Fight to the bitter end...

Printable View

10-31-2003, 23:23
Kraxis

Last night I got surprised... I got really surprised.

I had just fought a very good 3v3 battle with CBR against Louis. It all boiled down to a fight where CBR had a few depleted units left (3 or 4), I had 7-8 rather tired depleted units and Louis had 6 units (after I ambushed his arbs, or did I?).

Well he did all he could, and did very well for what he had left. He even managed to get one of my strongest units to flee and charged into my rear with some Gendarmes. Now my men were tired and depleted and it was a 5k game. In such times troops certainly don't like cav in the rear and I feared a complete rout, but instead it was his forces that broke.

After what I thought to have been a great way to go down, he told me he thought about withdrawing and giving us the victory (I will not state his reasons as I believe he is much better at that than me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif). I was shocked to know he was serious.
I would have been, perhaps not insulted, but at least very disapointed had he done it.

My oppinion is that you honour your enemy if you fight back, from even an impossible position. You show you are willing to fight him at any terms. That you have come to the game to play it to the fullest and to have fun.
I fail to find the fun in withdrawing, but I can find great fun in a wellplayed last stand. My own or the enemy's, it doesn't matter, it is equally admirable and fun.

That said, I won't hide units (that is highly insulting) and I will always try to move my units together to form an army to give the most of what I have. If I only have one unit of 2 men that are wavering from across the map, well then there is little point in fighting on. But in general I fight to the last man.

Naturally I hope Louis will drop his oppinion here. Our discussion was too good for you not to Louis. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
10-31-2003, 23:58
Alrowan

to be perfectly honest, i hate hitting that rout button, or the withdraw button, even if i have 1 unit left i fight to the end. I was really dissapointed one game though, in a 5k 2v2 Chiz and I played Yuuki and CBR, CBR faced chiz, and lost, with mine and yuukis cav getting involved somewhat. Then all the sudden i saw Yuuki withdrawing his armies, need less to say, i hadnt faed any combat, and felt let down. I always enjoy a fight, and to have an army withdraw on me leaves me feeling cheated
11-01-2003, 00:12
Kongamato

In one game, I fought against Ichi and Hasty in a 2v2. My ally brought around 8 Italian Infantry and deployed them in a half-circle. He was double-teamed and lost easily before I even joined the battle. I now faced one full-strength army and one that had taken few losses. I thought about withdrawing, but instead I lined myself up and prepared to fight a 2 on 1. They attacked me, and I was able to use some flanking and chasing to rout a great deal of their forces. At the bitter end, I wound up facing about 70 enemy cavalry with around 40 infantry. I lost, but I have no regrets about fighting on after the odds fell out of my favor.

Would you like the replay?
11-01-2003, 00:14
Puzz3D

Alrowan,

I withdrew because the battle was lost. It's similar to resigning in a chess game, although, routing would be closer to resigning. As I recall, you did kill my rear guard.
11-01-2003, 12:51
Alrowan

lol, well yuuki, i still would have liked to have fought you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
11-01-2003, 15:48
Puzz3D

Alrowan,

You wanted to continue the game for what purpose? To me it's pointless to continue a lost game.
11-01-2003, 16:20
Kas

I always fight till the last man dies (or figures out it's wiser not to listen to his cruel incompetent boss anymore and runs for his life http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif )

I will rout if the other players ask me to though...

Kas http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
11-01-2003, 16:54
Mithrandir

I think it's very lame to withdraw unless it's after a long battle and you have just 1 or 2 wavering&depleted units left.

I seriously hate it when people do it just cause they cant win.
No offense but I think of it as immature. If you can still make a stand do so to please your enemy. even if I'm left 1 vs 3 I'll still do the best I can because I know how frustrating it is to see the enemy withdrawing . There's not that good feeling of victory when the enemy has withdrawn.
11-01-2003, 17:50
LittleGrizzly

i always fight to the last man and get suprisingly good results sometimes even this one 3v1 i had
11-01-2003, 20:45
The Wizard

I always fight to the last man... or to the last man before he decides to follow his friends into dishounorable routing.

Once, my entire Turkish army routed after a destructive battle, save for my JHI's... of which two of the four were cut in half. Vik swung his chasing cav around, but they ran themselves into death on the sharp tips of my JHI's polearms... the inf that came from the side threatened to be my doom but as Vik's knights routed they gave up their hope for victory. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
11-01-2003, 21:48
Kongamato

I'll usually fight to the end, but there are some times where it is unnecessary. If you've got the last two units left and your allies are routing, the enemy is going to run up the score by killing all of your team's routers so they can raise their kill counts. This makes an embarassment out of your whole team. You do not gain any honor this way.
11-01-2003, 22:35
Alrowan

well yuuki, to be honest, i just wanted blood, i wanted sacrifice, and i wanted to beat you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif hence why i gave chase, i like to see sacrifice on the feild, i like to see someone give me all theyve got. Afterall, thats what this game is about
11-02-2003, 08:37
Dionysus9

Well its too bad that so many here are "against" strategic withdrawals, because I think they are tactically important and honorable.

First of all, any bonehead can charge and get lucky-- but it takes a real general to execute a fighting withdrawal.

Second, I hear a lot of people complaining that they dont get enough blood when the enemy withdraws. If its blood you want, then go get it-- dont let your enemy have enough room to withdraw. The only reason he was able to slip away is because you let him.

Third,I think it is insulting NOT to rout or withdraw if the game is clearly over-- it is insulting to both the enemy general AND your own men. Let me tell you why.

Anyone who plays with me regularly has heard me say "I resign" before I hit the rout button. Yuuki is correct, it is like a chess game. When the battle is lost, I resign. It is a show of respect for the opposing general. When I resign I am saying "I recognize your skill and your victory. Given my position and material it is pointless for me to resist against such a skilled general." Thus failing to resign is a show of disrespect-- it is as if you believe the enemy general is so stupid you can actually beat him with your 2 depleted peasant units. Its a slap in the face.

It is also insulting to my own army. I love every man in my army as if he was my own son. I do not send them to die lightly. If victory is impossible, I will save my men to fight another day. If I must sacrifice a unit or two to cover my withdrawal, it was out of necessity. Sending good men to die a futile death with no hope of victory is bad generalship imho.

Fourth, if all hope of victory is lost then LETS MOVE ON TO THE NEXT GAME. Yes, I might be able to kill 3 or 4 more of your men-- or maybe your general if I was lucky-- but the game is over. Please rout.

Pointless last stands annoy me, especially when they drag on... and on... and on....
11-02-2003, 13:48
TosaInu

Konnichiwa,

MP games are just skirmishes, not a war. Saving armies to fight later is not an issue.

I want my sprites to fight till the last pixel.
11-02-2003, 15:58
tootee

there is no right or wrong, honourable or dishonourable about withdrawing/resigning from battle.

i disagree with Kraxis that by withdrawing, its disrespecting the opponent, and with Bach that by not withdrawing given the lousy situation, its disrespecting the opponent.

i empathise with those who feel angry or disappointed if the opponent withdraw the whole army without a fight.. because its a just natural feeling.. after waiting 1/2hr in the lobby for a game, 5min setting up and blah blah, you dont even have a chance to draw serious blood especially when things look good for you. on the other hand i also can understand that given 1v2 situation, resigning and giving victory to the opponent when you dont feel confident or find much meaning in carrynig on.

if in MP campagin, it make strategic sense by keeping the full army intact to fight on a better day. players like Bach, and me, sort of tie in some role playing in the sense that we 'care' for our men.. i.e. we dont sacrifice a unit meaninglessly.. its fun and feel good.

personally its seldom for me to be in such situation whereby my ally was completely routed while i'm still 100%. i dont remember me withdrawing under such situations, but i cannot guarantee i will not in the future.. so i hope my friends will not get offended.
11-02-2003, 16:11
Balamir

I usually fight to see what i can do, but sometimes there simply is no point to fight that one on and waste the time. I do this only when i am outpowered about 4 times my strenght considering my fatigue unit number unit size and morale.
11-02-2003, 18:00
Rob The Bastard

I seem to recall something in Sun Tzu's Art of war about leaving an avenue of escape for the enemy army... if escape is impossible then your enemy will fight with more determination... creating more casulties on your own side... something to be avoided.

Just as the victor wants a more complete victory, the losing general has the right to salvage something out of his loss by withdrawing his army. All of us have tasted defeat... it is not pleasant. Why not lessen that by allowing a small part of a defeated army to escape??
11-02-2003, 18:23
Orda Khan

Quote:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Rob The Bastard @ Nov. 02 2003,17:00)]I seem to recall something in Sun Tzu's Art of war about leaving an avenue of escape for the enemy army... if escape is impossible then your enemy will fight with more determination... creating more casulties on your own side... something to be avoided.

Just as the victor wants a more complete victory, the losing general has the right to salvage something out of his loss by withdrawing his army. All of us have tasted defeat... it is not pleasant. Why not lessen that by allowing a small part of a defeated army to escape??

Very well put Mr Bastard http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

Last stands are all very well, the odd depleted unit hidden in trees is just a pain

If I have a few units left I generally toss them to the lions but I have no objection to the General who makes an honourable withdrawal

.......Orda
11-02-2003, 18:34
Mithrandir

Aye, depleted and exhausted units which would rout after 1 sec anyway. No objections to those routing, and annoying if people hide them. But I hate to see entire armies rout just cause they cant win.

if I've got at least 3 viable units left I'll make a stand. If my allies are still alive I'll always toss everything I have at the enemy to slow him down ,distract him or weaken him...
11-03-2003, 06:02
Lord Rom

I will rout or withdraw only when asked and I am clearly defeated. If I can be any threat at all, or more importantly any help to an ally I will fight to the death. I feel it is dishonorable to desert an ally.
11-03-2003, 06:03
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

I am surprised by a few statements.... 'Immature'? 'wanting blood'?

I strongly recommand to the peoples who made those statements to avoid any serious game (chess, go...) at a decent level http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif. You'll be in for a lot of frustration, and a lot of relational problems.

Many 'old' strategy games include mechanism for draw and surrender.

There is no draw mechanism in MTW (well, not that I know of), but there is an equivalent to surrender; "withdrawal" (or "routing").

Why was withdrawing included? Why is that always been an option in venerable strategy game? Why 80% of chess games and with surrender and not actual chessmate (if we put aside draw)?
You might also wonder why, in chess, you never actually take the king....
A comment one sees pretty often in chess book, or commented games is; 'At this point, the player shall have stopped the game and surrender'.

There is a point in the game when you know you have lost, and your opponent knows he has won (one can argue about what is needed to know that). Then the game is over. What's the point if you keep playing after that?

Why do most people surrender in chess?
Out of respect for their opponent, actually telling them "given your skill, I have no doubt you will win over me in this position".
There are also some good reason to stop playing which are less 'honorable'
Because time is precious (if you play in a chess cafe or on the net, or in club... well pretty much everywhere http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif ... you bet someone else wants to play... so leave the place for the next player.).
Because playing is an effort, it's tiring (all the more so when you lose), and to keep playing may actually be detrimental for your next game.

Some of the (if not all) of those reason do apply to MTW.

Yes, time is precious. In the game I played vs Tarrak (and some remnant beyond the grave of CBR army), I had no chance whatsoever to win. Both armies were exhausted. So, both side kind of seat on their butt and wait for their units to recover to quite/ very tired. Easily 5 minutes lost (yes, Mithrandir, it took only 10 sec for Tarrak to rout them all on contact... but more than 5 minutes to get to that).
At this point, I remembered that CBR was the host... Had it been any of the 3 already routed players, I would have found it EXTREMLY RUDE to keep the host locked in game in a pointless situation, just because I would have liked 'to make a last stand'.
We all live in different timezones; you might be playing with someone who is playing at 4am when it's only 10 pm for you. How nice do you think it is to keep them up, just because you want to spill some last blood?

When a game is clearly over, well, then it's over. Get over it, and move to the next game.

Now, also as Bachus stated, withdrawing in good order can be fun manoeveuring.
I'll start to withdraw, and state that the game is lost. If someone is in a hurry, or if it'll take too long to withdraw, and nobody is interested in the chase, then I'll rout myself so that we can start playing the next game faster.

Now, regarding the condition when you feel a game is lost; it's pretty much up to anybody... 1 very tired unit... outnumbered 4 to 1... I've seen a whole army routing itself due to a 4v1 coming. It's the loser choice to tell when he ackowledge his defeat.
All the winner got to do is accept victory gracefully.

Louis,
11-03-2003, 09:27
Brutal DLX

I have to disagree in parts here, Louis. I don't think it's rude or disrespectful if one player chooses to fight on. It always depends on the overall situation. Also the argument about different timezones doesn't hold much value, whoever started a game at 10 pm should know it could drag on... Same goes for peeps still online at 4am, their choice...
I don't think you can liken MTW to chess, for various reasons (most of all the random nature of encounters, you cannot really make a move and take the enemy's piece like in chess, because just against the odds, the enemy unit might win. As such, you cannot plan several moves ahead with certainty as you would do in a chess game), MTW battles aren't turn based and not necessarily the best strategist wins, but also a cheap rusher or a person who just can click faster than you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
But anyway, about routing, it's up to oneself, really, but if the majority of the other players (even your allies)involved in the game start telling you to give it up, it's worth to reconsider. I don't want to see whole armies rout, but as said before, if you have just two or three depleted units left, you can safely rout them and don't fear to lose honour by denying your opponents the pleasure of routing them by themselves.

For those who rout whole armies, at least make it a challenge by choosing to withdraw instead and trying to cover it with part of your forces. This would be a challenge for both sides. If you manage to escape with a large percentage of your forces, you might feel a sense of accomplishment.
11-03-2003, 09:43
Dionysus9

Tootee is right, there is no honor or dishonor in playing to the last or withdrawing early-- and I truly dont feel offended if someone wants to make a last stand... but it is perhaps a bit discourteous if you have 0% chance of victory.

In any case, there are two sides to the coin and no reason for anyone to freak out about it.

Edit: If there is any hope for victory, no matter how small, I will continue to fight. But once victory is impossible it is time to rout or at least withdraw.

When I withdraw I try to execute a "fighting withdrawal", where I end up killing more than I lose. I've achieved this maybe once or twice, but it is a great goal. Instead of throwing my men to their deaths, I try to get them home safe with a few kills too. Not easy when outnumbered, but far more challenging than making an unwinnable last stand.
11-03-2003, 13:07
Alrowan

o know what you are talking about louis, and i agree to some extent, yet in the example i presented of yuuki and i, we both had all but our cavalry intanct, and were both fresh troops. After seeing CBR beaten, he too withdrew from the feild. I would have happily asked my ally to step aside and wait out the result before getting involved, but yuuki ended up leaving the field. Yes it was a victory, and yes it was hollow, i came to play, and what i got was a few skirmishes of my 4 units of cav, and watching my ally beat his enemy, to me it was almost a waste of time.
11-03-2003, 14:17
Orda Khan

Alrowan, it appears this has upset you quite a bit so I would suggest you take it up with the people involved. There are things that happen to upset or annoy but it does no good trying to rubbish players on the forum in this way.
I could mention a certain 4v4 Viking game where a certain person joined and began issuing orders to his allies. Well knowing the attackers and the map I knew my spot was insecure and prepared for manoeuvre but this certain person kept on and on about how good he was and how he knew the 'best' defence for the map. Against my better judgement I deployed where he ordered....asked me to.

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

......Orda
11-03-2003, 15:02
Puzz3D

Alrowan,

To play on in that game would have been a waste of time. You had the high ground, CBR was routed, I had lost 3 of my 4 most expensive units (one of them trying unsuccessfully to kill your gen) and Chi was coming to flank me. It was a strategic loss at that point, and my best move was to withdraw.
11-03-2003, 15:41
shingenmitch2

I like to fight it out to the near last.

Only exception is if I have like 2-3 depleated units left and one is my general. I will always try to withdraw him as I don't want to give the victor the evil satisfaction of having my Gen's head.

Other than that I'll slog away. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
11-03-2003, 15:53
Puzz3D

Mitch,

"Retreat? Hell, we're just attacking in a different direction..."
11-03-2003, 17:01
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

Probably the most interesting answer so far http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif

Quote:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]I have to disagree in parts here, Louis. I don't think it's rude or disrespectful if one player chooses to fight on. It always depends on the overall situation.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ] Also the argument about different timezones doesn't hold much value, whoever started a game at 10 pm should know it could drag on... Same goes for peeps still online at 4am, their choice...

Sometimes, I catch some of my euroclanmates online (not to mention Annie needing a 'quickie' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif )... Usually it's early morning for them, and they might go for 'one last game', just because we might not have played together for some times.
And this last game for them might be long and enjoyable, and all for the better. But it might also drag on for nothing... Sometimes, there is better thing to do than chasing a couple of units on the other side of the map... that's wehn I would appreciate a decent withdrawal rather than a 'i'll stand until I die'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]I don't think you can liken MTW to chess, for various reasons (most of all the random nature of encounters, you cannot really make a move and take the enemy's piece like in chess, because just against the odds, the enemy unit might win. As such, you cannot plan several moves ahead with certainty as you would do in a chess game), MTW battles aren't turn based and not necessarily the best strategist wins, but also a cheap rusher or a person who just can click faster than you.

Thats a very good argument. MTW is not as clear cut as chess. In both games there are 16 units; it is fairly common to stop in chess if there is, for example, a bishop material difference without compensation (positionnal or otherwise).
The randomness and more dynamic nature of MTW increase the threshold a lot... Noone (well, not me) is going to give up just because there is a unit difference between the two armies (or two teams). I personnally need much more than a unit difference to consider that I don't have a chance... 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]But anyway, about routing, it's up to oneself, really, but if the majority of the other players (even your allies)involved in the game start telling you to give it up, it's worth to reconsider. I don't want to see whole armies rout, but as said before, if you have just two or three depleted units left, you can safely rout them and don't fear to lose honour by denying your opponents the pleasure of routing them by themselves.

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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]For those who rout whole armies, at least make it a challenge by choosing to withdraw instead and trying to cover it with part of your forces. This would be a challenge for both sides. If you manage to escape with a large percentage of your forces, you might feel a sense of accomplishment.

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.

Louis,
11-03-2003, 17:08
Cheetah

Fight to the bitter end http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif After all, the fun part of MP is the fight itself. I fight not in order to win but in order to fight (of course, this does not mean that I dont care about winning http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif ). I really dont care whether I lost the game "theoretically" or not. If I can fight I will fight. It is about having fun. Just give your best. Besides, the real challenge is to turn the tables and win from a desperate situation. Such a victory is much more satisfying and more memorable than any of your standard 1v1 victories.

Well, having said this I am really not offended if someone withdraws just a bit dissapointed. For me it is like when a football team does not comes out to play the second half just beacuse the opposing team got a 5-0 lead in the first half http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
11-03-2003, 17:25
Kraxis

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.
11-03-2003, 18:00
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

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,
11-03-2003, 18:36
The Wizard

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
11-03-2003, 19:17
shingenmitch2

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
11-03-2003, 19:30
shingenmitch2

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.
11-03-2003, 20:30
Nigel

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.
11-03-2003, 21:32
Dionysus9

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.
11-03-2003, 21:37
Puzz3D

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.
11-04-2003, 04:26
AMPage

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...
11-04-2003, 05:46
Kongamato

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.
11-04-2003, 05:53
Aelwyn

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
11-04-2003, 07:19
Alrowan

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 )
11-04-2003, 11:19
Brutal DLX

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.
11-04-2003, 13:50
Alrowan

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
11-04-2003, 18:04
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

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,
11-04-2003, 19:04
Kraxis

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.
11-04-2003, 19:20
tootee

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
11-04-2003, 20:05
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

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,
11-05-2003, 05:01
AMPage

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
11-05-2003, 10:35
Brutal DLX

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....
11-05-2003, 14:58
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

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,
11-05-2003, 15:15
Kraxis

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?
11-05-2003, 20:10
The Wizard

Trash talk by new clans? I've yet to have the "honour"..
11-05-2003, 20:27
shingenmitch2

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.
11-05-2003, 22:38
Nigel

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
11-06-2003, 09:10
Brutal DLX

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.
11-06-2003, 15:05
Kraxis

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
11-07-2003, 02:24
AMPage

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
11-07-2003, 14:52
shingenmitch2

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.
11-07-2003, 15:01
shingenmitch2

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.
11-07-2003, 18:46
Puzz3D

I think the relative game speeds of STW, MI and MTW go like this:

STW was played on small maps, and most inf walked at speed 6 and ran at speed 10. Cav walked faster than inf, and ran at about speed 20 on average. When MI came out there were some bug fixes made to the network code which made it more efficient (I think it played about 10% to 15% faster), and the game ran faster. Some players didn't like this because it was harder to control all your units, and it was claimed that the game played too fast. There was an attempt made in the MI v1.02 beta to correct this by slowing down the unit speeds. This was ill conceived because it altered the flanking tactics. Inf was slowed and cav was made to walk at the same speed as the inf. However, the fighting speed was not altered, and battle tests showed that cav running speed had to be increased to retain flanking as a viable tactic. The result is that cav running speed in MI is about 10% faster on average than it was in STW. As I recall, cav turning speed was also increased. With a good connection, MI cav moves around very fast. Taken all together, cav probably feels about 20% to 25% faster in MI than it did in STW when it's running. This fast cav worked great on the larger MI maps such as Obake's Horselands. Since fatigue is time based, you can do a lot with this cav before it fatigues. In MTW, all the speeds (cav and inf) were put back to STW speeds, but the fighting speed was slower due to the higher defend values on many units which brought the flanking game to a level not seen before in an official total war game. The unofficial MI v1.03 also brought back more of a flanking game by increasing the defend values of most units, but the cav retains it's high running speed and I believe cav turning speed is even higher than in the official MI v1.02.
11-07-2003, 19:30
shingenmitch2

thx yuuk.

I wonder if they can control the speed at which a "strike" cycles at.

Increasing / decreasing combat speed through manipulation of defense ratings seems like an artificial fudge -- units last longer because of more "misses." So combat "appears" slower. The affects I suppose are slower but not the actual cycle. This method seems likely to have a much greater chance of screwing with other aspects of the game -- the defense ratings has implications with morale/routing (% of death in a given round) and combat calculation as a whole.

I would think it's much cleaner to work with the game "timer" for the rate of the actual strike-cycles-per-minute for dealing with overall combat speed. (Along with movement speed / turning rate tweeks)
11-07-2003, 22:35
Puzz3D

My understanding is the combat cycle is one per second, and the frame rate is limited to a maximum of 14 frames per second. I think those choices were made back when STW was developed to provide a playable game. The thing is people ask for changes to the game without fully realizing the effect those changes will have on other aspects of the game. For instance, you can't play around with combat factors without also affecting the fatigue level of the units, the time at which they rout and thus the viability of flanking as a tactic. Changing unit speeds affects fatigue and tactics. So, that's why I say changing unit speeds in MI v1.02 was ill conceived because doing that could not fix the problem of the game playing too fast. That should have been something accepted as not correctable with the tools at hand.
11-07-2003, 23:25
LittleGrizzly

i dont see anything disrespectful about a last stand if there is a decent chance of victory (many factors unit matchups left over, fatigue, no. of units, szie of units and terrian i could take advantage of) i factor in all this and the chance for the enemy to make a mistake whether its a newbie an unknown or a great player i still make the last stand counting in a mistake they could make

no if a have 1 8 man unit of cav archers the whole distance of the map away from the enemy i would rout but most of the time imporssible odds or not i will try

i kind play it in a role playing way as in you may have won the battle but im taking as many as possible down with me fight till the bitter end ect. (bar stupid things where the result is so incredibly obvious and would take 10 minutes for it to happen)

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:14.

Image resizer by SevenSkins