Capitulation decisions

[r_rolo1]

I definitely like Yakk sugestions..... it would turn vassals in useful assets instead of the big drag they tend to be now ( well, not always. I remember a game in Immortal where mass rifle drafting + judicious use of cannons allowed me to cap a AI with infantry. He proved himself very useful during the final wars of conquest...... and there is always Monty, eager to suicide 14312524456 units in your enemy cities to soften the garrison for you )

 

[scu98rkr]

I totally disagree there is no need to boost up vassels. I recognise both your and yakks names and I see you have alot of posts so you must both be experienced civ players.

But have you played many mulitplayer / LAN games ? The biggest advantage of taking on a vassal is to deny the land/cities/resources to a rival.

If you gave extra advantages to having a vassal then no one would try and conquer the whole empire.

As with most things in Civ there is a trade off.

1. You take the vassal denying opponents land/cities/resources and saving you troops to take the remaining cities + you get some extra troops free in affect.

2. You dont take the vassal
- you easily conquer all the cities making you much stronger
- or someone else conquers this land / get the vassal making them much stronger

If you play with another human this become clear.

What needs to be programed in is that other AI will attack a CIV if it looks to be on its way out to try and vassalise it.
Or that the AI will attack you to stop you taking the land over.

I dont think the rules need to be changed this is another case were AI diplomacy needs to be improved.

 

[glider1]

I see your point. In an AI scenario under consideration at 0.6H, you do see this "rudimentary" behaviour. It just is not executed well enough by the AI. The AI does this:

"A" declares war on B his neighbour because B get's vassal C overseas by force. D overseas, is A's enemy too and A does not want D to get vassal C either.

It is all about who get's to obtain the resources and control of "C's" territory it appears to "A". A does not want B to get them and in actuality, B looses control of C because B cannot hold sufficient territory to enforce the arrangement. A and B conduct a neighbourly war and it then about how good A is at controlling this local war. D is not involved in either A, B or C. Typically, the vassal C prefers to keep his new found independence and does not vassal to either A, B or D. Thus if A executes his local war well enough, he has gotten what he wanted with neither B or D getting C.

In the very same situation, due to probability an alternative scenario actually DID emerge too....

A declares war on D overseas, because D get's C as a voluntary vassal. Now A and B are neighbourly pals as a result and both are at war with D over C. The situation is now an intercontintental war and it depends on how well A and B cooperate to disturb D's control over C.

I'd be wary to make big changes to capitulation yet either.
Cheers.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

I was looking for a guide for when I (a human) should accept capitulation and this thread was pretty much what I wanted. Anyone considered summarizing this in the Strategy Articles section?

 

[Jaroth]

Well well well.

you think you know a game inside out, but this little beauty just keeps throwing a surprise at me. I ahve no idea how i missed this.

well that Does change things a bit- the ai should be able to recognise that having another, smaller civ researching short techs (eg drama, while you beeline for gunpowder), is a good thing.

So maybe add this to Domestic Interests

Cheers,
HDK

Wow, me too... thanks for the tip, PoM!

 

[the1sean]

I think this list can be broken down in to 4 categories, with elements of some overlapping:

Strategic:
1. Am I at war with another Civ? (2 front wars should be deeply undesirable to any AI)
2. Is the capitulating civ at war with other parties?
3. Would accepting the capitulation put me over the domination threshold?
4. Is the capitulating civ building the spaceship?
5. Will they act as a buffer between us and another, stronger than us, civ?
6. Or, If we conquer them will we be close to more, weaker civs? (ie further conquest)

Economic:
1. Do they have strategic resources that we do not have, or only 1 of? (bronze/horse/iron/coal/oil)
2. Do they have valuable financial resources?
3. Do they have valuable Financial wonders? eg Colossus, Great Lighthoise, etc.

Domestic:
1. Do they have valuable Happiness resources?
2. Is their culture strong? Ie how likely are they to rebel?
3. Do they have valuable happiness/Culture wonders? eg Notre Dame, Eiffel Tower, etc
4. Will it be more expensive and dangerous (rebellion) to conquer than to leave as a vassal?

Military:
1. Do we need the troops to fight another, more powerful enemy we are already at war with?
2. Are the potential vassal spread out over islands, thus making a slow, awkward conquest?
3. How much power does the capitulating civ have? (ie are they useful as a War Ally?)
4. Conversely, if they rebel, will they be dangerous?
5. Do they have a high value city left, that is weakly defended? Also converse is true- are their remaining cities strongly defended?
5. Have they rebelled before? ie if this is say, the 3rd time theyve made a full blown non-barbarian rebellion, then maybe better to just raze their civ and build on its ashes..
6. Will they act as a buffer between us and another, stonger than us, civ?

HDK

Very well put, I dont think that the AI thinks strategically enough. I dont know if wonder specific behaviour isa good to code because the AI may then act oddly when playing mods...

 

[Afforess]

Really, one of the big problems is that Vassals are nearly useless in general.

I've hacked up the DLL in the past to make Vassals not suck, but never polished it.

1> Vassal unit costs increased by 50% (1.5x). When a Vassal produced a unit, 50% of the time it would also produce a unit for it's master.

2> Vassal research costs increased by 50% (1.5x) if working on a technology that the Master doesn't have (and the Master isn't further along on the research). That 50% would be deposited in the Master's research for that technology. Vassal research costs would be reduced by 50% (0.5x) if working on a technology the Master has or is further along on.

3> Vassals cannot trade away technologies given to them by the Master if the Master lacks "child technologies" off of that technology (ie, Vassals are not allowed to trade away bleeding edge technologies given to them by the Master).

Between the 3 above, having a Vassal would be helpful. You'd get units from the Vassal, you'd get research from the Vassal (if you didn't keep the Vassal in the dark), and you could give the Vassal technologies without losing your "Bleeding Edge" technologies to the Vassal trading them away.

It would even be a good idea to build provinces out of Vassals (give them some of their conquered territory back, but not enough to break free).

Thread Necromancy, I know, but did you actually code these already? It would be really cool to have these modifications.

 

[scu98rkr]

After playing some more multiplayer games I've realised that Vassalage/Capitulation decisions can be real game changing/deciding moments.

Often a game can be decided if a relatively large Civ in effect switches sides due to a capitulation decision.

I think the AI needs to more open to vassalising to friendly civ early in a war its losing rather than being forced into capitulation. Even going round and approaching several civ to do this. 1. because it helps maintain the balance of power and 2. because the CIV has a chance of escaping this type of vassalage.

On the other hand I think CIV really should only consider capitulation if it faces complete destruction.