Matrix Games Forums

HiHi

For any folk out there who may harbour thoughts of taking up a Diplomatic career below is a 1st class example of how NOT to, “Win friends & influence people” [:D]

Eric, Gil, would there be any way for you to introduce in the next patch an Attribute/Upgrade called “Backbone”, designed specifically for the PBEM game where many players are surrendering at the nod of a hat even before a shot is fired in anger or any major land battles have been fought.

In the latest example of this now seeming new craze, a player who had cocked up somewhat alarmingly with his supply system and as a result had suffered quite sever Forage losses in his local armies, just simply surrendered without any land battle having taken place (apart from an unsuccessful siege), only to then proudly proclaim that he would then launch his 300,000 strong army at another player, I hasten to add this is not an isolated case of ‘Gamey’ surrenders which covers many players in several games.

Just for a point of emphasis let’s use a wee bit of creative licence and imagine the following “Historical” scenario.

In the following Epic (? [8|] ) Drama the names have been changed in order to protect the innocent .

Scene 1 (Scene 2 deleted as it may cause embarrassment to the under 5’s)

A Royal court somewhere in Europe c1795

Courtier Fred: “Majesty! Majesty! Great news, the ‘Outer Mongolian Peoples Republic’ has just declared War on us”

King Urgstan XXXIV: “Oh dear, O dear (great wringing of hands and other signs of intense agitation from King) are my newly laid Petunia beds in danger?”

Courtier Beryl: “Well Majesty, there is a vague possibility that if we don’t Surrender immediately the great unwashed hordes of the ‘Outer Mongolian Peoples Republic’ may, just may, not only trample your newly laid Petunia beds, but also waltz off with your collection of (Blush appears on face of Courtier Beryl) Dirty Lithiographs” ... (and yes folks, there is a story there!)

King Urgstan XXXIV: “What! even the ones with you in” ... (see I’m not the only one who can be undiplomatic)

An embarrassed Hush starts to descends on the Court, broken with suberb timing by ..

Courtier Fred: “But Majesty don’t you see this is a Golden opportunity! If we surrender now the Gods on high will automatically grant as several great benefits for our Armed forces.”

King Urgstan XXXIV: “Hmmm, but don’t I have an army to protect my Petunia beds and Dirty Lithographs? (cast apologetic look in direction of Courtier Beryl, who again Blushes, but sweetly this time)

General of the Army Count Onre of Hergaville: “Majesty I must protest, if the army were to actually fight, then their Muskets would get dirty”

Grand Treasurer Skinflint: “Oh! that would never do, we would then have to purchase some Musket polish.

King Urgstan XXXIV: “Ah, and that would mean I can’t afford those new Lithographic plates I was after, very well then surrender immediately”

Exit Stage left King Urgstan XXXIV and Courtier Beryl, smiling fondly at each other ... I do like happy endings, but that Dear reader is the reason Scene 2 has been deleted [:'(]

The above amateur (very) production was sponsored by the ‘Outer Mongolian Peoples Daffodil growers Guild’, who not only have a Vested interest but are also shameless publicity seekers, in association with, ‘I really should be doing something else but what the Hell’ incorporated.

The above "Historical" production also brings to mind the rather surprising anomaly that it is as often as not the people who bang on and on with great intensity about historical accuracy and ‘feel’ for the Napoleonic era who are the prime offenders in “Lets Surrender in case something awful happens.” [X(]

So, Eric, Gil, in the new patch can I strongly urge that staggering GP losses are included to cut out the above ‘gamey Surrenders’ and also while you are at it, the wonton cancelling of Alliance/Treaties and Sneak attacks, IMO the PBEM games are being wrecked by these practices, even to the point where you now have to factor in. If I do so and so will someone just cancel Treaty/Surrender/Sneak attack etc.

All the Best
Peter

Perhaps what is needed to limit such surrenders is the following:

have surrender points be awarded on the basis of an upside down bell curve. In other words, as combat losses mount, the surrender points awarded actually DROP until they reach a certain minimum (the halfway point of necessary casualties perhaps?), after which they would again rise, as normal, back to the maximum.

This would encourage a country to at least put up a fight, as such fighting would LOWER the ability of an enemy to hurt them in a peace treaty (at least initially).

Another option, is to have Experience Points awarded on the basis of losses taken (to the necessary surrender casualties? half that number to make it easier?). In other words, upon the first surrender, a country may be awarded a MAXIMUM of 300 experience points. This number is modified by the above percentage. Fight hard enough and gain the maximum; surrender immediately and get almost nothing.

Kingmaker, I agree. I am totally on your side about the gamey surrenders. We need a solution. Believe me, I have brought it up several times other threads and a few emails to Eric and Co..

I really do think it needs to be worked out. Most humans are rational beings and they will take the best out presented to them. Right now, the quick surrender (although I did fight a longer war than anyone else has in the game!) is a very rewarding option. Rational people take rewarding options. As Kingmaker points out, it is a way to keep you from getting your guns dirty before the next enemy trounces you.

I feel that a game theory specialist might look at this model of surrender and rather plainly state the following fact: since this person knows he stands to be beaten and the longer he fights the amount of punishment inflicted on him will only go up, what is the point of fighting if he feels he has a good chance of losing? The system, as it currently is, rewards quick surrenders. Especially the first one, since for that you get a juicy 300 experience points. With the second surrender the temptation drops as experience gained drops to 100.

However, in this case, I did not surrender to Britain for fear of losing, because I knew that I would have a 250,000-300,000 man army in front of Paris the following turn. I honestly felt that I could easily prevent French defeat in the face of a two pronged advance through my territory with Russians coming at the Prussian rear. In this case, I surrendered for one reason alone. I surrendered to make an overwhelming point to Frederick II, King of Prussia (not Timurlain, whom I respect with high regard, and with whom I most certainly have no problem! It is all rhetoric!!! Indeed it is all rhetoric designed to win the game! So it is skewed!). In fact, I am rather disappointed I surrendered when I consider the damage I could have done to the British army in Baden with that newly formed army.

However, quick surrenders are still tempting in and of themselves in situations which seem slightly more dangerous than the one I (France) was in.

There are any number of ways to reduce the temptation of the "quick surrender".

From my "My Thoughts On Treaties Thread":
tm.asp?m=2224986

You've probably all seen it in multi player. A player who is surrounded and outnumbered and outgunned by multiple enemies in a sudden DoW quickly takes the surrender option because he knows that he will probably lose anyway and the costs of the loss will only climb as the enemies rack up wins and take territory. I have no problem with surrendering and I have no problem with players taking the best out, but this should be changed and there should be costs to it (and there were). I would strongly recommend that players immediately surrendering in conflicts (turn 1), take 2x normal glory loss and 2x normal national morale loss. There is no doubt that surrendering like this would tarnish reputation even more than an outright loss. Who would take such a power seriously after this? It reminds me of the state of affairs of the Ottoman Empire in the mid and late 1700s. Without putting up a fight, there would very likely been major resistance to the government/monarchy for having sold out the country/estates/people. Rebellions, political instability and unrest weren't unusual following harsh treaties and treaties in which the government gave too much away (see, just for instance the major rebellion in Istanbul after the signing of the treaty of Karlowitz) and the collapse of order in parts of France in reaction to the treaty which would have concluded the Franco-Prussian war in 1871, with the people feeling they had been "betrayed" by their rulers. Letting people just walk all over you and take things could split the country in my opinion. This 2x Glory and 2x NM penalty would slowly drop to regular values as some kind of algorithm decided that they had at least put up some kind of a fight/or a predetermined amount of time had lapsed (perhaps six months?) There should be the possibility of rebellion and even of losing your government IMHO.

In addition to the additional penalties mentioned above, the quick surrender strategy will also be less of an option once the liberation of protectorates and liberation of conquered provinces becomes cheaper in terms of treaty points as mentioned above. Even 1000 point treaties imposed on you by other powers could lead to the loss of protectorates or recently conquered minors which you had overrun in the months before the surrender.

Mus has also proposed that a way to reduce the temptation for a quick surrender might be to simply reduce or eliminate the variable nature of the surrender penalty (or at least the portion which depends on how many losses have been inflicted/regions taken/NM loss, etc). He may have a point there, and one which I have considered myself. You will note below that I am a fan of randomizing the treaty points somewhat, but this is independent of the losses/regions taken/NM loss. Perhaps it WOULD be a good idea to have surrenders ALWAYS gain the victor a (5D6+N)*100 points (where N is any constant which brings the average total of points close to what they are now).


Note that the link to this text was included in my recent email to Eric and Co. entitled "Emergency Fixes for CoG:EE".

An additional point which Montesaurus brought up to me was that perhaps the temptation could be reduced even more by giving fewer experience points to a losing nation if they didn't even fight. Though I feel that 100 experience points are what are needed, and that a player who decides to fight it out a little will gain experience points from his battles.

Additional reasons the "quick surrender" is so popular compared to what we might expect from history:
1. Because of the extremely high 1000 point bonus the attacking armies get for EACH region occupied when the treaty is signed! I think perhaps the base value of treaties should be increased and this number reduced.
2. Because in CoG:EE, unlike in real life, everything is quantified. Players know the morale of their troops to the hundredth of a decimal point. We know exactly that our troops have a 10%+10% fire attack bonus and a .1 march initiative, while their army has a 33% cavalry charge bonus and a .5 morale bonus when defending in their home country. In a few discussions with Eric, he has pointed out--and I believe rightfully so--that players do not like the fuzziness of real life. However, when a game tells us our army is a 5 and theirs is a 12, who will fight? Lots of leaders in history might have, because they didn't know that!

The problem is there is a loophole in the system which encourages quick surrender, and it hasn't been plugged. And since most players don't play to be nice guys but play to win, people will use it (and should be expected to use it, since they are in all likelihood rational).

Actually, what I consider to be the weakest point about the surrender which just happened in the game which Kingmaker is referring to is the following: I, France, was at war with Britain, who appeared to have buddied up to Prussia. I am a player who believes in concentrating all force against one objective instead of multiple objectives, so I took the logical choice and surrendered to Britain before I found myself at war with British and Prussian allies so that I could inflict the maximum amount of damage to the army of one nation for what I felt had been "dubious" dealing (I have nothing against the player--it IS a game! [:D]). So, having been at war with Britain for over a year, and feeling that the weak link would be Prussia, I surrendered to Britain purely to isolate Prussia and take advantage of the fact that their ploy to hide their relationship by not using an alliance could be turned against them rather easily.

They simply waited to declare their alliance too long. After my surrender, Britain would be cut out of the conflict with me for 18 months while I would be able to deal a two or three sided blow to Prussia. Note: I am not positive if Prussia and Britain had a strategy, however, the amount of double dealing I was picking up on, especially after I went to the mat to defend Prussia when another player discovered it, lead me to not believe anything I heard coming from Berlin anymore. IF Berlin and London had a strategy, its mistake was not to ally sooner, and seeing they weren't allied, I decided to take advantage of it before it happened...I did not surrender to take a quick surrender, as I was prepared to fight on against Britain--alone. What I did was designed to take advantage of a loophole for which another suggestion I made to WCS is a fix...

From my "My Thoughts On Treaties Thread":
tm.asp?m=2224986

Fix DoW on Ally/Friend Loophole
It is a serious concern of mine that after the defeat of an enemy, that the enforced peace will prevent me from coming to the aid of a nation/ally which I feel NEEDS to be defended. For instance, if I am Russia and have defeated Austria in a war and have achieved an 18 month rock solid enforced peace, Austria MAY in the next several months go to war with a power which has become my ally or may attack a minor neutral along our border which is a major national security interest of mine. It is my opinion--and strong opinion--that the enforced peace should not be so enforced at this point. I suggest that:
a) If Austria were to go to war with anyone who had (at any point) declared themselves to be an ally of Russia (before the DoW), that the enforced peace be liquidated.
b) If Austria were to go to war with any minor which would attempt to become my protectorate, that the enforced peace should be liquidated IF Russia has an "aggressive" policy set in PBEM policies.

Another way to take care of this would be to void an enforced peace ANYTIME a nation which has lost a war declares war on ANY state...major or minor. The winning power could declare war on the losing power, but not the other way around.

On top of all of this, I strongly recommend that the rock solid enforced peace period be randomized to be a period of 3D6+8 months. No one knows exactly when it will end. OR, ideally, that there IS no rock solid enforced peace, but merely a glory penalty/national morale penalty of going to war with someone in the months after the war has been concluded again. This glory penalty (say, 500 points on turn 1 following surrender) slowly falls to zero over the course of 24 months. There is more than one example of a conquering nation threatening to go back to war after a surrender because treaty conditions were not being fulfilled--or risked not being fulfilled. So, it is possible. Again, I feel that the current 18 month limit is in effect, the "regulation of war and human behavior" by WCS (said with all due respect for the people who have put together my favorite gunpowder era game of all time) --instead of a psychological model. The same principle would be used for dropping the national morale penalty of going to war "early".

Yes, my mistake on my advance on Munich was my supply and lack of total mobilization (but I learned a hell of a lot). The mistake of the British-Prusso friendship was the lack of an alliance and subsequent declaration of war on France which would have prevented me from surrendering to JUST one of them. So, we both made massive mistakes within the framework of the rules we knew about--mine operational and their strategic. Hopefully from it all springs this thread which will hopefully finally give the quick surrender loophole some much needed notoriety.

However, with all of this discussion about "quick surrenders", we need to remember that in 1795 this is still not the era of Napoleon and that land transfers of long held home territories on the scale made possible by "fighting it out" in CoG:EE were virtually unheard of in the 18th century--especially to people without legitimate claims to those lands. Prussia's annexation of Silesia from Austria is probably the single greatest anomaly of the 18th century in these regards. If people are forced to fight, the cost for annexing long held provinces after a surrender should be greatly increased.

Note to Self (Add thoughts on new treaty term needed after new turn is received)

And by the way Kingmaker, that was a great piece you wrote up there! [:D]

P.S. By the way, does a conditional surrender work in PBEM?

The Empire and Arms Boardgame had a wonderfull way to handle surrenders. There were two choices: Conditional and Unconditional.
 
With Conditional you offered to surrender, and the party to whom you offered to surrender could accept the surrender, and get reduced rewards for the surrender vs. an unconditional surrender. But, if that party wasn't ready to let you off the hook, the war would continue till you either offered, or were forced to unconditionally surrender. In which case your penalties for surrendering were much more severe.
 
Recently it was explained to me that you can "conditionally surrender" to an enemy in COGEE by right clicking on the map over the opposing nation's country, then 'cursing' over the name of that country, which supposedly brings up conditional surrender.  Has anyone attempted this in a PBEM game?
 
In addition,( in EIA), you were allowed to surrender to just one party of an alliance. This allowed diplomacy to cause the break up of formerly invincible alliances! This happened once to me when I was Spain allied with RU and AU, and we were fighting against Turkey. The Turks surrendered to the Russians and Austrians! Then France came into the war on the side of Turkey, and I as Spain promptly got my bottom spanked!
In COGEE I can see how this could happen. One would need to persuade an enemy of an alliance to cancel his alliance, with the promise that you would then surrender to him! Or, maybe it could occur if you can surrender "conditionally" as I talked about in the previous paragraph.
 
 
In COGEE it is true one can surrender quickly, and gain 300 Experience. One should be allowed to surrender, but if it is a paper war then the reward should not be the 300 experience. Perhaps 25-50. The 300 points should be a reward after a hard fought campaign. I like this at it reflects "new thinking" in a military establishment after getting one's butt kicked!
 An example would be as Archduke Charles did with reforming the Autrian Army, after being defeated so badly by Napoleon.  Plus, there are still some significant penalties for surrenderring. Charles wouldn't have got permission to reorganize if he had just surrendered without putting up a fight!
 
But  surrendering outright can be expensive! You will wind up losing a province, or several other really annoying things. Plus, that motherlode of experience points only occurs once! If you make a habit of surrendering on a regular basis due to your handling your troops like Hohenloe vs handling them like a Wellington you will suffer in the long run, for both National Happiness and Glory points! 
 
 
I appreciate Kingmaker's frustration with early surrenderring, but in a game that can last 23 years it leaves time for those huge battles to yet develop! If you don't fight sooner or later, you will have no chance of winning the game! Too much Glory will be lost by just giving up all of the time!
 
 

Kingmaker:
The above "Historical" production also brings to mind the rather surprising anomaly that it is as often as not the people who bang on and on with great intensity about historical accuracy and ‘feel’ for the Napoleonic era who are the prime offenders in “Lets Surrender in case something awful happens.”

My Reply:
If you have a concern about the historical accuracy of the game, suggest a house rule and I can swing with it. I like to play with house rules which add to realism. And in my opinion, we need one here. I indicated to you I would be happy to do so. And as you can see above, the fact that the rational decision in many situations is a quick surrender is a problem which should be addressed. However, I surrendered to you for purely one reason. To teach Prussia a lesson.

But I ain't gonna hang on to be the nice guy. No one had even mentioned their concern about it. For some reason Britain wasn't up in arms when Austria quickly surrendered to Russia, France, and the Ottoman Empire. I certainly didn't establish the precedent in our game.

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

For some reason Britain wasn't up in arms when Austria quickly surrendered to Russia, France, and the Ottoman Empire. I certainly didn't establish the precedent in our game.

I normally don't complain after a loss for fear of being thought a poor sport, but I somehow now feel unconstrained in complaining about the frequency of very gamey and ahistoric alliances between countries with greatly conflicting national interests. An example is Russia and Turkey allying and then ganging up on their neighbors in wars of aggression that have insignificant glory and nonexistent national morale costs. The net result is a massive gain in Glory and rewarding of extremely gamey behavior.

As long as quick surrenders are going to be addressed for reasons of "gameyness" I think waging war without cause needs to be more heavily penalized, and alliances with countries with which you have substantial conflicting interests should be penalized in Glory rather than rewarded for the same reason.

The idea of royal marriages, enforced peaces, alliances, etc. between Russia and Turkey during this period is unthinkable, yet it occurs like clockwork in every PBEM I have been in.

I think serious thought needs to be given towards rearranging Political (Glory) Targets in such a way that certain completely implausible alliances like Russia/Turkey and Britain/France are severely discouraged by the game, without the need for house rules.

Before PBEM 109 was discovered to be a flop due to people not installing their mods correctly, I was contemplating just such an alliance between Britain and France and I doubt an alliance like that could be stopped. I wouldn't be surprised to see that occur frequently once people realize the potential, with game breaking consequences.

I also agree with Kingmaker that canceling treaties and violating treaty clauses is not penalized enough.

That point has been raised repeatedly since the amount was taken from -40 to -4 per clause violated in the patch. The original problem was a bug incorrectly assigning the loss, not the amount.

I think it should be put back to -40 and canceling treaties should likewise be increased, along with an increase for declaring war without cause and an increase to the Glory cost for sneak attacks.

Agree totally. It makes the game a farce that you can derive as much benefit from surrendering as you can from fighting. Not that I begrudge guys from fiddling with the system. It is much easier to see that it is "broken" when some damn fool decides to try to hang off it and it breaks sending them crashing to the ground [:D].

ADDIT: and I also agree with Mus that there are other issues in terms of too much freedom in being able to ally with whomever you want, whenever you want, not enough penalty for breaking treaties, etc.

The beauty of all this is that: it is not that there is some fundamental flaw in the engine, or that it is buggy. It is just that some of the costs and benefits are not optimized for PBEM play, even if they may be optimized for SP play.

I think the inverted bell curve idea for surrender points is a good solution. The MOST surender points an enemy can get from you should be if you surrnder IMMEDIATELY before a shot is fired, i.e., the turn after they make a "legal" DoW. They then go down from there (not just with losses but with each passing turn too), i.e., the enemy is behooved to attack you as soon as possible, and take provinces, else kill your guys in order to keep the surrender points from dropping too much. Not sure if sucessful sieges and surrenders by garrisons count toward surrender points but they should.

Assuming actual fighting, casualty ratios should perhaps figure into to further possible reductions of surrender points.

Another idea regarding these gangup scenarios that are all too common is that above a certain threshold of aggression the defender should gain the financial and national morale benefits as if it was targeted by a total war. Three countries attacking a neighbor without cause is an existential threat and should be treated as such by the game engine.

I am in as well when it comes to quick surrenders, maybe the experience points gained should somehow be equal to manpowers losses and number of defeats ? That would however potentionally bring some other problems as well. Small nations couldn't really gain that many exp. What about making the real surrender kind of level the playing field (ie. get experience points based on the enemies that defeated you, since you learned from them really).

Re: Marshal Villars. Teach Prussia a lesson ? Please. Prussia didn't betray you, they just didn't want to join France bullying them into joining and also Prussian were bit wary of French diminishing promises.

Of course, I only meant I would teach the nation of Prussia a lesson! Certainly not the player! (It is all rhetoric! and I need to be more careful about posting in character when I post my rhetoric!!!!) The Prussian player is a class individual and everything is allowed in gaming! I have no personal hard feelings!