Fight to the bitter end...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Orda Khan @ Nov. 03 2003,07:17)]Battle started, I was immediately 2 teamed and then 3....game over, I think I may have lasted possibly 2 minutes. Help received from certain person......NONE.
I then sat through the entire game waiting for the innevitable defeat.
I suppose you think that is ok? If you don't like the way people play, don't play with them and remember....NOBODY is perfect

---

Battle was over for you... But two of your remaining allies still hadn't played at all, and were without fault in your position. In technical terms it was perfectly ok. Too bad if you were the host, but the other six players (lets count out the 'advisor&#39http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif shouldn't pay for one's bad choices.

Should your allies just say. Oh damn, we lost one due to another guy. Lets withdraw.
They would then have lost it all, time, fun and honour.


General audience:
Since there is no reason to withdraw troops to save them (which I happily do in SP), I find it disrespectful to not give your best, even in impossible battles. And to give your best is to try to win.

One of the things I love the most of MP is when the battle dies down and the two sides reform. It might be a relic from my Starcraft days when you could come back from a major reverse (I have won battles there where I have seen others surrender). I haven't yet managed to win a battle wher I have managed to reform a smaller army than my enemy, but just the sight of routing superior enemies are enough to keep me going, and one day I will win a battle some people would surrender.

RTS vs chess ethics?

What does giving you best really mean?

In the game we played Tarrak, I had cav, and you had none. I could have run around the map for hours and never have conceded defeat.

Don't kid yourself, some positions are not worth fighting and losing time over. When it's lost, it's lost. you already gave your best, you have been defeated, you got a couple of tired guys left, this is it, call it a defeat and move on. The battle is already over.

Louis,

Preferably I fight 'till the final man dies, but I just withdraw/rout my army from the battle, if, for instance, my strongest flank is disintegrated or if my center starts to waver all over. Well, at the start anyways. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif

Hehe Yuuk --

That is correct, my General must gallop off to re-write history and proclaim his "great victory" to his official court historians...

"...and so snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, and against overwhelming odds, my successful rearward attack so dishearted our heathen foe, that they departed the field of battle (presumably out of the king's line of sight) and the glorious battle was mine..." http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif

Louis/Krax --

I think there are several general scenarios--

The Good:
1. I lost, and have a few crap troops left. I move to advantageous spot and wait to give battle -- knowing the end will be swift. Fight till all rout.

2. I lost, and wish to see if I can save a few troops vs. overwhelming odds. I attempt to withdraw them -- the fighting withdraw as the enemy swoops down trying to rout you can be quite enjoyable.

3. I'm the attacker, I lost really bad and there no point charging defender's position again -- I attempt a withdraw. If the Defender so desire blood, then he can try to move to attack and catch me before I withdraw.


The Crap:
1. I lost, and have 1 or 2 troops that I look to hide -- perhaps in trees, and force victor to search all over goddarn map to find me...

2. I lost, he has inf. I got cav., I force victor to try to chase me down all over map... I refuse to give battle.

3. I'm attacker, I don't like where the defender is I refuse to attack and instead withdraw.

Just to give my two cents on this matter.
I do think there are two sides to this medal.

I usually fight to the last. For one thing it is only a game an pixels are not an endangered species. However, anyone thinking like a true general would, once the battle is lost, get as many of his men to safety as possible.

I also fight to the last because it has happened (very rarely) that my enemy made a mistake and I still managed to turn the tide in a seemingly hopeless situation.

Needless to say I will also keep fighting if my allies still are.

I have withdrawn once when my ally was beaten and I was beaten and I wanted to meet up with my ally again to play another game. I acknowleged the victor, surrendered the battlefield to him and then hit the withdraw button. I hope he was not disappointed.

I am always a bit disappointed when my enemy quits without further word. It feels like he was saying to me: "you have wasted my time, I have no more interest playing with you". It makes a lot of difference when he says a few words and I know that he still enjoyed the game.

One day my enemy offered me a draw. There is no official draw option, but it was nice neverthelss. I accepted the draw and then we both routed our armies. I left with a feeling of mutual respect and I think draws schould be offered more often.


So to cut this long story short, I personally prefer to keep fighting
but got nothing against withdrawls as long as they are done with courtesy and dignity.

I agree with Mitch's various scenarios. Many are viable and the few he lists are Crap.

I've always wished for a "draw" option and a "parlay screen" where you can negotiate a surrender/draw. I often offer terms of surrender if the battle is hopeless--"give me your youngest daughters and we will let you keep your land", etc.

Its more fun to "think like a real general" than to think of your men as mere "pixels." Pixels dont storm hills or fight with honor.

My game was a 2v2, and my team were the attackers. Alrowan had the highest ground, so my strategy was to help CBR defeat the other defender and then both of us could attack Alrowan. I stayed out of archer range facing Alrowan and sent cav to help CBR, but it wasn't enough to defeat the other defender because Alrowan countered my move with his own cav. I then tried to kill Alrowan's gen who was returning from his ally to his own army, but failed. This all took about 10 min during which time Alrowan didn't engage me. He had plenty of opportunity to do so if he desired engagement. He was obviously waiting for his ally just as I was waiting for mine. That's one strategy to use in a 2v2. It's a 2v2; not two 1v1's. The critical event to that battle was the outcome of the other two player's fight. Yes, I could have charged Alrowan before the enemy ally arrived, and I would have if he was a player of unknown skill, but I was recognizing his skill by withdrawing and recognizing that my strategic plan had failed. I didn't think it diminished the victory. It was a fine victory.

I like to think that, when all the players in a game are of similar skill level, it's the strategic element that determines victory and the tactics are more or less cancelled out by the skill of the players. The better plan wins if it's properly executed. I recently played a 2v2 on that same map, and directly attacked the player who had Alrowan's position. The attack failed partly due to attacking uphill and partly due to assistance coming from the enemy's ally since they had the inside lines of communication. It wasn't a very imaginative plan and staked everything on the hope of blowing the other player away which didn't happen. It was actually a bad plan for that map, and I did a disservice to my ally to adopt such a risky plan.

All that over when it's ok to retreat or to fight it out to the bitter end. That's a lot of posting and took me sometime to read it all while i was waiting for people to pick units and deploy during games.

I find nothing wrong with withdrawing or routing though most usally rout there troops when it's over for them. I rarely see withdrawing from players when they've lost. It's not like you've got a good chance of winning in mtw and mtw:vi compared to stw and stw:mi games where when your out numbered and can use musks to your adv to rout 2+ armies if you have more. Also you have most playing at 15k which is quite hard to rout those when you're out numbered unlike lower florin games you can make some good chain routs with a smaller, weaken, fatigued army.

Fatigue and being out numbered badly hurts a lot, so when it's utterly hopeless, so hell just rout, i don't care. I usally fight it out with all my units unless im already fully routing and i'll just rout it out. Even though sometimes you can rally back up and win it, but not likely with a full army chasing you and they have allies.

I'm one of those people that dislikes it when people just sit for 15mins at a stare off cause none wants to attack and then you have allies bitch at you when you go out and attack. Also those that like to run around the map with a few units or just 1 saying " i never give up ".

Oh and a little off topic, but i hate those that say i win cause i've mastered the clicking fest. Hell i enjoyed slow games in stw and stw:mi when i could control each unit and put it where and when i want it. Those games i was at my best and now that the slow speed it lost in mtw and mtw:vi, you have to be a fast clicker and thinker, if you want to stay on top, especially when you're getting double teamed almost every game.

That's enough BS for now...

There's no wrong choice between fighting on and withdrawing, and players should not have problems with those who choose to withdraw from battle. Withdrawing clearly establishes a winner and allows the other team to save some face. However, many would wish to run up the kill count, drag the enemy's good name into the dirt, and then say "GG", like it was some epic struggle where they earned all 400 of their capture kills. If you're not satisfied with just winning, then maybe you've got some ego issues.

And in the spirit of AMP's pet peeves, I'll put one of my own in. I hate this plague of "gg" that every game has to end with. "GG" is supposed to be a sign of good sportsmanship, but saying it after every game is a bit of a stretch. People have said it so often that it has lost all meaning. Personally, I only try to say it in two situations. I say it if I've been impressed by the way an enemy beats me, and I say it to my teammates if we win. I do not say it to the enemy if my team wins, because it's almost like thanking them for losing, especially if its a laugher where one guy forgets to upgrade his units. And in the case where my team beats someone who put up an excellent fight, I'll take the time to write a real compliment for their performance, I won't just regurgitate some pointless formality that would just as soon be awarded to the guy who brought nothing but 4 fully upgraded Hashishin. Rant over.

I've almost withdrew my entire army in a game. I would have, if I had any allies left. This might be confusing, but its for a simple reason: if my ally is trying to rally and fight over and over with one or two units while I'm being double or triple teamed, it pushes me far past being annoyed. If I'm going to face 2 or 3 armies, I want to be the one in control of my situation. I don't want:

1) Someone elses depleted units routing right next to mine causing mine to run as well (although this doesn't bother me if it was a good fight and you're both just trying to win)

2) What I really don't like...if I lose to 3 armies I want to be able to end the game right at the point where I know its over. I don't want 3 people rushing their cavs over from wherever they may be just to use my men to raise their kill count. That in my own opinion is what is disrespectful. People can disagree with me, but it doesn't mean anything you can say will change my opinion, its one of the strongest feelings I have towards this game. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif

Sorry, that was just something I've wanted to get off my chest for about a year now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif In the game where I almost withdrew, I was in position 3 of a 4v4. The person in pos. 4 on the opposite side had a stronger army than mine. I could have taken them head to head (if I did it right, not every time) but they stood there while their 3 allies attacked all my allies on the opposite side of a lake. I could have went to help my allies, but would have been sandwiched if I did. As it was, I was left to hope my allies won. They lost, and I was left to either face the remaining 3 armies plus the completely fresh army of the person I was facing, or withdraw. Since my allies were all gone, I attacked, routed the fresh army, then routed all my units before the other 3 armies had a chance to kill me off. They won of course, and everyone got to fight, so no one should feel cheated. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

well im not too worried about that battle, it was long in the past, and its only a game. I was merely using it as an extreme example where one army leaves. I still admit i would have liked to fight, but thats just me, i like to play each game to the full. Sure i admire Yuukis respect of my skill, thing is, i enter every battle expecting to lose, and if i win by an army leaving, then its the fact that there was no battle that leaves the hollow victory.

anyway, im over that battle, chiz did a great job, cudos to him, and ill see you all on the battlefield (yes, where BATTLES happen http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ Nov. 03 2003,16:01)]In my opinion, and I'm, sorry if I was not clear, it's only rude if the HOST is already routed and had no unit left. Everybody else can quit whenever they want. But the host can't. It's a loss of the host valuable time to keep playing a lost battle.

But seriously, when you have 6 units of half depleted guys all very tired against twice that number of units, of better quality and some at full strenght, chance that you are going to win are pretty damn close to 0. You know it, your opponent knows it. It's time to recognize who the winner is.

Denying my opponent the pleasure of routing them by themselves.... Interesting choice of word Hilde...
I must be a very specific kind of pervert... I'm the kind of guy who stop chasing when I read the 'rout out of field' message (then I regroup and move to the next target). I find pleasure in winning the game, but I can't care less about overkilling my opponent. Kills are the last of my concern. Sometimes winning manoeuvers are not rewarded by high kills, and high kills are just the result of router chasing.
I am also a very specific kind of pervert for another reason;

There is an important notion in 'withdrawing'; that's the notion of acknowldegement. You may have pleasure in killing a few half depleted guys... I have a lot of pleasure when someone acknowldege that I/we (as a team) are better and see no way to win. The withdrawer guy recognize your value in a way that no 'stander till I die' can.
The 'stander till I die' does not acknowledge he has been defeated by you...

I don't think I'll ever withdraw a whole fresh army (even severly outnumbered... a fresh army can do wonder vs tired opponent... Those kind of game has been won before...). In any case, yes, if nobody is in a hurry, it's more fun to withdraw than to rout.
If you want to start a rematch soon; then just rout yourself, and move on to the next game.

---

Well, Louis, I see you got me wrong on a couple of points so I'll make those clear now.

First, the HOST question: My opinion is: No, it's not rude to the HOST. He is the host and has to accept that he has to stay in game even if routed. Note I did not say he should have to watch the annual hide and seek competition, but he has to accept that some players want to play till they are routed off the field or rout the enemy. If a host cannot plan ahead that a game might take a little longer, or is impatient, then he was definitely wrong to host that game in the first place. Some people don't play MTW matches like they are on a timer as in chess. They are not trying to get as many games as possible in a period of time but rather try to enjoy the one they are in to the fullest. One has to respect that.
Finally, I think there will only be a handful of players at the most who would deny or take offense at a request by the host to finish the match now, because the host has other pressing matters coming up and thus needs to go offline. So the host should take initiative here, but only if he has a real reason, and being out of the match and just wanting to play another game asap doesn't count in my opinion. If he wants that, he should join rather than host.

Next, the routing question. I never said I wouldn't rout if there is no chance of winning. Sure if you have 6 depleted units and your opponent(s) double or triple the number, both sides know how it is going to end. But that doesn't mean you can't do one last stand (note I didn't say marching around the map forever&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif if you elect to do so. This won't take long, 5 minutes more at most. However, each player should make that call on his own, and it's his right. It's neither lame nor foolish nor a sign that he can't accept defeat. If you have only one or two depleted units left, I agree you can rout right away (unless your allies are still going strong).

Now, to the point where you misunderstood me most. My wording was probably a bit odd, that's right. But I did not imply I am chasing units of an army which is completely routing of the field already. That's pointless. I am also not a guy who tries to boost his kill count. I don't care about kills and losses, I've lost games while killing more and won games by losing more of my men. I try to win.
All I was saying is that some people including me feel a greater sense of accomplishment if they personally make the enemy army rout off the field rather than waiting or asking the opponent to give it up. It is a more complete victory, in my opinion.
And no Louis, your views on that issue don't make you a pervert http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif, but there are as always two ways to see the acknowledgement: the one you described, which clearly stems from your chess experience, I think. And then there is the other one, which you claim doesn't exist: A player making a last stand is trying to honour his opponent for a good battle and giving both the chance to conclude it in an honourable way by giving battle even though the outcome is clear now. Simply running away is not a good end for a great battle.

Lastly, the withdrawing vs. routing issue. I agree, if the sides agree on doing a rematch, then you should rout, you also shoudl do that if the majority of the other players tells you to. In any other case, routing the whole army be it fresh or tired isn't a good choice in my opinion.

Kongamato, I agree with the "gg" overuse. One should really take the time to type smth. better if one is really impressed. If it was a pretty standard game, you might say good game, because everybody played thoughtfully there were no exploits. If you think it was a bad game or your opponents really got lucky or just won because of army selection exploits, it's ridiculous to say gg, I usually respond by saying "not really" then. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif



Amp, I also agree with you on the sit and watch approach. An overly cautious tactical game is not enjoyable, but on the flip side quick rushes aren't either. But sometimes there's just no or bad communication between the allies and that can result in not assisting each other and the game degenerating into a mess.
About clicking, you hate it, but two sentences later you acknowledge it is more important in VI. Strange.
Also IIRC the units especially the cav move much faster in Shogun, I think. That's why most Shogun players are also superb MTW players, in my opinion.

just read amps post, skipped through it before, but i agree on most of those points, theres no point in trying to rally when you have an army on your routing back, or maybe a couple of units left that arent going to win. There are a few exceptions to this, one was a viking era game i played, and my whole army ended up routing save my gen and 5 of his unit, being the last of my allies cav on the field i decided not to rout, and use them as chasers, my cav actually tipped the balance at one point in the game, where the enemy inf (al tired, as were my allies) were just engaging, i knew my ally wouldnt and couldnt win unless flanked, and seeing as he had no units close enough to start the chain rout, i sent in my 5 man cav unit. That simple manouver ended up routing the better part of his army, and gave us the edge needed to win that game. If i had routed that unit, im sure we would have lost. In any case, i dont usually do that, if i have very little left i usually rout.

By the way AMP was a fun game the other night where we got trippled in the corner there with my turkish cannon http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]First, the HOST question: My opinion is: No, it's not rude to the HOST. He is the host and has to accept that he has to stay in game even if routed. Note I did not say he should have to watch the annual hide and seek competition, but he has to accept that some players want to play till they are routed off the field or rout the enemy. If a host cannot plan ahead that a game might take a little longer, or is impatient, then he was definitely wrong to host that game in the first place. Some people don't play MTW matches like they are on a timer as in chess. They are not trying to get as many games as possible in a period of time but rather try to enjoy the one they are in to the fullest. One has to respect that.
Finally, I think there will only be a handful of players at the most who would deny or take offense at a request by the host to finish the match now, because the host has other pressing matters coming up and thus needs to go offline. So the host should take initiative here, but only if he has a real reason, and being out of the match and just wanting to play another game asap doesn't count in my opinion. If he wants that, he should join rather than host.

---

I can't host, and maybe that's why I'm very thankfull for all hosts. There are a few things I try not to do to host; I have rushed a host only once (he was in a spot I really wanted), actually routing him off the map after 2 mn, and then, well, he had to wait 15 mn for the endgame... I kind of disliked doing it.
When I'm invited somewhere, I try not to vomit in the bedroom http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif, even if the host shall know better than inviting me in the 1st place and live with the consequence http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Next, the routing question. I never said I wouldn't rout if there is no chance of winning. Sure if you have 6 depleted units and your opponent(s) double or triple the number, both sides know how it is going to end. But that doesn't mean you can't do one last stand (note I didn't say marching around the map forever if you elect to do so. This won't take long, 5 minutes more at most. However, each player should make that call on his own, and it's his right. It's neither lame nor foolish nor a sign that he can't accept defeat. If you have only one or two depleted units left, I agree you can rout right away (unless your allies are still going strong).

---

I would not rout myself with allies going strong either. That must be a collective decision. If my allies think they have a chance, sure I'll try to save as much as I can to help them out.
Now how long does that last stand take? It felt really long, embarrassingly long in my game vs Tarrak (where by the way, I eventually opt for staying and making a stand http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif ). We both had to recover from exhausted status, to something more bearable, but it looked a lot like 'staring 15 mn at each other'. (overall game lasted 43 mn and it was 5k... I don't know how long took the endgame)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Now, to the point where you misunderstood me most. My wording was probably a bit odd, that's right. But I did not imply I am chasing units of an army which is completely routing of the field already. That's pointless. I am also not a guy who tries to boost his kill count. I don't care about kills and losses, I've lost games while killing more and won games by losing more of my men. I try to win.
All I was saying is that some people including me feel a greater sense of accomplishment if they personally make the enemy army rout off the field rather than waiting or asking the opponent to give it up. It is a more complete victory, in my opinion.
And no Louis, your views on that issue don't make you a pervert , but there are as always two ways to see the acknowledgement: the one you described, which clearly stems from your chess experience, I think. And then there is the other one, which you claim doesn't exist: A player making a last stand is trying to honour his opponent for a good battle and giving both the chance to conclude it in an honourable way by giving battle even though the outcome is clear now. Simply running away is not a good end for a great battle.

---

Sorry, I did not mean you are a routing chaser... But I was using your post to answer the people 'asking for blood'. I don't know what asking for blood is if not getting kills.
I understand that players may think that a last stand is more respectfull... And as for those issues, intent is what matter, there is no harm in doing that.

What it boils down to is understanding what the other player mean by either making a last stand or withdrawing.
If they mean to recognize your victory, I am fine in both cases.
I have little doubt that withdrawing is a sign of respect for the winner. When talking with Kraxis after our game, when I told him I thought about withdrawing (eventually I did not), I was surprised by his very negative reaction. If anything, I hope this topic will help people from a non-chess background to understand that withdrawing is not designed to frustrate them, and that they shall be happy the withdrawer recognized the day is theirs. Don't be http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/angry.gif at withdrawers; their intention and their message is positive for you (that is unless your frustration of not getting high kills count is overwhelming, then yes you might see it as negative) ans suppose to give you a good deal of 'great sense of accomplishment'.
I have a lot of doubt that a last stand is done as sign of respect for the winner. More likely out of habit, or possibly blind oneself on the eventual end of the battle. Sometimes because they want to give a good final to the game. In the game with Kraxis, I made a last stand, but I was not too happy about it, and they were nothing really fancy; our two lines met frontally (ok my cav flanked... but so what...), mine routed after 30 sec. End of story. Not really a great grand final And it took a long time to get there.

What is the withdrawer intent? What is the last stander intent? Both can be good. It's better in those cases maybe to state it (see the "I resign" for Bachus, before he rout himself). I'd like to see a last stander saying something like 'I'll die on that hill, make it swift', or use the Cambronne word http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif...

Maybe then I'd feel a 'greater sense of accomplishement' defeating the last remaining few than seeing them withdrawing...

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ Nov. 03 2003,11:00)]In the game we played Tarrak, I had cav, and you had none. I could have run around the map for hours and never have conceded defeat.

---

Yes but that is not trying to win (unless some fool left the timer on), that is trying not to lose. And I have already said that I find that very disrespecting.
I said fight to the last... not hide or run to the last.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Don't kid yourself, some positions are not worth fighting and losing time over. When it's lost, it's lost.

---

Yes, I know. Certain battles are lost. But I come to a battle to have fun, and fighting is fun. I find great joy in a victory, as I guess most of us do, but victory gets a second place. I play to have fun, not to win. I try to win to the last (unless it has no point at all) because that demands of me to perform my best maneuvers and do my best attacks. So I try to win, even if I can't to give the best of what I have.

Our wait was perhaps 5 min. And it wasn't even that long as I used some time to gather my troops.
I loved the last fight, not because I won (well that gave me some pleasure naturally), but because I had to use all my strength to win. Your victory was closer than you think... And had I been you I would have been satisfied with it.

When fights are that small both parties are suddenly in positions that are much different from the big ones. Here they have fewer troops and can do much superior micromanagement, like my opponent did with his Jinettes. I have extreme respect for his work afterwards despite his wrong choice of troops and placement, simply because he stayed in the battle and gave me such a hard time with so few troops. That was comendable, and I sat either smiling all over or nearly jumped around in frustration, it was great
I felt he was willing to fight me with all his heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (AMPage @ Nov. 04 2003,05:26)]Oh and a little off topic, but i hate those that say i win cause i've mastered the clicking fest.

---

say AMP, dont you have 4 hands? i always thought u have... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (tootee @ Nov. 04 2003,13:20)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (AMPage @ Nov. 04 2003,05:26)]Oh and a little off topic, but i hate those that say i win cause i've mastered the clicking fest.

---

say AMP, dont you have 4 hands? i always thought u have... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif

---

whohoo... I would feel Dizzy .... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

Louis,

Brutal DLX,I never said i hated clicking just having to mass click/clicking like a mad man. It is more important in mtw and mtw:vi cause you have no slow or very very few slow battles where the game speed is slow enough for you to control every unit the way you want it during the battle. I've played many big battles that were slow in stw and stw:mi where i would have lost without that slow speed cause i may know what to do and have more tricks then the other player just not enough time to do it. A lot of battles in stw and stw:mi where the game speed was normal i could easly see a change in my kill/losses due do that, but hey that's part of gaming, although i would like to see the abiltiy to slow battles down to give more time to control, but i know that's never gonna happen. As for stare offs and rushes i'm one of those people that dislike standing around doing nothing and rather enjoy rush games, everyone has there own taste to play.

tootee, well i got 4 hands, but can only use one mouse and keyboard per pc in game. Hehe... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif

Sigh, Louis, if you always expect the worst and doubt the honorable intentions of last stand opponents, then I'd say you are a pessimist http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

I think the only consensus we can reach here is declaring by a chat message to all what we are about to do, as you suggested, unless it's blatantly obvious. I for my part will start giving notice of my intent for last stands from now on.

AMP, thanks for clearing that up, I got you wrong.

PS: Yesterday I witnessed a router-chaser again, is that becoming commonplace? I don't play regularily, maybe only once or twice a week, so I wouldn't know. Also, what's up with all those new "clans", their trash talk in the lobby is really disturbing....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Nov. 05 2003,04:35)]Sigh, Louis, if you always expect the worst and doubt the honorable intentions of last stand opponents, then I'd say you are a pessimist http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

...

PS: Yesterday I witnessed a router-chaser again, is that becoming commonplace? I don't play regularily, maybe only once or twice a week, so I wouldn't know. Also, what's up with all those new "clans", their trash talk in the lobby is really disturbing....

---

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif Brutal DLX

I'm a pessimist (not to mention a perv, we already prove that)... but see what you are saying... Are you trying to prove me right?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif You don't need to state your intent. Let's face it, misunderstood people, and the one in the minority, are the one who withdraw, not the last stander. Plus, I don't think I'll be offended if you make a last stand http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
Many think withdrawing or routing oneself is despisable, I hope this post will help clear misunderstanding and that it is clear now that routing oneself is not a sign of disrespect, rather the opposite; the intent of the withdrawer is to recognize your victory.

Louis,

This discussion has reminded me of a story I heard about the American GIs when they dated English girls in WWII. Both thought the other to be extremely easy to bed, while neither thought themselves to be such.

It had something to do with the relation between a kiss and sex.

For the GI it looked like this:

Meets----->kiss---------------------->sex

For the English girl it looked like this:

Meets---------------------->kiss----->sex

So when the American kissed the girl early she was surprised and thought that it was time for the sex part which surprised the GI.

We are just like that too. We find the other part's action disrespecting while we find our own highly respectful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Also, what's up with all those new "clans", their trash talk in the lobby is really disturbing....

---

I must admit I don't play that much, much like you, but I haven't seen anything. And I have actually been charged to look out for this kind of behaviour by Richie. So if this happens a lot, would you tell me?

Trash talk by new clans? I've yet to have the "honour"..

Hi Amp---

You made an interesting observation. Do you think MTW plays faster the MI? I know MI played faster than STW and i never did like that. I've never really compared games speeds between MTW and the other versions.
Perhaps that is why I've found I've had less control in some ways than even with MI.

Do you think they turned up the game's internal clock, or is there just more efficiency in the code speeding things up? I know with MI the combat cycles went faster -- along with marching speeds and that made for faster routs/games, which I didn't think a good thing.

--------------

Ael --

Sounds like you'd be better off sticking with 1v1 play. Most of the things that have u disgruntled are part of the strategic aspect of the "team" game. If you choose to sit in a face off vs. your opposing army (and I say "your" loosely because it is not 4 - 1v1 fights happening simultaneous) while your allies fight, then expect to face 1 fresh army + 2-3 others if they win and your allies don't. It's not something to just get annoyed and rout about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ Nov. 05 2003,07:58)]... I hope this post will help clear misunderstanding and that it is clear now that routing oneself is not a sign of disrespect, ...

---

It has already done something for me.
Preferring last stands in the past, I like the idea of an ordered retreat when defeat is certain. Must give that one a try. May actually me more interesting than that last heroic (but useless) struggle.

May want to accompany this by saying something like :"Well, you have won. But I will try to get as many men out of here alive as possible. Catch me if you can " http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

Hehe, Louis, not so easy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif No we didn't prove you are a perv, but if you want to, of course you are entitled to call yourself one, no objections here. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif

And yes, I don't need to state my intentions, but I'll do so anyway so as to reduce possible ill feelings.

As for the things I mentioned, I didn't think the worst of them, I was just surprised to see it happen twice or so within a few days, which made me wonder. But I'm still not joining the pessimist front on this issue. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif

Edit: Yes, I know the withdrawers are in the minority, and I think the reasoning is largely understood by most. But I think there are borderline situations when withdrawing occurs even though the outcome isn't completely certain. I can understand if the opponents feel a tad upset then. And I thought this topic had been created mainly to speak about those situations when almost complete armies withdraw.
(end edit)

About the clans, there were two (new to me) clans which I saw on Monday and Tuesday, and they settled their issues (in a rather profane way) in the lobby, with another ronin joining in, and wouldn't stop even once some vets intervened and told them to stop spamming the lobby. However, I've looked through the forums on the .NET and it seems that those clans will probably fall apart soon anyway, as even some members already left them in disgust and other major clans ignoring them, by and large. So no need to intervene here, Kraxis. I guess it was just a fluctuation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Nov. 06 2003,02:10)]About the clans, there were two (new to me) clans which I saw on Monday and Tuesday, and they settled their issues (in a rather profane way) in the lobby, with another ronin joining in, and wouldn't stop even once some vets intervened and told them to stop spamming the lobby. However, I've looked through the forums on the .NET and it seems that those clans will probably fall apart soon anyway, as even some members already left them in disgust and other major clans ignoring them, by and large. So no need to intervene here, Kraxis. I guess it was just a fluctuation.

---

Good... I thought I had to do the heavy walk to Richie. GAH

Hi Mitch

No, i'm saying that the game speed slows down alot in MI due to the coding/connections, making it easier to control units. And i like having that control or atleast when it's time to control a few units at once. In MTW because of the better coding and after the patch i can host a 4v4 with a 56k modem and it runs smooth. Now if i were to host a 4v4 with my 56k in MI it would go very slow with enough time to control all my units the way i like. If you're hosting a MI game with a fast connection your chances of a faster running game are higher depending on other players connections.

STW dose seem to play faster then MI when running smooth and MI is faster then MTW. So when fighting in an MI if it goes slow due to the coding/connections a 30min game could really be only a 5min game if you were to run that game at normal speed. With MTW being slower it inceases more fatigue and takes longer to kill and rout units, depending on the florin amount being played. That's why i also really like low florins in MTW, to have a chance to fight of an army and not be to fatigued to take on another, but hey that's just me.

I wish for a speed option in MP for RTW... Hehe

Ah, I got ya.

Yep the laggy games did at least alow you to scan things a bit, hehe.

I do think, tho that there was a speed-up of actual single game-play at normal speeds from STW to MI. My guess was that since the maps got bigger in MI the programers wanted it to take players nearly the same amount of "real time" to cross the board, but maybe the code just got more efficient.

I didn't notice a big change from MI to MTW. But I think you are correct that fatigue makes itself more pronounced in MTW -- if that is because the internal "game time" is longer for the MTW battles, I'm not sure.

Louis

One point --

I think there are different connotations to the way one exits the game.

If a player "withdraws" units (pretty much regardless of their number), I think it sends the message:
"You won, I respectfully conceede defeat. I'm giving up the field. Do your best to get me."

If the player "routs" more than a few (1 or 2) depleted units, I think is sends the message:
"Ah f@ck it You won, I'm not playing anymore I'm leaving" Which is more like a sore loser.