Page 1 of 2

Thoughts on the game end rule

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 2:56 am
by Garnier
The current rule for ending the game has a problem. It says for one side to call the game, they have to have all of their units out of musket range of the enemy, and then the host must click End Game. The problem is that the enemy side in this situation could charge some units at the side that's trying to withdraw, and they'd never be able to get out of musket range. The other problem is that the losing side could be trapped against the edge of the map, where in reality they could still run away because there is no map edge in real life.

So here's my proposition for a rule to replace the current one. I won't change the rule until I've heard enough opinions. Any thoughts?
At any time during the game, any player on either side may type _____ in chat. This phrase indicates that their side is conceding the game. From the time when this message is sent, there is a one minute period before the host must click End Game in the menu. If both sides agree to end the game after someone has conceded, then it can be ended by the host before the one minute runs out.
_____ would be some phrase that we decide on, to signify the end of the game. I don't always know if a 'gg' means they want to concede.

You can press F2 in game to see the chat log with timestamps on each message, to see exactly when _____ was first sent. The specific time limit could be different.

Having a longer time limit means the winning side has more time to pursue, or that the losing side should concede earlier if they are afraid of being pursued.



I think any player should be able to type this message, because we can't say that every player needs to type it (as it would just be confusing), and we don't have someone clearly in charge of either side. Just consult your teammates before doing it or they won't like you.

Some sort of possibility for ending the game is necessary in my opinion to prevent people from getting trapped at the edge of the map and all captured when they should have been able to get away. I wouldn't want any rule that restricts the orders you can give to your men at any time during the game, mainly because such rules can't be enforced and so they open the door for arguments.

Some of us also wouldn't like it if the losing side could end the game at any time instantly, because right when the tide turns, you like to be able to do some damage. Neither is their any flavor of realism to one side saying it's and suddenly no more shooting happens, unless they actually surrendered the army (which we don't do).

Re: Thoughts on the game end rule

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 2:59 am
by KG_Soldier
"Uncle"

Re: Thoughts on the game end rule

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:01 am
by KG_Soldier
"kg soldier is King" would work well.

Re: Thoughts on the game end rule

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:04 am
by Garnier
I was thinking "nuff!"

Re: Thoughts on the game end rule

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:51 am
by RDBoles
What are the French words for "I surrender!"?

Re: Thoughts on the game end rule

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:00 pm
by Gfran64
TapOut

Greg

Re: Thoughts on the game end rule

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:13 pm
by RDBoles
Assez je me rend.

Re: Thoughts on the game end rule

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:21 pm
by Garnier
Any objections? If I don't hear anything on this today I'm going to change the rule page with it. It won't have a huge effect on how we play but will prevent the possible exploit of the current rule, which though it's never happened, I always am afraid it will.

Re: Thoughts on the game end rule

Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:50 am
by Garnier
The rules are changed, I also put some rules in for what happens when the game prematurely ends. If both sides agree on what the outcome should be though, that can be followed regardless of the rule.

Since 'uncle' has already come into fashion here in recent games, we'll use that. :)

Re: Thoughts on the game end rule

Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:58 am
by SouthernSteel
Honestly, since we changed the objective timers, etc, I have not seen this happen. Before, it happened almost every battle it seemed (or at least in my memory...it was a long ways back). I haven't seen a side lose tactically or in combat completely due primarily to the objectives. Once a side drives off the enemy there is no reason to pursue.