For Realistic-ness..... Stalemates

Miscellaneous topics about the campaign

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
thedude
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 7:22 pm

For Realistic-ness..... Stalemates

Post by thedude » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:23 pm

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6633&hilit=stalemate

I wish to provoke thought on the subject of stalemates in a situation similar to above post:

Basic rundown of the situation:

Terran planet, Map: City in the middle

his army: meks (attackers)
my army: vees (defenders)

my obvious strategy: stay in safety of buildings
his obvious strategy: stay out of the city and try to snipe

Under current rules the invariable universal results are:

1.) a noob getting beat down for not knowing the obvious basic strategies
2.) a 6-hour do-nothing game
3.) cancel and maybe no hard feelings but DEFINITELY a lack of realism

My proposal:

I. Introduction:

War. Not board game. War is not fair. Board games are, otherwise they wouldn't be any fun. The big question is this: how do we reconcile realism with fairness?
Battletech is a popular game because of how intricate and realistic it is. Fasa made sure to leave room for this.
I am under the impression that attacking is invariably better than defending, because, no one wants to get attacked, everyone wants to attack.

a conversation:
thedude [DC]: when is it a bad idea to attack?
[14:57] Bloodknight [FS]: never, unless you have to go in less than an hour
[14:57] thedude [DC]: good .. that is congruent with my understanding thus far
[14:58] thedude [DC]: so attackers always have the advantage
[14:58] thedude [DC]: point-wise
[14:58] Bloodknight [FS]: which points are you referring to?
[14:59] fahr [CS]: no - they have the advantage in that they can choose terrain
[14:59] fahr [CS]: and what planet they are attacking, and what army they bring

Analysis:

seems kind of one sided, doesn't it? But anyone who has studied warfare KNOWS that aggressors are not always successful--why?
Why do aggressors sometimes *NOT* have the effing advantage?
1.) Resources/supplies--of course, a city-state under-siege can be run out of supplies too!
2.) No homefield advantage --terrain knowledge, speak the language, etc etc etc
3.) Traps laid by defenders
4.) Getting out with resources if raiding doesn't always work out
5.) Bad intel
6.) Random stuff they didn't plan for

How can we make it a little more fair for the defender? Seems like being a defender should have it's own advantages in the game, they sure have them in real life! (cases in point--Vietnam, Republic of Georgia, WWII German siege of Russia, Russian occupation of Afghanistan, American occupation of Iraq, etc)

Proposal:
I'm not a programmer, I don't know how to code this, but... maybe there is a stellar/planet/meta-level solution to reduce/prevent the occurrence of these stalemates--and fix it in a FAIR way!

Attacker should get to pick planet they attack, and maybe even terrain (but that's kinda iffy, I mean, if i got lostech and you want to come take it, then you-the-attacker have to come to the place it is at, elsewise you ain't gettin nothin'!)

Defenders of a planet, logically (and with fairness in mind), have SOME control over venue.
What is a raid, anyway? When attackers come and take defenders' stuff. But if defenders want to park and wait and ambush, they should have the right to do just that, and not be forced to engage before they deem necessary. If the attackers want the defenders' stuff, then the attackers need to have the cajones to come get it, or pack up and go home (and pay the costs of fuel and other expenses for coming back empty handed!)

So, in conclusion, my proposal is this:

If an attacking army performs a Raid on a defending planet of attackers' choosing and on terrain of attackers' choosing, and the attacker lands on the planet and doesn't like the jungle/city/whatever he or she lands in, then the attacker should be able to run back to friendly space, but should have to pay some price for that to simulate fuel costs, cost of an unsuccessful raid, and cost of coming to the wrong venue when ITS THE ATTACKER WHO CHOSE THAT VENUE!!!! ATTACKING IS A GAMBLE IN REAL LIFE, AND IT SHOULD BE A GAMBLE IN BATTLETECH AS WELL!!

User avatar
Klingon
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:59 am
Location: Austin, Texas (on assignment from Luthien)

Re: For Realistic-ness..... Stalemates

Post by Klingon » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:08 am

1: Attacker chooses the planet... but the actual terrain is random.
2: Defender has the advantage in salvage.
"Grasshopper, the three secrets to life are as follows. First, keep your eyes and ears open. Second... don't tell everything you know."

Got a good idea to add to MekWars? We'd love to hear about it. (from that page, go to "Tickets", then "Feature Requests")

Gottloser
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:06 am

Re: For Realistic-ness..... Stalemates

Post by Gottloser » Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:54 am

Just to be sure:

basically, what you propose is: I don´t like the terrain, I pay X and the game get´s cancelled and no game happens at all?

Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

Re: For Realistic-ness..... Stalemates

Post by Deadweight » Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:02 pm

Klingon wrote:1: Attacker chooses the planet... but the actual terrain is random.
Technically true, but realistically, by choosing the planet the attacker gets to determine exactly how random the terrain choice is. If the attacker really wants a city brawl, he can simply choose to attack a planet that only has city-type terrain choices.

But I'm sure you knew that. :P

Klingon wrote:2: Defender has the advantage in salvage.
First, let me remind people that I'm still very new to MekWars and how it works, so feel free to take everything I say with a grain of salt.

I assume you bring up the "defender has a salvage advantage" argument as a counter to the fact that the attacker does indeed have the advantage in picking the terrain. I think you're conveniently forgetting that the attacker also has the added advantage of stealing units from the defender's factory on top of any salvage he might get should he win. As far as I can see, theDude's complaint of an attacker having more advantages then the defender is still valid.

Now, I don't really think the advantages are totally unfair, but I can see his point.

Maybe, to even things out advantage-wise, the attacker shouldn't get his/her flu back if he cancels an op? Heck.. maybe the attacker should lose all his flu (or 100+) if he cancels an op due to not wanting to actually ATTACK.

What would be really cool, is if the coders could find a way to program a defensive objective that the raiders needed to get (and keep for a few turns, perhaps) their units near in order to sucessfully raid. It would give the raider a reason to push forward. Perhaps the defender could have a second "deployment zone" in which to chose a hex where the objective would be located?

User avatar
Klingon
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:59 am
Location: Austin, Texas (on assignment from Luthien)

Re: For Realistic-ness..... Stalemates

Post by Klingon » Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:06 pm

c_gee wrote:First, let me remind people that I'm still very new to MekWars and how it works, so feel free to take everything I say with a grain of salt.

I assume you bring up the "defender has a salvage advantage" argument as a counter to the fact that the attacker does indeed have the advantage in picking the terrain. I think you're conveniently forgetting that the attacker also has the added advantage of stealing units from the defender's factory on top of any salvage he might get should he win. As far as I can see, theDude's complaint of an attacker having more advantages then the defender is still valid.
1: "take everything I say with a grain of salt" notwithstanding, "you're conveniently forgetting" can be construed as accusatory. I'm pretty sure it wasn't meant that way, but a lot of nuances get lost on the forums, so I'm just going to say that you'll want to be careful about that.

2: I wasn't forgetting it, just wasn't taking it into consideration because everything thus far had focused on the megamek game itself, i.e player-player. The 'taken from the factory' impacts the faction, but since it's rarely the ones everyone wants in the bays, that point isn't all that potent. You're perfectly reasonable to bring it up, and it is relevant overall, but it wasn't germane to my point, so I didn't mention it.
c_gee wrote:Now, I don't really think the advantages are totally unfair, but I can see his point.

Maybe, to even things out advantage-wise, the attacker shouldn't get his/her flu back if he cancels an op? Heck.. maybe the attacker should lose all his flu (or 100+) if he cancels an op due to not wanting to actually ATTACK.

What would be really cool, is if the coders could find a way to program a defensive objective that the raiders needed to get (and keep for a few turns, perhaps) their units near in order to successfully raid. It would give the raider a reason to push forward. Perhaps the defender could have a second "deployment zone" in which to chose a hex where the objective would be located?
Good idea, and may even already be suggested; there's a link in my sig to the RFE* page for the MW sourceforge project. Take a look, and if it's already suggested, make a post endorsing the idea, or if not, submit a new RFE.

*-RFE=Request For Enhancement. Put another way, "Hey, guys, here's how you could make it BETTER!". Outroight bugs have priority over new options, but if it's not hard to do, it just might come out pretty quick.
"Grasshopper, the three secrets to life are as follows. First, keep your eyes and ears open. Second... don't tell everything you know."

Got a good idea to add to MekWars? We'd love to hear about it. (from that page, go to "Tickets", then "Feature Requests")

Xman
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:23 pm

Re: For Realistic-ness..... Stalemates

Post by Xman » Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:19 pm

the attacker isnt the only player required to attempt to engage

that is the crux of this problem. you are attempting to fix an unreal situation that exists due to game mechanics and server policy.

read the original link thedude posted about stalemate. look who was defending and pissed off...surprise it was me xman!

I took it as another nuance to adjust to if I want to play here

camping isn't approved for "defenders" b/c of the rule explained here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7747

Once a game begins there is no attacker/defender status. Just two players going at it.

que sera sera


If you see the inevitable stalemate show sportsmanship cancel and carry on with no ill will...or kamikaze rush...whatever works for you

Tuco
MegamekNET Campaign Operator
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: For Realistic-ness..... Stalemates

Post by Tuco » Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:10 pm

ehm... can you guess why we want attackers to have an advantage over defenders? hint: we know why.

before you RFE something that goes against this, please find an SO who actually has interest in such an option.
When the injustice is great enough, Justice will lend me the strength needed to correct it.
None may stand against it.
It will shatter every barrier, sunder any shield, tear through any enchantment and lend its servant the power to pass sentence.
Know this: there is nothing on all the Planes that can stay the hand of justice when it is brought against them.
It may unmake armies. It may sunder the thrones of gods.
Know that for ALL who betray Justice, I am their fate... and fate carries an Executioner's Axe.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: For Realistic-ness..... Stalemates

Post by Nastyogre » Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:56 pm

I've only ever thought Stalemate was a good option for the situation where the sides become unable to engage. Refusal to engage is a violation of the rules. I have solved that problem by moving to engage and if my opponent camps (and I mean makes little or no attempt, we can't say a force of Behemoth tanks that moves 7 hexes in 3 or 4 turns when you have 6/9/6 mechs is not engaging) I point out that they have to make some attempt, its not just my job. They don't need to charge headlong, but neither do I. I would find a mod or post a compliant about an opponent that refused after that. Let the staff handle it. If there is no staff its a cancel and I still post and we let the staff handle it.

Note: I have no complaints in a very long time if ever on refusal to engage.

The other stalemate is when the sides cannot engage. I do think a stalemate by mutual consent wouldn't be a bad idea. I was actually concerned that Obese Pigeon and I could have a game like that last night. Hits fall a different way and we do.

Perhaps an auto-stalemate could go into effect if the BVs on each side were so low that you can't really have said either side won. Say sub 15 or 20%

Are any of those really that common? Failure to engage is a discussion and if truly at an impasse (c'mon really its a game guys, play it) its a staff issue.
Unable to engage? How rare is it? Both sides slagged? Well shouldn't it be played until somebody actually won?

I just don't see the need. As much a fan as I am for the concept. Unless we use mission based play. I am not sure its necessary.

User avatar
Klingon
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:59 am
Location: Austin, Texas (on assignment from Luthien)

Re: For Realistic-ness..... Stalemates

Post by Klingon » Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:15 pm

Scenarios like the one NO describes do happen, but are very rare; things like both sides down to one legged mech each, out of LOS of each other, and neither one wants to die and lose by trying to stand, or they're even out of range. The classical solution in that case is to roll off for victory, and the loser ejects his remaining mech, but that's just unsatisfying to lose that way.

Short version of the story is the server has no mechanism to resolve a draw, and the outcome is so rare there's very little impetus to develop code to address that.
"Grasshopper, the three secrets to life are as follows. First, keep your eyes and ears open. Second... don't tell everything you know."

Got a good idea to add to MekWars? We'd love to hear about it. (from that page, go to "Tickets", then "Feature Requests")

Post Reply