Just wanted to continue the discussion from the original thread about capitulation threshold. Solver had mentioned that he didn't like the current level, as in a game he was recently playing, the AI capitulated after losing only one or two cities.

On the other hand, I am currently playing a game (prince level, 9 civs, normal speed, standard map size, tectonics map, 60% water), and I actually thought that AI capitulation was more or less occurring at the right levels. I took three cities from Louis in a war, after which he offered to capitulate (which I accepted). Montezuma capitulated (to Wang Kong) after losing several cities in a war against Egypt and Korea. At the same time, I ended up fighting a protracted war against Saladin, taking several cities from him (mostly ones from the rotting carcass of Egypt,) and he did not capitulate. Similarly, a war against Korea in which I took two cities from Korea has not resulted in a premature capitulation (in fact, he is demanding the return of one of those cities as the price of peace.)

In terms of the power graph, France was way down when they offered to capitulate to me (ditto Monty to Wang Kon). But Saladin has continually been high in the power graph, and Wang and I are neck-and-neck in terms of power. Basically, I'm just not seeing much anamolous behavior....but of course, I only have one or two 3.17 games under my belt right now.

It's also my view that capitulation should happen a little more often than it was under 3.13. There isn't much point in having the option available if you pretty much have to crush an enemy down to one or two cities in order to get them to surrender -- might as well just finish them off completely. So I don't see anything wrong with a civ offering to surrender even after only losing two cities, say, if the power imbalance is great enough. (Depending on leader flavor at least. Stalin should be much more reluctant to surrender than, say, Gandhi.)

The only anomalous AI behavior I've seen so far is that of Egypt. Hattie had capitulated to Saladin, and so I ended up at war with her, too, in my war against the Arabs. As a result, I ended up taking several of her cities along the way. When she was down to one city, she broke off from Saladin....then, in the same turn, agreed to become a voluntary vassal of Saladin. Odd.

Interested in hearing others' thoughts.

I like the capitulation levels in the 3.17 patch. Especially the voluntary acceptace of being a vassal. The computer seems much smarter about becoming someone else's puppet as a matter of convenience when he's weak. Then, he'll break away when he no longer needs big brother.

It may be annoying, but I think it's a smarter way for the AI to play, rather than waiting to capitulate (or become a vassal) when he's almost killed-off. It's too late to make a come-back after that.

I really think the unofficial patch should only address things that are broken. Capitulation isn't broken, it just occurs more easily. Design-intent.

Thanks for starting the thread, this is one I wanted up.

Two notes, Woody. Design intent isn't as simple as intended or not intended. What is intended is to make capitulation easier than 3.13. But the exact threshold is tricky, you can't be assured that the threshold that 3.17 ended up with is as intended... from my experience, similar thresholds take a lot of tweaking to get right. And secondly, becoming a vassal voluntarily is a different issue. Voluntary vassalage and capitulation have different logic, and it's only capitulation I have some concerns about.

Fair enough. I seldom accept capitulation, so it doesn't really affect the human player directly.

How is it a problem with AI interaction, though? Is the concern that the AI will form a large empire of capitulated vassals too easily? I haven't really noticed that in 3.17, yet.

Pretty much yes, it might enable an AI to gain a couple of capitulated vassals too easily. The worst I've seen so far is a 12-city civ capitulating after losing some initial ground. Not great for humans, either, if the AI can tempt them into capitulation very quickly.

I seldom accept capitulation, so it doesn't really affect the human player directly.


You mean it doesn't affect you too much. Please don't speak for all of us on this issue. I purposely try to get a civ to capitulate to me when going to war, it saves from having to wage a long and protracted campaign.

As for my opinion on the subject, I was seeing civs capitulate in 3.13 after only losing a couple of cities so I don't really understand why Firaxis felt the need to make it even easier. Maybe a few of the civs could use a bit of tweaking, the more stubborn ones, but on the whole I thought it was just fine the way it was.

Pretty much yes, it might enable an AI to gain a couple of capitulated vassals too easily. The worst I've seen so far is a 12-city civ capitulating after losing some initial ground. Not great for humans, either, if the AI can tempt them into capitulation very quickly.

Hi Solver -- just curious, what was the power graph comparison between the capitulating power and the master power? And what size map? (12 cities is impressive on a standard map, but less so on higher maps.)

You mean it doesn't affect you too much. Please don't speak for all of us on this issue. I purposely try to get a civ to capitulate to me when going to war, it saves from having to wage a long and protracted campaign.



I meant exactly what I said. A lower capitulation threshold does not affect the human player. You are never forced to accept a capitulation offer. If you want to take advantage of the lower threshold, then it's completely optional for you to do so. (If you like the way it was in 3.13, then don't accept capitulate until you've mostly wiped them out.)

I'm not very interested in changes that are optional to the human player. I'm more interested in how the capitulation threshold affects the other AI players, because that is something the human player has no control over.

I meant exactly what I said. A lower capitulation threshold does not affect the human player. You are never forced to accept a capitulation offer. If you want to take advantage of the lower threshold, then it's completely optional for you to do so. (If you like the way it was in 3.13, then don't accept capitulate until you've mostly wiped them out.)

Don't be absurd. By the same logic, Corporations, say, don't affect the human player, because you don't have to build them.

Hi Solver -- just curious, what was the power graph comparison between the capitulating power and the master power? And what size map? (12 cities is impressive on a standard map, but less so on higher maps.)

The master had considerably higher power. Which may be part of the problem. The master in this case was a Qin Shihuangdi AI that already had two vassals. The victim was Hannibal. I attacked Hannibal, took a couple of small island outposts and had just landed on his main continent when Qin joined the war. After losing two cities on the main landmass, which left Hannibal with 12, he capitulated to Qin. My concern here is the snowball effect - Qin needed remarkably little effort to gain a fairly powerful vassal, he already had a couple of vassals, which scared Hannibal.

I meant exactly what I said. A lower capitulation threshold does not affect the human player. You are never forced to accept a capitulation offer. If you want to take advantage of the lower threshold, then it's completely optional for you to do so. (If you like the way it was in 3.13, then don't accept capitulate until you've mostly wiped them out.)

This thread isn't about the option, it's about the capitulation threshold.

And yes, the capitulation threshold affects the human player, because it affects gameplay.

The master had considerably higher power. Which may be part of the problem. The master in this case was a Qin Shihuangdi AI that already had two vassals. The victim was Hannibal. I attacked Hannibal, took a couple of small island outposts and had just landed on his main continent when Qin joined the war. After losing two cities on the main landmass, which left Hannibal with 12, he capitulated to Qin. My concern here is the snowball effect - Qin needed remarkably little effort to gain a fairly powerful vassal, he already had a couple of vassals, which scared Hannibal.

Isn't that exactly what should happen, if the AI behaved like a human player in a multi-player game? He's weak, he's suddenly ganged up by two strong opponents. If he fights on, he's going to be wiped out. Much better to capitulate to the strongest player, and hope to regain independence later in the game if things change.

IMO, a lower capitulation threshold seems to result in a civilization being able to survive. Isn't that a good thing?

A lower capitulation threshold does not affect the human player. You are never forced to accept a capitulation offer. If you want to take advantage of the lower threshold, then it's completely optional for you to do so.
Unfortunately if you don't accept a capitulation offer, someone else may. This changes the dynamic of the game completely as you may not want to go to war with an ally or the power block represented by the new master and its allies...so the early offer of capitulation is often a use it or lose it proposition.

Don't be absurd. By the same logic, Corporations, say, don't affect the human player, because you don't have to build them.


Your logic is non-sequitur.

If you want to compare my example to corporations, then the appropriate analogy would be if the tech-requirements for corporations was lowered to something like civil-service. Thus, you could build them much earlier. If you didn't like that, you could simply refuse to build them until later in the game. It doesn't affect the human player unless you choose to take advantage of the lower limit. (And before you start talking about the AI doing it, I'm only talking about the human player.)

So, my concern is not how capitulation limits affect the human player, because you can always refuse. Don't like it? Then don't accept. I don't need a patch to be my nanny.

I'm far more concerned with how the changes affect the AI, as already discussed in the posts above. There, it really could affect gameplay, because the human player can't control the interactions between the AIs.

The master had considerably higher power. Which may be part of the problem. The master in this case was a Qin Shihuangdi AI that already had two vassals. The victim was Hannibal. I attacked Hannibal, took a couple of small island outposts and had just landed on his main continent when Qin joined the war. After losing two cities on the main landmass, which left Hannibal with 12, he capitulated to Qin. My concern here is the snowball effect - Qin needed remarkably little effort to gain a fairly powerful vassal, he already had a couple of vassals, which scared Hannibal.


I confess, this doesn't trouble me that much. It sounds like Hannibal was weak and cut the best deal he could under the circumstances. I speculate that Qin may also have torn the heart out of Hannibal's army, too, since he was attacking directly into Hannibal's core cities, and not the fringe like your troops were. It wasn't like Hannibal lost only two cities -- he lost several cities to you AND Qin, and then surrendered to Qin. (Plus, you're right, Qin probably looked more frightening...but then again, that only makes Hannibal's decision to capitulate more sensible, no?)

Just curious, do you have a save game? It would be interesting to see how it played out.

So, my concern is not how capitulation limits affect the human player, because you can always refuse.

I'm not quite sure, but I sometimes have the situation that I am waging war on a civilization. I am intending to capture their cities, therefore I do not go for capitulation... and then the civ I invaded capitulates to a third civilization which declared war on it as well, preventing me from capturing their cities.

However, I cannot say if at a given time a civ would offer to capitulate to two different civs, or if it can only offer to capitulate to one civ at a time. I know there should be some code to encourage it to capitulate to the civ who damaged it most, but I'm not sure if it's just a tendency or a necessity.

To me, this would be one example where a lower capitulation threshold might affect the human player, as enemies might be more willing to capitulate to a third party - so it's really not just your choice as a player.

Bes Regards,
Ace

I don't have a save from that game anymore, but you guys have a good point, looking at it from the "best deal to survive" perspective. Hmm. I guess my problem is that it does sometimes result in really short wars - capitulation occurs when you think the action has just started.

Interestingly, in my case, I captured Hannibal's cities. Qin killed many of his units but I'm pretty sure I did more damage overall, and the AI is supposed to prefer capitulating to whoever did the most damage, which I think is a good feature.

(If you like the way it was in 3.13, then don't accept capitulate until you've mostly wiped them out.)


As I mentioned, I was already able to capitulate a civ after capturing only two cities in 3.13. So it must now be ridiculously easy to make them cave in.

So, my concern is not how capitulation limits affect the human player, because you can always refuse. Don't like it? Then don't accept. I don't need a patch to be my nanny.


You can't always refuse a capitulation offer because if you do, your enemy is going to turn to some other civ in order to gain protection, especially now with a lower threshold. The thing that will prevent that from happening is there's no civ that's willing to join in the war against you, which generally doesn't happen very often.

I'm not quite sure, but I sometimes have the situation that I am waging war on a civilization. I am intending to capture their cities, therefore I do not go for capitulation... and then the civ I invaded capitulates to a third civilization which declared war on it as well, preventing me from capturing their cities.



Are you certain you can't keep attacking a civ that capitulates to a 3rd party? Why can't you just declare war on the 3rd party, and keep on rolling? Or are you forced into 10 turns of peace?

I don't have a save from that game anymore, but you guys have a good point, looking at it from the "best deal to survive" perspective. Hmm. I guess my problem is that it does sometimes result in really short wars - capitulation occurs when you think the action has just started.

Interestingly, in my case, I captured Hannibal's cities. Qin killed many of his units but I'm pretty sure I did more damage overall, and the AI is supposed to prefer capitulating to whoever did the most damage, which I think is a good feature.

From my perspective, one complaint I had with capitulation was that it always seemed like I'd be pounding on AI civs to the point where they only had one or two cities left (on a standard-sized map), beyond the point where the outcome was in doubt before they'd surrender. So I feel more comfortable with the way things are now.

I agree that the player who does the most damage should have first shot at accepting capitulation, and if the AI didn't do it, this is something worth looking at.

Although.....were you checking to see if Hannibal was ready to surrender? I miss those things sometimes.... I know there's some mod someplace that gives you a pop-up when your war enemy is ready to surrender. I may have to start using it.

Why can't you just declare war on the 3rd party, and keep on rolling?

Because that third civ might be much stronger than you, especially now with the lower threshold, since he/she might already have two or three vassals in tow. When I'm in a conquering spree, I generally go after the weaker civs in order to build up my power base against a stronger opponent. That may not be possible anymore if my enemy is going to cave into some third party.

From my perspective, one complaint I had with capitulation was that it always seemed like I'd be pounding on AI civs to the point where they only had one or two cities left (on a standard-sized map), beyond the point where the outcome was in doubt before they'd surrender.

That generally only happens if you wait for them to make the offer. Approach them everytime you capture a city and you'll find that they will capitulate much earlier. Perhaps an option might be to have the civ you're attacking contact you the moment they're ready to cave in, rather than forcing you to make the offer first.

From my perspective, one complaint I had with capitulation was that it always seemed like I'd be pounding on AI civs to the point where they only had one or two cities left (on a standard-sized map), beyond the point where the outcome was in doubt before they'd surrender. So I feel more comfortable with the way things are now.

Yeah, good point. Though intuitively, based on history, capitulation seems like something that would happen when there's no doubt of the outcome anymore.

Although.....were you checking to see if Hannibal was ready to surrender? I miss those things sometimes.... I know there's some mod someplace that gives you a pop-up when your war enemy is ready to surrender. I may have to start using it.

That might just have been a silly me situation. It's quite possible that he was willing to surrender at that point, I probably wasn't checking because he still had a good chunk of his empire up and running.

Because that third civ might be much stronger than you, especially now with the lower threshold, since he/she might already have two or three vassals in tow. When I'm in a conquering spree, I generally go after the weaker civs in order to build up my power base against a stronger opponent. That may not be possible anymore if my enemy is going to cave into some third party.

So, it seems like you're complaining that the AI is acting smarter now.

It doesn't make much sense for the AI to wait until it's almost dead before surrendering to the strongest player. I kind of like the easier capitulation threshold now. It makes the AI act a little smarter, like it wants to survive.

I also find that voluntary vassals are a lot more common now, in addition to breaking off the agreement. I like that, as it makes it more difficult to pick on the low-hanging-fruit.

Yeah, good point. Though intuitively, based on history, capitulation seems like something that would happen when there's no doubt of the outcome anymore.


I guess it depends what era you're looking at. In the post-WW2 world, you're absolutely right. The incentives are there -- both in terms of politics, and in terms of readily available and improvised military equipment -- for a seemingly out-classed country/group to keep fighting even after their regular army has been devastated in a set-piece battle. But a lot of countries gained huge empires in the past by simply showing up with a small army with the "high-tech" edge, trouncing the local armies in a whirlwind campaign, then co-opting a few local leaders to keep the people in line. (Thinking here of British India or the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs.)


That brings up another interesting thought....I know that War Weariness increases as the eras go on. It would be an interesting feature if AI civs were less likely to capitulate in the modern/future era than in the past, especially after mass media is discovered. (Not something that should be addressed here, just an idea.)


That might just have been a silly me situation. It's quite possible that he was willing to surrender at that point, I probably wasn't checking because he still had a good chunk of his empire up and running.


In a 3.13 + Bhruic game several months ago, I managed to get Ragnar to capitulate after only taking one or two of his cities. He had a huge empire, but after nuking a couple of his stacks and taking his capital, he agreed to quit fighting. I ended up having to give back his capital -- I didn't feel like garrisoning it. I think his land are was something like 110% of mine. (And no, it wasn't on Chieftan level, either....)

So, it seems like you're complaining that the AI is acting smarter now.

No not at all. I'm only saying that if I was seeing civs cave after only losing two cities before, how much easier can it be now? Probably too easy. I haven't actually played a game with the new patch yet so I can't be entirely positive, but I felt that it was fine just the way it was. With maybe just some minor tweaks on some of the more stubborn civs.

It doesn't make much sense for the AI to wait until it's almost dead before surrendering to the strongest player.

And as I've mentioned several times now, that usually only happened if you waited until the civ approached you with an offer of capitulation. There were a few stubborn civs that would rather have died than cave in, but I'm guessing even those holdouts are gone now, making conquest/domination something of a cakewalk. I can't be certain not having played a game yet, but from what I've been reading that is indeed the case.

And as I've mentioned several times now, that usually only happened if you waited until the civ approached you with an offer of capitulation.

This was not always the case under 3.13.

No not at all. I'm only saying that if I was seeing civs cave after only losing two cities before, how much easier can it be now? Probably too easy. I haven't actually played a game with the new patch yet so I can't be entirely positive, but I felt that it was fine just the way it was. With maybe just some minor tweaks on some of the more stubborn civs.



Try playing a 3.17 game. I haven't seen any capitulation that was done prematurely.

Maybe it was a particular civilization that capitulated in your 3.13 game too easily. Ghandi or someone wussy like that? Different leaders have different tolerances for things.

This was not always the case under 3.13.

There were some civs that were more stubborn than others, but I think that's a good thing. Capitulation shouldn't be assured, it would make the game too predictable if all civs gave in after a short campaign. Overall I didn't find it all that hard to make an opponent cave in, as long as I made the effort to contact him/her. If I waited for them to make the offer, then yes you might end up with a useless vassal, but that was seldom the case in most of my games.

Maybe it was a particular civilization that capitulated in your 3.13 game too easily. Ghandi or someone wussy like that? Different leaders have different tolerances for things.

Are you even reading my posts? I've been saying all along that there a certain leaders that are more stubborn than others. I even said it in that quote you're using. And no, it wasn't just "wussy" leaders that were caving after losing only a couple of cities. The Aggressive leaders were more stubborn, especially Monty and Shaka, but the rest usually gave up fairly quickly.

Are you even reading my posts? I've been saying all along that there a certain leaders that are more stubborn than others. I even said it in that quote you're using. And no, it wasn't just "wussy" leaders that were caving after losing only a couple of cities. The Aggressive leaders were more stubborn, especially Monty and Shaka, but the rest usually gave up fairly quickly.


Shrug. You did state that you haven't even played a 3.17 game yet. So, I'm not really sure why you're complaining about something you haven't even tried.

Shrug. You did state that you haven't even played a 3.17 game yet. So, I'm not really sure why you're complaining about something you haven't even tried.

Woody1,
You seem to like telling people to stop complaining. Even if it's true a player hasn't used the 3.17 patch, it doesn't make their opinion invalid. I didn't get the impression Willem was complaining and he (or she) usually makes posts I find worthwhile reading.

As for my impressions with 3.17, I found it a bit worrying that in a Final Frontier game, fairly early in the game before anyone had gone to war two civs came to me on the same turn asking to be my vassal. This has nothing to do with the capitulation threshold but I had never seen that before and I'm pretty sure the code there is very similar to how it works in the unmoded game.

Yes, I've noticed that voluntary vassals are much more common with 3.17. But they also break off the arrangement just as easily. Seems like an alliance of convenience, which is smart if the AI player is weak and needs protection.

I'm not really sure what benefit if offers the master. Cheap trades? A bit more happiness? Perhaps the masters accept a bit too easily.

P.S. I'm not telling people to stop complaining. I'd just like someone to actually try playing the game before complaining. Is that too much to ask? It's like someone saying they don't like strawberries, before even trying one.

P.S. I'm not telling people to stop complaining. I'd just like someone to actually try playing the game before complaining. Is that too much to ask? It's like someone saying they don't like strawberries, before even trying one.
off topic:
Well I appreciate the attempt at an analogy but it doesn't really suit. For example I think it is fair to complain about a feature one thought was borderline broken before if a patch has pushed it more in the broken direction. Here one would not have to have played the game to argue it is undesirable. So really it's more like saying you don't like really really green bananas because you already don't like barely green bananas. I don't like green bananas by the way! :lol:

Also, there may be forces preventing someone from playing the game for much time (if at all) since the patch and I don't think this is enough grounds to exclude them from discussion about changes in a patch. Especially for people with a lot of experience playing the game, opinions and arguments are still valuable.

But yes, if someone complains about something with no evidence or basis whatsoever there is something wrong.

Anyway, enough going off topic for me for today.

Shrug. You did state that you haven't even played a 3.17 game yet. So, I'm not really sure why you're complaining about something you haven't even tried.

First of all, I'm not complaining. I'm merely stating my opinion that the capitulation threshold was an unnecessary change. If I had already found that many civs capitulated easily in 3.13 then I can only surmise that it might be too easy now, without ever having to play the game. That's called a logical assumption. I'm not exactly sure of what Firaxis has changed in regards to capitulation, but that doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to be concerned about it. If it was only some minor tweaks with some of the more stubborn civs, that's fine. But if it's a global adjustment that affects all civs, then I don't agree with it. If I was able to capitulate civs like Churchill, Boudica, Sitting Bull and others after only taking a few of their cities, then it's going to be too much of a cakewalk now if that's the case. I'm not a coder and so can't see the changes for myself, and so far no one has really explained what was altered in the DLL. So all I can do is be concerned about the issue.

Are you certain you can't keep attacking a civ that capitulates to a 3rd party?
I suppose you're now going to argue that having an AI civ declare war on him/her doesn't affect the human player either?

Try playing a 3.17 game. I haven't seen any capitulation that was done prematurely.I have played 3.17 for quite some time now. I was happier with the threshold 3.13 had.

That being said I still love Firaxis.

I suppose you're now going to argue that having an AI civ declare war on him/her doesn't affect the human player either?

Ummm... no, I was simply asking a question. He said that he can't continue a war if his enemy capitulates to another player. I want to know if that's really true. If so, that does present a problem.

BTW, please read what I write and not take things out of context. I have always stated that the interaction between the AI players is the real area of concern.

Yes, I stated that what the AI offers to the human doesn't really bother me, because I can always refuse. But DO NOT take that statement out of context. The capitulation threshold is a concern to me, because it also affects the AIs. (I'm undecided if it's good or bad, but so far in my playing it hasn't been a problem.)

Hello Woody,

to answer your question

a) I am forced to peace
b) I can declare war again immediately when my turn starts
c) I will thereby be at war not only with the vassal civ, but the master, too.
d) due to the short period of peace, all my units currently on the territory of the civ I had been attacking will be bounced beyond the borders. This often means that I lose a few turns to capturing enemy cities, as my units have to advance again through their territory.

Best Regards,
Ace

Ah, okay, the bouncing your units outside of his borders does sound like a problem.

The AI capitulating to another civ sounds like a smart thing for it to do, but it shouldn't delay your attacks on the vassal.

IMO, what should happen is that you should automatically go to war with the new master of that civ, and your units should stay where they are. (Except for any units in the master's territory, which should get bounced because you're now at war with him too.)

Also, the "you declared war on me" diplomatic penalty should be a hit on the master, not you. (I realize that humans don't get these penalty, but "you" could be another AI, since this doesn't have to happen to a human player.)

So there does seem to be a problem with how the capitulations are done. That has nothing to do with the threshold, but I guess the problem is seen more often now.

Thanks for the info.

IMO, the fix should be to force a war with the master. If he knew a war with you was the result, he may be less willing to accept a capitulation.

Why not create 2 versions of the unofficial patch: one with 3.17 capitulation threshold, and one with 3.13 capitulation threshold? Let everybody play around with both versions for a while and then vote on which version to keep.

I, for one, prefer a lower capitulation threshold. My experience with 3.13 is that civs refuse to surrender when they are clearly beaten.

And for the historical Qin Shihuang, several states capitulated to Qin even when they can still fight on. The last surviving state of Qi especially, surrendered without even fighting. Qi was a large state with substantial resources and can probably withstand Qin's onslaught for quite a while.

Hello Woody,

the behaviour you proposed occurs when the AI civ becomes a voluntary vassal of another civ.

I have to admit that this is difficult to handle. Personally, I do think that the current capitulation behaviour, where you are forced to peace, is usually the most sensible thing.

Example: You have a defensive pact with Civ A, and Civ B declares war on you. The defensive pact steps in, and A declares war on B. Now you and A are at war with B. Suppose you are winning, and conquering their cities. B wants to surrender to you, but you refuse. Therefore, B surrenders to A.

If the default result was that this causes you to declare war on A, this would be a bit strage... since he was your former war ally. Of course you could create an example were it does make sense to go to war with A, but that's something you can always do manually as a player, while sueing for peace manually is much more difficult, not to mention the diplomatic penalties.

So I guess the game designers just thought that having your units bounced once is acceptable, and - considering the alternatives - I am inclined to agree.

Best Regards,
Ace

Well, it would be nice to get a choice when that happens.

(1) "Declare peace with the new vassal, because his master is your faithful friend."

(2) "Declare war on the disrespectful new master of your sworn enemy."


It just seems odd that you're forced into (1). Let's say the US was fighting Iraq, and then Iraq decided to become a vassal to Russia. Does it then make sense that the US would automatically have to pull out all its forces from Iraq, before declaring war on Russia & Iraq? And would Russia accept Iraq as a puppet state if it was involved in a war with another country?

It just seems odd that you're forced into (1). Let's say the US was fighting Iraq, and then Iraq decided to become a vassal to Russia. Does it then make sense that the US would automatically have to pull out all its forces from Iraq, before declaring war on Russia & Iraq? And would Russia accept Iraq as a puppet state if it was involved in a war with another country?

But the situation you're describing here is what happens if Iraq were to voluntarily become Russia's vassal. If both countries are at war with Iraq, then as soon as Iraq capitulates, the war is essentially over, the common enemy of both nations has been eliminated. It's the same sort of thing that happend in WW2. The US and Russia didn't automatically become enemies just because they both controlled parts of Germany. Same thing with England and the US against Japan. It just wouldn't make sense for what you're suggesting to occur.

Well, it would be nice to get a choice when that happens.

(1) "Declare peace with the new vassal, because his master is your faithful friend."

(2) "Declare war on the disrespectful new master of your sworn enemy."

It just seems odd that you're forced into (1).
I believe the real reason is to be able to keep the code clean.

I mean, you can always accomplish (2) by accepting (1) and then DoWing the new master...

Let's say the US was fighting Iraq, and then Iraq decided to become a vassal to Russia. Does it then make sense that the US would automatically have to pull out all its forces from Iraq, before declaring war on Russia & Iraq?
I think a far more probable scenario would be that the Americans would gnash their teeth, clench their fists, complain to the UN, but withdraw their troops peacefully, not wanting to risk a World War III with Russia over anything as insignificant as Iraq...

And would Russia accept Iraq as a puppet state if it was involved in a war with another country?
Which country? In your example, Russia was at peace when it accepted Iraq as vassal.


Anyway, the Iraq example is I think flawed for a completely different, and much more important, reason: the civs you see in any game of Civilization are all supposed to be major powers. Local countries, like Iraq, Canada or Denmark :lol: would not be represented as individual civs. In early eras, they might be represented by settled barbarians perhaps.

Read up on the partitions of Poland or the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and you'll realize that there's a separate set of rules of conduct that applies to Major powers. The Ottoman Empire might have been weak when it was on its last legs, but even the risk of it allying with any other major power was considered a severe setback for any Power involved in a war against it.

For your example to be really appropriate, you'd have to extend Iraq to something more, perhaps a "Pan-Arabic Bloc" - and even that might not be enough. In 1900 civilizations on a map of Europe would have been England, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Russia and Turkey.

In 2000 civilizations on a Terra map would perhaps include the US, Russia, China, India, Brazil, and the EU. Not Iraq. Of course, if you run the map script for 50 civs, then this breaks down somewhat.

And if the US were at war with China or Brazil, and they were losing, and turned to the protection of India or the EU (!), sure as hell the US would have broken off the war immediately. Besides, after thinking about the military situation as the US Prez, you can always resume hostilities (DoWing India or the EU in this case, but going after the original target) after ten turns... :cool:

Why not create 2 versions of the unofficial patch: one with 3.17 capitulation threshold, and one with 3.13 capitulation threshold? Let everybody play around with both versions for a while and then vote on which version to keep.

I, for one, prefer a lower capitulation threshold. My experience with 3.13 is that civs refuse to surrender when they are clearly beaten.
Personally, I think the answer would be something inbetween 3.13 and 317 on capitulation threshold. Harder then 3.17, but easier then 3.13... I think you can find a happy medium here.

Has anybody investigated the code and found some hard numbers that could be compared?

Slightly off topic, but in the same area. I just completed a game. The games started with 3.13 Bhuric's patch (1.11 I believe), got updated to Bts patch 3.17 then Solver's 2nd patch (not the current one). I would say at least 4 times during the game Japan renounced its protection from Mongolia and then accepted protection from Mongolia on the same turn, or rather the same in between turns for me. All this happened after the 3.17 patch. It doesn't bother me, I just treat it like it never renouncec in the first place, but it seemed odd. I am not a good player (play on Noble, win half the time) and am fairly unobservant when it comes to the AI agreements. But this one caught my eye. Mostly because I wanted to attack Japan and the first time I saw the renouncement (because of the sound that happens), I thought yeah, attack. But then noticed the acceptance of protection when I looked to closer.

Yeah, the AI does seem to make and break voluntary vassalage very easily now. Not sure if that's good playing by the AI, but it doesn't appear to negatively affect the AI.

Could it be possible that the Vassal decides to break free in his turn and then the Master bribes him back into his Vassalage on his turn during the same IBT?

Could it be possible that the Vassal decides to break free in his turn and then the Master bribes him back into his Vassalage on his turn during the same IBT?

That is the only thing I can think of. I am kind of wondering if anyone else has seen it, or at least, so often. As I said, I am not very observant, so I did not notice if Japan got maybe more gold or techs from it. They were both behind me tech wise, so they had nothing for me.

Another thing about that game, in line with capitulation. The Mayans did capitulate to the Mongols. The Mayans had a tech lead, in fact THE tech lead, but the Mongols led in power, big time. I took advantage of the Mongol/Mayan war to pick up 5 island cities from the Mayans, but Pacal wouldn't capitulate to me. The Mongols took a couple cities (2 or 3) from the Mayans, but on their continent, so that capitulation, to me, made sense. I may of taken more cities, but I was not a threat to the mainland. But, that is only one game. Takes me about a month to play a game :blush:

Well I have yet to see an AI willing to capitulate to me. I beat Hattie down to one city, and she wouldn't surrender -- but she did vassalize to someone else, bringing another civ into the war against me. This has happened several times (not usually to the last city) -- either I have a war ally, in which case the AI capitulates to my ally, or I don't, in which case the AI will find someone else to capitulate to. And yes, I check every turn.

I feel like the change is that the AIs are now over-reactive to the power graph. I play Immortal, Agressive AI, and the stacks are huge. It's simply not possible to have more than about half the power of the typical AIs. I can still win wars -- but they're not very profitable when I come away with a handful of culture-swamped cities, and have to fight off an invasion from one of the larger cats on the block as well.

I've seen some snow-balling as well. It's 1650 in my current game, and Qin has four vassals. Pacal has one, and only Kublai and I are still on our own (large pangaea). I expect Qin to attack Kublai soon, making him the fifth vassal....

It may be that the threshold should vary with level and/or Agressive AI, and particularly the importance given to the Power graph.

In my latest Monarch game, both the Ethiopians and the Mayans capitulated to me after I captured 3-4 big cities each(about 50% of their empire) and their Capitals. Not sure whether they would capitulate if I left their Capitals alone.
So I think the current capitulation threshold is good enough. Previously, civs would only capitulate when they have 1-2 cities. Now they are still willing to fight a hopeless war (I have tanks against their infantry, having pillaged their oil 1-2 turns before they discovered the tech for tanks) but will capitulate with a few main cities taken.

Just an update, I lost when Qin took his sixth vassal -- everyone but me, since Zara had been eliminated -- pushing over the domination threshold.

Well, this is all good and well, but WHERE and HOW do you adjust the capitulation threshold?