Is it ever wrong to accept a cease-fire?

[Gpig]

A PBEM battle I'm in seems to be well in hand for my side. My opponent tells me he's going to ask for a cease-fire with the next turn.

I feel like "sure," why not. We'll start another battle.

Then I start to think, will this cost me a victory? Since the VL's are contested by both sides. Should I push on to complete victory? He still has some fight left in him. Could be costly.

My question is really about how the "Cease-fire" effects the AAR. I've just never dealt with the cease-fire function before.

Any ideas?

Gpig

[tabpub]

I would wait until at least the VL's were showing your flag until accepting. Even that is no guarantee, he could have hidden units near the flag to contest it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

There is no rule saying you must accept any cease fire proposal. If there was everyone would start asking for them as soon as it became apparent they weren't going to win. If you think you still have a good chance to win, and it seems likely a cease fire would result in a draw, you should politely decline. I have declined one or two myself.

[Lt Bull]

Ceasefires have always puzzled me. :confused: I think there is a level of psychology in it. What are they for? Under what circumstances do you propose a ceasefire and under what conditions would you accept them?

Why do opponents ask for ceasefires, instead of just surrendering or playing the game out to the end?

Real life ceasefires are sometimes proposed and accepted for "humanitarian" reasons eg. to clear away the dead, dying and wounded, to celebrate a religious event, or to put the war on hold to allow diplomatic negotiation etc.

But why would you offer, or even accept a ceasefire in CM?

From what I understand, a ceasefire in CM basically stops the game and bases victory on the immediate current situation.

Isn't anyone who requests (or accepts) a ceasefire really saying to their opponent something like "I prefer to end the game now and accept the current victory result"?

If so, why would they want that? Because they feel/think that if the game continued the end victory result wouldn't be any different? Or maybe they know they are getting beaten and want to end it here rather than play the game out and face an overwhelming defeat?

Would a player who is clearly winning call (or accept) a ceasefire? Perhaps if they are happy accepting the current victory level they may spare their opponent the pain and themselves the time. But how many players confident of a good win would want to end the game short denying them the enjoyment of playing out their victory?

How many of you would be happy with ending a game early and accepting the current score rather than playing it out to the end and risking the current victory score?

What kind of motives would you have even requesting a ceasefire?

An opponent who offers a ceasefire to me is a signal that they are "spent" and have lost the "initiative". Unless I am happy with the current victory level, why should I accept it? :confused:

Lt Bull

[Tero]

The usefulness of cease fire is highly dependant on the situation.

What do you do if you have 15 turns to go and you are down to your last AFV and most of your infantry squads are shot up ? You are capable of holding current positions against an attack but you can not mount one yourself.

If, at the same time, it is quite apparent that your opponent is not willing to risk losing further units, there is no cause for a widrawal and/or is not willing to make the final push needed to decide the outcome of the battle then I usually ask for a cease fire.

[Redwolf]

A cease-fire freezes the game as if the last turn happend. The victory level you see in your display at the last turn will generally change to your favour, because you usually have eliminated units that you didn't see due to FOW. The same is true for your opponent.

Obviously, if the game is well for you you should at least sit on all flags.

But take into account that victory is determined to a major part by damage points, not only flag posession. If you can beat his scattered units further without much danger, you can generally improve your victory level.

If your opponent gets an autosurrender, you have all flags and all remaining units as prisoners.

Having said this, I generally think that people should spend their time in moving fun battles and not endless struggles for details like "how big is my victory?". It is also common to loose AFVs due to careless mopping up remaining opponent forces.

[PiggDogg]

Erwin & I played a Nature's Rage 2 trounament game. Accidently, the game was set for 30 turns instead of the designated 20 turns.

At the end of turn 20, we both hit 'alt c'. ending the game at the proper time.

Thus, we have an alternate use for the CM ceasefire, a device to end a CM game at the proper time.

By the way, the game ended in a draw, 39 to 39.

Finally cheers after two weeks, Richard

[Lt Bull]

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

The usefulness of cease fire is highly dependant on the situation.

What do you do if you have 15 turns to go and you are down to your last AFV and most of your infantry squads are shot up ? You are capable of holding current positions against an attack but you can not mount one yourself.

If, at the same time, it is quite apparent that your opponent is not willing to risk losing further units, there is no cause for a widrawal and/or is not willing to make the final push needed to decide the outcome of the battle then I usually ask for a cease fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an interesting scenario you have described. I can understand that sometimes, you fight it out so much with your opponent there is little left to fight with. But it is in these situations where it can be shown that REQUESTING a ceasefire can only help your opponent.

You generally never really know exactly what your opponent thinks of their own chances of winning. Moreover, you never really know exacty how many casulties his forces have taken. The same can be said for them in relation to you and your own forces.

Given this, and the scenario you described above isn't requesting a ceasefire under those circumstances indicating to your opponent:

1) that you have no "fight" left in your troops

2) that you think your opponent has no more "fight" left in their troops

So, this is almost "free intel". You just told your opponent that you are "beat" and that you don't think much of their chances of bettering their own situation.

They may have overestimated the state of your own troops, thinking that you still had some cards up your sleeve, and had been holding back, perhaps even defensive. It also tells them that you don't think they have much fight left in them. If they do have some reserves left, you have just told them that you have no idea of them.

By requesting a ceasefire, you have just revealed to your opponent that "it doesnt get any better for me than this, don't hurt me anymore, lets end it now".

This has happened to me in a game where my opponent requested a ceasefire in a closely fought game. His main thrust attack on the VLs had apparently ended and we were exchanging small arms fire. I was planning how to counterattack the VLs he had assaulted with the reserves I had mustered up. I had no clear picture of the real state of his units, but we had both taken heavy casualties (the scenario was August Bank Holiday BTW...awesome battle!).

Then he discussed a ceasefire with me saying that there was no point in continuing, the result was close enough to be considered a draw. Speak for yourself! I knew I had some fight left (I had apparently kept that unknown to him) and now I knew that he couldn't do much else with what he had. Free intel on what my opponent had been thinking. I declined the ceasefire, of course, and with a dozen or so turns left in the battle, counterattacked with a confidence in success and execution that hadn't existed prior to having been confronted with the ceasefire request. I think I secured a tactical win out of it (I definitely drove him from all the VLs he had encroached).

So, is it worth the risk to even call a ceasefire? You potentially have much to lose.

Lt Bull

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why do opponents ask for ceasefires, instead of just surrendering or playing the game out to the end?

Real life ceasefires are sometimes proposed and accepted for "humanitarian" reasons eg. to clear away the dead, dying and wounded, to celebrate a religious event, or to put the war on hold to allow diplomatic negotiation etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is one other reason that I can think of which warrants a ceasefire, and that is when both opponents are locked into an unwinnable situation and the game is a long way from completetion. I've been in many such 'Lock-ups" where both sides have grinded each other down to almost nothing, unable to continue but not defeated. What do you do? Stare at each other for the remaining 10 turns?

Think of a CM ceasefire as not only the formal agreement to end hostilities for the reasons you've described, but also the representation of the grunts on the ground saying "We can't do this with what we have left, lets regroup and try again later"

[tabpub]

Actually, as the dialog button says,"Secretly prepare for a Cease-Fire?".

I would never ask for one, just enter it and hope that your opponent does the same; other wise, just fight it out.

[Agua Perdido]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lt Bull:

Why do opponents ask for ceasefires, instead of just surrendering or playing the game out to the end?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some people enjoy the challenge of playing to the bitter end and seeing what they can accomplish. Others would rather start fresh once it's all gone wrong.

A cease-fire is face-saving way to end the game early for the losing side. Accepting it shows respect for them putting up a tough fight. I think of it like the salute that fencers give each other at the start of a bout (well, except it's at the end of the bout...).

Offering and accepting cease-fires in good faith after a game is clearly decided is good sportsmanship. (Caveats for those playing in ladders and tournaments where the exact level of victory and score are important, of course.)

Agua Perdido

[Private Pike]

I was once offered a cease fire half way through a game that I thought I was going to lose. I held the VLs but with very little, most of my infantry were dead and of my two tanks, one had a damaged gun and the other was out of ammo. My opponent didn't realise this. He had no tanks, but quite a bit of infantry left. I felt quite bad agreeing to the cease fire, but it was a tournament game (NQSB I) so I did. I won approx: 70/30.

The moral is "be careful offering a cease fire, you MAY be winning and not know it"

[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: Private Pike ]

[imported_Hiram Sedai]

My old opponents know that I've requested many ceasefires. When I get to that point in the game where I would be wasting the assets I have left, it seems to be the most merciful thing to do. Almost all of them have resulted in either losses or draws because of my tactical ineptitude and my lack of intellectual fortitude. When all of my armor is burning, most of my infantry is panicking and/or dead, and I have no artillery left, then the right thing to do is ask for a ceasefire before it autosurrenders. Mileage may vary. See your nearest recruiter for a job in the Army.

[SurlyBen]

The cease fire order is useful for tournaments that have to end at a certain time. I have also accepted cease-fire requests that were caused by real life concerns (illness or long vacations...)

Also, I once fought a night battle where we each ended up in control of a flag. Neither of us had the units to take the other flag, or even to move without fear of an ambush that could cost the game, so we called a cease-fire instead of ten turns hitting go and watching movies where nothing happened.

As far as accepting offered cease fires go. A win is a win as far as I'm concerned and I know what a drag it can be to keep playing a game where you are being stomped, so I always accept a cease-fire offer if ending it then would give me the win.

[newlife]

A cease fire can also be offered by a defender who has successfully replused the attacker. If the defender is unwilling to go on the offensive, and the attack is spent, then why wait around forever for the end? Merely a case where the ceasefire requestor has the superior position, but won't gain much by continuiing the fight.

[Gpig]

Hmmm. Lot's to chew on. Thank you all.

Good responses.

I think, in my case . . . I'll accept the cease-fire but only after I've secured the main VL. For two reasons;

1) I like playing this fellow and want to start a new PBEM with him.

2) Even though I'm winning, He has enough forces left to make a "mop-up" a potentially costly operation. I want to save my lads some bloodshed. The main VL is already pretty much in my hands.

This leads me to another question. If he requests a cease-fire, will I know about it? (Despite him already telling me his intentions by email.) Does a window pop up saying, "your opponent has requested a cease-fire?" Or will I only know about it once I, myself, select "cease-fire?" (By the game suddenly ending in a cease-fire.)

Thanks,

Gpig

P.S. I suppose that by not accepting a cease-fire, you could turn an opponent into a rabid, cornered animal. Thus end up losing in a bitter scrap preceeded by overconfident moves and assumption about remaining enemy forces.

[Tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lt Bull:

This is an interesting scenario you have described. I can understand that sometimes, you fight it out so much with your opponent there is little left to fight with. But it is in these situations where it can be shown that REQUESTING a ceasefire can only help your opponent.

You generally never really know exactly what your opponent thinks of their own chances of winning. Moreover, you never really know exacty how many casulties his forces have taken. The same can be said for them in relation to you and your own forces.

Given this, and the scenario you described above isn't requesting a ceasefire under those circumstances indicating to your opponent:

1) that you have no "fight" left in your troops

2) that you think your opponent has no more "fight" left in their troops

So, this is almost "free intel". You just told your opponent that you are "beat" and that you don't think much of their chances of bettering their own situation.

They may have overestimated the state of your own troops, thinking that you still had some cards up your sleeve, and had been holding back, perhaps even defensive. It also tells them that you don't think they have much fight left in them. If they do have some reserves left, you have just told them that you have no idea of them.

By requesting a ceasefire, you have just revealed to your opponent that "it doesnt get any better for me than this, don't hurt me anymore, lets end it now".

This has happened to me in a game where my opponent requested a ceasefire in a closely fought game. His main thrust attack on the VLs had apparently ended and we were exchanging small arms fire. I was planning how to counterattack the VLs he had assaulted with the reserves I had mustered up. I had no clear picture of the real state of his units, but we had both taken heavy casualties (the scenario was August Bank Holiday BTW...awesome battle!).

Then he discussed a ceasefire with me saying that there was no point in continuing, the result was close enough to be considered a draw. Speak for yourself! I knew I had some fight left (I had apparently kept that unknown to him) and now I knew that he couldn't do much else with what he had. Free intel on what my opponent had been thinking. I declined the ceasefire, of course, and with a dozen or so turns left in the battle, counterattacked with a confidence in success and execution that hadn't existed prior to having been confronted with the ceasefire request. I think I secured a tactical win out of it (I definitely drove him from all the VLs he had encroached).

So, is it worth the risk to even call a ceasefire? You potentially have much to lose.

Lt Bull<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said it all depends on the circumstances.

If my troops are in good positions and I see no enemy activity ie. it is a clear cut stalemate situation which unlocks only with an attack by either or both but there is nothing happening I usually ask if it was time to call it a day.

If I am losing I will huff and puff to try and make my opponent call for a ceasfire.

[MikeyD]

I'd say if it was a good fight and it looks like your opponent just wants to end it honorably in time for supper, give him the cease fire.

But if he's mauled you at the start and the tables have turned, I'd say squeeze every drop of blod from him - nothing short of surrender!!!

Hmmm... too much caffeine today.

[Redwolf]

It should be noted that more often than not the cease-fire can be to the advantage of the winner.

If you hold all flags and the game has seen few losses, you will reduce victory level greatly by 1:1 unit trades. If you sit on the flags with few losses of your force, make sure you don't get more losses, even if you inflict more losses on him.

Let me know if you want an example with numbers.

Again, you can lower your victory level by combat where you inflict better than 1:1 trades. So watch out and consider having a new game with fresh fun.

[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[CaSCa]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Agua Perdido:

A cease-fire is face-saving way to end the game early for the losing side. Accepting it shows respect for them putting up a tough fight.

Agua Perdido<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree whole heartedly.

I have been playing against two friends of mine for over a year now and I generally rule them. They are both new to wargaming and while I really enjoy hunting down their last tank or counter-attacking their weakened troops I remember the pain and frustration of sitting on losing side of the game table time and again under similar circumstances. By allowing them an honorable way out, and not continuing on in pursuit of the 'total victory' every game, I keep them returning for more.

They are both still enjoying the game, and they are both learning very quickly, which suits me because it makes each new game more fun than the last.

Which is what it's really all about, isn't it?

[Thermopylae]

In operations, cease fires are particularly important, since the preservation of forces is usually vital. If neither side wnats to lose more men today to random shelling, firefights, and general battle attrittion, a cease fir eis usally called. Also if the attacker has suffered grievous losses, it is typical for the defender to try and get a cease fire before his remaining units can take any more ground against a dmaged defense.

In battles, a cease fire is usually used when the battle stalemates. For instance, the attacker has taken an objective or two, but no logner has the strength to both hodlt hese and carry on. The defender by now is in a poor state, and doens't want to be ovverrunn by the attacker. The attacker doens't want to risk losing another platoon and then a VL through a failed attack. thus a cease fire.

Finally, it is used as a safety measure. if you are winning a minor victory, with most objective sunder control, your opponent might be able to cobbel together some rallied units, the odd MG, and/or a halftrack and retake a Vl, wignign the victory. Desperate measures have an uncanny way of succeeding only when your enemy uses them ....

[rleete]

I request a cease-fire when it is clear to me that the opponent has won, and it will be a holding action at best. I play for enjoyment of the game, and a loss is a loss. No fun in being trounced. Granted, I have requested C-F, and found that I should have kept going, but that's FOW.

[Gen-x87H]

I have only requested or granted cease fires to people I play alot. It is a nice way to not smach them down. Sometimes things happen

But if heis aksing for a cease fire and you have not completed your objective then dont accept it. In all of my cease fires my objectives were mostly met. Be it I kill all his armor and am proceeding to shoot up his infantry, or I have captured the flags and can hold them but neither of us feel the need to go through a huge drawn out battle that one side has no chance of winning.

In this case it appaears you want to win and he probably thinks a cease fire will give him a victory. So I say finish him off to the point of victory and then grant the cease fire.

Gen

Gen

[Hanns]

I used the cease fire option in a QB against the computer last night. Vet Germans vs Vet. British engineers in a 800 point defence. I managed to defeat the primary attack destoying a Sherman II with my StuGIII and KOing 4 White Scout cars with my 75mm IG. After the main assault my two platoons of Mot. Inf. had used most if not all of their ammo, my IG was down to a few smoke rounds, my 75mm Pak had only AP, my two HT were completedly out of ammo and I had just lost my out of ammo StuG to a lucky PIAT shell. I was in a good defensive position but had no resources left to attack the scattered but still funtional Brits. I called for a cease fire and ended up winning 84 to 14. Not bad as I had no resources left to counter another attack much less press my admittedly small advantage. Worked well for me I guess. Hanns

[New Age Santa]

I'm surprised nobody has suggested this..buuut..

You could very well trick your enemy into using over-confident moves by suggesting a cease-fire.

SImply have some formidable forces in reserve, propose a cease-fire and if he is the bold type he'll come in a charging at your supposedly mauled positions. Allowing you to bleed him white...

[ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: New Age Santa ]