'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.

[wittlich]

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.