Demanding/accepting peace/surrender

[Crusher]

We've all had those matches during ROOST where your team is doing really badly, mostly on a map like Basovka, you can't cap the first obj and everyone lost hope to win it.
Why not implement an option which makes your team surrender. If +/-70% presses surrenders and the other team accepts the match ends and the other team wins, at least you can try again or go to the next map.
And maybe a similar option to declar peace. Except when peace is declared the map doesn't end, you can just walk around with the enemy. On some occasions on a battlefield, especially during christmas, both sides declared peace for a day or so and played football or something. I doubt implementing a football game in HOS is realistic but it would be nice to be able to see the names of the enemies too and to explore the map or something.

 

[mo0nbuggy1]

If you surrender you should loose something, like points or next game the teams moral will be low.

 

[Crusher]

How about, when you lose a map, you lose points but when you surrender you lose less points. Therefor it would be strategically interesting to surrender and people would actually use the feature.

 

[sturmfuhrer]

I like the surrender idea but I think there should be repercussions for surrendering like losing a lot of XP or something, if you lost the game you wouldnt lose any XP however with surrendering you do OR you lose your new weapons that youve aquired with your XP.

Maybe if your team choses to surrender and the other team excepts you have to run to the enemy spawn to official be declared as "Surrendered" but the enemy can just as easily chose to shoot you. They may lose XP themselves for killing you but will gain your weapons that they may want to carry on to the next round.

Sturm

 

[Crusher]

yea, let's say if the germans surrender, the next round the russians can choose german weapons. I wouldn't go as far as lose XP, maybe if your team surrenders the next round you have more reinf. If surrendering only had bad sides no one would do it anyway.

 

[barakas]

This could work well for Multiplayer Campaigns.

Surrendering would save you reinforcements for the next battle, but would reduce your morale and resources for next match.

Possibly even allowing a counter attack next match, where you could "win" back the surrendered troops, by capturing the area and thus getting the prisoners of war.

Though I guess it makes sense to lose reinforcements by surrendering, but gain morale, since if they are surrender, they're going to lose all their troops anyway.

Another version of this could be a "retreat" option, for sides who are attacking.

This way you could save resources/reinforcements for the next game (when the enemy has a turn to attack), but you will lose morale.

That way it will be interesting tactics, since you have to decide what you need more, resources/reinforcements or morale.

Hell, maybe they could have it so, if the team votes to retreat, but the commander disagrees, the commander can reverse the retreat if he kills anyone who voted for retreat within a certain time period!

 

[Crusher]

I don't know about moral, if it's just the type of music playing during the game, it wouldn't make alot of difference.

Surrender: Less morale
Enemies can choose your weapons
Less reinf
More ammo

Retreat: More reinf
Less moral
Less ammo

Peace: Everyone happy but as soon someone kills someone else peace is over.

 

[mo0nbuggy1]

I think also that the opposing team should get something significant, after all they did make you want to pack your bags and get the heck out of there.
Maybe a massive XP bonus or something?

 

[Colt .45 killer]

the declaring peace dealio was a ww1 stunt that happened one Christmas. Next year people on both sides were ordered to shoot anyone trying to attempt it again. AFAIK it never happened on the russian front in ww2.

Everything else, would be nice especially in a campaign mode a retreat option would be a big +. Lowers moral but lets you keep reinforcements? Where as surrendering should be a way to end a round that is going REALLY really badly.

 

[-[SiN]-bswearer]

in the words of commander taggart (whose image i apparently am not allowed to post):

Never give up, never surrender.

in theory, maps should just be made to be balanced enough so that battles never get to that point.

for something like the multiplayer campaign, it could be useful for taking your licks and saving what you've got left for the next battle, but for standard territory multiplayer, it's really not necessary

 

[reyalpOR]

The surrender option would be hilarious.

-Commander initiates the surrender option
-Majority of players vote yes
-Cutscene shows loser team getting slaughtered
-...the end

 

[O'Shannon]

We've all had those matches during ROOST where your team is doing really badly, mostly on a map like Basovka, you can't cap the first obj and everyone lost hope to win it. [...]

isn't that what the new lock-down feature is for?

in the Gamescom 2009 videos Ramm played territory mode and mentioned that defenders can win a match befor the map time runs out.
so attackers have lets say ~5-7 to cap AT-Gun Position(first cap basovka) and if they dont cap it within this time they lose

 

[Attilaken]

The surrender ideas made here are nice and would indeed add value to the multiplayer campaigns !

But also in other multiplayer battles it would be interesting.
For example in the most popular map in RO:OST, Danzig, things can become annoying when the re

 

[Miro!]

Surrender is for fags.

/thread

 

[Susi]

Surrender, simple and doesnt need anykind balance features.
Just that you save some reinforcements to next map
in campaing gameplay by rising white flag.

How ever it doesnt need to be called as a surrender, but a
withdraw. Which is as far as i know most typical way how battle
ends.

Battles rarely end up to fight to the death situations.


Other thing is the maps where you dont just simply want to fight.
There is like maps, where defending is too difficult at least, if you allready
have much less reinforcement on campaing, so you can withdraw allready
and try to compensate reinforcement levels on better map.

Also, we could give the withdraw decission to squad leader, which is one of the
heroes in the team, as i heard that heroes get possibility to choose their roles first.

 

[RedGuardist]

I think retreat-option would sound more like it, really. That way you could save reinforcements to next engagement. Tactical retreating has nothing to do with surrendering...

 

[Capt.Cool]

I think the "surrender idea" is good.

Some people here just have a problem to surrender... we call them fantics.
So maybe call this option a "restart map" function instead?

If you have a bad team, the time runs up and all your arty is already used, and you see that in the next 3 minutes you cant win the map, so why play for another 3 minutes for NOTHING?

wouldnt it be much more smarter to restart the map at once and have
a new match with the real possiblilty to win, instead of waisting 3 minutes?

YES TO SURRENDER OPTION!

 

[reyalpOR]

There also needs to be some input from the other team.

It would be really annoying if the winning team has no say.

 

[Major Liability]

If my team surrenders on a map I still want to play I am totally spraying them in their backs with a machinegun. NOT ONE STEP BACKWARDS.

 

[C_Gibby]

How about some sort of rally point where players can run to when the retreat option is activated so the game actually ends that way?