(6-VT) Allow capitulation to multiple players / allow hidden pact to declare war on vassal

[Vaderkos]

Problem:
Some N players declare war on some state.
At some point state capitulates to one of them.
That forces peace between all players at war.
For example only one player gets vassal and some cities other player gets nothing.

Proposal:
Allow to trade pact to declare war on vassal state with feudal state without declaring war on feudal and its allies.
Or
Allow to trade contract to continue war on not yet vassal state with its future feudal at time of war. Even If state capitulates.
Or
(Might be complex) capitulate to many players? But who becomes feudal?

Reasoning:
Playing multiplayer I made a contract with player that he takes 2 cities and I take 2 cities.
At some point he gained 2 cities and got capitulation proposal. After signing it my state got nothing and forced peace while I was pushing.
I wanted to continue getting the cities I should get by players contract. But after I declare war as this state was vassal I automatically got war with feudal, vassal and all defensive pact states.

 

[DoveCDog]

This is a big problem and has happened multiple times in my games as well. I think the right way to do it is to entitle all players who have at least +25 warscore to a joint negotiation. But it would take a lot of coding though and don't think it would get sponsored.

 

[adan_eslavo]

Let's say that you start war because someone else asked you for it. You agree and fight. After dozens of turns it turns out that you are slightly better from your ally and both are overwhelming your opponent. Then out of nowhere the attacked civ wants to capitulate to you, not the real aggresor. You obviously agree, and your ally is left with nothing, because he has to autopeace with your vassal.

 

[Rekk]

I don't see any way forward that will allow a vassal who has two masters.

 

[azum4roll]

You can't do ORs in a proposal.

Would be nice if the future master can sign peace with other aggressors for the vassal (and pay for it), though.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't see any way forward that will allow a vassal who has two masters.

Agreed, I understand the problem and agree its annoying, but man this seems like a LOT of work to change.

 

[dpr3113]

I think the ideal behavior would be that the participant who didn’t get the vassal would have the option to either peace out (white peace, no treaty) or stay at war with the vassal. If they choose to stay at war, it should pull in the new overlord but shouldn’t count as attacking them (so defensive pacts aren’t involved, no diplomatic penalties for betraying a friend, etc).

I’m not sure if that’s actually possible to make that happen, though - and if it’s not, the current behavior is about as good as it’s going to get.

Also, is there a peace option for transferring a vassal to you? If not, that would be a very nice quality of life thing to add for this scenario as well.

Finally, it would be best if vassalizing someone didn’t force your units out of your new vassal’s territory, but I suspect that’s impossible or it would‘ve been done already.

 

[dostillevi]

Example of how capitulation could work with an option for "capitulation" to multiple players.

When multiple civs are at war with another civ, allow civs to prioritize outcomes based on their warscore and/or relative military power. Essentially this would look a bit like how Stellaris does this, where empires at war can "claim" systems, and at the end of the war whoever has the highest claim on a system gets it. In Civ, this might look like claiming cities, and I think it would play out something like this:

Simple:
1. During war, if a city is captured, the current behavior is preserved and that city becomes owned by whoever captured it.
2. During war, any civ at war with a civ that is also at war with other civs (eg, two civs are at war with the same defending civ) can make a claim for capitulation.
3. Based on a formula TBD (but likely similar to what already exists) that might include warscore, relative military power, and the strength of the capitulation claim, the defending civ will capitulate.

The change in step 3 is adding the capitulation claim to influence the defending civ's decision about who to capitulate to. On the turn they are first willing to capitulate, they will only do so to the leader of the capitulation score. If the capitulation is declined, it would be up for grabs from any other warring civ that meets the capitulation threshold (a combination of military power, war score, and capitulation claim amount).

We would need to determine how to buy a capitulation claim, but I think it would have to be tied to military power/warscore, and the cost might be variable based on distance from nearest owned city...

Complex:
Same as 1-3 above, but instead of warring AIs making capitulation claims, they'd make city claims. When capitulation occurs, the civ with the highest total claim amount would get the vassal (and the capitulation proposal), all cities where they had the highest claim, and all cities with no claims. Other civs in the war would be granted any cities they had the highest claims to as if they had been captured (no courthouse), and without vassalization.

The downside here is that a civ that capitulates will be effectively gutted, and will no longer be a significant player in the game.

Likely all of these options would require a prohibitive amount of coding.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal vetoed.

Reason: Contains multiple options. Insufficient detail.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.