I am currently in QB meeting engagement and after our first clash I came out a little worse for wear. Offense is not an option and my opponent holds the objectives. I have lost the battle but not all my troops.
A ceasefire would not benefit him but a surrender on my part does not sit well with me. I think that a withdraw option would be great in a situation like this. If you hit the withdraw button an exit zone could pop up giving you a more realistic way to end the battle. If your opponent is hell bent on total victory then he could cut of your retreat and destroy you that way.
Any thoughts on this?
Actually, is something which can be implemented right now by the scenario designers. They can simply place exit zones on the map for this purpose.
Yeah but there is some trouble with the way the scoring works with exit zones. If exit zones are added then your opponent scores unit points for everything that does not exit. So, if you want to do something like this you would need to change the way the scenario's victory points were setup. Just adding exit zones would break things for sure.
In a way surrender can be considered a retreat as the battle simply ends, your surviving troops wont actually surrender and the opponent does not get points for them.
But the extra retreat option would be a nice thing to add, maybe a good idea for the next module.
My understanding is that the game does score as if your troops surrendered. It also means any occupy objectives that you would have occupied are instead awarded to your opponent. Am I wrong about that?
(10-27-2013, 12:27 PM)A Canadian Cat Wrote: [ -> ]My understanding is that the game does score as if your troops surrendered. It also means any occupy objectives that you would have occupied are instead awarded to your opponent. Am I wrong about that?
In my experience, the opponent automatically takes possesion of all victory locations on the map but he does not get any points for surviving troops, holding all the victory locations results in a total vicotry regardless of any losses.
Hey, dude, if it's me against you in the ME, I'll totally do a ceasefire. Recently, I was playing a scenario, and my attack totally got mauled in one of the most devastating mortar barrages I've ever seen. My opponent ignored my 'Ceasefire' request, AND wouldn't answer my notes/texts to him about it. Left me a bit cold. When it's futile to carry on, the fun aspect kinda falls through the floor. So, if it's me you mean, hit the button, and you got a deal.
(11-04-2013, 01:21 PM)Bluesman Wrote: [ -> ]Hey, dude, if it's me against you in the ME, I'll totally do a ceasefire. Recently, I was playing a scenario, and my attack totally got mauled in one of the most devastating mortar barrages I've ever seen. My opponent ignored my 'Ceasefire' request, AND wouldn't answer my notes/texts to him about it. Left me a bit cold. When it's futile to carry on, the fun aspect kinda falls through the floor. So, if it's me you mean, hit the button, and you got a deal.
This is an old topic so its not about our game. Your tanks are giving me a headache but a ceasefire is the last thing on my mind. Your AA tank is on the top of my shyte list right now.
A good alternative could be to agree to ceasefire terms with your opponent before starting the battle. Such as adding a rule that says that once a side controls all victory points, the side who is losing may ask for a ceasefire that must be accepted within x turns.
I only see this working in QB, though. Scenarios involve reinforcements and may heavily unbalance the outcome of the battle if the losing side has reinforcements inbound.