How does moving units off the map affect QB score?

[Forever Babra]

Originally posted by John Kelly:

Wow, I never heard of such a thing. You mean it is possible to win or draw without holding the victory locations?

Yes, but you have to kill a LOT more of them than they of you, and at best you will score a minor win, more likely a draw. But it beats a POW camp...

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

"Za Rodentia!"

[Bruno Weiss]

Well Mr. Clark, at least I "believe" that is factual info for version 1.12, I don't know for a fact as I never put it to the test. Now, I will also use crews to hold firing positions, particularly in the rear or a rear VL. But my understanding of 1.12, was that crews and out of ammo units will not be calculated by the AI for VL purposes. Based on that, I suppose you gotta toss a latrine digger in there somewhere armed with a shovel and some toidy paper so's the AI will see it and count the VL in your favor.

I think gamey madness was what precipitated the no crew and no ammo equals no glory thought on that. Not sure I personally agree with it, but I'm not sure I don't either, so I've just avoided the situation and haven't really put it to the test to find out.

The one thing that bugs me about such lines of thought concerning cries of gameyness is that the quest for precision mechanics has seemingly reduced the ability to faint during a battle. Using faints, or faking out the opponent is as real a historical tactic as there ever was. I've used schrecks that were out of ammo on a few occasions to ward off an armor unit, and IMO that ain't no where near gamey. So, to me my holding a VL with out of ammo units, which in a tight situation might prevent an open field attack as such, would seem to me to be perfectly legitimate. Thus, my concern as to "what price perfection", that the gamey prevention quest may have spurred. Just a thought.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 03-09-2001).]

[Lawyer]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

The one thing that bugs me about such lines of thought concerning cries of gameyness is that the quest for precision mechanics has seemingly reduced the ability to faint during a battle. Using faints, or faking out the opponent is as real a historical tactic as there ever was.

Running units off the map is not a "feint" to fool the enemy. It is, in fact, running away from the whole battle in the hopes of getting a better score from the AI.

In an operation with several battles, it may make sense to withdraw in a single engagement to preserve forces for later use. But in a single QB, with no ongoing life for units, it is an admission that you are foregoing gameplay to seek a score advantage before the game ends naturally. That is indeed gamey to people who play CM to fight till the end.

Furthermore, it is a waste of time for players wanting to engage their units in battle (the whole purpose of the game). Considering that a 1500 pt QB takes more than a month to play, that is a lot of wasted time.

If you plan to bug out as soon as things don't look good for you, tell your opponent up front. Save everybody else a lot of time, so you can play your half-games with those who share your views of CM victory.

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

You're never alone with a schizophrenic.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Lawyer:

Running units off the map is not a "feint" to fool the enemy. It is, in fact, running away from the whole battle in the hopes of getting a better score from the AI.

In an operation with several battles, it may make sense to withdraw in a single engagement to preserve forces for later use. But in a single QB, with no ongoing life for units, it is an admission that you are foregoing gameplay to seek a score advantage before the game ends naturally. That is indeed gamey to people who play CM to fight till the end.

Furthermore, it is a waste of time for players wanting to engage their units in battle (the whole purpose of the game). Considering that a 1500 pt QB takes more than a month to play, that is a lot of wasted time.

If you plan to bug out as soon as things don't look good for you, tell your opponent up front. Save everybody else a lot of time, so you can play your half-games with those who share your views of CM victory.

Part of fighting the enemy is fixing them in place with fire. If he can run away, you haven't properly engaged him.

I don't agree that "seeking a score advantage" can be considered "foregoing gameplay." Sounds very much like gameplay, compared to foregoing "history".

But wouldn't a historical commander also withdraw without fighting to the last round?

So really, it isn't foregoing anything - but the imminent slaughter of your troops faced with a desperate situation.

A GOOD scenario will be fought to the last turn. Quick Battles are no guarantee of balanced fights, and those seeking to play a spirited battle are better off finding well designed scenarios.

I was pretty upset when I first saw Babra skulking away, but it does seem to me to be legitimate, and not something one needs bother about discussing beforehand. A good player will plan to not only meet the enemy, but prevent his withdrawal and disengagement.

I'm playing a great PBEM right now where the enemy made a skillful approach march, only exposing himself when he was close to my positions, and then he did so en masse. There are 4 turns left or so, and the two forces have taken light casualties and are vying for the two victory locations. Needless to say it is not a QB. It will not be decided until the last turn.

Why waste time playing a crappy scenario for 30 turns when the game has been decided on turn 10?

If the scenario is designed well, neither side will feel the need to leave.

[Bruno Weiss]

Lawyer wrote:

Running units off the map is not a "feint" to fool the enemy.

Your absolutely right there Lawyer. Except that wasn't what I was talking about. My reference to faints had to do with the engineering into the game of such things as crews and out of ammo units not being able to hold VL's. And, whether or not that sort of engineering which came about as a result of the cries of gamey every time someone loses and doesn't like it, motivating such changes which result directly or indirectly in the loss of such abilities as being able to faint in a given situation.

It is, in fact, running away from the whole battle in the hopes of getting a better score from the AI.

Now, running away from the battle as you put it, is precisely the historical remedy for such a situation. What is "gamey" is that CM only allows for either a surrender or a ceasefire. Use of the surrender command doing absolutely nothing that an email to the opponent stating "I surrender", wouldn't accomplish, and a ceasefire requiring an agreement by the opponent. Neither of which are the most common outcomes of the historical battlefield. A withdrawal is infact, the most common outcome of the localized battlefield situation. If either side just up and surrendered during the war after every given battle, it probably would not have lasted too long. And I doubt there were that many negotiated ceasefires where they just sat and looked at each other till the AI informed them of who won. What did take place was a withdrawal by the losing force, and historically speaking long before the battle damage percentages which CM allows to happen. Which indeed was undertaken for the exact same reasons Babra is utilizing his rather novel tactic in the game. To avoid the capitulation of the entire force to the enemy. That is not gamey, that is historical.

So what your statement seems to amount to is claiming that the actual historical outcome of the vast majority of battles is "gamey", while asserting on the other hand that since CM is a game the opponent should act like it, and provide the excitement of brief glory by remaining within the confines of the game mechanics rather than take a historical course of action. I would counter quite to the contrary, that "that" is gamey.

Which, sort of summarizes what I was talking about that you misunderstood. A thousand CM players get together, and there are a thousand definitions of what is "gamey". Not much consensus. And every time someone doesn't like something out comes the cry of "gamey!" Thus resulting in process re-engineering in the patches designed to eliminate those pesky gamey capabilities, but in reality without any consensus in the first place as to what gamey is, or what the indirect outcome might be, and since there are any number of ten thousand things that have been screamed gamey, the only true way to eliminate gamey from the game, is to simply eliminate the game. Then, it won't be gamey any more.

The bottom line is, there will always be someone in the crowd likely to yell gamey when they lose. To chase the ten thousand definitions of gamey around with patches attempting to fix them, is on the order of attempting to heard a stampede of rattlesnakes.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 03-10-2001).]

[Lawyer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Part of fighting the enemy is fixing them in place with fire. If he can run away, you haven't properly engaged him.

This statement is simply not true. With at least 3 map edges normally available on a medium map, most enemy units can escape most anytime if they want to. Please give us your technique for trapping enemy units on the map, if you have one. I would love to use it.

The hard challenge is staying alive on the map, not leaving it.

I don't agree that "seeking a score advantage" can be considered "foregoing gameplay." Sounds very much like gameplay, compared to foregoing "history".

It isn't "gameplay" if you are not on the map taking turns to kill your opponent. It may be "gaming" to take yourself out of the match, but it is not gameplay.

But wouldn't a historical commander also withdraw without fighting to the last round?

Undoubtedly true, unless he had orders to hold at all costs (which many apparently did, from my reading). However, CM is a GAME where we actively SEEK combat, not real life history where any sane person would avoid it.

We can afford to exercise our bloodlust because only the pixels die. If you only play CM when the other guy's pixels die, then you are missing most of what the game is about, IMO.

Why waste time playing a crappy scenario for 30 turns when the game has been decided on turn 10?

Very few games are over that early. Most of mine are in balance until close to the end, and then you play to make the most of it if you are behind.

Beyond that, however, you may find small victories in taking a flag or destroying a tank, etc. even if the whole game is beyond reach. It keeps it interesting, and like any competitive sport, the points scored at the end are typically more interesting than the ones scored early.

Overall, I guess it is just a matter of your attitude in playing the game, which is why it's good to find opponents who share your goals in playing CM. Personally, I don't share the goals of early evacuees.

To each his own.

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

You're never alone with a schizophrenic.

[Lawyer]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

So what your statement seems to amount to is claiming that the actual historical outcome of the vast majority of battles is "gamey", while asserting on the other hand that since CM is a game the opponent should act like it, and provide the excitement of brief glory by remaining within the confines of the game mechanics rather than take a historical course of action. I would counter quite to the contrary, that "that" is gamey.

First, you are correct that I want opponents to seek combat engagement within CM, and then stay around as long as possible to duke it out. That may not be historical, but much of CM is not historical. The game is simply a setup to simulate actual combat and tactics for people who want to engage in them.

A truly historical sim would be boring to watch. Who wants to look at guys freezing their butts off in a foxhole? Or maybe we could watch the 9 out of 10 US troops who supported the war by typing, unloading ships, or cooking. BTS made CM to simulate the action parts of WWII because that's what we want to play.

Second, you make a very good point about my inaccurate use of the word "gamey". My gripe is directed at players who are NOT playing CM as a combat game (anti-gamey??), even though their actions may be historically smart in real battle. You are right that I am really arguing for gamey players. My apologies.

The rest of your tome is focused on complaints of "gamey" in general. I agree with you on most points. My issue is more focused on whether someone's attitude in playing is to fight or not. The effects of gaminess on CM mechanics is a different subject to me.

BTW, I won the match in question (although I've lost others), so my gamey charge is not generated by losing. I just want the friggin' opponent to stay in the ring and fight for the fun of it.

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

You're never alone with a schizophrenic.

[Bruno Weiss]

Well I did kinda break away from the specific subject at hand, but thought it related. I haven't used the "Babra Taktic", if we can coin a phrase. But did think it somewhat novel. At least, he is the first to implement it that I've heard of.

But I found it very near what I had previously put forth as a potential wish list item wherein, CM itself would have some mechanism (a withdrawal option), in addition to surrender and/or ceasefire to provide a process whereby withdrawals could be recognized and undertaken in a manner in which the AI would be involved in its conclusion. In addition, such a process would be more regulated wherein, specific requirements would have to be met for the side using withdrawal in order to successfully achieve the goal of retreating off the map.

I thought that would work as a deterrent to the long drawn out games where there is no hope of a win, but a reluctance to surrender, but more importantly I also saw it as an interesting potential for extending the tactical situation at hand (i.e., someone is losing and somewhat bored, someone is winning and patiently waiting), into another realm where now you would have a withdrawal process that would put some fight back into the game with additional goals besides the (presumably already a dead issue), VL's at that point.

Which, might also take any perception of gameyness out of it for those who don't like the idea of an unofficial withdrawal and make it a tactical situation to be dealt with by both players. Potentially turning around a total loss to something of a higher level for the opponent using withdrawal, or a complete disaster for sure if they couldn't meet the requirements or the winning opponent prevented them from it.

Your points well taken Lawyer. I understand where your coming from. Personally, at least till I heard of the now infamous I suppose, Babra Taktic, I generally surrender when all is hopeless and look forward to a fresh start in a second game.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 03-10-2001).]

[Lawyer]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Your points well taken Lawyer. I understand where your coming from. Personally, at least till I heard of the now infamous I suppose, Babra Taktic, I generally surrender when all is hopeless and look forward to a fresh start in a second game.

Amen. Until losing a PBEM costs me real money in real life, I'll play whatever squads or teams I have left in mini-engagements until they win or lose. I want very much to win the whole game, but I'm willing to risk that to have a good fight wherever I can find one on the map.

One of my best game moments came when my lone Sherman and a zook team took out two Panthers in one turn after much cat and mouse chasing around wooded terrain. My opponent won a total victory overall, but I won that little engagement. Those are the small treasures that keep me excited about playing.

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

You're never alone with a schizophrenic.

[Forever Babra]

Oh, no, not the Babrataktik -- right up there with Brave Sir Robin...

Actually, in my game with Michael, my withdrawal was a mistake. The game was 30 turns, but for some reason I had it in my head that it was 60 turns -- don't know why. It was around turn 20 when I started to withdraw. I could easily have held a few of the VLs for another 10 turns, but definitely not for 40. By the time I noticed my mistake it was too late -- more than half my force and all my armour had withdrawn. Just wasn't paying attention there and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory that time.

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

"Za Rodentia!"

[Bruno Weiss]

Hehe, another immortal. Das Babratactik!

Well I don't disagree with this unofficial withdrawal, nor the idea of surrender when all is lost. And Lawyer is quite correct, there is no discounting the bravery of the moment, the unknown, and/or the winning opponent who gets sloppy and pulls a boner from over confidence or who let their guard down.

We're talking about a dynamic situation here. A withdrawal to me, is perhaps a good way to shorten an otherwise long drawn out affair. I've advised opponents before when all seemed lost, or even when they offered a surrender to just hit the ceasefire and I'll do so in turn, and let the AI figure it out. But that isn't always the case.

Generally speaking, if I were to get the sense that my opponent was initiating a withdrawal, then I would inturn respond with some sort of advance positions to harass such a tactic. Perhaps a notification to the opponent of an intended withdrawal would reduce any perception of gameyness. Sure, it might make it tougher, but it might not. Some would just sit there happy to hold the VL's I'm sure, while others might undertake to prevent the withdrawal. Then too, it is all kind of relative to the situation at hand.

Which, is why I wanted an official withdrawal mechanism. To referee such things, add spice to the game, and divert so much attention from the VL's as being the main focal point of victory or defeat. But in any case, I believe a withdrawal to be within the limits of legitimate tactics. Since as Lawyer aptly points out, it might also be that the person initiating a withdrawal is missing out on the unknown, the blunder that might have been, and undertaking a rather complicated maneuver which in and of itself is fraught with danger, or can be if not delicately handled.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 03-10-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

I find this discussion rather strange. Someone is actually objecting to his opponent retreating live men off the map, when he wins? Um, if you insist on controlling both sides, play with yourself, sir.

Your enemy is no more obligated to stand in front of you, than he is to run his tanks out into the open within 50 yards of your zook teams. He is an *opponent*. His job is to do things that you *don't like" or that make your job of killing him harder, not easier.

"Yeah, but not running away". Why the heck not? "Cause I wanna splatter all his pixels when I push through on the left". And he is supposed to not give a darn whether his pixels are all splattered?

"Just saying beforehand how I like to play". Fine by me. Your bed to lie in. You just won't ever count me among your opponents. I don't quite understand why a human opponent is needed in the exercise, frankly. Just command both sides and splatter all the pixels you please.

[Lawyer]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

"Just saying beforehand how I like to play". Fine by me. Your bed to lie in. You just won't ever count me among your opponents. I don't quite understand why a human opponent is needed in the exercise, frankly. Just command both sides and splatter all the pixels you please.

We can agree that you will never be my opponent. Why waste my precious time playing with someone like you who thinks that annoying the opponent rather than engaging in combat is the goal of CM? If you don't want to fight, why show up at all?

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

You're never alone with a schizophrenic.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Forever Babra:

Oh, no, not the Babrataktik -- right up there with Brave Sir Robin...

I'm wondering if someone can let me know if I understand this correctly?

Is the now infamous "Babrataktik" an attempt to prematurally end the game by initiating the

"auto-terminate" fuse that ends games when one side's GM falls below 15?

Perhaps I am mistaken about this, but is it not the intention of this tactic to withdraw your units until you fall to less than 15 on the GM scale and then since you inflicted more damage than you took end the game with at least a draw or minor victory, irrespective of the ownership of the VL's.??

If so, I must admit I pulled a Minor Victory or a draw out of the bag when the game stopped and auto-terminated a TCP/IP match before it was over when my GM fell below 15, this was unintentional but it cut short my opponents time and opporunity to advance and finish me off and take the VL's.

This a very interesting discussion and I hope someone can explain to me exactly how the game auto-terminates and how, exactly, do you get them most out of the newly discovered "Babrataktik" ? (I know Mr. Lawyer hates me for this, Don't worry Lawyer I never play PBEM only TCP/IP so the consquence here will be instant and immediate ok? )

One BIG question, does the game auto terminate (end) when one's sides GM falls below 15? and are we exploiting this "feature" with the "Babrataktik"??

Thanks

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

How sure are we that this new found tactic is not WIDE open to gamey exploitation by intiating the auto-surrender by bugging out after you have just ko'd 2-3 opfor AVF's without loosing any of yours.

Then retreat and autosurrender and win a minor victory?

no?

comments?

-tom w

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Lawyer:

In an operation with several battles, it may make sense to withdraw in a single engagement to preserve forces for later use.

Not a good idea. Page 95 of the manual states: "Units that exit the map during an operation will not return for the next battle. Therefore, exiting is generally unwise"

Take it from one who learned that the hard way

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

...the quest for precision mechanics has seemingly reduced the ability to faint during a battle.

"Quick, Sergeant, the smelling salts! The Colonel has just fainted!"

Michael

[Forever Babra]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

...is it not the intention of this tactic to withdraw your units until you fall to less than 15 on the GM scale and then since you inflicted more damage than you took end the game with at least a draw or minor victory, irrespective of the ownership of the VL's.?

Some might do it that way or for that reason. My purpose in withdrawing is not so sophisticated though. I just want to LIVE, dammit! I try to time the withdrawal so that as few units as possible end up surrendering.

If I'm hanging onto the VLs and feel I can hold the enemy off, I stay. If I am outmaneuvered, but still feel I can recapture lost ground, I stay. If ammo is low, units are shot up, and I do not have the resources to continue the fight in a meaningful way (for instance if my opponent has tanks and I do not), I withdraw. Sticking around after that point is, IMO, just cyber-murder. Since withdrawal is probably going to give the other guy a win anyway, I don't see where he has a valid complaint.

It can actually be fun trying to extract units. You now have an objective quite different from your opponent, who is probably still fixated on the VLs, and there is a sense of victory in withdrawing from a bad situation regardless of how the game calculates victory. Maybe only people who have actually been on the angry end of a gun at some point in their lives could appreciate this.

Brave Sir Robin ran away

Bravely ran away - away!

When danger reared its ugly head

He bravely turned his tail and fled...

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

"Za Rodentia!"

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Lawyer:

Why waste my precious time playing with someone like you who thinks that annoying the opponent rather than engaging in combat is the goal of CM? If you don't want to fight, why show up at all?

Aw come on, Lawguy, you're putting words into the mouth of the witness. Jason nowhere said that annoying the opponent was his goal of CM. He has one bias: To play the game as historically accurate as its design limitations permit (in the interests of full disclosure, in case no-one has noticed, that is a bias I happen to share). From the way you describe yourself, you prefer a more gladiatorial type contest with no quarter asked or given. That's fine with me. You put your money down and you deserve to be able to play the game any way you and your opponents agree to play. Why are you whining that other players prefer a different style of play? And why are you trying to portray it as gamey when plainly it is not? Nothing which was done historically as a matter of course can be considered gamey in this game...or so it seems to me. It's a historical game, get it? But having said that, if you can make a case to the contrary, I'll hear it.

Michael

[Forever Babra]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

How sure are we that this new found tactic is not WIDE open to gamey exploitation...?

I don't think it would work. If you're doing THAT well, kicking butt and taking no casualties, why retreat? Maybe there's someone somewhere that might do it, but I'll bet they're in a huge minority. Someone that interested in getting a win by any means won't run when he's kicking ass.

On the other hand, suppose you're doing well enough, but suddenly you catch a glimpse of your opponent's reinforcements or a force you weren't aware of previously. Your losses have been comparatively light, but your ammo is low and your artillery is spent. After weighing all the factors you may well decide that discretion is the better part of valour and it's time to leave...

Ammo, for me, plays a BIG part in my decision-making in CM.

Edited for grammar.

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

"Za Rodentia!"

[This message has been edited by Forever Babra (edited 03-10-2001).]

[chrisl]

Originally posted by Lawyer:

Why waste my precious time playing with someone like you who thinks that annoying the opponent rather than engaging in combat is the goal of CM?

Hey Jake-- I haven't seen jason hanging out in the cesspool (where annoying your opponent is more important than engaging in combat).

Anyway, I sent you some comments related to this in email after our last game (btw-- I expect a file from you-- you get to pick the parameters) but I'll add a few here.

One witdrawing units vs. fighting to the last photon: I think fighting to the last is actually "gamier"-- few commanders are likely to fight to the last drop in a situation from which they can withdraw and fight another day unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances.

Withdrawing crews, out of ammo mortars, AT teams etc.-- I don't think it's gamey at all, especially for the crew and mortar types. If you read accounts from those kinds of guys, they would head back and get a cup of coffee and a new tank, or some more ammo, or whatever. I occasionally use them as "night watchmen" on the edges, if I'm low on real troops, but they don't spot or fight particularly well. BTS designed things to encourage you to save them by sending them back to get resupplied. In ops you don't want to pull such units off the map, but you certainly want to move them out of the line of fire.

On surrendering: If I think there's a chance of pulling off a draw or better I won't surrender. If crushing defeat is guaranteed, I'll toss it in. It's like playing hearts-- at the end of a hand, when you know the last 4 tricks are yours (leaving you all but one point), you toss in your cards, and everyone tosses in theres. The waste of time is in playing out the last few turns-- you could be starting a new game where the outcome isn't so certain. Surrendering simply because things aren't going your way is lazy though--I've squeaked out a couple of wins even after I got to turn 15 or so and was ready to surrender or ask for a cease fire.

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

"If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk)

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Forever Babra:

I don't think it would work. If you're doing THAT well, kicking butt and taking no casualties, why retreat? Maybe there's someone somewhere that might do it, but I'll bet they're in a huge minority. Someone that interested in getting a win by any means won't run when he's kicking ass.

On the other hand, suppose you're doing well enough, but suddenly you catch a glimpse of your opponent's reinforcements or a force you weren't aware of previously. Your losses have been comparatively light, but your ammo is low and your artillery is spent. After weighing all the factors you may well decide that discretion is the better part of valour and it's time to leave...

Ammo, for me, plays a BIG part in my decision-making in CM.

Edited for grammar.

OK

I suspect you are correct.

I just played a scenario against the AI and attempted to kill quick and early and then retreat fast and make the game auto surrender.

It did not work.

It has once worked in my favour where (by accident that time) I fell below 15 on the GM scale and then auto-surrendered then it was either a draw or a minor victory. (TCP/IP game)

I will happily admit to being (perhaps) a little almarist earlier when I thought that intentionally triggering the auto surrender by withdrawing could be gamey. Now I don't think it is really gamey at all.

One thing is for sure, your GM drops when you exit units off the map and if your GM falls below 15 you will auto surrender, but that does not mean you will lose. That is the interesting part. I think you can in fact end the game artificially, by intentionally retreating off the map and then dropping your GM less than 15 and then intiating the auto-surrender and you "might" (if you kicked SERIOUS butt earlier) still get a draw or minor victory.

It is certianly something to keep in mind.

The lesson here?

triggering the autosurrender does not mean you are certian to lose the game, a draw or minor victory may still be possible, if the VL's are contested and you destroyed more points than you lost.

Anyone else have any first hand experience with this auto-surrender feature?

Thanks for your prompt and informative reply Babra.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-10-2001).]

[Lawyer]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

It's a historical game, get it? But having said that, if you can make a case to the contrary, I'll hear it.

Michael

Listen up, Emrys! Read the above posts again, but pay attention this time. There's a reason Hollywood made a great movie called "Patton" instead of "Hodges". Get it?

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

You're never alone with a schizophrenic.

[Lawyer]

Originally posted by chrisl:

Surrendering simply because things aren't going your way is lazy though--I've squeaked out a couple of wins even after I got to turn 15 or so and was ready to surrender or ask for a cease fire.

I believe one of those games was our last one, where I gave you a pep talk mid-way through when it looked like I might win. My reward was to fall victim to your methodical destruction of a fine town. QED that I follow my own dictum of all out war.

BTW, I still think there is a Magua building mod bug in CM though, cuz CM does not accurately model the strengh of the way the buildings on my screen look. They blow up way too easily. Jeff Heidmann or someone on this thread ought to look into it.

Your setup will hopefully be finished tonight. Great art takes time, especially now that I know I'm playing against the whole damned Caltech computer system. I'll place my units proximate to the map edge for easy escape. Hehehe....

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

You're never alone with a schizophrenic.

[chrisl]

Originally posted by Lawyer:

I believe one of those games was our last one, where I gave you a pep talk mid-way through when it looked like I might win. My reward was to fall victim to your methodical destruction of a fine town. QED that I follow my own dictum of all out war.

Always a lawyer...I like to mix a little diplomacy into my CM, and you fell for it. I hardly destroyed the town; what was it-- maybe three or four buildings? If I hadn't foolishly wasted my 8" gun spotter I would have methodically destroyed the town, that was just the best I could do without him. Prepare to be punished again.

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

"If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk)