Morris (Axis) vs. Schnurri (Allies)

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The problem with this argument is that then you don't dare take advantage of a big mistake by your opponent because you suspect he can fold if you do so. Is that how we should play?

Let's say Morris has not forgotten about the altered Italian surrender rules. Then he would have garrisoned Tirana and other Italian cities. That means he would have continued and probably won the game. Schnurri was at a big disadvantage and would probably have lost the game. Still he didn't surrender.

I think that Morris could have won the game even with Italy surrendering early. He would have had to stop his offensive in the east and form a defense line there and get reinforcments to Italy and France to stop the western Allies.

For me it would be frustrating to know that I can cause my opponent to quit if I play too well. I've had examples of that before where e. g. I managed to stop the Axis player from taking France early and Paris held till October 1940. Then the Axis player quit. What was then the fun in playing against him? If I had not made good moves and deliberately lost Paris no later than July then he would probably have continued.

I hate playing with one arm behind my back when I know I can do better. The exception is when I'm teaching a novice.

I guess we have different goals when playing. I like to play to the end and others don't.

Some people believe they don't actually lose if they quit before they get the end game message in May 1945. Even if you will eventually lose the game it's still a lot to play for. Maybe you can get a minor defeat instead of a major defeat. Maybe you can avoid the big nasty ultimate defeat. By leaving the game early you deprive yourself and your opponent of the chance to find out the victory level.

People can play the way they want, of course. If both players agree to quit once a player has sufficient initiative then that's fine with me. So I think players should figure out how your opponent plays BEFORE starting. E. g. I would not start a game against a quitter. So if you have a history of quitting your games then I wouldn't play against you. Others don't mind. So the key is to find players with a compatible playing strategy.

[Plaid]

The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities...It is best to win without fighting.
Sun-tzu
Chinese general & military strategist (~400 BC)

I am strongly agree with the last part of Borger's post - you should know playstyle of your opponent before starting. I always warn people that I am person with weak morale and big fan of premature surrender, for example.

But if you can hold Paris for all 1940 like you write, it means that you are out of your opponents' league. You know, light weight should not box vs heavy weight, it will be pretty short fight unless one of them have this hand behind his back.

I also think that ability to make strong impression on your enemy and make him want to surrender (when he actually have good chances to win, like Morris in this AAR) is separate and quite awesome skill, it have something to do with quote which i posted above.

Also quiting and unconditional surrender supposed to be different things. Second one assumes that you accept your defeat and lay down weapons, first does not.

[Schnurri]

when I was a novice I playing on a mac there were few choices for opponents. I was playing one person who was really good and I played to the end several times. To the end for him meant total victory for either side so I ended up defending the US in 47 or 48 against hordes of Axis subs, carriers, etc. Wasn't very much fun for me for a long time and I didn't learn anything hunkering down in the US for many turns. Since then, if I make some great moves and put the other player at a disadvantage I'm happy to accept a surrender if they wish it. And I'll keep playing if I'm on the losing end as long as the other player wants. But, if they accept my surrender, why go on to a foregone conclusion. I'm being hammered in a couple of games now with powerful 42 Sledgehammers and Russians somehow turning the tide in summer 42. I'm happy to keep playing if they enjoy the one-sided game but not enjoying it that much. As you say, as long as both players are happy it shouldn't be an issue.

[Cybvep]

This Paris case is a bad example, because the game is very deterministic and isn't balanced with a very long Fall Gelb in mind, just as it isn't balanced for 1942 Barbarossa (including its defensive variant). That's why they often give strange results or may seem gamey. It is pretty much guaranteed that France will fall by September at the latest if the Axis player is of average skill level. You cannot really "lose" Fall Gelb and both players know that (IRL the outcome of the campaign was uncertain, the Germans won quickly thanks to their brilliant operational manoeuvres and the inflexibility of the French command, but thousands of things could have gone wrong), but they also know that if the Axis suffers very high losses in France, it will have to ignore Norway/Yugoslavia and/or it will be hard to do a strong Barbarossa. The way the game is balanced means that if you held Paris until Oct 1940, it means that you outclassed your opponent.

Making mistakes and paying for them or being careless are a different story. Ideally the player should accept the results and either continue playing or admit that they were defeated. Elite players like Supermax can even hope to recover at some point, because of their superior skill level, but in most cases you can only hope to reduce the scale of the opponent's victory.

In all cases we should differentiate between "real" surrenders and sudden disappearances or other forms of quitting the game without giving the other player victory IMO.

I agree that it's best to be careful when choosing opponents in order to avoid misunderstandings. Clearly there are many different points of view on the issue.

[richardsd]

well generally I think any form of voluntary quitting equates to total surrender

I know some people like to concede early which is fine if thats the expectation (frustrating though), but for me I like to fight to the bitter end (unless we are beta testing)

[Schnurri]

I liked how you played til the bitter end and ultimately lost Omk for a total victory for me after wiping me out many times earlier. Even when it seems hopeless it takes a long time to really take someone out.

[Morris]

Hi Everyone :

I have to clear something here regarding to your argument :

1 I never asked to quit a game because of my careless mistake ! As you see ,even if I lost Finland in summer of 1941 .
2 I did not want to quit this game , I asked Doug to adjust some move to avoid of Italy 's sudden death .( it is not because of my careless , it is because of the rules changing). & Doug thought it would be too complicated & artificial & suggest to call it off . & I agreed with him . then we started a new pbem .

3 Actually ,it is too early to say what will be the result even if Axis just accomplished a great encircle compaign around Moscow . It is only 1942 .It still three years to go . everything is possible .

4 I am not a person who like to quit to game ! on the contrary I do hate this manner ! Why someone always try to use every excuse or possibility to attack me like this ??!! If you insist this kind of insult , I will list the names & proves(who,when & attachment of last turn ) of who have quited game with me without any reason & notice ! But if anyone can provide even one prove of my quiting game without notice , I will admit all my fault & give up this forum & this game forever !

5 It is only a game between I & doug . Please allow us have our fun on the way we prefer !!!!

[Schnurri]

Morris is correct - let's leave this discussion between opposing players to work out. Morris and I reached a mutually agreeable conclusion. He had me on the ropes and I probably would have lost regardless asof the Italian situation. In this game I was purposefully trying to take out the Italians early because of how Morris uses the Italians - if he had been aware of the rules it wouldn't have happened do early. Let's just enjoy the game.

[rkr1958]

All - discussions about playing etiquette is fine in general. Where we cross the line is if we start "trashing" other players, which is a form of personal attack and is not tolerated on this forum. No posts (so far) in this thread have crossed that line and so out of respect for all of us -- please let's keep it that way.

[rkr1958]

Sorry for long delay in posting and skipping many turns. I've had flu for over a week and basically cut off one of my fingers doing some remodeling so typing is difficult

Oh my goodness! Which finger? Were the doctors able to reattached it?

[supermax]

The problem with this argument is that then you don't dare take advantage of a big mistake by your opponent because you suspect he can fold if you do so. Is that how we should play?

Let's say Morris has not forgotten about the altered Italian surrender rules. Then he would have garrisoned Tirana and other Italian cities. That means he would have continued and probably won the game. Schnurri was at a big disadvantage and would probably have lost the game. Still he didn't surrender.

I think that Morris could have won the game even with Italy surrendering early. He would have had to stop his offensive in the east and form a defense line there and get reinforcments to Italy and France to stop the western Allies.

For me it would be frustrating to know that I can cause my opponent to quit if I play too well. I've had examples of that before where e. g. I managed to stop the Axis player from taking France early and Paris held till October 1940. Then the Axis player quit. What was then the fun in playing against him? If I had not made good moves and deliberately lost Paris no later than July then he would probably have continued.

I hate playing with one arm behind my back when I know I can do better. The exception is when I'm teaching a novice.

I guess we have different goals when playing. I like to play to the end and others don't.

Some people believe they don't actually lose if they quit before they get the end game message in May 1945. Even if you will eventually lose the game it's still a lot to play for. Maybe you can get a minor defeat instead of a major defeat. Maybe you can avoid the big nasty ultimate defeat. By leaving the game early you deprive yourself and your opponent of the chance to find out the victory level.

People can play the way they want, of course. If both players agree to quit once a player has sufficient initiative then that's fine with me. So I think players should figure out how your opponent plays BEFORE starting. E. g. I would not start a game against a quitter. So if you have a history of quitting your games then I wouldn't play against you. Others don't mind. So the key is to find players with a compatible playing strategy.

You mirror my thoughts Borger.

Simply said, if you dont like quitting players dont play them. Thats exactly what i do, and if everyone does the same, then those quitters wont have a choice but finish their games or else not have opponents. Its all a matter of expectations i think.

[Plaid]

Simply said, if you dont like quitting players dont play them. Thats exactly what i do, and if everyone does the same, then those quitters wont have a choice but finish their games or else not have opponents. Its all a matter of expectations i think.

Still, we both are quiters of some sort and still we play right now.

[supermax]

Simply said, if you dont like quitting players dont play them. Thats exactly what i do, and if everyone does the same, then those quitters wont have a choice but finish their games or else not have opponents. Its all a matter of expectations i think.

Still, we both are quiters of some sort and still we play right now.

hahaha

And what are you refferring to? A game where we didnt have enough time to play or a game that was lost and that we decided to end prematurely?