Slitherine

Just wanted to say that it's a pitty that sometimes players resign the game when they are loosing......

I do it myself once against Morbio when just started to play this game....got pissed . Learned a lot playing with him.

Anyway after that I reconsidered and promised my self not to do it again. I think that play to the end it's like good sportmanship.

Cheers!

I agree that it should be a basic point of etiquette to play the game out. Have the courtesy to let your opponent enjoy his victory. I've had several players in pick-up games resign on me and I won't play them again. There's no point in playing well if you can't see the results unfold.

I threw in the towel once without asking a long time ago (alcohol may have been a factor ). I think it's OK to resign if you discuss it with your opponent - I have resigned and had other players resign (after a chat) when we just weren't enjoying the army/battle - and early enough in the battle where the outcome wasn't decided.

If I resigned every time I was losing, I don't think I'd finish many games

That's Ok Keyth . I mean when they didnt even give you a reason. Just abandoned their men.....prisoners and taken into slavery with luck...

keyth wrote:I threw in the towel once without asking a long time ago (alcohol may have been a factor ). I think it's OK to resign if you discuss it with your opponent - I have resigned and had other players resign (after a chat) when we just weren't enjoying the army/battle - and early enough in the battle where the outcome wasn't decided.

Yes, I agree. I don't think there is anything unsporting about offering to surrender. That's what I do when I feel the situation is hopeless. Just a polite, "Will you accept my surrender please?" seems to do the trick. I have never had a problem with doing this.

This is a two edged sword - so you are asking someone that is 40 points behind to continue the game so you can enjoy killing their units? Hmm. I do not see that as "sporting" from my point of view.

Here is how I consider a game over with:

1. Die rolls are consistently going against me.
2. Units of better quality consistently losing to stupid Medium Foot with padding on their chests.
3. Light infantry stuck up against a lake turning into "Arnold S" as if on steroids.

Bottom line if my army is just not making any headway then the game is over. What is the use of fighting any game out to the last turn just so you guys can enjoy your fun?

If an opponent has had lively banter with me then I send them a quick note. If it has been silence all game long then I figure that they are there just to play a nameless person. I enjoy in game comment but rarely get it.

That is my position on online gaming. And in our miniature games we played it the same. When one army was clearly going to win we packed the game in. And spent the rest of the time discussing the hobby or history. But we didn't demand that someone be "sporting" and stick to their army to the last casting. That is what I call "courteous."

I don't think anyone would complain if someone resigns if they are massively behind. There is no pleasure to be had from crushing a poor or novice player. If I didn't spell that out in my post on this topic, I apologize; I thought it went without saying.

I do look negatively at players who resign because of so-called ill-luck or because the quirks of the rules don't happen to be favoring them on that particular occasion. That seems kinda petulant.

Tim

I would agree with that. The only time I have resigned mid game was when it was obvious my army was just not going to match up well - dice rolls you name it.

I pounded a unit for 28 percent losses - sent it down to 58 percent - it didn't even Disrupt. Pretty sick if you ask me. Any unit that would have lost that many men would have caved in. And frankly those kind of losses should only come when hit from behind or the unit is not "fresh" morale state.

I have to have the worst luck in this game. Most of my wins are close. I set up rear attacks that rarely produce catastrophic results. Make my own share of mistakes. But when my army would seem to be on a roll some dumb unit that is F holds after taking 18 percent losses at a key moment. Meanwhile, if my Armored Cavalry with a green line much higher than the red line attacks it usually will take 11 percent losses and D's right away.

I wish that the Red and Green lines told the truth. Often you attack thinking you have a good advantage only to find out that the die rolls are the main deal. Why have a matchup that is superb only to be ruined by dice?

This game should be less luck and more skill and troop matchups. That way some dumb Welsh army made up of Medium infantry with chest padding would not be beating up on English knights in open ground. That and the board edge issue is making for the battles turning more and more into a "boardedge" duel.

I think that tweaking the engine so that each die was replaced by 2d6 would give a far better distribution and make the red/green numbers a bit more meaningful. You'd still get the occasional extreme result, which I don't think is a bad thing.

Well it happened to me on ocations that the gane it's been quite well for both sides and then it comes that turn where you get the advantage and the other player resigns even without a word. Thats what I called poor "sportmanship".

Cheers!

keyth wrote:I think that tweaking the engine so that each die was replaced by 2d6 would give a far better distribution and make the red/green numbers a bit more meaningful. You'd still get the occasional extreme result, which I don't think is a bad thing.

Why do people consistently think in terms of dice? (I know the answer - you're old TT players). This is a computer system, so a random number generator can generate any sort of numbers, e.g. percentages, that can be used on lookup tables to get whatever distribution is appropriate.

Morbio wrote:

keyth wrote:I think that tweaking the engine so that each die was replaced by 2d6 would give a far better distribution and make the red/green numbers a bit more meaningful. You'd still get the occasional extreme result, which I don't think is a bad thing.

Why do people consistently think in terms of dice? (I know the answer - you're old TT players). This is a computer system, so a random number generator can generate any sort of numbers, e.g. percentages, that can be used on lookup tables to get whatever distribution is appropriate.

I like dice

From my old TT days ... die rolling was an art not a skill. For certain people it was both. They seem to be able to pull the right numbers out of their @rse. Not just once, but consistanly (Tony C. comes to mind - hey Gaz? if you are reading this). So, I am in favour of the "luck" element as it is. Sometimes, certain units could do the unexpected. While those big expensive knights had other things on their mind, but not fighting that day.

I personally think there are at least 2 situations where its common sense to resign:

1) "king of the hill" moments. We all had them - that's when one or both parties move their entire army on a favourable terrain zone (usually a hill) and neither wants to move. It turns into a waiting game, nothing fun.

2) "Light infantry hunts". That's when one side is already quite behind and has all his/her melee capable units routed. I can easily see why they would quit there, insted of forcing their opponent to spend 6+ turns chasing light infantry off the map.

Other than that, I see it as poor sportsmanship to quit a game, unless both sides agree to end it there.

As for number 2) well that is probably because yr oponent played really well and left your army combat inefective; so I would asume he doesnt consider a waste of time to complete his work....

I've resigned a few games recently (explaining my reasons) well before the outcome was decided because the game was going to be dull... either standing around waiting for anarchy to break a line, or throwing units into a grinder. If it's not a tournament or campaign game, why should you continue an undecided game if it won't be fun?

keyth wrote:I've resigned a few games recently (explaining my reasons) well before the outcome was decided because the game was going to be dull... either standing around waiting for anarchy to break a line, or throwing units into a grinder. If it's not a tournament or campaign game, why should you continue an undecided game if it won't be fun?

Hmm, but some of the most famous battles were decided in this method. One battle group broke ranks and the entire army followed.

Frankly the rating of the CinC or leader should mean that if its a Rash leader then he SHOULD break ranks more often but that he also should have a better reaction time too. These are things I think that should be taken into account in the new engine. The Leader rating that is assigned to them (Cautious, Bold, etc) should have more bearing on how they move on the field of battle and how the units respond.

If the Leader goes into an uncontrolled move then the entire line SHOULD follow 90 percent of the time. VERY historical ...

I had someone (who has posted over 20 times on these forums) take a game I set up and then on Turn 5 resign on me with no reason given. I think this is terrible.

I do occasionally have people resign on me in the later stages of a battle if they are losing and they feel it's impossible to turn it around. Usually, they say they are doing so first. Personally, I think it is always good competitive sportsmanship to play out games. If you want to enjoy the heady satisfaction of engineering a decisive victory then somebody has to play out the role of the decisively defeated. I feel therefore that if you want to experience the highs of this game you should always be prepared to take the lows.

But this person today is on another level. The game was a few turns old and to resign on Turn 5 is, quite frankly, the actions of somebody who's wasting my time.

the_iron_duke wrote:The game was a few turns old and to resign on Turn 5 is, quite frankly, the actions of somebody who's wasting my time.

I know how you feel, its been done to me before and I will not play that person again unless its in a tournament/campaign.

kilroy

I PMed the player who resigned so indecorously on me for an explanation and they haven't replied, even though I've seen them online. Therefore, I'd advise anybody playing someone with a username that is an anagram of 'achrita' to be wary.