Matrix Games Forums

Hello, I think we need a separate quick surrender discussion thread which is more geared to remaining objective and working through the issue a bit more scientifically.

Kingmaker did a great job of bringing up the problem in another thread, and it has its editorial merit! In fact, it features some of Kingmaker's quick wit which I have grown to appreciate[:D]. The link is here: tm.asp?m=2233297

In this thread, I would like to invite everyone who reads it and has experience with CoG:EE to post four things.

ONE...I would like you to post reasons why you think a quick surrender is rewarded in CoG:EE
TWO...I would like you to list other factors which contribute to the occurrence of quick surrenders in CoG:EE
THREE...I would like you to post possible fixes for this quick surrender issue
FOUR...I would like you to post any historical examples and parallels from the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s which you can think of which would help us draw conclusions which can then be applied to a possible solution

Remember, at this point this is all brainstorming, so just put up your thoughts. No one gets graded here.

1. CURRENT LIST OF REASONS WHY PEOPLE THINK THAT QUICK SURRENDER IS REWARDED IN COG:EE PBEM
1. (From Villars): 300 points of experience gained with first surrender makes the option hard to say no to.
2. (From Villars): Increasing treaty point penalties inflicted on you if you keep fighting when you know you will lose.
3. (From Villars): 1000 point treaty point penalty for EACH province you lose could be too steep for some player's risk/reward analysis--encouraging quick surrenders before too much territory is lost resulting in overwhelming penalties.
4. (From Anthropoid): The idea that you get "experience" for your troops without firing a shot is preposterous. Indeed the idea that you get experience simply for "firing shots" would also be preposterous. XP for troops should be tied to actual battle outcomes, rallies, morale fluctuations, etc. Taking a lot of losses but having resolute troops should be an option to gain XP, but the best outcome is of course when your guys perform well, trounce the other guy, and barely get their hair mussed. Being able to break treaties and not even flinch is bogus. Breaking treaties should cause a MAJOR hit on National Morale. Even -40 is lame. How about a pro-rated system based on duration till treaty expires 90% of duration left = 50% loss of all your National Morale, something like that. Even with only 1 month left you should still lose something like 10% of ALL your national morale. Treaties should be serious.

2. CURRENT LIST OF OTHER FACTORS LEADING TO QUICK SURRENDER
1. (from Villars): Lack of real fog of war allows players to do a better job of sizing up their enemies. Historically, leaders of nations did not have access to many statistics which players do--for instance morale ratings to the nearest one hundretdth of a decimal place, the fact that their infantry has a 10%*10% bonus in fire combat while their enemy has a 33% cavalry charge bonus.
2. (from Villars): The fact that players of CoG:EE have one incredible advantage over their historical counterparts--the fact that history is a game played exactly ONCE. Historical counterparts lived in a world in flux, no system was exactly the same twice. None of them ever got to rule Russia in one life, Austria in another, and Spain in a third. CoG:EE players get to know the world they play in, with its fixed rules immune to complex rules of social and military entropy and evolution. This allows players to better eyeball a situation than any historical counterpart did and know when to throw in the towel.
3. (from Mus): 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. 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.
(tm.asp?m=2233297)
4. (from Anthropoid): ...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.
(tm.asp?m=2233297)
5. (From Anthropoid): Seems pretty simple to me: getting XP and suffering ZERO negative consequences means that the quick surrender is simply the best option most of the time that you are not in a position to whup arse. The best way to "win" is to not waste time building a military, build lots of diplomats and art, and surrender any time you get attacked. You automatically get a BIG (ridiculously big) chunk of XP for your army, you don't suffer any hit to Nat Morale (victory points) and you don't risk any further complications from war (18 month forced peace or whatever it is). It might work fine with the computer opponent but it is totally farcical with rational human players who will go for the best option. Surrender is quite simply "the best option." Instead it should be a very very bad option.
6. (from Villars): In my opinion the greatest advantage of variable reform is that a player cannot know, "HEY! If i surrender I WILL get 300 points." If a player knows there is even a small chance that he may come away with just 40 points, it doesn't sound so appealing anymore. So, there is less of an incentive to go down for the sure thing.
7. (from Mus): I see the factors in this order: 1. Primary: Response to an unwinnable situation. The VPs awarded in a fight where no cities are captured and no casualties are taken range from around 900 up to a little under 2000 IIRC, depending on the number and quality of diplomats involved and empire status on either side (worst case is an empire surrendering to another empire, believe Imperial France quick surrendered to Imperial Prussia midway through Another PBEM, may try to find that and note the points involved). IF the number was more stable regardless of outcome, more in the range of 4-6k, althought maybe a slightly wider range would still work, you would at least see 1 or 2 attempts at offering battle in an effort to win the war. Also I think VPs once established at a certain good range should be split among coalition members according to contribution (what to use to measure that contribution would be up for debate), so that VPs awarded would no longer be multipled by the number of aggressors. 2. Secondary: 18 months of breathing space in which to gain strength, drive diplomatic wedges between opponents and gain friends. 3. Tertiary: Military Reforms. People seem obsessed with the idea of 300 land experience, but in reality this is only 2 good upgrades. Not that big a deal, particularly in quick/instant combat where their effects are less pronounced. After the first surrender this becomes even less important, as the experience awarded drops to 50 and becomes insignificant. Focusing on the land experience factor is putting the cart before the horse. It is a problem in the surrender/VP dynamic and the ease of setting up dogpiles that is the prime cause of the quick surrender. We do not see countries quick surrendering in wars they are going to win or even in wars in which they have a decent chance of winning.

3. CURRENT LIST OF POSSIBLE FIXES FOR THE QUICK SURRENDER ISSUE
1. (from Mus): 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.
(tm.asp?m=2233297)
2. (from Evwalt): 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).
(tm.asp?m=2233297)
3. (from Evwalt): 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.
4. (from Anthropoid): 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.
5. (from Anthropoid): Assuming actual fighting, casualty ratios should perhaps figure into to further possible reductions of surrender points. (V: LOL "Assuming actual fighting"...has it really become THAT rare? [:D])
6. (from Mus): The wild range of Victory Points is the main reason. If the Victory Points awarded were more stable, people would be less likely to surrender without a fight.
A range of somewhere between 4000-6000 VPs regardless of how badly you lost would discourage players from surrendering before they had at least made an effort towards a war changing decisive battle.
7. (from Mus): I would suggest that VPs and Glory awards in victory be split between parties in alliances according to who did what, and Glory penalties be increased for declaring war without cause. Perhaps even introduce National Morale penalties for wars without cause. These steps would help to reduce the frequency of the extremely gamey alliances we have seen as well as quick surrenders. Gamey gangups could also be reduced by making the attacked party gain the benefits of defending against a total war in a situation like this.
8. (from Mus): Surrendering before a certain level of losses in battles or sieges should result in the surrendering country taking additional glory and National Morale hits though.
9. (from Mus): I also note from the recent surrender of the French that losses in Naval Combat do not seem to be taken into consideration in the calculation of VPs. This should be corrected immediately.
10. (from Anthropoid): When you surrender, there should be some chance that (a) provinces break away; (b) military mutinies/deserts; (c) unrest breaksout in provinces; (d) you lose substantial National Morale; (e) you lose substantial Glory; (f) unrest in provinces should have a chance to destroy infrastructure, particularly the ones that contribute to Glory Points (victory points). The risk of these things happening should be the HIGHEST in the turn immediately after someone declares war on you, and drop off as time passes and as you fight back. Making the surrender points follow the inverted bell curve thing is another idea.
11. (from Villars): Randomize the amount of experience points gained and stay away from giving people so many for their first surrender. Perhaps make it a uniform 2D6*10+50, ending up in an average of 120 points. Additionally, the random nature of the system should reduce the number of surrenders since people will worry that they could get unlucky and gain very little from it.
12. (From Mus): The reality is that the longer the country was able to resist the more war weary their opponents would get and the more likely a peace could be negotiated that both sides could live with. Anyways, land experience from losing battles is already included. The land experience you get on surrendering is meant to model military reforms that come about as the result of a lost war. I still contend that land experience gained as a result of surrender is the least substantial factor in the taking of quick surrenders. It is a consolation prize and balance mechanism where a country suffering defeat becomes only slightly better able to stand up to its attackers over time. The main reasons I see people taking quick surrenders are to limit damage and gain the safety of the enforced peace to rebuild and increase their defenses. Those factors should be focused on more than land experience.
13. (from Anthropoid): When you surrnender, your military loses morale-=-=-sort of the "reverse" of the current system where your military GAINS experience. This is backwards. Given the nationalism of the period, and the standards of male identity, militarism, etc., fighting "honorably" or "gloriously" or whatever for King and Country were the epitome of an idealized male citizen, weren't they? Thus the idea that your military gets MORE effective when it chickens out and surrenders just seems totally backwards.
14.(from Villars): When splitting up treaty points awarded following a war, the base victory point calculation should be made (divided by the number of casualties inflicted) and then each power should gain 1000 VP per province it has conquered in the enemy territory. This makes sure that if a player like Austria is attacked by Ottomans, Russians, and French, that if he wants to reduce Ottoman gains that he doesn't have to throw all of his forces at the French and avoid the Ottoman army for fear of giving it 100% of the "casualty" shares in the victory. There would be an incentive to fight against the Ottomans to prevent them from picking up 1000 points per province they conquered.
15.(from Anthropoid): Surrendering should UNDERMINE the effectiveness (morale) of your army, with the quicker your surrender resulting in the biggest negative impact, shouldn't it?


4. CURRENT LIST OF HISTORICAL EXAMPLES FROM WHICH WE CAN DRAW PARALLELS (Preferrably 17th-19th century, but others can be informative)
At the moment we are short on these. But I can add a few tonight.

The wild range of Victory Points is the main reason. If the Victory Points awarded were more stable, people would be less likely to surrender without a fight.

A range of somewhere between 4000-6000 VPs regardless of how badly you lost would discourage players from surrendering before they had at least made an effort towards a war changing decisive battle.

Further, I would suggest that VPs and Glory awards in victory be split between parties in alliances according to who did what, and Glory penalties be increased for declaring war without cause. Perhaps even introduce National Morale penalties for wars without cause. These steps would help to reduce the frequency of the extremely gamey alliances we have seen as well as quick surrenders. Gamey gangups could also be reduced by making the attacked party gain the benefits of defending against a total war in a situation like this.

Surrendering before a certain level of losses in battles or sieges should result in the surrendering country taking additional glory and National Morale hits though.

Diplomatic treaties can also be violated with impunity now that the penalty for violating them is so absurdly low.

I also note from the recent surrender of the French that losses in Naval Combat do not seem to be taken into consideration in the calculation of VPs. This should be corrected immediately.

I honestly do not know the details of the engine that well, exactly how points are allocated etc. My Ideas

ONE...The idea that you get "experience" for your troops without firing a shot is preposterous. Indeed the idea that you get experience simply for "firing shots" would also be preposterous. XP for troops should be tied to actual battle outcomes, rallies, morale fluctuations, etc. Taking a lot of losses but having resolute troops should be an option to gain XP, but the best outcome is of course when your guys perform well, trounce the other guy, and barely get their hair mussed. Being able to break treaties and not even flinch is bogus. Breaking treaties should cause a MAJOR hit on National Morale. Even -40 is lame. How about a pro-rated system based on duration till treaty expires 90% of duration left = 50% loss of all your National Morale, something like that. Even with only 1 month left you should still lose something like 10% of ALL your national morale. Treaties should be serious.

TWO...It seems pretty simple to me: getting XP and suffering ZERO negative consequences means that the quick surrender is simply the best option most of the time that you are not in a position to whup arse. The best way to "win" is to not waste time building a military, build lots of diplomats and art, and surrender any time you get attacked. You automatically get a BIG (ridiculously big) chunk of XP for your army, you don't suffer any hit to Nat Morale (victory points) and you don't risk any further complications from war (18 month forced peace or whatever it is). It might work fine with the computer opponent but it is totally farcical with rational human players who will go for the best option. Surrender is quite simply "the best option." Instead it should be a very very bad option.

THREE...When you surrender, there should be some chance that (a) provinces break away; (b) military mutinies/deserts; (c) unrest breaksout in provinces; (d) you lose substantial National Morale; (e) you lose substantial Glory; (f) unrest in provinces should have a chance to destroy infrastructure, particularly the ones that contribute to Glory Points (victory points). The risk of these things happening should be the HIGHEST in the turn immediately after someone declares war on you, and drop off as time passes and as you fight back. Making the surrender points follow the inverted bell curve thing is another idea.

FOUR...Don't know the period in detail sorry.

Cool. Keep these ideas coming if you have any. They are already tremendously useful.

Another idea: when you surrnender, your military loses morale-=-=-sort of the "reverse" of the current system where your military GAINS experience. This is backwards. Given the nationalism of the period, and the standards of male identity, militarism, etc., fighting "honorably" or "gloriously" or whatever for King and Country were the epitome of an idealized male citizen, weren't they? Thus the idea that your military gets MORE effective when it chickens out and surrenders just seems totally backwards.
 
Instead, surrendering should UNDERMINE the effectiveness (morale) of your army, with the quicker your surrender resulting in the biggest negative impact, shouldn't it?
 
I've given a number of ideas here, and as someone with limited knowledge of the exact events of the period, maybe not all of them are the best way to operationalize a semi-realistic dynamic in game. But the central theme of all of them is that: Surrender should NOT be a zero cost, but reasonable gain prospect, which is exactly what it is right now. Instead, putting up a good fight, delaying surrender for as long as possible, and forcing the enemy to at least expend his resources should, in those situations where you are out-matched or whatever, be the best of a number of bad options. Quick surrender should not be the most obviously BEST option almost ever, should it? I doubt that that is what was intended in setting it up the way it is at present, and probably it was set up this way for the sake of the AI. But the fact is, it does not work in PBEM at all, and even against the AI it allows for gamey tactics.

It's not true that there are zero consequences from quick surrender. Prussia in "another pbem" has lost hundreds and hundreds of glory points from surrendering to France and Russia. There was also a substantial drop in national morale. As mentioned before, the only real experience gain is for the first surrender, the second and subsequent only gain you 50, which might net you one weak upgrade, at the price of substantial loss of glory and a largish drop in morale. Hardly a long-term game-winning strategy.

ORIGINAL: lenin

It's not true that there are zero consequences from quick surrender. Prussia in "another pbem" has lost hundreds and hundreds of glory points from surrendering to France and Russia. There was also a substantial drop in national morale. As mentioned before, the only real experience gain is for the first surrender, the second and subsequent only gain you 50, which might net you one weak upgrade, at the price of substantial loss of glory and a largish drop in morale. Hardly a long-term game-winning strategy.

I argue that surrendering should not "net you experience.' PERIOD. FULL STOP.

If it is causing some loss of National Morale that is good, but as you can see, I tend to take the view that it is still too appealing an option even with a couple hundred lost. I had not noticed your morale going below about 1400.

It would be good to know specific algorithms. Those of us who have simply observed others do it have no idea what it looks like from the other side, and even those who have done it only know what happened to them in one incident. It would be good to know the underlying math, because the way it has been referred to by some players in PBEMS it has been framed as a "Thanks! for DoWing me! Now I can Quick Surrender and reap all these nifty benefits!" implying that some players perceived/thought that it is some sort of no-cost strategy.

Trash talk and taunting in PBEMs is always a great part of the fun, but sometimes it makes playing the dual roles of "beta tester" and player challenging [:D]

One thing not addressed in regards to surrendering is human nature! If penalties pile up too high early in a game it could actually encourage those players with less fortutude, optimism, and endurance to drop out of a game! That is one thing I like about the experience rewards for surrendering, is that it encourages a player to stay in for the long haul. Let's not forget the winner of the war gets a pretty good reward also!

My experience in multi player games is that it's hard to get people to stick around for the entirety of the game. We've had 3 players for our country of Spain, and not because Spain hasn't done well. Think how easy it would be for those players with less gumption than the rest of us to think, "well, this isn't much fun anymore, and I don't have much chance so I think I'll take off!"

So, it might be worth tinkering with the system, but don't change it so radically that the less experience players will get totally discouraged!

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I argue that surrendering should not "net you experience.' PERIOD. FULL STOP.

It is meant to model the historical reality that rigid military institutions were more likely to be reformed after suffering a catastrophic loss.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I had not noticed your morale going below about 1400.

National Morale tops out at 1000.

I hope this isn't another example of you having strong opinions about something you aren't paying much attention to.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

ORIGINAL: lenin

It's not true that there are zero consequences from quick surrender. Prussia in "another pbem" has lost hundreds and hundreds of glory points from surrendering to France and Russia. There was also a substantial drop in national morale. As mentioned before, the only real experience gain is for the first surrender, the second and subsequent only gain you 50, which might net you one weak upgrade, at the price of substantial loss of glory and a largish drop in morale. Hardly a long-term game-winning strategy.

I argue that surrendering should not "net you experience.' PERIOD. FULL STOP.

If it is causing some loss of National Morale that is good, but as you can see, I tend to take the view that it is still too appealing an option even with a couple hundred lost. I had not noticed your morale going below about 1400.

It would be good to know specific algorithms. Those of us who have simply observed others do it have no idea what it looks like from the other side, and even those who have done it only know what happened to them in one incident. It would be good to know the underlying math, because the way it has been referred to by some players in PBEMS it has been framed as a "Thanks! for DoWing me! Now I can Quick Surrender and reap all these nifty benefits!" implying that some players perceived/thought that it is some sort of no-cost strategy.

Trash talk and taunting in PBEMs is always a great part of the fun, but sometimes it makes playing the dual roles of "beta tester" and player challenging [:D]

I think you will find that Prussia lost something like about 900-1000 Glory (it's about 400-odd total now, from 1400-odd?), and their NM has dropped from 300 or so into the negative. I thought, given the fact that I was to be "buried under the dogpile" at the instigation of my erstwhile ally, it would be expedient to take the opportunity to reform my military that had been fighting almost continously for the last 90-odd turns, against France (several times), Turkey, Spain, and (nearly) Austria. Inbetween times, they were forced to put down all these silly little insurrections.

As I said, these actions didn't exactly have positive consequences. If Prussia gained anything, it was a years grace to rebuild their army.

Do think the experience gain for the first defeat is perhaps a little bit excessive, but the alternative, particularly in the later scenarios, would be just to let the French steamroller everyone. Prussia has fought repeated wars for the last 90 turns or so, winning all but the last 2, which she had no chance of winning. Does seem I gained more experience though from being defeated once (the first time), than from most of the other wars combined.

Historically, changes in military doctrine tend to come from defeat. Victorious armies tend to fight the following wars using the previously succesful doctrines, whereas defeated enemies usually learn at least some of the lessons and adapt accordingly.

ORIGINAL: lenin

Historically, changes in military doctrine tend to come from defeat. Victorious armies tend to fight the following wars using the previously succesful doctrines, whereas defeated enemies usually learn at least some of the lessons and adapt accordingly.

Bingo!

Two examples from contemporary history:

1. US Military reforms after defeat in Vietnam, leading to all kinds of revolutionary military developments, including the all volunteer military and the revolution in precision guided munitions, just to name a couple of the big ones.
2. Iraq (and allied insurgent groups in the Middle East) after the one sided slaughter of it's military in the conventional fighting of Desert Storm adopted a completely asymmetric warfighting doctrine by the time of OIF. Their weapon of choice became the IED or VBIED.

On being subjected to a surrender giving a nation "experience."

I don't know about being given "experience" when losing a war, BUT, I do know that humiliation at the hands of an enemy (many enemies) is a tremendous impetus for something many historians call, "reform."

I have just finished reading all of, most of, or much of around 29 books--most of them recent, so I could make sure I got a current view on the development of these systems--on the age of gunpowder politics, diplomacy, warfare, society. If I have to, I will post a list of reading later (most of the reading was absolutely fascinating). After a while, what seemed sadly obvious was that if a nation did not keep its army at war for much of the period, it would fall behind the other powers so much, that it would soon become a whipping boy for other nations. The long peace which the Ottoman Empire enjoyed in the middle of the 18th century is largely seen as an opportunity it missed to keep its armies anywhere in sight of the cutting edge of European warfare.

Losing a war created about the only serious impetus for SERIOUS change in many societies. Only when Austria lost Silesia to Prussia did it embark on a massive reform program in an attempt to equal Prussia's threat of arms. It was losing wars that rebuilt nations in many cases. When you win, everyone assumes everything is working and the system gets more and more bloated and cumbersome, and then at some point another loss comes along and people in power finally realize that other people in power (perhaps the officers, or supply companies) have to be removed from power to make things work better. There are always bureaucrats who resist all change if possible, even if it is logical--simply to preserve a title with benefits. Usually only the winds of a major defeat can sweep these cobwebs away. Losing wars, and the drive to stay competitive is what enabled the state to sweep aside the church, subjugate the estates, and absorb the citizen in a pavlovian process designed to do one thing--help it survive. These steps were all achieved incrementally, in a process which took hundreds of years and resulted in notions of people's duty to the state which would have seemed totally alien 400 years ago, but modern methods of inculcation have done a wonderful job of passing off on us as a natural given.

Based on four months of virtually non-stop reading, I am very much in favor of a loss in a war forcing reform. I think that perhaps 300 points of "experience" representing this reform is too much (assuming CoG:EE costs for upgrades). But, I would be for a randomized 4D6*10. The main reason I prefer a randomized method is because reform was certainly always variable. Some losses produced tremendous reform and other losses produced little or no reform. Historians still scratch their heads over this in many cases, indicating "further study is needed" to determine why. A randomized reform bonus can account for all the myraid of things which play out in a society to impact the amount of reform created from any loss, without having to actually model each society and the many, many things which players don't have control over and their historical counterparts certainly never did.

In my opinion the greatest advantage of variable reform is that a player cannot know, "HEY! If i surrender I WILL get 300 points." If a player knows there is even a small chance that he may come away with just 40 points, it doesn't sound so appealing anymore. So, there is less of an incentive to go down for the sure thing.

"Experience points" or "reform points"? Again, we can call it "experience" to adopt one word for it.

In the case of reform, other systems which had appeared to be successful were copied. Sometimes a nation's native capabilities were up for taking the step on their own in a self sustaining way. In other cases where the systems of other states were copied, and your native capabilities were too primitive, or resistance to the new ideas was so high, often foreign help was imported and would have to be imported regularly in order to keep your advances from being washed away from local resistance and vested interests. For decades, Peter the Great the great reformer of Russia, struggled to develop his officer corps for his army, and for many years, his armies depended heavily on imported officers, which by every description were, "mercenaries." They came from all over Europe.

It is my opinion that both "experience" and "reform" can both lead to the same effect, namely the improvement of systems of war and so it is not a major mistake to represent these types of change with the same coinage ("experience points").

I can honestly say that after all of that reading that I can solidly come down on the side of players gaining experience if they lose a war, or even a major battle. Losing hurts. It is easier to convince people that things need to change when they are hurting.

In my opinion then, losing a war in CoG:EE has to hurt more than getting the ability to reform (i.e. picking up experience points) feels good. And of course, none of this babbling of mine in this particular posting solves the problem of how to make it hurt more without allowing the player less pain by surrendering very quickly.

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

I am very much in favor of a loss in a war forcing reform. I think that perhaps 300 points of "experience" representing this reform is too much. But, I would be for a randomized 4D6*10. The main reason I prefer a randomized method is because reform was certainly always variable.

I think 300 experience for the first defeat and 50 for each additional defeat is too dramatic a swing.

I think the first defeat should be worth 150 or something and each additional defeat should be 100 or so.

It the amount is randomized the range between first and subsequent defeats should still be narrowed by lowering the amount of the first and increasing the amount of subsequent defeats, such as 10(3D4+3) for the first defeat versus 10(3D4+1) for subsequent defeats.

Perhaps one way to solve this problem would be to give a player more experience points for losing a battle. Not just losing a war. That is, actually fighting a losing battle also gives experience points (which it does now). Perhaps ONE solution is to drop the "war loss" experience bonus and increase the "battle loss" experience bonus. It is amazing how much learning armies did from each other from losing a battle and how much evolution of tactics and abilities occurred during the war themselves. For instance, after Gustavus Adolfus landed in Germany in 1632 and brought with him the linear tactics he had borrowed from the Dutch, it was only a year after he had unveiled the system before the Imperialists who fought him adopted many of his tricks.

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

In my opinion the greatest advantage of variable reform is that a player cannot know, "HEY! If i surrender I WILL get 300 points." If a player knows there is a small chance that he may come away with just 40 points, it doesn't sound so appealing anymore. So, there is less of an incentive to go down for the sure thing.

I agree. Some level of randomness will help change behaviour.

Having seen a number of quick surrenders in play now, I still think the root of the problem is the drastic differences in VPs that can be awarded. They are almost always done in an unwinnable situation. If the range wasn't so wide in the amount of VPs they would be less frequent.

I see the factors in this order:

1. Primary: Response to an unwinnable situation. The VPs awarded in a fight where no cities are captured and no casualties are taken range from around 900 up to a little under 2000 IIRC, depending on the number and quality of diplomats involved and empire status on either side (worst case is an empire surrendering to another empire, believe Imperial France quick surrendered to Imperial Prussia midway through Another PBEM, may try to find that and note the points involved). IF the number was more stable regardless of outcome, more in the range of 4-6k, althought maybe a slightly wider range would still work, you would at least see 1 or 2 attempts at offering battle in an effort to win the war. Also I think VPs once established at a certain good range should be split among coalition members according to contribution (what to use to measure that contribution would be up for debate), so that VPs awarded would no longer be multipled by the number of aggressors.
2. Secondary: 18 months of breathing space in which to gain strength, drive diplomatic wedges between opponents and gain friends.
3. Tertiary: Military Reforms. People seem obsessed with the idea of 300 land experience, but in reality this is only 2 good upgrades. Not that big a deal, particularly in quick/instant combat where their effects are less pronounced. After the first surrender this becomes even less important, as the experience awarded drops to 50 and becomes insignificant.

Focusing on the land experience factor is putting the cart before the horse. It is a problem in the surrender/VP dynamic and the ease of setting up dogpiles that is the prime cause of the quick surrender.

We do not see countries quick surrendering in wars they are going to win or even in wars in which they have a decent chance of winning.

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I argue that surrendering should not "net you experience.' PERIOD. FULL STOP.

It is meant to model the historical reality that rigid military institutions were more likely to be reformed after suffering a catastrophic loss.

Surrendering without a shot having been fired hardly constitutes "catastrophic losses" does it?

I still don't see how giving XP to a military whose national government surrenders to another nation before there is ever any actual conflict between the two opposing militaries has any realistic basis. If you see it, please do clarify.

I meant victory points, er, "Glory." I see from Lenins following post that his Glory did drop substantially. So maybe the system is not a "zero loss" system after all.

ADDIT: if what Lenin is saying is true (and I don't disbelieve him) and he lost about 900 or 1000 of his 1400 some odd Glory, and also lost several hundred Nat Morale, then it sounds like the system already approximates the way I was more or less suggested it should work.

Mus, you make a good point that 300XP is not really that much, but I think a randomized system like Marshall suggests is even better. I hear ya that "defeats" were often a catalyst for reform, and it was not really the idea of getting XP for defeat that I was finding illogical, but the idea of surrender without firing a shot, and without any defeat. Agree with you Marshall that defeat in battles should be the key to getting the XP. Surrendering without a shot being fired is just political subordinance and that would likely just result in coups, and internecine conflict within the ruling regime and its military.

So . . . NOW Mus really _IS_ the guy for everyone to gang up on! [:D]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I still don't see how giving XP to a military whose national government surrenders to another nation before there is ever any actual conflict between the two opposing militaries has any realistic basis. If you see it, please do clarify.

"Gentlemen, we were so helpless in the case of last years war of aggression against us that were forced to surrender without having even fired a shot in self defense. Consequently I propose we undertake the following reforms..."

Are you saying you can't see that happening in some military headquarters after a catastrophe like being forced to surrender to several countries without a fight? I certainly can.

In other words, it is the defeat, not the physical act of getting your ass kicked, that leads to the reforms. OTOH, You could lose a number of bloody battles and then come back and win the war by a hair. Victory giving the appearance of "vindicating" your inefficient way of doing things, no reforms would take place.

A surrender cuts your glory in half, and then subtracts an additional penalty from the new total.

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I still don't see how giving XP to a military whose national government surrenders to another nation before there is ever any actual conflict between the two opposing militaries has any realistic basis. If you see it, please do clarify.

"Gentlemen, we were so helpless in the case of last years war of aggression against us that were forced to surrender without having even fired a shot in self defense. Consequently I propose we undertake the following reforms..."

Are you saying you can't see that happening in some military headquarters after a catastrophe like being forced to surrender to several countries without a fight? I certainly can.

In other words, it is the defeat, not the physical act of getting your ass kicked, that leads to the reforms. OTOH, You could lose a number of bloody battles and then come back and win the war by a hair. Victory having the appearance of "vindicating" your inefficient way of doing things, no reforms would take place.

A surrender cuts your glory in half, and then subtracts an additional penalty from the new total.

Hmmm . . . not being an expert in the period, and being only a social scientist with a hobbyman's interest in military history I'm already on thin ice here, so I defer to the opinions of the more knowledgeable (most notably Marshall, holy crap man! 29 books!?! [&o]) . . . having said that . . . no I still don't see it as being as viable a scenario as the one in which the asses have got kicked.

Loss of blood and treasure makes it undeniable that something ain't right. Surrendering as a nation to another nation, and becoming subject to their will without ever having put up a fight seems unlikely to do anything except promote unrest and disapproval with either the ruling regime, the military command, or both.

It just seems like, commanders and leaders who failed to put up a fight generally get hammered by any of their peers or rivals who would like to see them undermined or booted. Thus, one could just as easily invision a scenario in which a conspiracy to depose/assassinate/relieve the "cowardly chancellor/king/General responsible for the "pre-emptive" surender.

One other issue here that hasn't been raised is that of the "surrender points" that get generated. In the instance of the Prussian surrender to Russia a couple turns ago in Another PBEM, there were about 960 surrender points generated. That is not very much. I seem to recall that one province "costs" about 1000 to 2000 surrender points.

As an example, I glanced at how long I could force Prussia to give me a RoP and it was only about 8 or 9 months worth. Hardly seems like a realistic consequence of what effectively amounted to an unconditional surrender without having put up any fight. But then maybe I'm biased since I'm playing Russia and trying to win! [:D]