Suggestion for resolving MP "no winner" battles.

[Gunner24]

It may well be that many MP games could be "drawn" without a clear winner, in those case's the stats provided may help define a winner for the battle, it will be a little frustrating to spend many hours on MP games to get draws !.

The system is one of the best aspects of LG and may as well be used to settle a draw.....it will help positive game play as winning ground will give you the win IF it ends a draw.....much better than negative game play like sitting behind the cannons on a hill.

[Hook]

The system is one of the best aspects of LG and may as well be used to settle a draw.....it will help positive game play as winning ground will give you the win IF it ends a draw.....much better than negative game play like sitting behind the cannons on a hill.

I like that idea.  It will certainly deal with any "corner campers."

Of course, you could end up with your forces spread thin all over the map in an attempt to simply hold ground.  We'll have to see how it works in play.

Hook

[Pariente]

It does not mean you won the battle, especially if your troops are spread all over the battlefield.

In my opinion, the main victory conditions are :
- possession of LoPs
- number of remaining and able to fight units (new potential)

Covering 18.75% of the battlefield is not decisive in victory.

Some battles have lead to « draws » as the losses were equivalent. Then, the commander who chose to retreat was the one who considered his situation as disadvantageous (Bennigsen at Eylau, for instance).

Here, you may see Napoléon's final strenght is smaller than Alexander's. But Alexander has less batteries while Napoléon has less cavalry regiments. Therefore, designating a winner is quite difficult if none of the armies has been destroyed or harshly shaken and as each army may withdraw serenely

Furthermore, you seem to still be focused on the so-called artillery issue. Or maybe you were just kidding. During a battle, all your forces are not charging tirelessly. Look at Austerlitz, where Davout's corps held Telnitz and Sokolnitz for hours under the pressure of about 40 000 Russians. During the battle of Waterloo the British army standed his ground, and had not an offensive strategy until the arriving of Bülow. Then, I think you won't attend a slaughter every time you fight.  

[Ras]

It may well be that many MP games could be "drawn" without a clear winner, in those case's the stats provided may help define a winner for the battle, it will be a little frustrating to spend many hours on MP games to get draws !.

The system is one of the best aspects of LG and may as well be used to settle a draw.....it will help positive game play as winning ground will give you the win IF it ends a draw.....much better than negative game play like sitting behind the cannons on a hill.

Did nobody tell you that in war always both sides lose?  
Even chess, a very competitive game, allows for draws. Besides I also play because I enjoy playing. I do play to win, but I also enjoy playing in itself.
When you plan the MP ladder, then I'd say you need to allow for draws.
The numbers don't give you the whole picture and if the game says it can't determine the winner, then you can hardly force defeat on somebody.
 

[Gunner24]

OK guys, settle down, heck......

The above screenshot shows "no winner".  

That was the result of the battle.

then you can hardly force defeat on somebody

My suggestion, that was suggestion, not trying to force my idea onto anyone, why would I ? and how could I ?.....it was a suggestion, made because it might be that a "no winner" will be a very common result in MP games, now if you want to play a game for 3-4 hours and call it a draw that's fine, no doubt you enjoy cricket, they play for 4/5 days and no one wins !.  I play golf and someone always wins, so I'm used to winning OR losing, not playing for 4 hours and it being a "draw".

I'm happy to go with the game result, that's what it's there for, BUT, if we happen to get 10 draws after 10 games, well, you might like to re-consider if it's such a daft idea or not then.

MP games will be nothing like the ones we are playing in this demo, nothing like them at all, MP is a totaly different world and I can see a "draw" being a very common occurance, I see it in my crystal ball.

Time will tell if I'm right or wrong, not that it matters either way.

[Holdit]

It may well be that many MP games could be "drawn" without a clear winner, in those case's the stats provided may help define a winner for the battle, it will be a little frustrating to spend many hours on MP games to get draws !.

The system is one of the best aspects of LG and may as well be used to settle a draw.....it will help positive game play as winning ground will give you the win IF it ends a draw.....much better than negative game play like sitting behind the cannons on a hill.

Given that the aim of the Napoleonic battle was usually to do destroy or at least do damage to the opposing army, it might be more consistent to use one of the items from lower in the list that relates to that objective i.e. captured flags, weakened units, surrendered units etc.

In any case, is it really such a problem if a battle ends in a draw?

Holdit

[Holdit]

I'm happy to go with the game result, that's what it's there for, BUT, if we happen to get 10 draws after 10 games, well, you might like to re-consider if it's such a daft idea or not then.

Ten draws in ten games would suggest to me that both armies were commanded by pacifists... 

Holdit

[Darsh]

I don't sure that we'll have many draws in MP games and the suggestion to have everytime a winner isn't good because a player who has conquered more ground has perhaps lost more men.

A draw is a draw that's all.

[Gunner24]

it might be more consistent to use one of the items from lower in the list that relates to that objective

Yes, lots of interesting stats that could be taken into account - if you want them to be, otherwise a draw is a draw.

[Pariente]

Yes, lots of interesting stats that could be taken into account - if you want them to be, otherwise a draw is a draw.

Our will may not be taken in account in victory conditions as a victory is, as Holdit said, when the enemy army is unable to continue fighting.

So losses (or percentage of losses), possession of LoPs (giving the possibility to withdraw), and the fact of being attacked or not : a defender would rightly think himself victorious if his army is still on the battlefield at the end of the day.

In spite of everything, you and your opponent may agree on who is victorious, according to various factors you might have put down before battle.

[Gunner24]

a defender would rightly think himself victorious if his army is still on the battlefield at the end of the day

Who is the defender ?.

There is a time limit to these battles, nightfall, there may be a lot of draws if neither side is aggresive in attacking, if both choose to defend it's almost certain to be a draw.

[lodi57]

Well, let's try like this and if we notice too much draws in MP or PBEM and even in SP, we will propose JMM to sharpen the calculation in order to avoid this situations.

[GrosPaul]

From Gunner24: "if both choose to defend it's almost certain to be a draw".

Are you joking mate? I can't imagine to warriors camping comfortably on his chairs, even when tea time (tea time don't last soo long). I push your logic at his extreme: what if none launch a game????

I say, at the risk to tire the audience, the full game will give another opinion of LG.

I invite you, don't be excessively influenced with this prematured baby. It is only in view to make people dribbling for the full game. The full game we all are waiting patiently (huh? more or less to be more precise) for so many years. A kind of lollypop before the gateau :-). Just wait the "lollypop" will be finished and then ... hurrah!

Cheers,
GP.

[Ras]

  Gunner24,
I think you got me wrong.
First of all, I think you've shown good initiative with your ladder project and the challenge board. We will need that if the game provides no online lobby to meet people. Secondly, I understood the suggestion you made as a suggestion. And it's good you bring it up.

Yes, lots of interesting stats that could be taken into account - if you want them to be, otherwise a draw is a draw.

I absolutely agree. That's what I meant when I said you can't force it on him. You have to agree before you start to play.
Now, personally, although I never understood cricket, have no problems with draws. They're even historically correct. I wasn't even aware that the game offers us draws as a third option before your post, but we have to deal with that. Maybe it won't happen that often. Who knows?
My argument against using the "Ground value" would be that the percentage doesn't matter to me as a player who plays a single battle. How do you want to explain the ground value of a random map?    If on the other hand, the single battle is part of a series of battles (campaign) of different clans/ teams against each other... well, then I would see it as an interesting extra challenge to the battle to conquer ground. Another objective to reach.
 

[Gunner24]

Are you joking mate?

ha, GP, you know I don't joje about such serious matters, ha......in the world of MP gaming no one plays to lose, we all play to enjoy the game, but no one will log on and spend several hours TRYING to lose.

The full game will show us quickly if "draws" will happen often or not, perhaps I'm 100% wrong to even be thinking about this, but if two players (or more) meet in MP and both are afraid that attacking will lose the battle, the clock will run out, and it WILL be a draw !.

How do you want to explain the ground value of a random map?

Hard to do, but the stats are there at the end.

As GP say, we need the full game, then we will see what people do, settle for draws OR try and win, me, I'll always be trying to win, not sitting back waiting for a draw.  I will always be attacking, even if that means I get totaly destroyed doing so, but others won't attack when they know it's bound to lose, they will hang back and wait for the sun to set - I will bet on it.