Matrix Games Forums

Apparently, the game forces a human player to surrender to another human player when his capital is conquered.
My PBEM group made some tests and a human Prussia was forced to surrender to a human France in March 1805 after Berlin was occupied by enemy forces.

This contradicts the manual and the EiA game rules: occupation of capital should impact only money collection (12.2.1) and political points (12.4.1).

One caution:  do not garrison a PBEM opponent's capital with minor factors.  Not sure if it's triggered if it's minor + major, but minor-only is definitely a problem.  He'll be prompted to sue the minor for peace when he tries to end the phase, but he doesn't have that option.

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

Apparently, the game forces a human player to surrender to another human player when his capital is conquered.
My PBEM group made some tests and a human Prussia was forced to surrender to a human France in March 1805 after Berlin was occupied by enemy forces.

This contradicts the manual and the EiA game rules: occupation of capital should impact only money collection (12.2.1) and political points (12.4.1).

Yes, and the good news is that we will be adding the following in v1.02 in place of that current deviation (that was coded but nothing was ever written about it):

Forced Surrender due to Civil Disorder
If, during any Economic Phase, a major power can collect no home nation manpower, that major power goes into "civil disorder” and must sue for and accept any type of peace during the next Peace Step with all major powers they are at war with.

Richard

ANY type of peace?
So you're practically saying that if capital is taken a MP will be forced to surrender unconditionally during the next eco phase. Mmmhh, I don't like.

That said, what about Moscow / St. Petersburg ?

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

ANY type of peace?
So you're practically saying that if capital is taken a MP will be forced to surrender unconditionally during the next eco phase. Mmmhh, I don't like.

That said, what about Moscow / St. Petersburg ?

Actually; what he is saying is if ALL home nation provence capitols are taken; the
player is forced to sue for peace. (There is a odd case where a player
who is manipulating for manpower can be forced to surrender if all
except his national capitol are occupied if his MP manipulation loss is
greater than his national capitol provence MP; but thats about it)

ORIGINAL: Monadman

Yes, and the good news is that we will be adding the following in v1.02 in place of that current deviation (that was coded but nothing was ever written about it):

Forced Surrender due to Civil Disorder
If, during any Economic Phase, a major power can collect no home nation manpower, that major power goes into "civil disorder” and must sue for and accept any type of peace during the next Peace Step with all major powers they are at war with.

Richard

Ahhhh, wonderful. So, that means it is implemented even now? Just not documented? Sweet.

The thing I would REALLY like to see added is "Hard civil disorder": If you cannot collect any home nation MP ... good-bye. Property auctioned off to the highest bidder. Oops, that's Monopoly. Property given to whoever has corps counters present.
 
It adds a dynamic to the game that is missing in the current implementation: Actual unconditional surrenders by choice. In the current rules, you might as well fight on, with no factors available to you, until someone comes to rescue you. But, one cannot be FORCED to surrender.
 
But, with hard civil disorder, players have to take a long hard look at the map every economic month, and try to guess whether their enemy can take all of the remaining provincial capitals. If their opponent CAN do it, then they should surrender, less they be out of the game.
 
The way things are now, nobody should ever surrender unconditionally. Even WITH soft civil disorder, because unconditional surrender is the WORST that can happen to a power.

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

The thing I would REALLY like to see added is "Hard civil disorder": If you cannot collect any home nation MP ... good-bye. Property auctioned off to the highest bidder. Oops, that's Monopoly. Property given to whoever has corps counters present.

It adds a dynamic to the game that is missing in the current implementation: Actual unconditional surrenders by choice. In the current rules, you might as well fight on, with no factors available to you, until someone comes to rescue you. But, one cannot be FORCED to surrender.

But, with hard civil disorder, players have to take a long hard look at the map every economic month, and try to guess whether their enemy can take all of the remaining provincial capitals. If their opponent CAN do it, then they should surrender, less they be out of the game.

The way things are now, nobody should ever surrender unconditionally. Even WITH soft civil disorder, because unconditional surrender is the WORST that can happen to a power.

I agree with you to a certain extent, there is however one exception. In a war against several opponents a unconditional peace that involves all the waring parties might be better than separate conditional surrenders.

Situational.  -3 PP for bankruptcy each economic phase, up to -3 PP for capital occupation per economic phase, attrition of any surviving forces, forcible loss of all minors once in the fiasco zone...

...compared to, minimally, buying 18 months of time in which to rebuild.  At this point, you probably already have had your corps and garrisons mostly eliminated; you're not that far from fiasco (so losing a leader to exile doesn't hurt nearly as much as if you were dominant, since fiasco brings him back for free); and even if you cede home provinces, it may be possible to get them back.   You may even be able to manipulate it somewhat due to the exclusivity of terms -- eg. surrendering to multiple powers, at least one of whom takes potentially nasty outcomes off the table by taking milder versions (cede one instead of three, say... and technically, he doesn't have to choose any -- it's "up to" three even if he picks that condition, IIRC) in order to maintain balance of power or similar motivations.

An ally can conquer them and cede them back to you, for instance.  And once they're retaken, it's as if the ceding never happened for the purposes of reconquest.
 

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Actually; what he is saying is if ALL home nation provence capitols are taken; the
player is forced to sue for peace.

<Pedant Mode>

Actually not quite, the condition is if you can collect "no home nation manpower". A few nations (Turkey and Spain off the top of my head) have home nation provinces that yield no manpower and so would not have to be occupied to fulfil this condition.

</pedant mode>

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Actually; what he is saying is if ALL home nation provence capitols are taken; the
player is forced to sue for peace.

<Pedant Mode>

Actually not quite, the condition is if you can collect "no home nation manpower". A few nations (Turkey and Spain off the top of my head) have home nation provinces that yield no manpower and so would not have to be occupied to fulfil this condition.

</pedant mode>

Yes; I should have said "ALL mp producing home nation provences" -
eg. Danzig in Prussia also produces no mp.

There is another case as well - if a nation is manipulating for mp & the mp cost of
the manipulation is greater than the mp value of the national capitol; you can cause
"no home nation mp" to occur by occupying LESS that all of the provences - but the
ones NOT occupied must include the national capitol because occupying the capitol
CANCLES the manipulation.

I think that it should be all home nation provinces...
Jason

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Actually; what he is saying is if ALL home nation provence capitols are taken; the
player is forced to sue for peace.

<Pedant Mode>

Actually not quite, the condition is if you can collect "no home nation manpower". A few nations (Turkey and Spain off the top of my head) have home nation provinces that yield no manpower and so would not have to be occupied to fulfil this condition.

</pedant mode>

The difference between "no home nation mp" & "all home nation provences" is
pretty trivial.&nbsp; Anyone THAT bad off should have VOLUNTARILY surrendered
BEFORE it got that bad.

In some cases the difference between all home provinces adn all home manpower can be stark. In Spain's case, the Balearic Islands (Minorca, Majorca) are almost impossible for France to conquer. They have no MP. If the rule were all home provinces, then the French would likely never be able to conquer Spain and be faced with a never ending stream of Guerrillas.

The same is true for Turkey and the Isalnds of Crete and Cyprus. Not quite as bad as Spain as there are not guerrillas, but still, almost impossible to take without a coalition.

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

In some cases the difference between all home provinces adn all home manpower can be stark. In Spain's case, the Balearic Islands (Minorca, Majorca) are almost impossible for France to conquer. They have no MP. If the rule were all home provinces, then the French would likely never be able to conquer Spain and be faced with a never ending stream of Guerrillas.

The same is true for Turkey and the Isalnds of Crete and Cyprus. Not quite as bad as Spain as there are not guerrillas, but still, almost impossible to take without a coalition.

Good point, and what makes it even more important as it relates to EiANW, is that Crete (Turkey) was given a [1] manpower value per EiH 3.0 (and EiH 4.0 but not EiH 5.1). Now we will need to remove that value before the forced surrender due to civil disorder rule is implemented in 1.02.

Thanks

Richard

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

The difference between "no home nation mp" & "all home nation provences" is
pretty trivial.  Anyone THAT bad off should have VOLUNTARILY surrendered
BEFORE it got that bad.

... you would think... but I've played against too many players that felt they had to fight to the last man and then some...