End of Battle Question

[Stingray]

Will CMBN give the player the option to continue the battle after the enemy surrenders?

In CMSF many a time after I have manuvered my forces to "pile it on" the battle ends with a surrender before I can excecute my glorious plan. This leaves me frustrated.

I wanted to wipe them all out !!!

Anxiously awaiting the release of CMBN. Good job on the AARs. Thank you.

[gnorffy]

Wouldn't that violate the Geneva Convention in, like, 17 different ways?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

gnorffy has a good point. They surrendered. Why would you want to keep fighting an enemy that surrendered?

I mean, I guess I can understand your frustration at not being allowed to finish your plan, but honestly I don't think this is worth putting in the game. It's so unrealistic and it's a terrible idea in campaigns (since you risk losing men for no gain). It's unfair in multiplayer games (if a player has surrendered, that means he's conceding defeat--it's just mean to make him keep playing until he loses all his stuff). So basically, this would only ever be used in standalones or QBs vs the AI, and only then by a miniscule fraction of the players. I can't say I've had your "problem" ()too often, and when I have, I rejoice at the pixelblood that was spared.

[Boche]

Did you count them all? jaja

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I hate, hate, HATE the auto ceasefire/surrender. Always have, always will. Just as I drive the dagger home the game takes the ball and goes home.

I always enjoyed the mopping up of the last resistance as a reward for getting the tactics right. In CMSF it is even worse as all too often there is a formidable opposing force left.

Much the same for not letting me continue a game after the alotted time is up. Yeah, yeah, yeah, put a final score to it and then let me finish off those buggers in extra time. It really isn't BFCs business to end my games before I want them to. My games.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Huh. Well, I may be wrong about the fraction of players who would use it, but I still don't see BFC spending time on this when there's other stuff to be worked on.

[LJFHutch]

I find it kind of annoying also, but only really against the AI. With human players most go until they have very little left or it seems pointless to continue, but yeah, against the AI I'd definitely like to have it.

[Wiggum]

Maybe the AI surrendering behavior should be tweaked, but being able to still fight is not needed in my opinion.

I think there should be a differens between routing (enemy runs away but you can still fight him) and surrendering (enemy gives up, no option to still fight him).

[LJFHutch]

Perhaps if the battle lingered on for a minute or two after it had been called? I mean if one side surrendered the battle wouldn't just stop there, it would take a while for that to filter down the chain of command wouldn't it?

For me the suddenness of the finish really breaks the game up, it'd be much nicer if the units stopped firing over the course of a minute or so and then it faded off.

[JSB]

Aren't captured units back with CMBN?

I agree with LJFHutch: "living" the end of the game during the video phase would be better than reading a sudden report.

[user38]

I think the "continuing the battle after the enemy has surrendered" option has been reserved for implementation in the Eastern Front expansion module.

[mjkerner]

In CMSF playing agasint the AI, I just go into the scenario editor and add a couple of hours to the scenario, to ensure I have time to maneuver and complete things my way...good or bad. However, I don't think you can do that with the QB, though since I haven't fired it up in a while, I'm not sure about that.