Re: Stargrunt II Question

At 11:38 16/03/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
SNIP
>
>Half a sec! You're implying almost that surrender is attacker driven. 
>I don't think I agree. I think when the troop decides to head for the 
>hills, and they can't, a set rule like "they should fight" or "they 
>should surrender" is limiting. If you make them test again, to see if 
>they fight like cornered rats or surrender like yellah dawgs is 
>appropriate.  And I don't think you have to ask for another force to 
>surrender. I know if my guys were being totally wiped out and were in 
>an untennable position, I don't think that we'd wait for the 
>attackers to take the initiative in this surrender thing. If we were 
>going to surrender to avoid being killed, it would be on our time 
>frame if they didn't ask. 
>
>Just some thoughts. 
>/************************************************
>Thomas Barclay

	A couple of thoughts on the cornered/surrender situation- There
are
numerous cases, e.g. in WW2, of troops firing of all their ammunition
then
trying to surrender immediately, only to be told, "too late, chum" and
shot
down.  Conversely, especially when troops are cornered or expect to be
killed by their captors (not unusual for either side on the Eastern
Front)
fighting to the last man is quite possible, and with modern/SF weaponry
such
a last stand might easily cause disproportionate casualties on the
attackers.  As Don Marquis more or less put it, "sometimes things get so
bad
there's no point giving up" and it might just work.  

	I think that whether surrender by small groups, rather than by
chunks of a defeated force, is attempted or accepted is probably so
multifactorial as to be almost random.

Rob

"Rob Paul

Dept of Zoology
Oxford University
South Parks Road
Oxford
(01865) 271124
----------------------------------------------
"Once again, villainy is rotting meat 
before the maggots of justice!"
"