"Playing out a losing battle" Topic

Has anyone got to a point of a lost battle but kept going to see if the loosing side can extract the last troops or get wiped out ?
Doesn't matter era played

Usually only if the withdrawal is part of the game.

Usually there isn't any reason to play it out in friendly games. Recently I played AoS Spearhead and needed 6 points for the win. At the start of my last turn, the most I could get was 5 so it's GG and handshake time.

Yes, if there's some kind of action or attack that's imminent or in progress. I enjoy the narrative aspect of the game, so sometimes playing that sort of thing out adds to the story.

One of the beauties of Midgard is the way its decided by 'Reputation points' – so you can get a win even if your army is looking very battered! – its surprising how many games of it has the winner a few points from defeat. If you haven't tried it I do recommend it!

I would only enjoy continuing to play a losing battle if it were a true "playtest" for a GM planning to run the game later at a convention, or if the game was an introduction to new players intended to teach them the rules.

Once one side conceded -- leaving the game set up we would make an entire new game with new victory conditions --on another day with a rear guard withdrawal-- perhaps adding new elements as, artillery guns saved, reinforcement.etc.
Russ Dunaway

I dislike playing on when it is obvious one side or the other is definitely going to lose. Better to spend the time having a beer and discussing the game.

I let the opponent decide if he wants to murder hapless miniatures or simply endthe game. I don't like forcing a "short game" on my opponent even if I'm getting slaughtered.

Yes – if based on a scenario or just trying to see what can be salvaged in less than ideal situation

Sometimes it's fun to see if you can pull out one last effort even if you're losing. Sometimes…not so much, but I'll keep rolling dice until both sides decide to call it.

Play as long as both sides are having fun, since that is the point of the game.

Some scenarios are built in who is going to lose, the Alamo for example.

Mike

Once we can see one side has lost, we stop playing.

It depends. Sometimes you just need to call it a day.

I remember one game of bugs vs. humans. First turn bugs move and humans shot them to pieces. Game over.

On the other hand, I ran a zombie game where the survivors ran roughshod over the zombies for the first few turns, then everything went to crap. One survivor left on the board. She retreated and gave it another go. Made it to the far side board and safety. There was one zombie in front of her facing away. Easy kill….
Only it didn't work out that way. Bad rolls, memorable game.

Players can agree to call a game.

More often than not, a tail end game will come down to something simpler than full tactical employment of forces. Like pursuing the last enemy unit that is escaping. You can often reduce that to a couple of attack rolls in series instead of moving each unit, etc.

A lot of our games have hidden victory points to emulate real asymmetry in warfare. So you kind of need to play it out (but see above).

As Bunkermeister says, a lot of scenarios have a pre-ordained general outcome. The game is not do the French lose at Puebla, but rather how do they lose.

You could ask people why do they play the Alamo or Little Bighorn…my group usually calls it a game when it's obvious, but sometimes the losing side doesn't want to concede so you just have to pummel them until they do.

If it's still fun, even if just for my opponent, we keep playing. When my opponent's interest flags we might stop.

It's a disappointment to be doing well in a game and enjoying that when your opponent suddenly wants to end it because they're not winning. So I'll keep playing and doing my best if the game keeps working. Once he has nothing to shoot at I might start hinting that it's just a turkey shoot, most people will want to stop when there's no more challenge.

Bautzen, could be considered an allied victory as they managed to withdraw against massive odds, its an interesting game to play for the French to destroy the allies or the allies to withdraw relativity intact,

Tally Ho!

As a soloist, I often think this could be inbteresting, but I never seem to do it

Accomplishing objectives usually takes up all of the time available for the game, so we typically have not played out what happens next.

Players can agree to call a game.

I might say Player (singular) or perhaps side. I think it's OK for people doing something for enjoyment to stop if it is not.

If you're going to lose the game and not having fun: quit. What sadist would say NO you have to be miserable and keep playing.

Why is this in the TMP Talk Board?

Old Contemptible thought this would be best place to reach all eras gaming. It's a general question how to end a game after its lost.
I have done a game, troops lost are gone for the next game.

A few years ago, I watched some Ancient tournament game where the players knew after set revealed set up, they knew who would win. So they never completed the battle..
For me I have played several ‘lost cause' battles.

Game that started this thinking has turned into a rout.
It was a guard game, since they don't get played much. The Russian 5 Corp of Borodino had to go against the Prussian guard, British units I have ( all very good and Hanoverians.
Preobrazhensk and Semeyanovsk guards are in square and surrounded, the Russian guard batteries are running for their lives abandoning their pieces ( ( Gen Arakchev will be furious when he hears this) and only the Guard Horse Cuirassiers came away with their glory .reputation

Hmm… Try playing a military campaign. A series of different battles, where you will have the army that you have left from previous battles. This will seriously change the "picture" of the game… Including the attitude to losses and the meaning of "hopeless" resistance.