To end the game. How do you decide when you are defeated?

[Louie the Toad]

Do you fight to the last man? Do you consider a broader picture (that is not actually represented)

and cease fire or even move your surviving units off the map (as if they were pulling back to fight another day)? Do you request a cease fire?

[Sir Uber General]

I like the idea of cease fire if it is a stalemate, or if you wish to surrender without losing as many points due to capture, withdraw off map first then surrender. That can be a game all its own

[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Sir Uber General ]</p>

[von Murrin]

I tend to pull back and consolidate if I'm getting stomped on the attack, or run for the rear if I'm defending and losing badly.

Nathanael

[Chad Harrison]

if the winner if obvious, and a couple days/weeks is going to be spent beating the tar out of the loser, then in those games, we usually end them and start a new one.

[Redwolf]

I am pretty sure I annoy people by playing it through even if I'm beaten.

I noticed that late-battle clashes often have as much if not more learning effect as others.

For example, he tries to mob up the survivors of Platoons X with their single thin AFVs. Can he do so without taking losses? How can I prevent him from inflicting more casualities? What are the exect circumstances I can use for a retreat?

[Iron Chef Sakai]

i prefer a cease fire whether i'm winning opr losing. i dont make my guys fight to the last man , that would be gamey.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

i prefer a cease fire whether i'm winning opr losing. i dont make my guys fight to the last man , that would be gamey.<hr></blockquote>

If you are in a battle where it matters how big you loose (on a ladder or in a tourney with unbalanced scenarios), then the winner will not offer you a ceasefire, because he would give away many points when compared to mopping you up and/or force you into autosurrender. A voluntary surrender is usually out of question in such games for the same reason, so the only option is to retreat from the board.

Is it gamey to stand with a few men at the edge of autosurrender for a few turns at the end of the game? "Gamey" as in "not realistic" here.

I'd say usually, but not always. Because in real life in may be very important to maintain contact with the enemy forces. If you would retreat completely, the followup-troops would have to find the enemy again. And he might have moved to concentrate for a counterattack, or he might have retreated although he won. All these are things you want to know - and a few men in contact may make a huge difference here. Obviously, a beaten attacker may still have the means to prevent a counterattack. Two bazookas and a few MGS on a road may do so.

BTW, your shift key is still broken.

[newlife]

I think when to cease fire/surrender really comes down to what the players are trying to get out of their matchup. Players who are still in the early stages of learning probably benefit most from early endings. The reason is simply that its best to learn through repetition. And that means the quicker a game is over, the sooner they can try to fix the mistakes they realized they made in the last game. e.g. Game one, they deploy Shermans in plain sight during setup. Result, tanks quickly slaughtered by opposing pillbox. The rest of this game is now suddenly unbalanced and the person has lost in turn one. Go quickly to game 2, and hopefully he/she learns not to deploy those tanks in plain sight.

The quick turn around of games is really only for the earliest of the beginners. As the player learns more about the early game, they need to realize what long term consequences their actions have. At this point I would advocate fighting it out to the bitter end. Here the idea is to begin to understand those aspects of the game that only appear with drawn out engagements.

An example is from one game I played as defender. The attack came in two heads, one straight into a town in the center, and another along the left map edge. The fighting in the town was close and personal, and I had a fairly good estimate of the damage I had caused the attacker. However, on the left most of the action was with ranged weapons and a lot of artillery on both sides. I thought he had an untouched overstrengthed company on my left. So I surrendered. He won, but not by as great a margin as I had imagined. Had I not surrendered and successfully withdrew my troops, I might have even pulled a draw out. The company on the left had taken a much greater pounding from my artillery than I had imagined.

Lesson: Don't surrender because he may be as bad off as you are.

Finally you get to an experienced stage were you have a much better gauge of enemy strength. This stage the only real time I can imagine a cease fire being appropriate in CM is those situations were one side is the clear winner, and neither side has much to gain from pushing the fight. e.g. When a defender has successfully repulsed a determined attack and has full control of the VLs. The attacker is clearly uncapable of continueing the attack, but the defender doesn't have the strength to counter attack. Each side takes up defensive positions and whichever sides attacks will suffer more lossess than they inflict. Call the cease fire.

Disclaimer: Most of this comes not from CM directly but my experience with other, similar games. I am in the newbie reject tourny after all.

[Redwolf]

Another thing worth noting is that the winner may have a hard time

deciding whether to mob up remaining stragglers.

If you hold all VLs and have no own losses, they your victory level

will lower dramatically from 1:1 or even 2:1 tradeoffs. Since in

practice you will have some own losses, which you can make good with

-say- 5:1 tradeoffs, you might want to do that if you feel brave. In

my opinion, this offers a nice hard game-in-game decision to make.

And it's realistic. "So we hold the ground now, is it worth risking

our men to continue?"

[gredeker]

I surrender when the auto-surrender decides for me.

One of the things I learned in SL/ASL and have carried over to CM is to not surrender unless things are completely hopeless, and even then hesitate to throw in the towel. You'll never experience a miraculous come-from-behind victory if you always give up when things are going badly. There are also few games that are so hopeless that a string of good or bad luck won't swing the balance one way or the other.

Playing out the endgame also provides you with gaming experience that you won't get any other way, such as how to conduct a delaying action with inferior forces, or how to mount a limited counterattack in an unexpected location to throw a monkeywrench into the works.

[Richard Morgan]

Oh yesterday our little troop was ridden through and through,

Our swaying tattered pennons fled, a broken beaten few

And all a summer afternoon they hunted us and slew:

But to-morrow,

By the living God, we'll try the game again!

John Masefield puts it better than I ever could.

Richard

[Cogust]

I almost always go for a draw or minor loss nowadays, I try to live by my signature.

[Frenchy]

For the most part I play to the end. There have been a few occasions where the outcome is obvious and I request a cease fire. No point in fighting to end lives for no cause.

Currently I am in a game where both of our forces have taken a beating but the game is still up in he air with 3 turns to go. It has been a savage firefight and who will win is anybody's guess. While I could have offered to go with a cease fire or surrender I decided not to since I felt I had a good chance of "pulling the rabbit" out of the hat.

In the end it's a judgement call based on the given situation.

[Ligur]

I surrender when there is no point; for example facing tanks with all my armor and AT-assets gone etc. I have rarely played a game where you have time to pull out of the map when it is clear you lost the fight.

Infact its been a while since I played a game that went on to the finish, my oppos have tended to also surrender when it is clear they can't get the VL's under their control, instead of going on for a few rounds, shooting from afar with pounded units.

[Holdit]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redeker:

One of the things I learned in SL/ASL and have carried over to CM is to not surrender unless things are completely hopeless, and even then hesitate to throw in the towel.

...(snip)...

Playing out the endgame also provides you with gaming experience that you won't get any other way, such as how to conduct a delaying action with inferior forces, or how to mount a limited counterattack in an unexpected location to throw a monkeywrench into the works.<hr></blockquote>

It's interesting to hear this point of view expressed, because there's an old chess adage that goes: "Nobody ever won by resigning". Also, advice to novice chess players is generally to play on until they're checkmated, the reason being that they will learn from watching their tormentor administer the coup de grace (or make heavy weather of it), because one day it'll be them collecting the win.

Regards,

Paul

[Diceman]

I keep going 'till unit cohesion is lost. Only after I can't attack or defend at the platoon level do I try to withdrawal my forces. I won't try to salvage the game with piecemeal forces. I never surrender, preferring to get what forces I can off the map. I don't however mind when my opponent seeks a surrender.

Cheers

Eric