“Surrender Base XX” – We Need the Option.

[Zippatuh]

Last night I was online flying knights and lets just say the situation was bleak.  Bishops had been working there way up the southern front and occupied a good 1/3 if not 1/2 of our territory.  There was a very urgent need to concentrate our forces around this front to stop the advance and counter attack.  There was one problem though; we had control of a field in Rook territory that at this time did not server any strategic purpose.

Unfortunately this lone field was also the entry point for everyone coming in on the Knight side.  Needless to say a large portion of the Knight force was there valiantly protecting it from the Rooks while we were loosing ground at home.  This happens occasionally with about the same result of draining resource for a now inconsequential base.  No matter how many times it can be expressed to let it fall and come back to the homeland it never happens.  This is why I propose to have the ability to surrender a base.

The ability must be limited to either once a tour or once during a map.  I believe that limiting to once during the map would probably be easier to implement.  Only the highest-ranking player in your country will have the ability to issue the command.  Although “rank” is somewhat subjective it is the only way to restrict someone new to the game from issuing it by mistake.  The player issuing the command cannot have changed countries within a set period of time.  Personally I would like to see a limit of 5 days but do not think there is a running timer on everyone all the time.  Since there is a timer when changing countries I think it could be used for this also.  It would at least need to be 24 hours in my opinion.

For game play I think this would be very useful.  There is always the possibility that someone would use this maliciously.  Jumping from one side to the other, waiting the time, and then turning over a valuable base.  However I do not believe that the country this person would come from would let it stand very long and would probably hand it back over.  About the way that is being done with CV’s now but of course I may just be seeing the good in everyone.

In war there is always the option for a tactical withdrawal and I believe we need that ability in AH.  Having the lone base hanging out there doesn’t happen very often but when it does it can have devastating consequences.

Zippatuh

[grizz]

So people were having fun doing their own thing and you didn't like it? Nobody wanted to play with you? Or what?

Someone who spends half their waking life sitting in front of a computer screen should determine how I spend my few hours a week?

Lol....it's just a game....tomorrow you can wake up and do it all over again.

Don't control how I play the game please, and I won't tell you what to do.

LOL...this has to be wednesdays "Tard of the Week"  for sure.

[Zippatuh]

Nicely thought out and articulated response grizz.  You were able to see the fiendish plot behind it, all of which was to stop everyone from having fun.  Whew, was wondering if I was gonna get called on that one.  

As far as spending halve my time at a computer screen.  Well that may not be to far from the truth.  What I do for livelihood consists of sitting in front of a screen.  I don’t think that’s what you were referring to though.

It is a game a great one at that.  The whole idea of which, stated somewhere on this website, is about land grabbing.  Did I mention having any problem with furballing or people that do?  No, I don’t believe that I did.  That’s what I was doing just in another area trying to stop the continuous city and HQ strikes.

It would have been a better situation for everyone, strat and fuballers, to have a bigger concentration of forces in the home area.

As far as controlling your game, well, I suppose that it would in a very minute way.  I believe that the affect would be small with the outcome placing everyone in a better situation than before.  Everyone was in a furball, what’s wrong with asking that the furball get bigger in a smaller area?  Sounds like fun to me.

As for “Tard of the Week”, the only response I can think of that makes it an equal is “I’m rubber you're glue” maybe?  Yeah, I think that sounds about right.

Zippatuh

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: Zippatuh ]

[grizz]

Zippatuh, you are right. My response didn't contribute anything to your thread and I apologize. It's not normally my nature to reply as I did. Lets just say I woke up grouchy this morning, and once she got going the day went downhill from there.

There seems to be more and more complaining about how everyone plays the game. From the planes people fly, how they fly them, to which targets are most important if at all.

I know your frustration when a group is defending a field that isn't strategically important to the overall outcome of the game. But not everyone cares who wins or loses, because tomorrow we get to wake up and do it again.

I don't have a lot of time to fly this sim, so the overall outcome isn't important to me. I can earn enough perks to fly pretty well what I want, when I want...so the 60 perkies mean nothing. When I only have time for a sortie or two, I might just want to fly cap for a defended base, take out a bomber or two before I have to go.

Or run a couple jabo flights before I log off. Or just maybe get into that big furball that's been buzzing around that lone field all day long. It varies from day to day, sortie to sortie.

I found your initial post arrogant, for lack of a thesaurus, in the fact that you didn't like people defending that field, so now you want a button to deny them that field. Perhaps they only had time for a sortie or two also, and didn't care if the bish or rook changed the map. Either way, they'll be back tomorrow.

[SOB]

The guys who are furballing there are doing it because they want to.  When a situation like you describe happens, there are always plenty of calls on the country channel for guys to help defend (something you also mentioned), so if they're interested they'll come.  I think that forcing them out of the situation they're in (by handing over the field) IS controlling their game play and as such, a bad idea.


SOB

[snafu]

Sorry Zip,
 I have to agree with SOB here. When you think about it the option of field surrender is already there anyway, - by majority vote. (If the majority want to surrender the field they just go to another field). I think the point is, the many trying to valiantly hang on to the field are probably matched by those who are there just because of the ensuing furball. If 100% of the country was flying purely to win the war the idea might have a place but the arena also has to cater for those who are just getting there 30 minute fix or just want to furball.

TTFN
snafu

[715]

Technically how would you implement it?  Suppose you surrendered that field in question being defended by lots of players.  If it becomes enemy immediately then those players are all really annoyed when their "own" ack starts killing them all off.  If surrender just closes the field- well then the attackers have the upperhand and can take the field quickly- again annoying the defenders who are left to hang out to dry in the middle of nowhere.  You've no doubt seen the anomosity generated when one player does something as simple as turn the CV- can you imagine the amount generated if one player surrendered a field?

[K West]

What 715 said. Every bit.  

 I could also see someone who's into the landgrab or "strat" who has yelling at thier "countrymen" to help out at base xxxx to become spiteful and surrend a base JUST to get kill the dogfighting for the players using that base.
 
 Westy

[Zippatuh]

I have to admit originally I believed I had put a lot of thought into this.  It appears that I didn’t take a few things into account.

Last night thinking about it I finally ended up in the conclusion that 715 had.  What would happen if I were at a base that someone decided was not strategic anymore and handed it over.  When my own AA would start firing at me and I found out that it was someone from my own country and not a legitimate base capture.  You all are right I’d be livid too.

I think it would be a good game play addition but the fallout from it being used wouldn’t be acceptable.  Nice comparison with turning the CV.  I have been known on occasion to have a similar problem with this so who am I to talk   .

Grizz, thanks for responding and I appreciate the comments.  After reading my original post again I see a few sentences that could be taken the wrong way.  It is hard to gauge someone through text.

Zippatuh

[ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: Zippatuh ]

[Seagoon]

Hi All,

I know its a dream, but as a strat player I'd actually like to see the possibility of enabling a side to actually surrender if the majority of players on that side want it to happen, rather than always fighting it out to the bitter end.

As a Rook, there are way too many evenings when I log on to find that we have 4 or 5 remaining bases deep in our own territory and no possibility of turning the situation around. Usually I'll do some half-hearted furballing and then leave. Most of the players on my side are calling for us to start "operation reset" to end the misery. What about some sort of system where one player can propose surrendering and the others can "vote" by clicking yes/no?

- Seagoon

[Blue Mako]

Originally posted by Seagoon:
As a Rook, there are way too many evenings when I log on to find that we have 4 or 5 remaining bases deep in our own territory and no possibility of turning the situation around. Usually I'll do some half-hearted furballing and then leave.

Try working for some base captures then instead.  You'd be surprised how many bases just a few players can capture if they do it smart, even if the country you're flying for is outnumbered and down to a few fields.  Just saying "it's hopeless, hurry up and reset us" is a sure way to miss the fun and challenge of trying to turn the situation around (it is never impossible, just sometime more difficult).  Then again, if everyone just logs off after "half heartedly furballing" then it is in effect the same as having a surrender option...

[ZOSO]

Nothing personal against Zippatuh or anyone else in particular, but what is the Knight fascination with surrender?  I used to love to fly as a Knight, but it seems like every time things look bleak, half the country was yelling to capitulate. I was taught that when the going get's tough, the tough get going.  Either get going on turning around the battle, or get going on the housework and turn off the computer, but never surrender!

[StSanta]

ZOSO, you'll find a good part of us unwilling to every surrender.

You're a traitor, btw, having left the Knights.

I despise you for that.

 

[Zippatuh]

Nothing personal taken ZOSO; however, I was only talking about one base not the whole country.

I have been on several times when the situation looks bleak but I in no way would advocate giving in.  During the Baltic terrain a few weeks ago the Knights were in the west country and I found it amusing that the battle that raged for 3 days had Knights down to just 3 or 4 bases and couldn’t attain a reset.

I was proposing a “tactical withdrawal” option if you will   .  I would never propose just giving up.

Zippatuh

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Zippatuh ]