Please: Early end - command to fastforward PBEM widrawals

[Tero]

A repost on a subject that got inundated (with some editorial editing):

After having experienced some tedious PBEM widrawals I propose an Early End command to fast forward the remaining turns in case you wish to widraw off the map and your opponent does not wish to pursuit. It could go something like this:

The player who wishes to pull out presses the Early End command button which orders all remaining units to get out of the map under TacAI using the safest route they can find. The opponent is informed "Our radio intel has picked up a general widrawal command being issued in your sector. Do you wish to Consolidate or Pursuit ?" Picking Consolidate will execute the remaining turns consequtively without any player interference, subjecting the widrawing units to normal TacAI targeting and other battle field phenomenon such as minefields. Any ongoing off board arty fire missions will be executed normally. Picking Pursuit will execute the game normally, with each non-widrawing players turn starting with Consolidate/Pursuit option.

[David Aitken]

Now look here, a successful withdrawal is a fine art! Real-life commanders don't have the option of fast-forwarding. You wouldn't view the matter with such disinterest if you had to go into battle the next day with your remaining forces. There are all sorts of things that could happen, and you'd most likely leave half your men lying around panicking.

I am currently executing a withdrawal in a PBEM, and the main issue is trying to rally all of my panicking troops in order to rescue them, whilst preventing the enemy from overrunning my positions. I am finding it very engaging, and it is taking longer than any normal namby-pamby withdrawal.

Bloody armchair generals... pfff.

[Tero]

>Now look here, a successful withdrawal is a

>fine art!

I know. The current set of commands available is good for attack but not good for pulling back and widrawing.

>Real-life commanders don't have the option

>of fast-forwarding.

But perhaps the armchair general should have it when the conditions are right.

>You wouldn't view the matter with such

>disinterest if you had to go into battle the

>next day with your remaining forces.

Then, under my proposed procedure, you do not push the Early End button. As simple as that.

>There are all sorts of things that could

>happen, and you'd most likely leave half

>your men lying around panicking.

Agreed. But what if the writing is on the wall and you have 20 turns to go ?

>I am currently executing a withdrawal in a

>PBEM, and the main issue is trying to rally

>all of my panicking troops in order to

>rescue them, whilst preventing the enemy

>from overrunning my positions. I am finding

>it very engaging, and it is taking longer

>than any normal namby-pamby withdrawal.

I take it your opponent is in hot pursuit.

What if his force was so beat up he could only consolidate = hold current positions ?

>Bloody armchair generals... pfff.

I am a firm advocate of realism. But there are times when there is really no point in going through the motions if both players KNOW the likelyhood of any exhcange of fire for the remaining 10-20 turns is highly unlikely to take place. I just finished a Meeting Engagement PBEM and about half way through the game I saw my opponents troops head for the exits. The ranges to targets were so great there was no point in trying to shoot at them. WHat is more there is always the possibility that his covering force takes down my sole remaining tank if I pursuit. So all I could do was sit back and enjoy the game by pushing GO once I received his turn. Boy, that WAS exiting....

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What if his force was so beat up he could only consolidate = hold current positions ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what he's doing.

I know just pushing GO every turn while you wait for your opponent to withdraw isn't terribly exciting, but at least it doesn't demand much time. Much of real war isn't terribly exciting either. And your opponent might be bluffing – that's only one of many possibilities. Real war is a mind game, and the guy who gets restless first is the guy who makes mistakes. The battle isn't over until the enemy is gone, one way or another.

[SuperTed]

tero,

Would calling for a cease-fire solve the problem?

[Tero]

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

tero,

Would calling for a cease-fire solve the problem?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not always, apparently. Otherwise my opponent, just like David here, would have asked for one. He is after all husbanding damaged units off the map. Are the bonuses from widrawing off the map really that good compared to a cease fire ?

I could decide to be a right bastard and refuse the cease fire and instead of consolidating start hunting him down, now that he is openly admitting his forces can't hack it to the end. With the early end option you'd still get the game engine work its magic to the end while you would not have to spend time on it (1 turn a day = 20 days).

[Berlichtingen]

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

I know. The current set of commands available is good for attack but not good for pulling back and widrawing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... Run, walk sneak, crawl. Same commands needed to withdraw as attack

[Tero]

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

Hmmm... Run, walk sneak, crawl. Same commands needed to withdraw as attack<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not IRL. The proper Widraw command in CM makes you stand up and turn your back to the enemy and run like hell. Also the rest of the commands all assume you want to turn your frontage to the direction you are going. None of them work properly if you want to disengage. IRL you have a myriad of options available to you so you can choose the manner in which you wish to disengage. Turning tail and running like hell is only the last resort.

Would you personally start your widrawal by stopping to fire and turning your back to the enemy while the firefight is still going on ?

Neither would I.

There is no option for moving backwards while firing for the infantry in CM. And I think that is a glaring omission.

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Philistine]

I would like to see some type of "withdrawal" command. Midway between a cease-fire (which leaves the VL's in current possession, but does not otherwise penalize one side or the other) and a surrender which gives up VL's and is a surrender of all the troops, generally resulting in lopsided points totals.

Particularly in those tournament/ladder games where points totals (rather than straight win/loss) is important, you don't see much surrendering. However, often the writing in clearly on the wall and playing out the game to its forgone conclusion can be tedious.

I could see a withdrawal command in a couple of possible ways:

1. "Mandatory" withdrawal--Similar to "surrender" in that it can be unilaterally done by one party. The withdrawing party hits the withdrawal key and the game ends with all the victory locations given to the non-withdrawing party and a penalty to the withdrawing party of some amount (10-15%???) to account for losses taken in withdrawing. (alternatively, some sort of tying in to remaining forces could be done--i.e. if the withdrawer has 250 points of units left vs. 50o points for the non-withdrawer, he would take more losses than if his points were higher).

2. "Permissive withdrawal"--This would be similar to the current "cease-fire" in that one side would offer a withdrawal, and the other side could accept (with effects similar to those in # 1) or decline, meaning the game would continue.

I forsee such a withdrawal command (at least a "mandatory" one) taking the place of surrender, but not of cease fire.

I'm presently involved in one game where I would use a withdrawal command, as I will undoubtedly lose, but I will not surrender, as I can still bloody his nose quite a bit, and at least make the ending score closer.

And yes, I am an "armchair general" and would rather spend my time playing turns in a competitive game then hanging on to a lost cause to eke out the last few points.

Just some thoughts.

--Philistine

[Peterk]

Umm...both sides don't want to fight any more? Sounds like a cease-fire situation to me. The fighting is done and the score is pretty much final. Just end it.

[Tero]

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

Umm...both sides don't want to fight any more? Sounds like a cease-fire situation to me. The fighting is done and the score is pretty much final. Just end it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For some reason this widrawing out of the map is spreading like fire.

[Berlichtingen]

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

Not IRL. The proper Widraw command in CM makes you stand up and turn your back to the enemy and run like hell. Also the rest of the commands all assume you want to turn your frontage to the direction you are going. None of them work properly if you want to disengage. IRL you have a myriad of options available to you so you can choose the manner in which you wish to disengage. Turning tail and running like hell is only the last resort.

Would you personally start your widrawal by stopping to fire and turning your back to the enemy while the firefight is still going on ?

Neither would I.

There is no option for moving backwards while firing for the infantry in CM. And I think that is a glaring omission.

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: tero ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The commands are correct... the trick is to not withdraw everything at once. Withdraw with part of your force while others cover the retreat. Once they are back, withdraw the covering force. The withdraw command is just run without a command delay (and a chance of breaking morale). You really shouldn't use withdraw unless your intention is to rout your army rather than withdraw in good order

[Guest PondScum]

If you've obviously lost, and you were only playing for the win/loss, then you should logically request a ceasefire or surrender outright - who cares about the points? This is the "armchair general" approach. No need for yet another button here.

If you've obviously lost, and you're playing in a tournament ladder where percentages count, then you should logically keep playing to try to maximize your points. This is the "fight to the last" approach. No need for yet another button here.

If you haven't obviously lost, then keep fighting. This is the "bloody obvious" approach No need for yet another button here.

Where there IS a need for a change is if you're a "fight to the last" player while you're winning, but then turn into an "armchair general" player when you start to lose. In this case the change should not be to the game, but to how you play it - quit playing in percentage tournaments and try knockout games instead.

[Frenchy]

This has been brought up before in other threads. However, I am unsure if BTS has given any answer to this request.

I have always thought that a withdraw command to end the game should be included. There have been many times that I wished I could have withdrawn my troops, giving up the field of battle but not entirely admitting defeat. A withdraw, points wise, would be less than a total surrender.

The problem with a cease fire is that it's a secret command - so unless you tell your opponent that you want a cease fire, more than likely you aren't going to get it because your opponent sees a victory on his end.

And in an email, if you do tell him you want a cease fire - you've just given him some military intelligence about the state of your troops! He then may want to press the attack. Not that it will happen but it could.

My 2 cents worth...

[Mark IV]

There are two different issues here.

A "shooting withdrawal" command for squad level units, to deal with the back-turning non-shooting withdrawal problem, and ( some expeditious way to end a battle by withdrawing all forces.

I have often wished for the former. A squad-level unit withdrawing under fire is still going to take a higher risk of casualties than one sitting pat, but they would do it in little sub-minute sub-squad leaps and bounds, with part of the men providing covering fire. There is no good command for this now.

I do not see the reason for the latter. If you and your opponent agree that going on is pointless, you could Alt-C. If the other guy refuses the cease-fire, at least you aren't any worse off than before, and apparently there are still hostilities underway, making withdrawal of the entire force a tactical exercise.

[Philistine]

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

If you've obviously lost, and you were only playing for the win/loss, then you should logically request a ceasefire or surrender outright - who cares about the points? This is the "armchair general" approach. No need for yet another button here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Although, really, isn't a withdrawal command more appropriate, historically then a surrender? On the company/battallion level, didn't withdrawals far outnumber surrenders?

It may be me, and the people I'm playing, but how often have people made or seen a fighting withdrawal in a CM game. There's really not enough time to do it right. Of course, YMMV, but I generally find such to be tedius from both sides (unless the scenario is particularly set up for such).

As you said, in a win/loss game points don't matter, so why not have a withdrawal command either instead of or in addition to a surrender?

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

If you've obviously lost, and you're playing in a tournament ladder where percentages count, then you should logically keep playing to try to maximize your points. This is the "fight to the last" approach. No need for yet another button here.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While there are some who like to play this way, I don't. I am perfectly willing to concede a game if I feel there is no way I can win it, but I balk at doing so where the point total will be completely out of proportion to my remaining troops as in surrender. I'm willing to take a moderate point "hit" to finish the game early where the outcome is obvious.

Do others agree? Disagree?

[qoute]

If you haven't obviously lost, then keep fighting. This is the "bloody obvious" approach No need for yet another button here.

[Peterk]

I typically disengage my forces to the point where there's not much or no shooting going on any more and then tell my opponent that I wish a cease-fire in order to cut the game short.

I'm not really giving him any intelligence at all, because by then, it is patently obvious that I no longer wish to attack.

If he refuses - then fine - I'll take the 2 minute or so hit per day that it takes to shuttle a file back and forth just to be a good sport.

[David Aitken]

I try to play realistically. In my current game, I have plenty left to fight with, but they are green troops, which are useless at nighttime. I went in to the attack, and ended up with half of my men lying around panicking. I have not lost, I just know that I am going to lose a lot of men unnecessarily if I resume the attack – so surrender is not an option, unless I want to turn over a lot of healthy men and serviceable equipment to the enemy. Ceasefire is less than ideal, as the enemy holds the VLs – maybe he would consider giving them up in a game, but in reality I doubt it.

Moreover, as has been mentioned, if I request a ceasefire I am indicating to the enemy that I cannot continue fighting. In the situation where I am desperately trying to rally my troops in order to withdraw them, and enemy counterattack would be disastrous. Therefore, withdrawing is the only option, and it is too complex a procedure to allow the computer to handle. This may be a combat simulator, but in war preserving your forces is as important as destroying the enemy, so I do not regard a careful withdrawal as a waste of time which I would rather fast-forward.

[Treeburst155]

I would like to see a game ending "Withdraw" command as an alternative to surrender. I would not use it until I had manually withdrawn my people to points of relative safety however. Withdrawal can be real tricky sometimes. Still, a withdraw command used in this manner could save many emails back and forth, especially if the map edges are relatively far away.

[David Aitken]

I'd sooner see an "abandon" command to actually allow weapons crews and immobilised vehicle crews to drop everything and get out. As it is, even if you withdraw meticulously, there are certain units that sometimes physically can't get away.