The Storm in the East Tournament - Round 1

[iluvmy88]

if this is going to be a cry baby fest just take me out

That's insulting to anyone who participated in this thread. Looks to me like you are the only one having a tantrum here.

about as insulting as saying my opponent meerly quite in the first round and never tried when i had clearly stated it was a contest.
nobody said hey that must have been an amazing victory how did it happen, or hey gj. no everyone is mad because i got full points. the design of the game is not my problem, i just posted the results but when start posting and calling me a liar we have a problem and it just isnt worth it for what amount to what is 200 points over the 2nd place player atm.

[GAZNZ]

No one should be surrendering. You get reinforcements.
Hold out and kill a few of his tanks or somefink.
I Find it strange someone got completely taken out so quick.
Given its objective based - going for a couple of objectives with ya whole force is too risky and little reward.
The person should not have surrendered irrespective.
It unbalances the games points standing.

[Manzcaser]

The cease fire resolution is the only thing in my mind that is fair.

Yes, this should be the general rule valid for all games.

[iluvmy88]

I Find it strange someone got completely taken out so quick.

It unbalances the games points standing.

This is what is pissing me off. you can debate the rules of the tournament all day but leave my integrity out of it. if you don't believe me ask my opponent. and actually it wasn't so few objectives its focusing on what will win you the game, with the 4 objective i went for (AND HELD AT THE END OF THE GAME) i would have been in the lead as far as victory points not to mention had flanking over watch on the center bridge and ford allowing reinforcements to assault those positions. like i said when you start insulting me its just crybaby tactics and i don't really care if i hurt your poor sensitive little feelings.

[H]

I Find it strange someone got completely taken out so quick.

It unbalances the games points standing.

This is what is pissing me off. you can debate the rules of the tournament all day but leave my integrity out of it. if you don't believe me ask my opponent. and actually it wasn't so few objectives its focusing on what will win you the game, with the 4 objective i went for (AND HELD AT THE END OF THE GAME) i would have been in the lead as far as victory points not to mention had flanking over watch on the center bridge and ford allowing reinforcements to assault those positions. like i said when you start insulting me its just crybaby tactics and i don't really care if i hurt your poor sensitive little feelings.

Not sure why you think you were called a liar in anything I wrote, if your reference was related to anything I posted - I was trying to figure how how the 1350 points were arrived at as per your description of how the game went. I asked a couple of times in my posts and was not answered directly if the GAME SYSTEM itself awarded ALL the points to a player if the other guy surrendered. In all the games I have played I have never used the surrender mode so I didn't know how the game SCORED a surrender. In the games I have played if one of us wanted to surrender, we just recorded a total victory for the winner and never looked at or used the points screen on the AAR.

Just for grins I opened up the game as a single player game and had the Russians surrender on the first turn and voila!! 1350 points to the Germans and not a shot was fired. I didn't know that losses and objectives had nothing to do with the scoring using the surrender mode, so then mystery solved - the two of you used the surrender mode and you got all the points, as per the game's scoring.

So now that my question has been answered, that reinforces the point made here a few times in these posts that surrendering skews the outcome in a points based tourney and backs up the reason to use the ceasefire mode if one player wants to quit, as I suggested earlier. That is a more accurate accounting of how the fighting went.

Bottom line to me is that given how the Game SCORES a surrender, then surrenders shouldn't be allowed - only cease fires. My posts were directed at how a surrender outcome unbalances the points totals in the tourney and had nothing to do with how your game went, so my apologies if offense was taken.

No offense either to Raz or anyone else here for the game's surrender option points impact on scoring not being considered in the beginning. I was just interested in having a level playing field and using the surrrender option's point determination clearly doesn't allow for that.

[iluvmy88]

the game does take into account casualties i just didnt have any more that ONE casualty, thats it one guy got hurt. thats why i got full points. meanwhile he lost 6 tanks and at least 34 inf and thats just the killed it amounted to about 2 platoons minus his heavy weapons so your down 2 platoons and 6 tanks and you havent even touched your opponent what do you do......also how would he know if he was getting reinforced or how many without cheating and looking at the scenario file, we did get reinforced the turn before last but if im in his shoes it isnt enough when he has map control. i get what your saying but your all just downplaying a perfect victory, he may have been able to cause some casualties true but i still would have had control over all but one VP by the time his reinforcments could come into play he really had no chance and your just saying he should have prolonged the inevitable when in a real situation a retreat would have been called to perserve valuable troops. thus giving up all territory and accepting that you lost the battle.

Also, say we did call a ceasefire. i dont get credit for the victory points i could have taken easily. a ceasefire is when both sides cannot advance and they accept that they will make no progress. if i had folowed this logic my opponent wants to give up, ok we will ceasefire, now i just lost out on ALOT of points that other players got when they won example neutral party with his 1100 score. i would have been at 900 if i had said ok i wont make you play it through and accepted a ceasefire. then you have someone who will not want to continue so they just stop playing and no score get recorded. imo the game did its job i won the day he surrender all VP's. i had no casualties so there was nothing to offset his casualties thus i got a perfect score, who to say i wont get owned next round its only 200 points above neutral parties game so a victory on his side and a loss from me easily offsets the scores.

[H]

the game does take into account casualties i just didnt have any more that ONE casualty, thats it one guy got hurt. thats why i got full points. meanwhile he lost 6 tanks and at least 34 inf and thats just the killed it amounted to about 2 platoons minus his heavy weapons so your down 2 platoons and 6 tanks and you havent even touched your opponent what do you do......also how would he know if he was getting reinforced or how many without cheating and looking at the scenario file, we did get reinforced the turn before last but if im in his shoes it isnt enough when he has map control. i get what your saying but your all just downplaying a perfect victory, he may have been able to cause some casualties true but i still would have had control over all but one VP by the time his reinforcments could come into play he really had no chance and your just saying he should have prolonged the inevitable when in a real situation a retreat would have been called to perserve valuable troops. thus giving up all territory and accepting that you lost the battle.

Please reread my last post, in a surrender mode situation the game system DOES NOT take anything that went on in the game into account - it awards ALL the points regardless of what transpired in the game to the winner. In my example of when I opened up the game, no one was killed on either side and no objectives were taken - the Russian surrendered and the German got all the points - so when using the surrender mode what went on in the game has NOTHING to do with the points awarded - hence my issue with using the surrender mode in a points based tourney.

Try what I did - open up the scenario we are playing in round 1 in single player mode and surrender on the first turn and do nothing else and see how the points are allocated. You will find that the results (1350) are identical to the score that was given to you.

Again, my concerns have NOTHING to do with what went on in your game, I'm only concerned about how the game system scores a surrender and why the surrender mode can't be used in this tourney

[iluvmy88]

In my example of when I opened up the game, no one was killed on either side and no objectives were taken - the Russian surrendered and the German got all the points

so your saying that there where no casualties no nobody got points for them.......of course the game didnt score casualties there where none and it gives all victory points to the winner.

this is how this game was scored
victory points = surrendered points go to the victory
my opponents score= friendly casualties <50% = false, enemy casualties > 50% = false = no score
my score = friendly casualties <50% = true, enemy casualties > 50% = true = 400 -50 from what i can only assume is the one casualty i took.

and i did get deducted 50pts for that one casualty or some other reason because i scored 1350/1400 possible points
http://imageshack.com/a/img537/10/WLO8EO.png

in your example both side had a friendly casualties less than 50% = true the winner get the points in a surrender in the even both have the same event so since the winner was true on less that 50% casualties he gets the points. this is because the game views the point as a product of 100% you cant give the points to both sides so it give it to the winner. if it where true for the surrenderor and not for the winner the surrenderor would have gotten the 200 points. working as intended.....

in a longer bloodier game the opponent would be more likly to get the point if there where

[Floki FGM]

@iluvmy88

The issue at hand, and the main topic of conversation is not your integrity but at how both you and your opponent chose to end the game. In a total points tournament surrendering should simply not be an option because of the way the game calculates points. In my opinion the whay the game should have been ended was like this:

(your opponent)...."great game buddy you kicked my ass. I pressed ceasefire.

(you).....Thanks

Then you go about your business and press ceasefire as YOU see fit. If you want to get all the points then go after all the objectives, and take them but in doing so you might incur losses. If you want to have the joy of killing all his men as a reward for an excellent battle plan than you can do that....but again you might incur losses. Once you press ceasefire the game will calculate all that. If by doing this process you get all the points then good for you.

Do you see the difference? This is what we are talking about.

[Floki FGM]

@Raz

I hope all this nonsense does not discourage you to run more tourneys such as this. I'm having a great time with my playing partner. Life is a learning experience and it is hard to foresee things like this. As Yoda would say "the force was cloudy on this one"

So far this issue only affects group 1 but it is good to talk and discuss so that we learn. I urge all who are still playing to not use the surrender option please.