German players quitting: a problem?

[FM WarB]

How does the Russian player know that if he has managed not to get wiped out in '41 or nlt mid '42 the German player won't just quit because he did not achieve the overwhelming victory he felt himself entitled to?

[cookie monster]

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

How does the Russian player know that if he has managed not to get wiped out in '41 or nlt mid '42 the German player won't just quit because he did not achieve the overwhelming victory he felt himself entitled to?

You never know. You just hope the other player still has the interest and the time available and hasn't moved on to another game.

I would personally try to get a game with a well known forum regular, although that doesn't always pan out.

So in a nutshell it's potluck!

[sillyflower]

You don't

All you can do is only to play people who will agree in advance that neither side will quit, then hope the stick to it -but you have to as well!

[WarHunter]

When i step up to play, its for the long term. My intention be it the axis or the Soviet is to play til the bitter end.

As the Soviet player I've asked my Axis counterpart if he wanted to surrender in Feb of 1942. He accepted. No hard feelings. He tried, came up short and found the blizzard punishing. The end came with this encirclement.





It makes no sense to me to torture my friend of many years into playing the Fall of Berlin. We are happy to start over and do better.

We both had intentions of playing to the end, and that is what we did.

On the other side of the coin, as the axis, my Soviet counterpart is tenacious. He wont surrender until I've taken the last VP city needed for an Auto victory. But again we have played for years as friends. No matter if it is the Ural Bunker or the Berlin Bunker, its worth the time for us. If he asked for an end to hostilities, I'd accept.

I would not call either of my friends losers, crybabies or quitters if they asked to stop. Played to many games to call anyone names because they don't finish a game that has a 224 turn CG. (That comes to 448 days at 1 turn every 2 days).

As long as they are willing to sit across from me, bring it on. When the time comes to face the music, it will come when it does. It won't always last to the last game turn. Be happy for the time it does last.

Respect for Respect, without it you have no honor.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

How does the Russian player know that if he has managed not to get wiped out in '41 or nlt mid '42 the German player won't just quit because he did not achieve the overwhelming victory he felt himself entitled to?

What is annoying is when they just disappear without a word.

One I haven't heard from since 4/30. The other I just sent the turn again after waiting a week.

[PeeDeeAitch]

I only quit when I am winning.

[JKLilly]

It's about communication. When the game stops being fun for you, you inquire if it is still fun for your opponent. If he is haing a good time, I play on without complaint. Even if you're being killed, there are still things you can do that are fun and challenging. See how far you can keep them away from the Bunker.

I've never had problems with this. One think I do miss with the server is the email messages with the turns. You learn a little about your opponents, and they become friends. The server is convenient however.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: jklilly

It's about communication. When the game stops being fun for you, you inquire if it is still fun for your opponent. If he is haing a good time, I play on without complaint.

Now we know why Hitler didn't surrender in late 44.

[Mynok]

I've never had problems with this. One think I do miss with the server is the email messages with the turns. You learn a little about your opponents, and they become friends. The server is convenient however.

Very true, but they are supposedly working on this.

[56ajax]

Pick someone with lots of time on their hands.....the opening AXIS turns for me take 4-5 hours each and it gets really tedious chasing someone across the steppes...so i tend to lose some interest after about 10 turns...and to think there is another 180 turns to go only to face a flogging...because this is an historical game and we all know what happened historically....the AXIS lost...

[Ketza]

I surrendered my first game as Soviets when Blurking overran Leningrad. I was amazed that he did it as I had it stacked to the max with divisions.

Since then I have a had a few mutual decisions to quit by Axis players and 3 "just stopped sending turns" kinda deals.

I have seen games also sputter out because of looming patches and players feeling they would rather wait for the changes and things never get going again.

I dont really get upset when games end I just start another server game and hope for the best.

[fbs]

I think that's a typical issue about defining victory conditions.

As a German, if you don't win early, chances are you will get at best a draw. So you keep playing a game you can't win.

I do believe that victory conditions for gameplay should be based on doing better than historical, not on actually winning the war.

So if a German player accumulates so many victory points through 41-43, which would give him a chance of game win if he defends well through 43-45, that might entice the german players to continue.

[morvael]

My vote goes for removing the auto-win conditions for the German side. That way Axis players would know what they have before them when they start another 1941 capaign, and would remove "one attempt at auto-win or I quit when that fails" mentality. They would have to brace themselves for longer game, where victory would be determined by the location of frontlines in 1945 comparing to historical ones. Battleground games didn't have that "sudden death" mode and you always knew that playing a 200+ turn campaign on PBEM is a major commitment. Of course surrenders happen, as one side judges it's situation hopeless, but that is unavoidable. You would have to force players to deposit real cash somewhere, that would be lost if they quit However, when you have a chance to win the game in 25 turns, a perspective of another 250 looks bleak. But when you start the game and know that the conclusion will come only after 275 turns, it's different in that you are prepared to live with it.

[Aussiematto]

It's a vexed problem, I guess. Future iterations of the games might need to have some different approaches to victory but, in the end, I just think you play what's in front of you - quitters will quit regardless of what the game does.

As for the lack of communication, it's probably embarrassment  as much as contempt -- the losing player who doesn't reply is feeling guilty and the more they don't communicate, the harder it is to admit it.

I think the main problem at the moment is that the play balance in turns 1-16 is very hard to get right. It really is an all or nothing campaign. But, I am having fun practising... I can feel another go as the Axis coming on, since I now have added some variations to my play and learned a bit more .

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I only quit when I am winning.

Personally, I prefer the unilateral declaration of victory approach. [:D]

[Scook_99]

ORIGINAL: morvael

My vote goes for removing the auto-win conditions for the German side. That way Axis players would know what they have before them when they start another 1941 capaign, and would remove "one attempt at auto-win or I quit when that fails" mentality. They would have to brace themselves for longer game, where victory would be determined by the location of frontlines in 1945 comparing to historical ones. Battleground games didn't have that "sudden death" mode and you always knew that playing a 200+ turn campaign on PBEM is a major commitment. Of course surrenders happen, as one side judges it's situation hopeless, but that is unavoidable. You would have to force players to deposit real cash somewhere, that would be lost if they quit However, when you have a chance to win the game in 25 turns, a perspective of another 250 looks bleak. But when you start the game and know that the conclusion will come only after 275 turns, it's different in that you are prepared to live with it.

In this game in particular, I am leaning to wanting to play scenarios vs. the campaigns. It really is a good way to see what 1942,'43,'44 look like without having to make as big a time commitment and have less people walk away from a game.

[Manstein63]

If I have accepted a game regardless of which side I am playing I will always play to the end. I might not turn around turns as quick as some people do but I will try to let my opponent(s) know if there are any delays.
Manstein63

[kswanson1]

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

How does the Russian player know that if he has managed not to get wiped out in '41 or nlt mid '42 the German player won't just quit because he did not achieve the overwhelming victory he felt himself entitled to?

wanker Axis players. But than Axis players don’t have a corner on the market of suddenly disappearing without a trace the moment things get a bit too tough. I had a Russian player disappear after I capped Leningrad and Moscow.

Take the bad with the good. Russian players need to suffer the pain of the summer of 1941 to achieve the unrestricted nirvana of the "blizzard". Axis players get to do their romp in the summers of 41 and 42. Than they need to let the other guy have his fun come winter time.

Having said that, some of the errors injected mid-game as a result of un-play tested patches or aspects of patches that were obviously not play tested will drive the most patient gamers to the brink of tossing the WiTE disk into the fire place.

Me --I'm one of the consumers of this product -- has to suffer through errors in code and design which can't possibly have been play tested adequately given the rate at which patches are being released. Nothing against the actual play testers. They can only do what they can do. If they aren’t given adequate time to play test rules changes and code changes, than they cant possibly be expected to detect obvious problems before patches are released to the public. The consumers are than expected to function as guinea pigs in this minefield.

If I sound bitter -- ;o) -- well that would be because I am bitter. I have no desire to quite a game mid stream as either the Russkies or the Axis. But when the outcome of the game is being affected each time a new patch gets injected into the game it becomes pretty tempting to shelve this experiment. It’s like playing a baseball game when in the 7th inning the umpire arbitrarily tells one team that they can no longer have a center fielder.

Test it first -- AND give play testers time to test all aspects of patches. Enough with the slam bam thank you ma’am -- "here's a new patch" --we'll let the folks that bought the game do the testing for us and figure out where our errors are.

[Pawlock]

ORIGINAL: kswanson1

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

How does the Russian player know that if he has managed not to get wiped out in '41 or nlt mid '42 the German player won't just quit because he did not achieve the overwhelming victory he felt himself entitled to?

wanker Axis players. But than Axis players don’t have a corner on the market of suddenly disappearing without a trace the moment things get a bit too tough. I had a Russian player disappear after I capped Leningrad and Moscow.

Take the bad with the good. Russian players need to suffer the pain of the summer of 1941 to achieve the unrestricted nirvana of the "blizzard". Axis players get to do their romp in the summers of 41 and 42. Than they need to let the other guy have his fun come winter time.

Having said that, some of the errors injected mid-game as a result of un-play tested patches or aspects of patches that were obviously not play tested will drive the most patient gamers to the brink of tossing the WiTE disk into the fire place.

Me --I'm one of the consumers of this product -- has to suffer through errors in code and design which can't possibly have been play tested adequately given the rate at which patches are being released. Nothing against the actual play testers. They can only do what they can do. If they aren’t given adequate time to play test rules changes and code changes, than they cant possibly be expected to detect obvious problems before patches are released to the public. The consumers are than expected to function as guinea pigs in this minefield.

If I sound bitter -- ;o) -- well that would be because I am bitter. I have no desire to quite a game mid stream as either the Russkies or the Axis. But when the outcome of the game is being affected each time a new patch gets injected into the game it becomes pretty tempting to shelve this experiment. It’s like playing a baseball game when in the 7th inning the umpire arbitrarily tells one team that they can no longer have a center fielder.

Test it first -- AND give play testers time to test all aspects of patches. Enough with the slam bam thank you ma’am -- "here's a new patch" --we'll let the folks that bought the game do the testing for us and figure out where our errors are.

Opening statement a bit harsh and uncalled for( some US people may not get it) but it's derogatory
.
You do realise that most of these patches that are released are BETA patches and its up to you to decide if you want to risk using them. There are two reasons why the devs do this that I can see.
One they realise people hate waiting for changes and are prepared for a few bugs if it means they can play with the latest offerings now,
and
Two, yes the devs use the people willing to do this as a next line of playtesters before game gets released as an official patch.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: kswanson1
Test it first -- AND give play testers time to test all aspects of patches. Enough with the slam bam thank you ma’am -- "here's a new patch" --we'll let the folks that bought the game do the testing for us and figure out where our errors are.

Gee...it's cute when they're so naive.[:D]

Given the resources that small niche game developers have, and the unpaid nature of the testing team, this would probably push the patch cycle to once every 20 years, or so. I can't speak for you, but I would bet that the majority of the "consumers" of this product would greatly prefer to be the guinea pigs in the necessary iterative process of ongoing public testing of the product, than to wait that long for a patch to come out.