The Concept of Surrender

[roarkish]

When playing Axis and Allies I have noticed that when people playing the Allies don't get the dice rolls they hoped for on Russia's first turn, they surrender. But after this fact.....magically......their surrender tally does not go up in their player profile. How can this be? Either I don't understand the GTO rules regarding surrender....or there is a glitch in the game.

Anyone have any answers or input?

[rem400]

It's still a loss for them and a win for you. The surrender stat could take some time to update.

[roarkish]

OK.....so does it take time to update? Or are you just guessing that?

[BKBrawler]

OK.....so does it take time to update? Or are you just guessing that?

lol. rem400 is not guessing.

[rem400]

Just so I understand your comment, you are concerned about the surrender stat for the other player?

[kemal81]

I never understood the need for surrender stat anyways. If a player thinks they can't win the game then what's wrong with surrender even if it's the first round. They get a loss you get a win. Isn't that satisfying enough already? Do we really need to advertise someone's surrender especially in a game like A&A? There are times when I captured London in round 2, and blocked any help that might come to liberate it and my opponents will surrender. This game is already over even if I don't have the required number of VC's. But why should the surrender tally of my opponents go up? Are there really players who look for this stat and if it's high, they decide to play or not against this person?
Having said that, I still encourage the players not to give up easily just because you had a first round bad dice. Focus on the game and see if you can change things around. I kinda see those games as my game challenge of the season. I make my opponents earn their wins or sometimes I upset them and pull the victory they thought they had it. For example my game challenge of this season is the one I mentioned in viewtopic.php?f=36&t=3490
On top of what you see there I also had a bad Germany opening. But to this date, I am still fighting. However, all that doesn't mean I drag a game once I realize the game becomes unwinnable. That's just me and that's all I want to say on this subject.

[mmd1]

it's a hangover from live play in the early days where players could surrender in the first few rounds without taking a loss. at some point i think the surrenders and losses were tallied.

[commander_chaos]

it's a hangover from live play in the early days where players could surrender in the first few rounds without taking a loss. at some point i think the surrenders and losses were tallied.

yes, surrender, no matter when you do it = a loss- period to the end

[RobEng]

Yes it is a loss but I think it only adds to the surrender column after turn 3.

[rockismyreligion]

The idea is to not prolong a game with a foregone conclusion. A surrender will not add to a player's statistics as Rob had mentioned above.

[rem400]

It is my experience that a turn 1 surrender is counted as a win/loss respectively. Maybe back in the day it was different, but not now. As I recall, also from long ago, if you surrendered before the end of turn 3 you not only took the loss but your surrender stat was incremented as well.

I'm still scratching my head about why the surrender stat even matters?

[BKBrawler]

Yes it is a loss but I think it only adds to the surrender column after turn 3.

I think you mean it adds to the surrender column before turn 3.

[Sammog]

I never understood the need for surrender stat anyways. If a player thinks they can't win the game then what's wrong with surrender even if it's the first round. They get a loss you get a win. Isn't that satisfying enough already? Do we really need to advertise someone's surrender especially in a game like A&A? There are times when I captured London in round 2, and blocked any help that might come to liberate it and my opponents will surrender. This game is already over even if I don't have the required number of VC's. But why should the surrender tally of my opponents go up? Are there really players who look for this stat and if it's high, they decide to play or not against this person?
Having said that, I still encourage the players not to give up easily just because you had a first round bad dice. Focus on the game and see if you can change things around. I kinda see those games as my game challenge of the season. I make my opponents earn their wins or sometimes I upset them and pull the victory they thought they had it. For example my game challenge of this season is the one I mentioned in viewtopic.php?f=36&t=3490
On top of what you see there I also had a bad Germany opening. But to this date, I am still fighting. However, all that doesn't mean I drag a game once I realize the game becomes unwinnable. That's just me and that's all I want to say on this subject.

I don't want to go into a game with someone that is going to boost after R1, frankly. I've played two games recently where I've had terrible R1s (pure luck) losing 5 units in Ukraine, doing 1 hit and losing 5+ inf in WR. I won both. I don't play this game for "wins", I play it for good games. If I see someone has a high surrender stat compared with their win stat, I usually don't play them.

[BKBrawler]

I don't want to go into a game with someone that is going to boost after R1, frankly. I've played two games recently where I've had terrible R1s (pure luck) losing 5 units in Ukraine, doing 1 hit and losing 5+ inf in WR. I won both. I don't play this game for "wins", I play it for good games. If I see someone has a high surrender stat compared with their win stat, I usually don't play them.

I completely agree with Sammog here. Its not about the good win, its about the good game.

Which actually brings up another reason why I check the surrender tally- play style. If my opponent has a high surrender tally there's a pretty good chance they open with some crazy/risky moves, like a Russian Triple, no fighter in sz 15, Japan hitting Pearl, China, and Bury to open, etc. Generally, if it hits they keep playing, but if something doesn't hit they surrender. Its a coin flip and pretty weak in my opinion, so if there is a stat out there that can warn me away from that type of player, I'm glad to have it.

[kemal81]

I probably always look at things from a PBEM player's POV. With PBEM, I don't mind if somebody surrenders quickly. I usually have 5 games going at a time. As soon as one of them disappears from current games, I open up another game. About that a player getting lucky with risky moves, I always like a challenge. It is not exactly a coin flip. Yes they might have 50% (imo even less) chance to have the advantage after the first round, but usually players who do those kind of openings, don't know the game very well. I would lick my wounds after the first round and keep on fighting. And 50% of the time I would turn the game around and still win it. If somebody makes that kind of risky opening against me, they have about 20% or less chance to win it. I used to make risky openings when I was a noob and a level 10+ player accepted my challenge. Because I figured if I play it in a conventional way I have about 0% chance to win. But if I make a risky opening and get away with it then I will have better chance. But I didn't surrender quickly either when things didn't go well. I know so many players here are so focused on their wins. Some of them don't even care about win %, but only on total number of wins. GTO even rewards these players by making them the featured player. You can play 150 games in a month, and if you win 50 of them, you might have your name on the home page. And the way they can play that many games in one month is if they surrender quickly as soon as they have the disadvantage. So if some of you are against this kind of behavior, then yeah having surrender stats make sense. But me, I really don't care if that's what makes them happy. They are paying GTO to have some entairtainment, and they feel they are entairtained this way.
But I think the best way to stop this kind of behavior would be if GTO changed their ranking system. One shouldn't be a level 15+ player while they have less wins than losses in their last 50 games. Right now it takes 2 losses to erase the points earned by one win. And also sometimes you don't even lose a point, because once you reach a level you never go down. That's why people don't mind quick surrenders. All they need is enough wins and they can go up in levels.