By this i mean...

Instead of quitting... where one is almost plummeted as a "chicken", if not fully fledged "coward", for "running" for it (no harm intentioned to any player called chicken somewhere in its' nick).
And when/or one cannot end the game earlier, due to a player not wanting it, or due to failure of the system.

Isn't it just possible to "Surrender"... by this i mean, to quit with ALL it's attained ranking with would just surrender it's possessions and possibly armies to a chosen enemy (why not chosing between the active players with whom one fought in the last 5 turns).

I ask this, because i'm in a game (game 4), where as it was stated in previous threads... there were only 3 players left... we tried to end it... but it didn't work (i'll go for that it was "mechanical" failure and not "subversive" one... if u get my meaning).
And 2 of the players found themselves in a GREAT disadvantage against 1 player... 3 castles combined against a lot more
Now... since we're getting wiped hard... my reason of thought is... WHY should i let my soldiers die for nothing since the game is lost anyway (ok in that case my points wouldn't lower also)?
I can't produce enough to replace what i'm losing, and can't kill all that is being sent at me... i stopped counting hvy cav a long ago lololol.

What can i do?

hmmm... sorry for the mispells + some lines...

English isn't my mother tongue

Izno
the only way is if all of you agree to quit
OR you can quit by yourself
But of course you will be penalized by going to the bottom if you do that.

PS:
I realise there may always be exceptions to the rule, but there are circumstances where a player may be beaten so badly that his game score may fall beneath a player who has already been eliminated;
So sometimes it is really not fair to those who have fallen before you if you are allowed to quit and hold your position.
I do think that it is not a common occurrence though and I would be willing to discuss a possible change to this.

TR

well... the game, does divide players into several categories.
"quitted, vanquished, etc", why not add a new level... like "surrendered", ofcourse that the differences between all the kinds of "losing" should be kept... for example, a quitter should have a penalty, while a vanquished should at the best, have a bonus, for having fought to the bitter end.
I'm only considering surrendering, 'cause i'm in a no win situation, fighting as hard as possible with all that i have, and trying to take as many as possible down the drain with me... but as my units are being wiped... more and more through sheer numbers. After a bashing or 2 they don't answer back... i'm losing lots for a few kills... so in the end... i'm losing points. And this is why on another thread i stated the possibility of after 2 combats (for example), the units turning into "defense" mode and being able to always respond, or something similar (for example, my suggestion being allowed only to non moved units, so that it allows "surprise" efects, etc).

Since i must keep at the game, so that i don't quit... and i can't end it... why not an option for an honorable surrender

I suggest that you make a suggestion and I'll give you a possible idea.
Suppose a player is willing to take a point reduction penalty so that he can make an honorable surrender in a game where he has no chance to win, should he not be allowed to surrender if he is willing to sacrifice even as much as 5000 points?

If you put it in suggestions, I assure you that you will hear all possible "pros and cons" and I can think of at least one more myself like for example, if a player realises that 5000 points may cause a danger of him losing his rank position in the game, he may decide to stay until he has enough points to secure his position.
There may even be circunstances where it can be abused So I have serious doubts that this idea would be approved.

TR

Last Edited : Tuesday, 10 May 2005 - 18:26

any rule can be abused... see the towers not needing to be taken for example, or the turns where catapults had that extra "spice" onto them!

The thing is... IF there's a log or something about the games played (a log in txt wouldn't take 2 much space and would only be temp), in case that any player cried "cheater"... a commite of judges (elder players to whom Req or all the major players in here look after, for example) could see if the "rule" was being bended and if so... punish the infractors or even expel them.

the biggest threat i see, would be "multi" players, starting "surrendering" to other players... well... that's why i think it should happen only to "fought" enemies... only after a few turns for example... in 120 game turns, around 80 4 example + if it was seen that those players, for some reason kept surrendering to the same ones... would be another way to spot a "multi" or gangbangers

I won't suggest it in suggestion box, because i think that this is only a small "kink" in the game, in my opinion at least.

When you realize that making more troops is going to lose you more points, stop making troops!

You can also "disband" troops if you think they are going to lower your rank. Double-click on the piece and choose "disband" at right.

www.mpogd.com
Now it is time to vote.