Surrendering

[Nubclear]

Why not impliment surrendering in Civ?

Sometimes I decide "why not give them what they want?" when I'm losing a war (because im doing fairly well except on the war front) but they wont acknowledge my envoy.

I'd really like to be able to surrender. It's fairly annoying having your entire civ destroyed because you didnt give them a tech which you were willing to give later. After spending all that time, I just dont want to play again for a few days.

But thats just me. Anyway, what does everyone think of this idea?

[Bambul]

I could see this working in the same way that France surrendered to Germany in 1940. Germany annexed a large part of France and a French government remained, but Franco-German relations were very friendly.

Cities flipping back to the surrendering Civ would be the main problem, but it seems that flipping problems are not restricted to just hyothetical situations like this one.

[Solver]

You will always be able to communiciate with an AI before you get destroyed at least once. But yes, there were wars when I was ready to give anything for peace.

[NeoStar]

And vice versa - sometimes an AI attacks you and you beat them back, it would be good if they'd just surrender some of their territory and act submissive instead of force you to destroy them due to the threat.

I hate the 'I wont acknowledge your envoy' either. It seems way too petty-we're talking nations here not a dummy spit between ole 'Abe' and 'Cleo'l! I know civ is a game but even during WW2 diplomacy went on (not that they agreed on anything)

[Solver]

And vice versa - sometimes an AI attacks you and you beat them back, it would be good if they'd just surrender some of their territory and act submissive instead of force you to destroy them due to the threat.

It does... you can sometimes ask for a few cities and have them.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Solver

And vice versa - sometimes an AI attacks you and you beat them back, it would be good if they'd just surrender some of their territory and act submissive instead of force you to destroy them due to the threat.

It does... you can sometimes ask for a few cities and have them.

Ive never gotten more than one (well, two in my Russia-China vs. US scenario...but that doesnt count)

[Iskandar Reza]

I'd really love it if you can beat the AI into submission like in SMAC/X. I love having vassal states.

[NeoStar]

Originally posted by Solver
It does... you can sometimes ask for a few cities and have them.

Yeah, I got one, after I captured/lost it several times (mid age). A 'few' sounds impossible. It hardly got rid of the threat (with the treaty) and the civ in question didn't tone down. I had to annhilate it in the end to get peace

well, two in my Russia-China vs. US scenario...but that doesnt count

Hmm, that sounds an interesting scn. I've been only looking at historical since the patch, haven't thought about future yet...

[vondrack]

Originally posted by NeoStar
Yeah, I got one, after I captured/lost it several times (mid age). A 'few' sounds impossible. It hardly got rid of the threat (with the treaty) and the civ in question didn't tone down. I had to annhilate it in the end to get peace

I had a situation where Liz was willing to give me all but her capital and one more city (4 cities altogether) to leave her be.

However, it is quite rare, usually most you can get is one small city with no real importance... but for me, no city is unimportant enough...

[Sonic]

If they desn't wants to give you right to speak that means they also don't want you to surrender. Not always in history the winning side accepted surrender without annexing the losing side

[Arrian]

Firaxis made changes to the original game in order to curb certain exploits. One of them was the "go to war for a couple of turns, take 2-3 cities, get all tech/gold/maps and a few more cities for peace... and repeat over and over." The AI would just keep giving in. So now you get the "refuse to acknowledge" message for about 5 turns at the beginning of a war. After that, they will usually talk to you. If you've fought before, or if you've been razing cities and such, they may not talk until you're really beating on them.

I agree, conceptually, that vassal states would be cool... though you can (kinda) do that already. If you have a large advantage in power, call up a civ and renegotiate your peace treaty with them. NOTE: this will not work with the top 2 AI's. You may be surprised at how much peace with you is worth to them. Gold and tech may come your way... but not cities, as Aeson demonstrated the power of that exploit spectacularly (a Diety game where he won via domination with almost no warfare). If you have a civ paying you gold per turn so you won't kill them, I'd call them a vassal.

-Arrian

[Iskandar Reza]

Cool, didn't know that was possible.

Oh, Ghandi! I'd like to have a word with you...

[Denday]

In the roman empire did they accept submission ?
did the mongols

[NeoStar]

Originally posted by Arrian
Firaxis made changes to the original game in order to curb certain exploits...
-Arrian

Hmm...You're right - maybe the 'I wont acknowledge your envoy' is important, thinking back to civ2.

Originally posted by Denday
In the roman empire did they accept submission ?
did the mongols

True, in early ages diplomacy went all to hell. I should instead say those diplomacy changes should come into effect in the ind/mod age to relfect the times as it becomes more important. I suppose they look different, but they don't really change

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by NeoStar
I hate the 'I wont acknowledge your envoy' either. It seems way too petty-we're talking nations here not a dummy spit between ole 'Abe' and 'Cleo'l! I know civ is a game but even during WW2 diplomacy went on (not that they agreed on anything)

I remember those days fondly, Churchill setting down for tea with his pal Adoph.