'Surrender' options in Civ3?

[Ilkuul]

In the Civ2-General forum, Craftsman suggested that all future Civ games should allow for a 'Surrender' option in diplomatic negotiations.

I really like this idea. It could be at different levels: 'Total Surrender', where the loser gets completely absorbed into the victor's civ (thus basically retiring from the game); and various 'Partial Surrender' options, including ceding certain cities and/or units to the victor, paying tribute/reparations of a certain amount of gold for a specified number of turns, giving a number of technologies, allowing free access to the victor's units to pass through the loser's territory (as in alliances), etc., etc. That would really be great!

What do people think? Should Civ3 have something like this?



------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".

[Zanzin]

It would be nice, that once a Civ is 'beaten' you can just absorb the rest of their cities as opposed to having to fight for them. But, on the other hand, you don't want enemy civs always caving in - there should be a "fight to the death" factor.

[jpww]

I agree with Ilkuul as to the implementation of a "surrender" option. However, If your opponent partial-surrendered, would you leave him be or would you let him have it?

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Zanzin on 03-24-2001 09:49 PM It would be nice, that once a Civ is 'beaten' you can just absorb the rest of their cities as opposed to having to fight for them. But, on the other hand, you don't want enemy civs always caving in - there should be a "fight to the death" factor.

I imagine it being like peace treaties & alliances: surrender is either demanded by the winning party or offered by the losing party, and the other side can accept or reject it. The winning party can demand total surrender, and the loser can either accept that (and retire from the game); or he can reject it and offer a partial surrender instead. In their latest posting on the Civ3 website they talk about a 'bargaining table' where you can throw almost anything into the negotiations: so the loser could offer the winner certain cities, or free access, or gold, or techs, or military units, or any combination of those. The winner can either accept, or make further demands, or keep insisting on total surrender. The loser will then have the option of rejecting total surrender, which WILL mean in effect "fighting to the death".

And, to answer your objection about not wanting enemy civs just to 'cave in', it would also be open to the winning civ to reject an offer of total surrender!

The advantage of having a specific 'surrender' option as opposed to just the more advanced treaty negotiations that Firaxis are describing, is that it provides a shortcut: if the loser really feels there's not much point carrying on, he can cut it all short by offering total surrender -- and that also gives the victor a boost in that he doesn't have to destroy or bribe all the remaining cities, he gets them intact WITH all their improvements and units.

------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".
[This message has been edited by Ilkuul (edited March 25, 2001).]

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by jpww on 03-25-2001 03:13 AM I agree with Ilkuul as to the implementation of a "surrender" option. However, If your opponent partial-surrendered, would you leave him be or would you let him have it?

IMHO, that's entirely up to you! It would be no different from having a peace treaty: you can either maintain an honourable reputation by keeping your treaties, or you can break them and to heck with what people think of you!



------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".

[Chris1111]

When playing against the AI how about their "personality" determines whether they'd surrender cities or not. For example: Chances are the aggressive militaristic Mongolian Hordes are NOT going to surrender and will fight you to the last man while a civilized expansionist like say the French would give up a city to save their people. This could also go hand in hand with the difficulty level on Diety chance of a civ surrendering anything would ofcourse be a lot less then chieftain.

What about having technology levels playing a part to? Wouldnt a civ with phalanx' and chariot units be more likely to give into a civ with tanks and bombers. The war could be considered hopeless and surrender really the only option.

IMO the cleanup time when you are rolling through an opponent who has no chance is really one of the most boring parts of a game and this could give you other options.
[This message has been edited by Chris1111 (edited March 25, 2001).]

[Nikolai]

I like this suggestion very much!! Firaxis just have to implement this idea!! Actually, in AC you had a thing like this. When an opponent were about to loose, he/she offered you a peace treaty. If you denounced this proposal, the opponent said he/she surrendered, and offered all the money and tech he/she had. If you accepted, you and your opponent were allies.

Dear Firaxis:I think this and the idea here absolutely should be implemented in Civ3!! Please!!

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Well....

[Chris1111]

I wonder if this has been mentioned but how about this use for diplo/spies

If you bring one into an undefended city you could get option to say "demand gold/tech or we will sack your city". Kinda like what the barbarians do in civ2. Also another option could be to demand city to surrender. If the AI or player surrenders you'd get city completely intact without any population loss or lost improvements. If they dont surrender it'd be like the way it is now.

Just passing thought maybe do the above scenario's with military units as they are about to enter a undefended city instead of a diplo/spies(might make more sense).


[This message has been edited by Chris1111 (edited March 25, 2001).]

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Chris1111 on 03-25-2001 02:44 PM I wonder if this has been mentioned but how about this use for diplo/spies If you bring one into an undefended city you could get option to say "demand gold/tech or we will sack your city". Kinda like what the barbarians do in civ2. Also another option could be to demand city to surrender. If the AI or player surrenders you'd get city completely intact without any population loss or lost improvements. If they dont surrender it'd be like the way it is now. Just passing thought maybe do the above scenario's with military units as they are about to enter a undefended city instead of a diplo/spies(might make more sense).

Yes, I like this as a further addition to the 'surrender' option.



------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Nikolai on 03-25-2001 02:21 PM Dear Firaxis:I think this and the idea here absolutely should be implemented in Civ3!! Please!!

Why don't we all write to Firaxis 'Ask the Team' demanding this option??? If they get enough correspondence on the topic, they might respond to it in their next update!



------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Chris1111 on 03-25-2001 07:47 AM When playing against the AI how about their "personality" determines whether they'd surrender cities or not... IMO the cleanup time when you are rolling through an opponent who has no chance is really one of the most boring parts of a game and this could give you other options.

I couldn't agree more! The personality and difficulty level factors you mention would presumably follow as a logical consequence of the way the AI civs are set up -- just as in Civ2 aggressive expansionists are less likely to accept a cease-fire or peace treaty. So there would be benefits to the 'surrender' option whether playing against the AI or a human opponent.

[Kuciwalker]

MAJOR Problem: If total surrender is exactly the same thing as losing, a human player will never do it.

[carioca]

quote: Originally posted by skywalker on 03-29-2001 05:33 PM MAJOR Problem: If total surrender is exactly the same thing as losing, a human player will never do it.

I like the 'give all tech and gold, and then become allys', as the best option presented.

Now, I wonder what the likelihood would be of the AI totally surrendering to a human player?

[colossus]

quote: Originally posted by Chris1111 on 03-25-2001 02:44 PM I wonder if this has been mentioned but how about this use for diplo/spies If you bring one into an undefended city you could get option to say "demand gold/tech or we will sack your city". Kinda like what the barbarians do in civ2. Also another option could be to demand city to surrender. If the AI or player surrenders you'd get city completely intact without any population loss or lost improvements. If they dont surrender it'd be like the way it is now. Just passing thought maybe do the above scenario's with military units as they are about to enter a undefended city instead of a diplo/spies(might make more sense). [This message has been edited by Chris1111 (edited March 25, 2001).]

Great ideas!
Sometimes its better to keep the peace than just take the city.

Moreover, I suggest we could demand a CITY SURRENDER, as distinct from civ surrender. A city in desperate situation(empty of friendly units, surrounded by hostile military units and cut off from reinforcements..) should be able to seek surrender itself. If accepted, the city is absorbed.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by wittlich on 03-29-2001 09:23 PM Now, I wonder what the likelihood would be of the AI totally surrendering to a human player?

I don't see why this couldn't be built in under certain circumstances: as when the tech gap between the AI and the aggressor is very wide, or the gap between numbers of units, or between numbers of cities; or unhappiness/civil disorder is above a certain level; or any combination of these and other factors.



------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by skywalker on 03-29-2001 05:33 PM MAJOR Problem: If total surrender is exactly the same thing as losing, a human player will never do it.

I don't agree that this is a major problem. I've likened it in earlier posts to retiring, rather than just quitting; and there could be benefits to retiring/surrendering over quitting: perhaps a bonus added to the player's score for the number of turns he/she's "survived" (increasing according to difficulty level); and maybe further small bonuses for number of civs conquered and techs discovered. These would feed into the power graph and final ranking: and I, for one, would much prefer to be able to surrender gracefully in the face of overwhelming power, thereby contributing my little fund of cities & wealth to another player (especially if human!), and also in the process being able to see how far up or down in the rankings I came.

But I agree that, as Carioca said, in most cases a human player would look for some other way out, such as partial surrender and/or an alliance.


------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".
[This message has been edited by Ilkuul (edited March 30, 2001).]

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by colossus on 03-29-2001 09:26 PM Moreover, I suggest we could demand a CITY SURRENDER, as distinct from civ surrender. A city in desperate situation(empty of friendly units, surrounded by hostile military units and cut off from reinforcements..) should be able to seek surrender itself. If accepted, the city is absorbed.

Yes, I think that would be a great addition to the surrender options. I assume it would be built into the AI to do that, even for a human civ, 'cos unless the situation were dire enough to warrant some kind of surrender for the whole civ, a human player would be unlikely to voluntarily give up a single city -- you would tend just to wait and let it take its chance!



------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".

[Lawrence of Arabia]

quote: Originally posted by Zanzin on 03-24-2001 09:49 PM It would be nice, that once a Civ is 'beaten' you can just absorb the rest of their cities as opposed to having to fight for them. But, on the other hand, you want enemy civs always caving in - there should be a "fight to the death" factor.

It could be affected by they're government types. Democracies are less likly to fight each other than to fight communism



------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

YES! I strongly support the surrender option - particularly for multiplayer games.


------------------
CASE CLOSED!

[Stuff2]

Actually, i would suggest going one more step into negotiation.
As in real life it's about what you are surrendering, It can be:
- Cities, provinces,
- Armies that you turn over to foreign control
- Trade routes
- Taxes (0 to 100 % of it)
- Religous surrender
- Political status (do you have possibilities to make treatments with other nations or is this done bye the invading civ)
and much more.

I'd say that surrendering is just a political tactic that is used for making the damage as small as possible, you can from then always have methods of taking back your civ. I suggest that when you decide to surrender you start a negotiation with your opponent where you decide how taxes should be distributed between you (ofcourse the taxlevel is up to him). Who will pay the upkeep of improvements, who will control the
trade routes, how big army will he let you have e.t.c. In short, how big your future control will be over the occupied area. Then if you feel that he won't let you have as much control as you feel needed for somewhere in the future taking back full control of your civ you have the possibility to give up or retire. Or you can simply hope to get invaded by a more friendly civ.

Ways to get back your control can be secretely pleed help from allies, and the partisans will ofcourse be under your control no matter what and they won't be counted in any agreement. Besides this you can breake any treatment you want (and suffer the consequences).

Ofcourse occupying a foreign civ is the same thing, you have to negotiate about how resources and control shall be distributed. The foriegn partisans and geurilla soldiers will be out of your control and the captured empire will always have small but existing possibilities of liberating itself from you if you don't assimilate it well enough.

[Atahualpa]

Instead of surrender, why not be part of the new empire as province holder? So the new leader gives you orders which you try to follow as best as you can.
You cant research anymore. Research goals and all civ settings are done by the new leader, but you get all the advances too. So you are part of the new empire.
Else I would see no use in a surrender option. What bonus would give me total surrender???? And if there is no advance I can get on fighting till everyone is dead.

ATa

[Adm.Naismith]

Athaualpa, it's not a bad proposal. May be not historically realistic, but playable.
Still... how many player will try to resurrect from dust, instead of starting another game or reload from an old save?

Maybe Russell Crowe and his Gladiator...

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Or you could get a favor rating, and when it goes high, the leader of the empire gives you some troops, and then you start a revolution and your civ is back again

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa on 04-02-2001 07:52 AM Instead of surrender, why not be part of the new empire as province holder? So the new leader gives you orders which you try to follow as best as you can.

Yes, I like this idea. It gives the almost-defeated player a way of staying in the game, and at the same time opens up all sorts of possibilities for making a come-back later on: he can bide his time, supplying troops for his overlord's wars, maybe (as an alternative to your suggestion) researching certain advances which will then be both his and his overlord's, and in other ways gaining favour; then when the time is ripe he can either revolt and regain his independence, as Lawrence suggested; or secretly sell out to an enemy civ, so that when they invade his territory he simply hands his cities over to them -- thus changing allegiance to the new civ (on better terms, of course!); OR, if he can build enough troops & spies, he can capture his overlord's capital city, which would be the equivalent of staging a coup: i.e., he's turned the tables on his conqueror and he now rules the whole empire!



------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".

[Maccabee2]

I wish to quote Chris 1111, as he made a number of excellent points:

"When playing against the AI how about their "personality" determines whether they'd surrender cities or not. For example: Chances are the aggressive militaristic Mongolian Hordes are NOT going to surrender and will fight you to the last man while a civilized expansionist like say the French would give up a city to save their people. This could also go hand in hand with the difficulty level on Diety chance of a civ surrendering anything would ofcourse be a lot less then chieftain.
What about having technology levels playing a part to? Wouldnt a civ with phalanx' and chariot units be more likely to give into a civ with tanks and bombers. The war could be considered hopeless and surrender really the only option.

IMO the cleanup time when you are rolling through an opponent who has no chance is really one of the most boring parts of a game and this could give you other options."
[This message has been edited by Chris1111 (edited March 25, 2001).]

I especially agree with his point about the "cleanup time." Having to finish off a civilization that is stubborn in the game but wouldn't be in real life is worse than boring. It's somnalizing.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Maccabee2 on 04-05-2001 10:11 PM I especially agree with his point about the "cleanup time." Having to finish off a civilization that is stubborn in the game but wouldn't be in real life is worse than boring. It's somnalizing.

This is a good point: and having that opponent surrender to you on condition that he stays on as provincial governor of his former territories -- and then without warning rebel against you -- would be the opposite of "somnalizing": maybe "galvanizing"?!