I cannot count the number of times I've played a game, gotten into a war allied with one person against another, and my strategy has been ruined by capitulation. I am using the latest and the unofficial patches, and I find it distressing that this hasn't been fixed, or even looked at from my recent experience.

I'm currently playing a continents map on Monarch as the Ottomans. I started on a continent with the Aztecs, everyone else is on a continent right next to me but still isolated. I destroy the Aztecs, which gives me an early lead since I have the continent to myself, albeit an isolated start.

When I get astronomy, I cross the channel to find the Byzantines about to declare war on the Mayans. They ask me if I'd like to join, and I say yes. Since I haven't been building ANY military units, I grab gunpowder and immediately start churning out Jannisaries. When I've got about a dozen- more than enough to take the first couple Mayan cities, I head over on my galleons.

As soon as the Jannisaries make landfall, of course, the Mayans capitulate under Justinian. My Janissaries are withdrawn and the war is over. I will also note that initially the mayans were my ally and Justinian's enemy, and I didn't even get a chance to capitulate them myself.

The solution doesn't seem that complicated... All parties need to be involved in peace negotiations. If Justinian wants to capitulate the Mayans, I've got to get something out of the treaty. Obviously, I have the option of simply declaring war on both the Mayans and the Byzantines when they pull stuff like this, but that's the ONLY option.

This is by far my number one complaint regarding beyond the sword, and it's not looking like Firaxis is ever going to change the mechanic. Is there some kind of "peace talk" mod?

If you want to prevent an enemy capitulating to another civilization, bribe the other civilization to peace. If you can spare a tech or a wad of gold for that, you will likely be able to fight the war out.

No that won't work. I just played a game as Charlemagne where I invaded India to get Dehli as a GP farm and WS shrine city. As I was about to take the only city left putting cultural pressure on Dehli, Gandhi capitulated to Mansa Musa. He wouldn't captiluate to me the turn before either.

All parties should be involved in negotiating captiulation only if its a team game or defensive pact. After WW2, our 'ally' Stalin vassalized all of eastern Europe and Russia has been a dick ever since.

Take extreme measures by turning of vassals altogether. It makes domination and conquest very difficult and diplo win practically impossible, but it also takes away the negatives, including your :gripe:

If you want to prevent an enemy capitulating to another civilization, bribe the other civilization to peace. If you can spare a tech or a wad of gold for that, you will likely be able to fight the war out.

That is a crude workaround, and sometimes civs are flat out unwilling to declare peace for any price, even when they're going to vassalize the enemy civ in the next turn.

All parties should be involved in negotiating captiulation only if its a team game or defensive pact. After WW2, our 'ally' Stalin vassalized all of eastern Europe and Russia has been a dick ever since.

I think WWII is a good example. Say that Germany invades France, taking most of their cities. Britain, however, is able to take a number of German cities with Germany distracted by France (I'm thinking in terms of civ here, not history). Germany offers Britain 1000 gold and capitulation, and Britain accepts. France has lost virtually all of its cities, after contributing massive military support to the war. They get no money, no cities, and their allies are now allied with the enemies that took their land.

This is all too common in civ games. I personally think "peace talks" involving all parties should be necessary to all conflicts- not just the ones involving permenent alliances. Treaty agreements ideally involve all three parties in a three-faction war- ALL the time.

With the current system, there are absolutely no ideal treaties because two factions can conspire even while they're at war. In the above example, Britain and Germany could have simply been conning France the whole time!

EDIT: I will note that the problem would be partially resolved if the AI would put more weight on the negative repercussions of vassalizing an enemy civ with whom an allied civ is at war. IMO, This should basically be considered an act of war by the allied civ. In a multiplayer game, you can work these things out in chat. In single-player, the AI needs to be competent

Take extreme measures by turning of vassals altogether. It makes domination and conquest very difficult and diplo win practically impossible, but it also takes away the negatives, including your :gripe:

I understand this is another solution, but I actually do like the concept of Vassals. I just think that when civ vassalizes another, it should really send shockwaves through that civ's diplomatic standing. As it is, they get a -1 "we dont like your vassals" modifier and everyone is forced to withdraw their troops from the vassal's country. Vassalizing my mortal enemies is at least -5 in my book...

world builder world builer world builder.
when something completely outrageous happens... WB.
seriously when im attacking somebody and im trying to take all their cities on my continent before making them my vassals..... and then my ally in the war vassalizes them first... i just go to WB and make him an independent nation again thru diplo screen and then continue on with my plans.

sure its cheating. but it relieves the frustration.

Take extreme measures by turning of vassals altogether. It makes domination and conquest very difficult and diplo win practically impossible, but it also takes away the negatives, including your :gripe:

Man I love that smily, it's hilarious. :lol:

Man I love that smily, it's hilarious. :lol:

Me too, especially the thumping part. I often feel like venting even the tiniest possible gripe just to put it in :gripe:

I cannot count the number of times I've played a game, gotten into a war allied with one person against another, and my strategy has been ruined by capitulation....



To paraphrase Anton Chigurh, if the strategy you followed brought you to this, of what use was the strategy?

Be aware that Civs at war have a tendency to surrender to the civ that has dealt them the most damage. If the Byz have already been at war with Maya, then ask you to join in, it's likely that the Mayans will surrender to the Byz first because the Byz have been fighting them for a while now. Be aware of that before you join the war.

....Since I haven't been building ANY military units, I grab gunpowder and immediately start churning out Jannisaries. When I've got about a dozen- more than enough to take the first couple Mayan cities, I head over on my galleons.

It sounds like the above situation was exacerbated by the fact that you didn't immediately begin an offensive against the Maya, but instead had to research gunpowder then begin a military build-up. This takes time, and since the Byz had clearly been planning a war against Maya, they started fighting on day one.



As soon as the Jannisaries make landfall, of course, the Mayans capitulate under Justinian. My Janissaries are withdrawn and the war is over. I will also note that initially the mayans were my ally and Justinian's enemy, and I didn't even get a chance to capitulate them myself.



That's rough, but those are the breaks. The lesson I'd take from this is: don't join someone else's war against your friend on a whim.


The solution doesn't seem that complicated... All parties need to be involved in peace negotiations. If Justinian wants to capitulate the Mayans, I've got to get something out of the treaty.


Why? Doesn't sound like your forces contributed much to the war effort. If you've grabbed a Mayan city or two, you still get to keep those, after all. As you pointed out, you could always declare war on both of them -- if you know what the Byz-Mayan force disposition is. (Which leads me to the next point in war preparation -- know what your enemy's forces look like before declaring war.)


This is by far my number one complaint regarding beyond the sword, and it's not looking like Firaxis is ever going to change the mechanic. Is there some kind of "peace talk" mod?


Solver has posted about possibly raising the AI's threshold for capitulation, making it more likely that the AI will continue to fight rather than capitulate. I am not sure that this is needed myself, but it isn't as if noone is talking about the issue, and in this case if the threshold had been raised, the AI might've kept fighting long enough for you to take a Mayan city or two. I think that changing the game mechanic to a more complex system for peace negotiations is unnecessary and will likely prove not worth the time necessary to script those changes.

Solver has posted about possibly raising the AI's threshold for capitulation, making it more likely that the AI will continue to fight rather than capitulate.

As I understand it, he's only thinking about raising it back to the 3.13 level. He seems to think that they're now capitulating too easily. I agree myself. I was already getting some civs to give in after only taking two cities with 3.1, how much easier can it get?

As I understand it, he's only thinking about raising it back to the 3.13 level. He seems to think that they're now capitulating too easily. I agree myself. I was already getting some civs to give in after only taking two cities with 3.1, how much easier can it get?

Well, although personally I haven't been convinced that 3.17 needs tweaking in this manner, my point was that it might alleviate dwhee's complaints and has the advantage of being more readily implementable rather than an entirely new diplomatic system

To be honest, I've never really had any problems with vassals especially with regard to Conquest or Domination wins.

But that's usually because the first wars were initiated by AI whom I then overwhelmed and I kept rolling my war machine onwards to victory.

If you want a vassal go out and get there yourself. Don't get outside help and don't join in someone else's war. Create your own war and create your own vassal.

I have had the unfortunate experience of going for a cultural victory (i.e. minimal military) once and accepting a vassal who was at war with two other AI and inadvertently declaring war. :lol: But I held my ground.

try vassalizing warmongers and after a while gift them military techs they would be really great distractions. btw if ever you join a war try your best not to vassalized that civ because this may lead your allies declaring war on you

Be aware that Civs at war have a tendency to surrender to the civ that has dealt them the most damage. If the Byz have already been at war with Maya, then ask you to join in, it's likely that the Mayans will surrender to the Byz first because the Byz have been fighting them for a while now. Be aware of that before you join the war.

The reason for this is that civs are able to capitulate under a civ that has been at war with them for a long time, not that they are more willing. Why would they be more willing? A civ rapes your land and takes your cities and that makes you want to be their vassal? The mayans should not base their decision of what civ to capitulate under on who dealt them the most damage. That just doesn't make sense.

In any case, the Byzantine AI should expect huge diplomatic repercussions from their actions and they don't. It would be ok if, when the Byzantines "allied" with the mayans, they expected me to view them both as enemies. However, wars never seem to follow capitulations, and they should. . .. .. .. . me if I'm just gonna let someone take control of my enemies cities that I was planning on conquering myself.

btw if ever you join a war try your best not to vassalized that civ because this may lead your allies declaring war on you

That's not true. If a civ capitulates then any other civ that you're at peace with stop their war and leave you in peace as well. The same thing applies if that civ capitulates to one of the other civs it's war with. Your campaign will suddenly come to an end and you'll be at peace with both the Master and the Vassal. The only time you end up at war with other civs is if you accept a civ who's voluntarily offering to become your vassal, and they're currently at war with someone else.

The reason for this is that civs are able to capitulate under a civ that has been at war with them for a long time, not that they are more willing. Why would they be more willing? A civ rapes your land and takes your cities and that makes you want to be their vassal? The mayans should not base their decision of what civ to capitulate under on who dealt them the most damage. That just doesn't make sense.


What? Of course it makes sense. From the perspective of the civ who's being attacked, the enemy that does the most damage is going to be the most dangerous. And it's not just based on logic, the game has been coded so that a civ is more likely to capitulate to the civ that's done the most damage.

After the Axemen rush, I try to avoid war until gunpowder - by then you have good siege units, and the AI have sorted out who is Vassal of who by 1500 AD (well, oftentimes!) so you know who you'll be fighting.

Of course, if you WANT Vassals, this isn't best advice.......

What? Of course it makes sense. From the perspective of the civ who's being attacked, the enemy that does the most damage is going to be the most dangerous. And it's not just based on logic, the game has been coded so that a civ is more likely to capitulate to the civ that's done the most damage.

Maybe it does... a bit. But I think it should be based on the overall power of the AI's enemies rather than a simple measure of how well they're faring in the war. I'm not sure how "power" is measured on the power chart I check so religiously, but that might be a good start. The reason is that capitulation is a long-term commitment, and shouldn't really have anything to do with the war, but rather the overall diplomatic situation.

Really, my objection is to the fact that AI's don't respond harshly enough to capitulation of their enemies, and in turn do not expect the human player to react harshly.

What I would like to be an option to immediately continue the war against, in this case, the Byzantines and the Mayans. The Byzantines should also recognize this as a distinct possibility if they vassalize my enemies, and should therefore be reluctant to do so.

The reason for this is that civs are able to capitulate under a civ that has been at war with them for a long time, not that they are more willing. Why would they be more willing? A civ rapes your land and takes your cities and that makes you want to be their vassal? The mayans should not base their decision of what civ to capitulate under on who dealt them the most damage. That just doesn't make sense...

In your example you weren't the aggressor, you were the band waggon jumper. If you started the war, got well into your conquest, and a third party joined in and took the capitulation, you'd be pretty mad that you'd hard earned prize was taken away by someone else. You're complaint is that you wanted to get a capitulated vassal without having to do the heavy lifting for it. That's the game-play reason. As for the making sense, the civ that did the most damage is the one most likely to do more damage. They're the ones the need the most protection from and who'd most likely be capable of protecting them and with you on another continent, you can't protect them from someone close to them. You're argument seems to be that they should hate them and want to capitulate to you because they like you more, but you declared war on them. How good a friend could you be if you declared war on them? Voluntary vassalage works on friendship, capitulation works on fear.

Maybe it does... a bit. But I think it should be based on the overall power of the AI's enemies rather than a simple measure of how well they're faring in the war. I'm not sure how "power" is measured on the power chart I check so religiously, but that might be a good start. The reason is that capitulation is a long-term commitment, and shouldn't really have anything to do with the war, but rather the overall diplomatic situation.
Voluntary vassalage goes by the overall diplomatic situation, capitulation is about surviving the next turn. If they don't capitulate there isn't any long-term issue to consider.

Really, my objection is to the fact that AI's don't respond harshly enough to capitulation of their enemies, and in turn do not expect the human player to react harshly.

What I would like to be an option to immediately continue the war against, in this case, the Byzantines and the Mayans. The Byzantines should also recognize this as a distinct possibility if they vassalize my enemies, and should therefore be reluctant to do so.
The AI does sometimes declare war on the one who accepted the capitulation of their target. It happened to me in a situation similar to yours, the difference being I did have an army ready and managed to do more damage that the other. I then successfully defended them from the other civ. That was how it was supposed to work. Also the AIs did react harshly to me taking their capitulation. I got "you've traded with our worst enemies" diplomatic modifiers with everyone after taking on this vassal and for a long time I wondered if it was worth the trouble for +1 happiness and not much else.
In your scenario, you weren't an aggressor, just an opportunist. You said you didn't build any units, capitalizing the word ANY. You weren't much of a threat. Now you say the AI should expect you to react harshly to them accepting the capitulation of your enemy, but by your own statement you weren't setting yourself of as a conquerer. There's no reason they should fear you. Even though you did build up an army, why would this conquerer and their veteran army fear you're hastily slapped together rookie army? If you can, then get back in those ships and take 'em down. Armies are expensive, so the one who builds one and uses it successfully is supposed to benefit. To the victor goes the spoils, and you didn't win the war by any definition. Now if the situation would reversed and you were the aggressive empire instead of the one joining in later would you be happy with the outcome? Would you really be making the case for it turning out differently? So really your expecting the situation to work out in your favour just 'cus. I only play single player and capitulation has been fine for me, whether it was in my favour or not.

In your example you weren't the aggressor, you were the band waggon jumper. If you started the war, got well into your conquest, and a third party joined in and took the capitulation, you'd be pretty mad that you'd hard earned prize was taken away by someone else. You're complaint is that you wanted to get a capitulated vassal without having to do the heavy lifting for it. That's the game-play reason. As for the making sense, the civ that did the most damage is the one most likely to do more damage. They're the ones the need the most protection from and who'd most likely be capable of protecting them and with you on another continent, you can't protect them from someone close to them. You're argument seems to be that they should hate them and want to capitulate to you because they like you more, but you declared war on them. How good a friend could you be if you declared war on them? Voluntary vassalage works on friendship, capitulation works on fear.


Voluntary vassalage goes by the overall diplomatic situation, capitulation is about surviving the next turn. If they don't capitulate there isn't any long-term issue to consider.


The AI does sometimes declare war on the one who accepted the capitulation of their target. It happened to me in a situation similar to yours, the difference being I did have an army ready and managed to do more damage that the other. I then successfully defended them from the other civ. That was how it was supposed to work. Also the AIs did react harshly to me taking their capitulation. I got "you've traded with our worst enemies" diplomatic modifiers with everyone after taking on this vassal and for a long time I wondered if it was worth the trouble for +1 happiness and not much else.
In your scenario, you weren't an aggressor, just an opportunist. You said you didn't build any units, capitalizing the word ANY. You weren't much of a threat. Now you say the AI should expect you to react harshly to them accepting the capitulation of your enemy, but by your own statement you weren't setting yourself of as a conquerer. There's no reason they should fear you. Even though you did build up an army, why would this conquerer and their veteran army fear you're hastily slapped together rookie army? If you can, then get back in those ships and take 'em down. Armies are expensive, so the one who builds one and uses it successfully is supposed to benefit. To the victor goes the spoils, and you didn't win the war by any definition. Now if the situation would reversed and you were the aggressive empire instead of the one joining in later would you be happy with the outcome? Would you really be making the case for it turning out differently? So really your expecting the situation to work out in your favour just 'cus. I only play single player and capitulation has been fine for me, whether it was in my favour or not.

Good points all, though it's hard to really communicate the exact situation I was in. Mostly because I haven't touched to game in question since this happened... I built SOME units. The only reason I had an "isolated start" was because I immediately demolished Montezuma at the start of the game (a strategy that I find works all too often against monty...)

And I also had contributed SOMETHING to the war- I just hadn't done everything I wanted to do.

Jumping on the bandwagon doesn't make me any less "at war" with someone. I'm pretty sure the only reason the Mayans wouldn't capitulate to me is because of the whole 10 turn thing.

And "-1 you have traded with our worst enemies" is not the kind of negative bonus I had in mind. Every time I've vassalized someone I've never seen a relations modifier less than -1 or -2, even if they absolutely despise my vassal.

This is how I would like to see it: (Vassal's power/Master's power)*(Relations with vassal)=(Modifier to relations with master)

Or what about this? A simple modifier anywhere from -4 or so to -10, that says "Our worst enemies are vassals to your empire!" that only occurs when you were at war with the vassalized faction. The modifier could be based off the power of the vassal, as well as the relations with the vassal at the time of capitulation (not good, considering the war).

This would make wars involving many parties very difficult to end in any other way besides domination, but I would like it. Not as much as a "peace talk" mod, but I would like it :)

I really do like the concept of capitulation and vassal states. Before it existed, I felt like domination victories were nigh impossible and not worth it, and I was a peacemonger in all of my games. I wasn't a huge fan of Warlords, but I do like the vassal mechanics in BtS. My problem, really, is that the AI just can't do enough diplomacy-wise, and as a result I usually end up going to war with someone that I'd rather not go to war with.

If the situation above were a multiplayer game, I could've colluded with Justinian to the point where we split up Maya between us, knowing that capitulation would be unfair either way. Regardless, even if Justinian had chosen to capitulate Maya, I would have at least been able to call him a douchebag. :goodjob:

See, here's the problem -- you're asking for there to be rules of what can/cannot be done while wrapping up the war. The good thing about Civ is that it doesn't have such rules. The diplomacy model is simple because it has to be -- the game is too broad, and the number of things the AI has to keep track of are too big to successfully manage a complex diplomatic system, too. Plus, I suspect there may be a bit of sour grapes in your suggestions, too... ;)

There is a game that does have a very interesting series of rules on diplomatic maneuvering, beginning and ending of wars that you might find more to your liking. It's called Pax Britannica, and is a simulation of world politics in the colonial era (1880-1916). You can read more about it here:

General: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1209
Rules: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/download/24545/Pax_4th_Ed._Rules_2nd_edition.doc
Designer's website: http://www.costik.com/pb.html

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone ever made a computer version of it. But you might be able to get a copy on eBay.

Here is what just happened to me. I attacked Sal with the idea of wiping him off the map. My rifle and cannon stack chugs through his best cities and I core him pretty bad. Now as he get weaker, France my good neighbor joins in univited, takes one city and then suddenly I am forced into peace with Sal while he still had 2 small cites left on the map. He vassalized to Degaulle now I have to deal with his former citizens longing to rejoin him or if I want him gone I have to fight France. My only choice would have been to vassalize him the turn before.

"Rapidity is the essence of war: take advantage of the enemy's unreadiness, make your way by unexpected routes, and attack unguarded spots."

--Sun Tzu, The Art of War (http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html)

...And "-1 you have traded with our worst enemies" is not the kind of negative bonus I had in mind. Every time I've vassalized someone I've never seen a relations modifier less than -1 or -2, even if they absolutely despise my vassal...

I had a "-4 you have traded with our worst enemies". Maybe that was because of aggressive AI.

Sometimes I see huge blocs forming. In a recent game, Shaka had vassalized 4-5 civilizations (out of 9 I think), many of which were not particularly weak. I managed to stay out of the incessant wars but it was bizarre seeing fairly strong civs cave one after another. Ultimately I lost, but it was a cultural victory that I could probably have prevented.

I do feel like the AI has a significant advantage over me in this way; I am probably just missing some little trick.

I had a "-4 you have traded with our worst enemies". Maybe that was because of aggressive AI.

See, even this doesn't seem like enough to me, and I rarely see modifiers this great. When civ A vassalizes civ B, and civ C is at war with civ B, civ A is offering protection to civ C's enemy. In my mind, that's worth a little more than -4.

I've thought about this a bit, and I still have a problem with the way capitulation works. If I were playing as the Byzantines in the situation described in my original post, and I was faced with the opportunity to capitulate the Mayans, I would consider it a valid strategy to drag other civs into my war with the Mayans.

It's going to take them a while to get enough troops to help in the war, and the moment I see them about to take a Mayan city, I capitulate the Mayans. I've just gotten 1 or more civs to divert their attention to a "folly" of sorts for a number of turns- that on its own is worth it. I know that the civs that were dragged into this folly won't respond harshly to this capitulation, even though technically I'm offering protection to their enemies, and keeping them from acquiring fresh new cities. In addition, they've got a bunch of new military units costing them upkeep that they didn't get a chance to use, and their economy is likely struggling from building an army without the usual conquest that follows.

In fact, I've noticed this happening more when I'm playing the role of the vassalizer, taking advantage of other civs to help in a war that I know won't yield much of an advantage to them.

This mechanic makes it hard for anything like "world wars," involving 3 or more factions, to ever take place. Or more accurately, it's a disincentive for joining the winning side, because you know that the winning side will capitulate the losing side before you get a chance to do so.

On the other hand, it's also a disincentive for joining the losing side! Obviously, you don't want to get stuck in a situation where your ally gets vassalized under your enemy, and then you've got 2 civs to deal with.

So it goes both ways. What this adds up to is an all around disincentive to getting involved with other people's conflicts. In my opinion, this needlessly limits the player's diplomatic options.

Which is why all factions need to be involved in declarations of peace. :p

My position stands. We need a peace talk mod. By the way, does anyone know if this already exists and I'm just ranting needlessly?

Thing with vassels is if you attack and make their guardian nation weaker they soon become a independent state again.

Take my current game that i have been playing really slowly.

I was attacking Spain who were next to Babylon. I knocked out Madrid and 2-3 smaller spanish cities. At this stage I dont think I had Feudalism. With the Spanish having 1-2 cities on another land mass and 2-3 cities tucked away on edge of continent I declared peace. Few turns later the Spanish were vassels to Babylon. In fact this may have been the reason for the peace. (I forget)

After 2-3 wars later with Babylon and their lovely capital falling to me the Spanish nation have now renounced the Baylonian and are independent again.
Babylon with 6-7 or so cities is now my vassel with its empire carved into two seperate parts.

During the whole of the wars with Babylon the Spanish did nothing to attack me. They are vassels for a reason!!

My point is if you reduce the party everyone is capitulating to you soon have many independent states.

I usually feel a great sense of achievment whenever I take on the guy who has 1-3 vasals and kill him off. Then I vassal his vassals:king: