To surrender or not?

[Cybeq]

What is your opinion of PBEM opponents surrendering? Do you think you should fight on regardless of your losses? To the last man? The reason I'm asking is because I just surrendered a PBEM and my opponent told me "that's weak". He seemed kinda perturbed. But I honestly had no capability of winning. Why continue? It wasn't fun without a glimmer of hope.

[chrisl]

If it's going so badly that it's stopped being fun, then you should surrender. I've been on the winning side of such things a couple of times and it can be frustrating to have a lopsided match continue for 10-15 more turns. I've also been on the losing side of them, surrendered, and my opponents didn't complain.

That said, if you're taking heavy losses but delivering similar pain it can be fun to try to minimize the margin of victory that your opponent is going to get. As defender in attack and assault scenarios that's sometimes all you can hope for.

I've also played a few where both players were out of ammo and reduced to harsh words and powdery snowballs, stumbling haphazardly toward the flags. Those can be a lot of fun, and hard to tell who's going to win.

[ParaBellum]

As mentioned above, dragging on a game that's clearly been decided is IMO a waste of time for both players.

I only surrender if I have no further means on inflicting casualties on my opponent and the tactical situation is hopeless.

What I don't like is when people loose their tanks on turn 2 and surrender on turn three with their infantry, supporting weapons and arty still in good shape. I think that as long as you have the ability to fight back you shouldn't surrender.

If your tanks and guns are knocked out, your arty is spent and your infantry is reduced to broken/panicked squads hiding in a ditch or running to the rear I would consider it honorable to surrender.

I got opponents who surrendered and in fact had taken less casualties than me!

[GAZ NZ]

Yes if one has infantry and artillery in good nick, they should carry the fight on and not surrender.

Why is it everyone bases the game around how much armour they have?

I have won games with only infantry and support gears.

use ya troops wisely is the key to victory!!

My experience with this is:

I had a game of 2500 points going a PBM and the allied guy took out me 2 tigers out in in turn2. Did i pack a sad? nope.

I was annoyed lol but i kept playing

Turn 3 me panther took out 4 of his 5 tanks haha and the next turn the 5 th fell to me panther.

I then shot a half track to bits and guess what turn 5 he surrendered.

Wheres the rest of his stuff?

God what a waste of time i reckon.

A medium map which was quite big and all the stuff, i mean its a wste of time if people quit like that.

Surrender should only happen if u are tactically screwed no matter what u do.

And even then fight on lol.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

The reason I'm asking is because I just surrendered a PBEM and my opponent told me "that's weak".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless you agreed to fight to the last man, as far as I'm concerned you are totally within your rights to surrender when the outcome is no longer in doubt. I get rather annoyed at opponents who keep fighting with a few tattered units when they have no chance. I think most people are like this, and the ones who get some perverse pleasure out of spending 15 turns trying to kill every last bailed crew on the map are rare. Just don't play him again.

[David Aitken]

If you want to be realistic, withdrawal is a better option than surrender. See this thread. However, if your troops are surrounded or you can't possibly disengage without taking heavy casualties, it makes sense to surrender.

[ 07-12-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]

[russellmz]

yeah i hate guys who bitch at me for surrendering when i'm down to my last two crews and a routed half squad.

[Windopaene]

I think it depends on the situation. If my opponent surrenders on Turn 5, (never happened to me yet), I'm going to be a bit pissed off, as setup is the one difficult, cumbersome task of the game. But if it has been a hard fought battle, and you're at turn 15-23 then I'm not going to have a problem with it. Battle was joined, asses were kicked, my tactics were superior, you lose, good game.

I've surrendered in 4 PBEMs so far out of about 30 I've played, (though some of those are in progress so it may still happen in those), and one of those was an auto-surrender, but I digress. In the other 3 cases, I had lost. there was no doubt. I had devised a plan, botched its execution, and with all my armor gone, the infantry battered and mostly gone, and arty starting to fall, and all my MG ammo out, there comes a time for surrender.

Interesting to note that none of these were meeting engagements but were attack (1), probe attack(1), assult defend(1).

BUT, that being noted, let me add that I would much rather an opponent surrender than simply disappear. Have the cojones to accept your defeat, surrender and send it back for me to look at.

[Panzer Leader]

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

As mentioned above, dragging on a game that's clearly been decided is IMO a waste of time for both players.

I only surrender if I have no further means on inflicting casualties on my opponent and the tactical situation is hopeless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So then, Parabellum, can I expect a surrender from you in the next file I get?

Hey WINDOWPAENE! Wanna try another Assault? I'll defend as the Germans.

As for the question I agree with most everybody: surrender is a good thing if one has no tactical chance of winning or reducing the opponents margin of victory.

But any surrender is better than just not finishing the game - THAT I hate.

Also I like Aitkin's idea, but it still drags out the game. I might try it, and I expect HIM to try it in our current game. Time for a flanking maneuver, if I could just get past that pile-up of cromwells...

[ 07-12-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]

[Ellros]

As an alternative to surrender... if you know you are losing, you can ask your opponent for a cease-fire.

[Louie the Toad]

Further thoughts on surrendering:

1. Its a game. You can quit when it isn't fun anymore. Quitting is defined as surrendering.

Surrendering is informing your opponent that you are ending the fight.

2. Did't Sun Tzu or someone say words to the effect that the ultimate victory is to defeat your opponent without fighting ? Not much fun in a tactical game. Strategic, yes.

3.If the game had an operational or strategic

overlay to it, your decision to withdraw or

fight to the end or to surrender would make sense in the larger picture. Probably most of the time there would be withdrawals. Since there is no larger picture, I go back to number 1 above.

Thoughtful Toad

[lcm1947]

I wanted to know the same thing several months ago and had asked this question myself and got about the same answers. So what I did was ask my opponent what he thought. I figured - hey -, he knows what a bind I'm in anyway. Well, what happened was he said that that was fine he was really low on ammo anyway. Well, I did surrender but always regreted it thinking I may have been able to pull it out. So you never know what shape your opponent is in either so I've learned to fight until the very bitter end. Hell maybe he would have surrender if I hadn't.

[Lars]

Why don’t you send a offer of surrender if your options have run out instead of just sending the surrender file? Your Opponent can then decide if he would rather move on to the next game or continue to inflict a little more pain. Just because it is no longer fun for you doesn’t mean he isn’t having fun. Most people will chose to move on but some may have a tactical problem they would still like to work out in your game. You can always just sit there and hit the “GO” button.

[lcm1947]

I think Lars has probably the best answer so so including mine above. You never know if the other player is still having fun or not either, so ask. One last point and I'll bud out and that is when I first started playing I was wanting to be a good opponent so thought if I would continue even when I had lost interest myself and really had no real means to win and barely even able to defend myself I continued on wanting to leave my opponent thinking kindly of me. I figured well he was probably having a blast destroying me or whatever. I can see the fun in that very easy, so wanted to allow him that fun. This is how I feel one should conduct one's self in the game, but like Lars said and I confirmed - you never know so ask.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>lcm1947 wrote:

You never know if the other player is still having fun or not either, so ask.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, that's allright, I always get to know a girl well beforehand so that we can discuss these... whoops, we're still talking about CM.

[Moriarty]

When things have gone straight into the toilet and there's no chance of winning or minimizing my opponent's margin of victory by fighting to a minor or tactical defeat, I'll offer the options of cease-fire, surrender or continuing to chase my troops around the map for another 10 turns.

I've yet to have someone say "that's weak" or anything to that effect by doing this.

[Banshee]

A withdrawl of forces off the map is usually a more realistic option than a surrender. For example if I was outflanked and had zero ability to stop an opponent from rolling my flank up and defating me, I would withdraw off the map, even if i had the majority of my force un-engaged. Your opponent may think its weak, but it a million times more realistic than fighting to the last man or surrendering. For some reason withdrawing off the map seems to be the last thing people will do.

[ParaBellum]

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

So then, Parabellum, can I expect a surrender from you in the next file I get?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha! Now that my brave americans have shattered your stinking SMG/20mm/Püppchen defense??

My remaining Sherman will annihilate the rest of your forces!

If it doesn't bog down like the other vehicles.

Or gets hit by something nasty.

Or the game ends...

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

Further thoughts on surrendering:

1. Its a game. You can quit when it isn't fun anymore. Quitting is defined as surrendering.

Surrendering is informing your opponent that you are ending the fight.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. Surrendering when clearly beaten is different from quitting just for the sake of quitting. When you enter a PBEM, you enter in a social contract with pre-expectations on both sides - one of which is that the other player will do his best to win and give you a good game.

If the game is clearly won, then surrender is acceptable (depending on the individuals involved); quitting simply because you do not want to put any more effort into it is clearly not fair to the opponent.

[PiggDogg]

You should fight to the end. However, if you have 'no' and I mean 'no' real means of winning you "may" surrender. However, as a courtesy, you should ask permission of your opponent. The winner should get the enjoyment of winning for as long as reasonable. If you have gotten trounced, grin, bear it, & be a man. Let the winner savor the victory.

Cheers, Richard Cuccia