Surrender Mechanics

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Surrender Mechanics

Tagged: 

This topic contains 49 replies, has 19 voices, and was last updated by  TheInternetJanitor 6 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 50 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #163729

    RBarros03
    Member

    Worse idea ever. Seriously, I’ve just gave up playing a match because of these completely nonsense surrender mechanics. After capturing ONLY an small town of a enemy, he surrenders and give me his throne city with a big army, his general and a settler. How is it supposed to balance the game? As far as I’m concerned we’ve been complaining about the game being too easy since the release and Triumph go on with a mechanic to make it even easier? What the …?

    #163733

    Mythabril
    Member

    Then reject the surrender and grind the opponent down.

    AI only surrenders if your armies outmatch its own by a margin and you had a victory, especially if you happened to kill off a stack or two of it without many losses yourself.

    #163734

    Bouh
    Member

    Especialy, if you win a battle where the AI outnumber you 3 to 1 or more, she becomes desperate and surrender, which make sense.

    Also, people actualy complained about the game being too difficult. But here it doesn’t matter, this mecanic came because many people complained that the end game was a boring grind with many identical battles while the outcome of the war was already known ; it was not fun, and AI surrendering only remove the chore of grinding through a whole empire when the game is already won.

    #163735

    RBarros03
    Member

    They should put an option to turn off surrender before the game starts instead. In any case, this is still just a feature to make the game easier. I was thinking about buying the DLC, but I guess I’ll just wait to see if they really have any interest to make the game playable instead of releasing tons of units/races/spells.

    #163737

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    So the game is currently unplayable because you can’t be bothered to reject a surrender?
    If that’s your main problem…

    #163739

    Mythabril
    Member

    They should put an option to turn off surrender before the game starts instead.

    You can reject the surrender. The option you ask for is already there.

    #163742

    RBarros03
    Member

    @Jolly Joker

    Not only because of that. IMHO, the main issues are:

    – Worst multiplayer platform I’ve ever seen in a 21th century game (not joking, not exagerating).

    – AI not polished and too easy to beat, even in emperor.

    But that goes beyond the topic subject.

    #163743

    FrankA
    Member

    The AI doesn’t seem to surrender to other AI’s only human players. So if you want to continue just refuse the offer as mentioned above many times.

    Frank

    #163749

    @Jolly Joker

    Not only because of that. IMHO, the main issues are:

    – Worst multiplayer platform I’ve ever seen in a 21th century game (not joking, not exagerating).

    – AI not polished and too easy to beat, even in emperor.

    But that goes beyond the topic subject.

    I love you already.

    #163753

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    If you beat the AI easily “on Emperor” (hoy many of them?) change your RMG settings; you can make things pretty difficult for yourself.
    About the mp platform I can’t sa anything.

    #163754

    I didn’t notice all this huge problem the OP is mentioning (maybe it’s more noticeable in small maps which I don’t play, where you meet your enemies quite soon?)

    What gets on my nerves is, as usual, when people post on a thread just to point out a “workaround” that makes people cheat against themselves (HOW IDIOTIC IS THAT?) like “who cares just ignore the problem and refuse the surrender” … or “You hate teleports just don’t use them”… suuuuuuuuure! Apart from being against any common sense of what suggesting in a thread , notice that in multiplayer games the other players use those exploits and therefore they spoil the game no matter what. Really guys it should be against the rules of netiquette telling people that their complaint is worthless because of some dumbass workaround.

    Cheers.

    #163757

    Bouh
    Member

    How is refusing the surrender a work around ? How does it spoil anything ? If the game is too easy anyway, how is refusing surrender spoiling anything ?

    Sometimes, people just have crazy expectations. Desactivate surrender mecanic would only be like puting blinkers and willfuly refuse to see that the AI already lost when she already lost. How does it make a difference that you put these blinkers before the game start or after ?

    Also, some game setting help or hamper the AI a lot. Ally the AI between them for a start. Be sure to leave cities on the map and settlers allowed. Prefer land or continents maps. I think larger maps are better for the AI. Some specialist could advise you better than I can for harder AI settings.

    #163760

    Ravenholme
    Member

    How is refusing the surrender a work around ? How does it spoil anything ? If the game is too easy anyway, how is refusing surrender spoiling anything ?

    Sometimes, people just have crazy expectations. Desactivate surrender mecanic would only be like puting blinkers and willfuly refuse to see that the AI already lost when she already lost. How does it make a difference that you put these blinkers before the game start or after ?

    Exactly.

    Surrender is basically “Skip End Game Grind: Y/N?” It is not a “stupid workaround” to refuse one when the game outright gives you the choice of refusing it. That might be the dumbest statement I’ve heard all day. And that is no mean feat with the day I’m having.

    The AI surrenders because you have dealt it a blow that it knows it can’t recover from if you press your advantage, you can’t really change that. Strategic AI will be a bit more varied with leader personalities, maybe surrender chance will get tweaked in that

    #163763

    Stormwind
    Member

    +1 to Bouh and Revenholme

    #163764

    The surrender mechanic was put in the game at the same time the seals victory was put in, and for the same reason. Late game 4x games tend to turn into a boring slog with each turn taking hours and nothing exciting going on, even if one player clearly is going to win and no one else has a chance.

    Seals and surrender are both really good improvements that fix a real issue. Before they were put in people complained constantly about how the game wasn’t fun after playing for a while. The devs put them both in because there was a real need for them. They work exactly as they were intended to. The AI doesn’t surrender unless it really has no chance to come back, and yes, as people have mentioned, you don’t even have to accept it.

    All that aside, I commend the RBarros for being willing to point out other real issues. Many people like to squabble over fairly minor subjective issues when there are blatant things that would objectively improve the game. To be honest the one he didn’t mention is probably the biggest since it affects everything Triumph does: advertising. Efficient and effective advertising means increased revenue, allowing the team to do everything better. Buy new equipment, get training, hire new talented team members, you name it. It doesn’t even have to cost much to advertise, if anything, but it does need to be done.

    I think someone said there was a new trailer in the works for the expansion so that will certainly help if it gets out there where people can see it.

    #163765

    jb
    Member

    I like the surrender option. I think the AI surrenders at the appropriate time as well.

    There is one flaw, however. The AI should NEVER surrender during a team game when it has living allies. Only if it’s the last AI on the team should it be possible to surrender.

    #163766

    Khelle
    Member

    AI should surrender to other AI that is enemy with player. This is also imporant! It’s not logical other way.

    #163771

    Some quick thoughts about surrender mechanics that might be cool with the upcoming diplomacy and vassal stuff. This is mostly just ideas stolen from other 4x games like civ and total war that already have fairly thorough diplomacy systems.

    Here’s an idea: have surrendered players be vassals instead of outright joining their conqueror so they are still a separate entity. This way the power swing is not so immediate and drastic that one quick rush and surrender means that victor is almost sure to win the whole game. Currently surrender means you get all their armies, cities, everything that is left instantly.

    Another idea: have defeated players able to return to play if their capital is liberated by someone else. It could be an option in addition to migrate, plunder, etc. This puts them back in play as a vassal to their new best buds that saved them. Perhaps they could even be returned from a burnt out ruined capital with a new settler rebuilding them.

    Idea III: Let vassals break away if sufficient pressure is put on them by outside forces. Have it be a diplomacy option, any player can pay a hefty amount similar to buying an independent city that scales with city worth and relation modifiers to let a vassal go independent of their master, but continue to build units and generally act like a player similar to what vassals are supposed to do. This would add another interesting option to diplomacy. In addition to this perhaps allow the player to encourage independents to go to war with people. I think the expansion is putting in diplomacy screens for talking to independents so this might already be something you can do, we won’t know until the expansion ships.

    Just some things to think about that other games have done to handle surrender situations.

    #163773

    Stormwind
    Member

    I like the surrender option. I think the AI surrenders at the appropriate time as well.

    There is one flaw, however. The AI should NEVER surrender during a team game when it has living allies. Only if it’s the last AI on the team should it be possible to surrender.

    I agree with that. And seems it should be a simple fix.

    #163780

    RBarros03
    Member

    You guys are forgetting about one important detail: after surrendering, the AI not only gives you all their cities, but all its armies and heroes.

    In the match I’ve mentioned at the beginning of the post, because I captured a outpost with an garrison of 3 units and a hero, I’ve won a full stack of units, a hero and a settler. That was the first and only battle I had with that faction. So, after around 15 turns playing, the feature meant to make the game less boring at the late game made my early game so easy that it became boring! It looks to me, by this example, that the feature still needs a lot of work. I know I can just refuse the surrender but that doesn’t change the argument stated above.

    @theinternetjanitor

    I get your point about the advertising issue. But I believe the main advertising you could get is by making a proper multiplayer platform we are used to see in every game released today. Things like auto matchmaking, ranking systems, in-game profiles are what I believe to have the potential to put this game in a high revenue/market share trail. But I really don’t know what are the technical and financial issues behind that. The only thing we can do is to moan.

    #163783

    Eomolch
    Member

    You guys are forgetting about one important detail: after surrendering, the AI not only gives you all their cities, but all its armies and heroes.

    In the match I’ve mentioned at the beginning of the post, because I captured a outpost with an garrison of 3 units and a hero, I’ve won a full stack of units, a hero and a settler. That was the first and only battle I had with that faction. So, after around 15 turns playing, the feature meant to make the game less boring at the late game made my early game so easy that it became boring! It looks to me, by this example, that the feature still needs a lot of work. I know I can just refuse the surrender but that doesn’t change the argument stated above.

    This is also what I don’t like about the surrender mechanic. I think the AI either shouldn’t surrender at all when there are other players left or do so more reluctantly (e.g. the system should not just consider the army strength of you relative to your opponent but also assess whether your armies are actually threatening the hearth of his empire). Making their former throne city a vassall city also sounds like a nice solution since it automatically means you won’t get any troops as an immediate effect.

    #163784

    Ravenholme
    Member

    The AI ONLY gives you their throne city, its defenders, and their leader. All other cities, garrisons and heroes become hostile neutrals

    #163785

    Bouh
    Member

    You guys are forgetting about one important detail: after surrendering, the AI not only gives you all their cities, but all its armies and heroes.

    No. The AI gives you *one* city, his capital, and the leader stack.

    #163786

    RBarros03
    Member

    @ Bouh

    Sorry, I didn’t notice that because in the match mentioned the AI only had those 2 cities.

    #163787

    Gloweye
    Member

    Surrender is a good thing in this game. However, the AI does it a bit to fast to my taste. Also, if possible, I’d support the option of an AI surrendering to another AI. It still gives you some breathing room(no attacks from those AI’s other cities for a while, and they independent, so you can capture them.)

    For example, maybe there could be a rule for an AI to never offer surrender while they still have above 50% of the cities they had at the peak of their rule, never surrender while still having 50% of their armies left, and never before turn 20(Adjusted for game speed)

    Currently surrender means you get all their armies, cities, everything that is left instantly.

    after surrendering, the AI not only gives you all their cities, but all its armies and heroes.

    This is just plain wrong. You ONLY get their Throne, and the troops present there at that moment. I’ll give it to you that the AI tends to fortify his Throne the heaviest and have the strongest army there, but you will NEVER get another city or any army in the field.

    You could only think this is you consistently rush your opponents.

    Here’s an idea: have surrendered players be vassals instead of outright joining their conqueror so they are still a separate entity.

    This is a pretty good idea. It reminds me of Alpha Centauri, where someone could surrender, giving you all their techs and money, and they would be put into an alliance with you, with them unable to break it, while they were forced to follow your lead in the planetary council.

    That measure of servitude could very well be represented by an vassalage, with the option for the victor to set a certain tax rate that the vassal would have to pay, along with the option to request any items that the vassal has.

    #163796

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>TheInternetJanitor wrote:</div>
    Currently surrender means you get all their armies, cities, everything that is left instantly.

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>RBarros03 wrote:</div>
    after surrendering, the AI not only gives you all their cities, but all its armies and heroes.

    This is just plain wrong. You ONLY get their Throne, and the troops present there at that moment. I’ll give it to you that the AI tends to fortify his Throne the heaviest and have the strongest army there, but you will NEVER get another city or any army in the field.

    You could only think this is you consistently rush your opponents.

    To be fair…..if you want to win games the best way to do so right now is “build stuff, go punch other guy” so “always rushing” is the same as saying “play effectively”. This is especially true against AI that get an income bonus that you don’t want to leave alive long enough to let them use it! And as you pointed out, the AI loves to fall back and turtle when threatened. Sometimes they will even burn their own towns to prevent you taking them and consolidate all their forces in their capital, or at least they used to. They might not do that since surrender was put in. As you said, it is hard to test it since the correct strategy is always run straight at someone with overwhelming force. Getting all their stuff instantly and for free when you do it only reinforces this strategy even more!

    This is why I threw out some ideas other games have used to mitigate runaway steamrolls where surrenders are concerned, since the thread is all about that. I honestly don’t see it as that big a deal, but it certainly rewards breakneck aggressive play. I enjoy decisive games but others prefer to sit back and simcity for hours, and so threads like this pop up.

    #163823

    Gloweye
    Member

    To be fair…..if you want to win games the best way to do so right now is “build stuff, go punch other guy” so “always rushing” is the same as saying “play effectively”.

    AI bonuses are getting…changed in an attempt to make King/Emperor AI’s more able to survive an early rush. I don’t know if it’s gonna work well(I always feel like I’m playing slow compared to other players.) I might be one of those to play longer games, and consider it early to take out an AI before turn 30(Though I will do it, if I get declared on.)

    This is why I threw out some ideas other games have used to mitigate runaway steamrolls where surrenders are concerned, since the thread is all about that. I honestly don’t see it as that big a deal, but it certainly rewards breakneck aggressive play. I enjoy decisive games but others prefer to sit back and simcity for hours, and so threads like this pop up.

    Sure, and I support the plans to change the game this way, and proposed the change to surrender to restrict if after a certain % of the AI has been defeated, and at a minimum turn count. That would keep the idea of Surrender intact( remove game slugging), while removing these unfair advantages(early well-developed city and bonus army for free).

    #163827

    That would certainly work to make everyone happy, I think the idea of gating surrender behind a minimum turn count would work perfectly. Have it affected by game speed and/or map sizes and it would scale pretty well. Rushing would still be viable since taking out an enemy and getting a capital is a big deal, but it would be more of a gamble and potentially leave you vulnerable for a while. Sounds fair!

    It sounds like the combination of diplomacy and random events can really help AI survive rushes better in the expansion by giving players more stuff to worry about if they go all in on offense and leave themselves open. I guess we’ll see when it ships!

    #163834

    quo
    Member

    IMO the AI does surrender too easily.

    The issue is that the AI surrenders based on its threshold of power relative to an individual target, without considering the total forces you fighting from all hostile sources, which split the attackers real capability. This results in some absurdities, such as you being at war with 4 AIs who, in total, could absolutely crush you, but since they only evaluate your power 1:1, they are each individually willing to surrender.

    I also agree that inheriting the leaders army is too much. In a recent game with 8 players (7 AIs) I finished the game with 20+ heroes, because each AI that surrendered gave me more stuff. After one or two surrenders, it snowballs out of control. IMO if an AI surrenders any hero units should simply disappear out of the game, essentially being driven into exile. If you want to take their heroes you should need to either Convert/Seduce them in combat, or to take their stuff hunt them down and kill them. But in no case should your former enemy leader become a hero unit under your control, that just doesn’t make any sense.

    #163846

    Quo, what you are saying only matters if being at war with the AI actually meant a player was threatened.

    Never stop attacking and the AI offers no resistance, they just run home and cry until you come and take their toys away. Meanwhile, any others patiently wait for you to come to them while they spend their time building settlers, baking cookies, and maybe working on that novel they’ve been putting off for so long.

    The expansion is supposed to shake that up a bit though, so this whole thread might already be obsolete as far as we know.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 50 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.