ya scroll up you will see what I had to say ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sabot Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott C: SS_P: Since your global morale is determined by how many casualties you have taken, getting your global morale down requires killing off most of your troops. So, if someone were to try to "exploit" this, they would basically just have to set it up so you lost most of your troops very fast... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm, Very interesting... Tell me, does the possesion of objectives at the end of the game dictate the winner? Or is it the casulaties caused to the enemy? My follow-up question depends on the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanE Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I guess since there will be no modification, the selection practices for competitiive play will become extremely Slow due to scenario scrutinization <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am going to play competitive games, just not on the ladder , and this is my view on the "problem": If I play a game against somebody and feel that they cheated in some way and manipulated the scenario design to win; I will let them know that I think they did something underhanded and I will NOT play them again. It is a game after all, and if somebody feels the need to cheat to win, then I simply do not want to play that individual. Only difference I can see relating to ladder play is that I would notify the person running the ladder that I feel the individual in question is cheating. ------------------ Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 20, 2000 Author Share Posted April 20, 2000 Well As far as not playing people goes thats great - but ina ladder you usually have to play everybody like it or not , and there are genreally rules regarding refusal to play or meet challenges With regards to manufacturing slanted scenarios that isn't actually cheating _ Its TOTAL BULLS@#T but Technically it aint cheating - and I've yet to see anybody try to implement it as such or find someway of montioring it and/or enforce it ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott C Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 SS_P said: As far as the manipulation goes I answered this in a thread to moon No, you didn't - all you said about it was "Morale becomes a weapon that can be implemented during design" and then started talking about having to check the quality of every squad on the map. I reiterate - the only way to get the global morale down that low is for your troops to have the sh** kicked out of them. Therefore, the only way I can see for morale to "become a weapon" is to set up a scenario where your troops WILL get the sh** kicked out of them, in which case you can't win regardless of whether it auto-surrenders or not! As to quality of troops, yes conscripts will surrender quicker than veterans. Conscripts are also much worse in every other way, too. Meaning that, if there is a major difference in experience level without countervailing factors, you lose anyway. My point is, lowering a force's global morale is done by destroying the force. Therefore if global morale is low, your force has already be torn to shreds. Thus, morale can't be "used as a weapon" unless the side in question has already been smashed. Global surrender does not become a possibility until one side is already combat ineffective (which you were). So, to state my question as clearly as I know how: How can morale be "used as a weapon" except by setting up the scenario so one force will be quickly destroyed? And in that case, doesn't the problem with the scenario simply have to do with one side not having a chance? ------------------ Questions, comments, arguments, refutations, criticisms, and/or sea stories? [This message has been edited by Scott C (edited 04-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 Scott - thanks for bringing this up again! I have repeated this point (maybe not as clearly) a few times and felt a little "ignored" by SS_Panzerleader (not flaming, I am saying this without tongue in cheek but with a wink ---> Oh, and to answer Black Sabot's question: the actual victory level depends on both - flags and casualties. Possession of flags adds to your victory points, while casualties subtract from it. It's simple (Steve, correct me if I'm wrong): if you lose 100 points worth of units while taking a flag with a 100 points value = zero. [This message has been edited by Moon (edited 04-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 In fact, let me add an example to the above. I have just finished playing a tough scenario from "Wild" Bill Wilder, essentially a meeting engagement of two relatively large armored forces. There are three victory flags in the middle of the map, and although by game end I was in possession of all three, I had taken heavy casualties: the end result was a draw (yep, against the AI!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 20, 2000 Author Share Posted April 20, 2000 Ok here goes: here is one way I see that an unscrupulus player could pull this off 1. slighty tweak terrain in favor of desired winning side 2. slightly tweak ammo loadout in favor of desired winning side 3. pick better quality units or adjust morale to favored side 4. set up a reinforcement schedule to coincide with morale collapse 5. Then simply throw em a bone to offset any questionability (ie cover tracks) VIOLA instant setup ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 21, 2000 Author Share Posted April 21, 2000 BTW do you realize how long its gonna take to go through a good sized scenario to see that this doesnt happen At least if we could play to the end if ya made it to get your reinforcements even if morale sucked you may still be able to turn it around - as it stands it's unlikely to happen before morale collapses yet I havent seen the gold so hopefully this isnt as easy to manipulate as it appears to me ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraut Posted April 21, 2000 Share Posted April 21, 2000 Hey, i thought we were talking about the AI surrendering for you in a multi-player game. Now it's all about the AI surrendering for itself in a single-player game? Huh? MK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts