Capitulation threshold?

[jkp1187]

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.

 

[Willem]

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.

 

[Willem]

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.

 

[Solver]

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.

 

[Woody1]

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.

 

[jkp1187]

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....)

 

[Willem]

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.

 

[jkp1187]

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.

 

[Woody1]

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.

 

[Willem]

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.

 

[Willem]

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.

 

[Woody1]

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.

 

[PieceOfMind]

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.

 

[Woody1]

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.

 

[PieceOfMind]

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:

Spoiler :

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!

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.

 

[Willem]

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.

 

[The Last Conformist]

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?

 

[Everest]

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.

 

[Woody1]

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.)

 

[Ace of Spades]

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