Surrender?

[Iron Mike USMC]

What is the benefit of surrender? If you play to conclusion, you may not suffer a total defeat. If you surrender, you suffer a total defeat. Which is more humiliating?

Maybe in a QB, or, non-ladder game, it would be OK, just to end the carnage sooner. But, in a tournament, or campaign, ya gotta make your opponent hurt, even if you are decimated. Phyrric victories are not all they're cracked up to be.

So, I say to you, Numberz, as long as it counts, there will be NO surrender. :salute:

Respectfully yours,
etc, etc, etc

[Lurker]

If you have no valid troops left to fight with and you don't own any of the VLs and there's still many turns left, you can always withdraw and inform your opponent when it's done and agree on a ceasefire.

What would a RL commander do in that situation? Probably withdraw or wait for reinforcements. However, if there are none coming and you have not a ghost of a chance of taking any of the VLs, with your dozen of so crews who are low on ammo and morale, then you could still always wait for him to hunt you down for the slaughter (kind of boring)...or withdraw. :D

[Nemesis Lead]

A withdrawl or a ceasefire is OK (provided both sides agree). A surrender is bad.

Since this is a game....you really don't have to respect the lives of your pixliated warriors. Humanity is not a concern as it would be IRL.

Fighting from a disadvantegeous position teaches you a lot. It is a learning opportunity that people pass up when they surrender. If you are out of AT assets and he is mauling you with armor.......make it a personal challenge to kill a couple of his tanks with your infantry.

The best players are those who dig in and try harder. I have found that those who surrender early are almost always weak CM players.

When you surrender.....you also tick your opponent off. Guys who give up early usually wind up on my "do not play" list.

[Lurker]

Since this is a game....you really don't have to respect the lives of your pixliated warriors. Humanity is not a concern as it would be IRL.

Fighting from a disadvantegeous position teaches you a lot. It is a learning opportunity that people pass up when they surrender. If you are out of AT assets and he is mauling you with armor.......make it a personal challenge to kill a couple of his tanks with your infantry. I agree over all. The only thing I'll add is that if no-surrender is the concern and you know you have no prayer of taking a VL with low-amo and questionable morale remnants, then to try to do so is likely suicidal and may very possibly cause an auto-surrender; which surrender we are trying to avoid in the first place in order to preserve as many points as possible.

In other words be careful being heroic in a hopeless situation if you are seeking to avoid a surrender. :)

[Iron Mike USMC]

...Since this is a game....you really don't have to respect the lives of your pixliated warriors. Humanity is not a concern as it would be IRL....

I have surrendered in two games, just because I was so severly mauled early, I figured what the hell.

Since then, I will not. I will ask for an end to hostilities, or offer a cease fire.

Concern for the pixel armies is a key point to the topic. If this were real life, what would a commander do? As gamers, we do not need to think about the next objective, just what we are presented with in the scenario. Many games, if it had been RL, I would have withdrawn my troops as quickly and safely as possible, and set up a defensive position, and await reinforcements. Since I didn't have to worry about the 'future', I did what I could to make the fight tough for my opponent.

Here's a thought. A scenario where both sides meet in an an ME, with no flags. The goal is to survive with the highest value of troops. Since the players start with the same value forces, they must attack each other to cause damage, so that the other player had fewer points at the end. Of course, both players must be willing to to play the game out. I see a number of possibilities, the best of which is the entire map comes into play. One player might just hunker down, and wait for the other player to advance. It would be bad if both did that. :shock: The game would be like hide and seek.

[2054172]

I understand if one withdraws his troops and exits as many as possible on the same turn ..this can force an auto ceasefire or surrender but there by not giving the opponent a total victory depriving him of the captured points. :confused:

I usally do alittle propraganda talk in most of my gave.... like" your troops will be home or x-mas if you surrender now" that kind of thing that Hanoi Hanah did in Vietnam, Tokyo Rose for the Japs and so on. :clown: i look at this as trash talk like in football etc. :bite:

Does this work? but I bet it gets you thinking about it or something like that. Or it gets you thinking Numberz is an A$$.;)

What do you guys think? ( not about me being an a$$) The other stuff.:smoke:

[Lurker]

I understand if one withdraws his troops and exits as many as possible on the same turn ..this can force an auto ceasefire or surrender but there by not giving the opponent a total victory depriving him of the captured points. :confused: True, he will not get the points for the exited units. If it's a ME that has a reasonably deep map, you can withdraw to the back edge without exiting and not suffer the auto surrender. You can notify your opponent of your intent and do a cease-fire. On the other hand if you're defending then withdrawing may not be an option if your opponent has broken through and cut off your escape routes. In that case why not just fight to the death? :horse:

[Nemesis Lead]

Correct--your opponent gets no points when you withdraw units from the map. However, your global morale goes down as if the withdrawn units were destroyed, so you can force your own autosurrender.

I played a guy named Jarmo on BoB who withdrew his units when the battle was not going well for him. It was pretty cool to see actually. I was trying to hurry up and cut them off and kill them all, but was not successful.

In the end, Jarmo was autosurrendered. However, my victory was not as high as it would have otherwise been had he not withdrawn. This is because the guys I would have captured or killed ran away and I got no points for them.

Retreating under fire is hard to do and would be fun to practice!

[2054172]

VICTORY % indicator? In my game with Iron Mike I read 70% axis and 20% Allies he sees 59% axis and 35% allies.? Upon reading the old cmbb manuelit saysit is decieving and is based only on what you seeof the enemy. So I guess I see more of him then he does of me?:hmmm:

Now the 10% that is unaccounted for in my reading +/- would give me pretty close to what he sees.:nuts:

I don't point count the opponents troops...(my choice) I do have a friend that counts them and this is what I would call close to cheating or dishourable . It takes all the possible real out of the game. It becomes machanicl to say the least. IMHO:smoke:

[Nemesis Lead]

Never trust the in-game score keeping. I don't even pay attention to it. It is an estimate and a flawed estimate because:

1) All of your ACTUAL losses are counted and only confirmed (or estimated) enemy losses are counted.

2) Since you do not know the location of all enemy units....the computer cannot accurately assign ownership of flags.

3) There are other reasons in-game scores are inaccurate (I just can't remember them).

2054172 shows further proof of inaccuracy.....2 opponents in a game do not see the same in-game score. Also, scores often do not add up to 100%!

Near the end of my game with Waleed, he repeatedly referred to the in-game score thinking he might get a draw. When the game ended, he was shocked at how the final game score was not even close to the in-game score. He said I was "lucky" to win and cited the in-game scores that he saw. What he didn't realize is that.....in-game scores are not accurate.

[2054172]

Nemesis you are right again , I have experienced all of what you said.
Now what is your HO ofpoint counting ?:smoke:

[The Hooded One]

I've only ever surrendered once that I can remember, and that was early on in my CM career. Now I would never even contemplate it. One of the most important lessons I've learned in the game is not to give up, even if the situation looks bad. There are always things you can do, and if you are tenacious and stubborn you can often turn a game around and get a minor victory or at least a draw. Even if things are really bad, you can set your self the goal of reducing your opponent's victory level. Surrendering is pointless.

[Lurker]

Now what is your HO ofpoint counting ?:smoke: IMO that's a mixed bag. RL wise it's pretty unreal. However, it is just a game and I find it almost impossible not to consider how much my opponent has left based on what I've killed and and based on what I have left.

One way around that is to not play with combined arms. Even then your opponent can count points but it won't be as accurate if he doesn't know what combination limitations you can have.

[Nemesis Lead]

Nemesis you are right again , I have experienced all of what you said.
Now what is your HO ofpoint counting ?:smoke:

I agree with Lurker. In addition to unrestriced settings, you can also play with variable rarity and the problem is further minimized. However, unrestricted and variable rarity settings also have their downsides...

But having said that......it is actually pretty hard to point count if you are facing a smart opponent. A smart opponent will never let you kill his company or battalion HQs and you may never really know what you are facing. Also, you will rarely find all of your opponent's mines and so you will always have a hole in your estimate of his OOB.

Pointcounting is a downside of a QB and a reason why double blind scenarios are best if you are looking for realism.

[Lurker]

One last word on point counting is the smaller the battle the easier to point count, and if you toss in combined arms restrictions...:(

This may be bigger concern for a defender in an A/D where the attacker then knows how thin you need to spread yourself and what he's killed/spotted in a given sector, as opposed to a ME where anything goes and you could be anywhere.

Does the FOW setting determine if you can identify your opponents experience level or not? It's always seemed kind of dumb to me that you could click on an enemy that's firing at you, or walk past the slaughtered or blown apart body of an enemy, and see if it's reg, vet or crack. Who would know this in RL?? :rolleyes:

[Redwolf]

You do not automatically suffer a total defeat when you surrender.

If you have inflected enough enemy casualties so that after your vehicles + guns are abandoned and your troops prisoner then it's fine. You have points that count like before.

If you move troops and/or equipment off-map before surrendering they also don't end up as enemy points.

[mangus2000]

I think i would be disinclined to accept a ceasefire if i know i'm onto a winner. The only time i did it i felt dissapointed with my Tactical victory, it felt less than my efforts deserved.
I think if you know your beat just surrender and if you don't want to do that just fight it out!

[Lurker]

One point to a cease-fire is that if your opponent agrees to pull his remnants away from the VLs then there's no problem with it as you are not losing possible victory points. If you still don't want a cease-fire after that then you may end up chasing his units off of the map edge for an auto surrender with the same VP results anyway. :)

I agree with a no cease fire if you know you can take all the flags. It's up to the other guy then to defend, withdraw or surrender.

[Nemesis Lead]

The thing to remember about cease fires.....you can ask for one....but your opponent does not have to grant it!