QUICK SURRENDER SOLUTION DISCUSSION THREAD

[Marshal Villars]

Oh! Very interesting.

Well, that is perhaps because there is no real siege experience system or even advancements (beyond one engineering advancement I believe). But, some kind of minimal point bonus should be considered.

[Marshal Villars]

Actually, another factor which should help nations divide up peace treaty points is the diplomacy ratings of any diplomats they have within the borders of ANY of the nations involved in the peace--although, I think they should be in the capitals for this to have any effect. As well as in some other cases. But this is another issue and maybe it isn't worth it.

[evwalt]

You know, the more I read and ponder this, the more I think I agree that 'quick surrender' is not really a problem. Sure, a surrender without fighting gains the surrendering country experience points and maintains their army intact BUT it also destroys their Glory Point standing. All things being equal, it doesn't matter how big/great your army is if at the end of the game you are not #1 in glory points.

That being said, I do like quite a bit some of the other suggestions made in this thread.

[Marshal Villars]

By the way, another reason I came up with as to why treaty point distribution should not be based solely on the number of casualties you have inflicted on a nation:

An even additional reason that just hit me was the following: Let's take the "nofrills" Austria vs. Russia-Ottomans-France war as an example. If Austria suddenly were to find herself at war with these three nations again, and wanted to prevent the Ottomans from making the largest gains, it would seem that the logical thing to do would be to throw all of your forces into an effort to prevent the Ottomans from gaining your lands (and the 1000 VP bonus which accrues for control of each province). If Austria withdrew from the French and Russian fronts and sent all of his units to fight the Ottomans, then in effect he would be doing the opposite of what he wanted to do because the Ottomans would, in such a situation, kill many many more Austrians than either the Russians or French. The Russians and the French might kill a tiny fraction of the men that the Ottomans would. In effect, the Austrian would have made his situation with the Ottomans worse by fighting them. Which is why I am for the occupation of provinces being the key factor in determining your treaty points. Perhaps then, the base treaty points should be calculated (perhaps with casualties inflicted being the chief determining factor and then on top of that each player gets a number of points equal to the number of provinces he has occupied times 1000).

Note: I wanted to post this just here, but added it to a post I did above as well, so I could find it all in one spot when I needed to.

[Marshal Villars]

Anthropoid: "It seems like there is at least a bit of a "dogpile" tendency as well isn't there? Am I wrong there?"

I have seen this too, but I am not too worried about it.

The Great Northern War (Russia, Denmark, and Saxony-Poland vs. Sweden) and the Seven Years War (Austria, France, and Russia vs. Prussia w a little British support) were real "dogpile" scenarios. And of course, for a while all of Europe was at war with Revolutionary France. And in one of the most unfortunate cases I have read about--though not a dogpile--in the 1660s I believe, in an effort to keep Russia from taking over all of Poland in its own war on the Commonwealth, Sweden declared war on Poland too--and for a while, Poland had two nations who were enemies with each other gobbling them up. What is interesting about this case is that it is about the only case I know of where two powers which were at war with each other (Sweden and Russia) were also at war with a third power (Poland).

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: evwalt

You know, the more I read and ponder this, the more I think I agree that 'quick surrender' is not really a problem. Sure, a surrender without fighting gains the surrendering country experience points and maintains their army intact BUT it also destroys their Glory Point standing. All things being equal, it doesn't matter how big/great your army is if at the end of the game you are not #1 in glory points.

Pretty much. That is why I don't think it's a good idea to rush a simple solution through that will probably end up being worse than the initial problem.

I agree quick surrender is a problem, but ensuring the solution isn't worse is tricky and not a simple quick fix situation.

[Russian Guard]

A lesson learned frequntly during play-testing.

[Marshal Villars]

Well, I hope that my effort on this issue will show that I am not exactly interested in any quick fix as a final solution. This is one that has to be nailed.

[Mus]

I still think casualties should be used to determine VP allocation between members of a coalition, because of the simple fact that siege operations against a truly vital area is more likely to bring about a decisive battle.

Allowing taking places to play too large a part in allocating VPs would allow a minor member of an alliance to concentrate on taking cities in a strategic backwater and end up getting too much of the VPs as a result.

Perhaps you could double the count of siege casualties to make taking cities of some value (and more important cities are likely to be more heavily defended), but I really think casualties caused is the best bar for determining contribution towards an allied war effort.

[Marshal Villars]

Up for discussion again.

[evwalt]

Having played several more games, my new input:
 
First, I don't believe quick surrenders are not quite as big a problem as I thought initially.  You win the game by having the most glory, not the biggest empire or most upgrades.
 
Having said that, some surrender thoughts:
 
Quick surrenders are MUCH more likely at the beginning of the game, simply because there are less glory points to lose because no one has many yet.  To prevent this, have surrenders during the first few years have additional negative glory loss.  For example, a surrender during the first calender year played cost the normal glory loss + an additional -200 glory.  Second year, -150 glory.  Third year, -100, etc. until a surrender in year 5+ cost the "normal" amount.  My reasoning is that a surrender after 10 years of play can cost someone in excess of 500 glory points (or more).  Why should surrenders made during the first few years cost someone 30 or 40 glory?
 
For experience, have a POTENTIAL experience pool for each power.  This pool begins the game at 0.  After the first surrender, +300 points are added with +50 points for each additional surrender.  However, points are actually AWARDED to players on the basis on 1) a surrender (say +10 points) and 2) for each 1000 losses to that power IN BATTLE (+3 per 1000).  Points awarded are subtracted from the Potential experience pool.
 
Thus, Country A DoW Country B and Country B immediately surrenders.  Country B would have 300 points added to his potential pool but only be awarded +10 experience points for his 'quick surrender', leaving 290 points in his Potential pool.
 
Several years later, A and B fight again.  This time, B fights several battles, losing a total of 70,000 men.  He receives his 'battle experience' normally after each battle.  Eventually, B surrenders again to A.  For the surrender, an additional +50 points are added to the Potential pool (giving 290+50=340).  He is actually awarded +10 points (for surrender) + 210 for combat losses for a total of +220 experience awarded and leaving +120 points in the Potential pool.  Such an award would certainly encourage him to fight on and discourage "quick surrenders."  If you went this route, I might even recommend increasing the Potential experience for surrenders after the first surrender from +50 to +75 for some added benefit.
 

[montesaurus]

Hi Guys,
Personally I don't think the quick surrenders are a big deal I agree with Ewalt, you won't win by surrendering. Even though those 300 points seem like a lot, over the course of a game they are'nt that much really. Maybe 1 really good advancement, and 1-2 others.

I like the present system of surrender. Plus, when you find yourself facing 3 other players you should'nt be penalized for cutting your losses and running, just because you want to remain a viable nation!

Regards,
Monte

[Marshal Villars]

I did like Mus's idea of giving a nation attacked from many aggressors at once substantial additional resources. For instance, the King could make a plea for extra support from his nobility and people in a battle of national survival, much as Maria Theresa did in the War of Austrian Succession. It seems the game is lacking in this feedback loop and the response is assumed to be static, rather than dynamic and a function of the size of the threat.

[evwalt]

Actually, I do sort of like the bonus of additional resources.  Perhaps you can do a strength comparison for each country every 6 months or so.  The game would compare the strength of a country vs. the strength of everyone it is at war with.  You would then get several bonuses compared to the differentral (and yes, these could change from month to mont).

If your country has greater strength than all those it is fighting (not impossible for France)--no bonus.
If your country has equal to strength to say 75% less strength--a 10% bonus to all resources (a wartime economy)
If your country has 75% to 125% less strength-- 15% bonus, +5 NM per turn (in addition to Nationalism, etc.)
If your country has 125% to 175% less strength--20% bonus, a second levy in September, +10 NM per turn (in addition to Nationalism).
If your country has 175% to 250% less strength--all the above but +15 NM per turn
If your country is outnumbered by more than 250%--all of the above but +20 NM per turn + receives all the benefits of Total War EXCEPT still loses half NM losses for losing cities, full NM/income losses for capitol occupation and can still be forced to surrender by low NM.

Note: After some further consideration I changed those % around a bit. Basically, most countries would always be on a "wartime" economy in war. As the odds started moving against it, the people rally more.

If a country is totally overwhelmed (outnumbered by 250%), it is essentially fighting for its independence (but NOT for its life, it will still survive in some form, ie. it is not Total War). A country can fight on while totally outnumbered but will still eventually fall.