Formal Surrender Terms

Field of Glory: Empires is a grand strategy game in which you will have to move in an intricate and living tapestry of nations and tribes, each one with their distinctive culture.
Set in Europe and in the Mediterranean Area during the Classical Age, experience what truly means to manage an Empire.

Moderator: Pocus

ledo
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Formal Surrender Terms

Post by ledo » Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:00 pm

I have been part of that chorus to improve the diplomatic game. I just see this as a limitation on players choices rather than a new option. It makes something easier for one player if they chose, but harder for another without choice. I think as it is currently both players have a choice to do exactly what this system allows, and the problem is that they're not making those choices. Possibly because they don't see it as in their best interest, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it isn't often in their best interest, and I think that's up to the player base to learn and adapt to that.

If they want to play like a teenage boy smashing a hammer, then that's the perfect time to find players who aren't like that because they will gravitate towards you for alliances. If they're all like that, then its a little more volatile but still equally straightforward in terms of strategy. Play into it, play one against the other. Whether it works or not is based on a host of variables some in your control some not. I've played all sorts of groups, I've had people who suicide into you the minute they lose a single battle, I've had people who betray you at every turn. I've had games where everyone is convinced you need to be destroyed from the very get go because you won the last game. Not all of these are all equal starts, but all of these are interesting situations for you to find your way out of. They can put an unconditional surrender in, but I don't think the net effect will be interesting negotiation because its forced and your entire empire isn't on the line, I think it will just make wars more transactional. The antigonids will just be getting one auto-surrender after another, taking territory left, right and centre for free, because why fight them at all when you know they're going to win and take what you're giving them anyway. But if I can't force them to take a small chunk, I have to convince them to take a small chunk, and that's the same outcome, but it relies on skill and persuasion with each situation being different, as opposed to the hammer solution of those discussions are effectively 80% automated, because getting them to the table is the main part of the work in diplomacy, once they're there they've tacitly shown that a negotiated solution is possible.

Another point I'll make is that up to now I've been accepting your assumption that your playing group is like this. That has not at all been my experience though. I am in a multiplayer game now, where we have aggressors, firm allies, secret confederations, we have agreements on territory splits now and into the future. The political atmosphere from the player end is rich. We can already negotiate a peace, and we soon may have too. To improve diplomacy I want more options to formalise agreements, offer mercenaries, provide assistance beyond gifts etc.

devoncop
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Formal Surrender Terms

Post by devoncop » Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:31 am

ledo wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:00 pm
I have been part of that chorus to improve the diplomatic game. I just see this as a limitation on players choices rather than a new option. It makes something easier for one player if they chose, but harder for another without choice. I think as it is currently both players have a choice to do exactly what this system allows, and the problem is that they're not making those choices. Possibly because they don't see it as in their best interest, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it isn't often in their best interest, and I think that's up to the player base to learn and adapt to that.

If they want to play like a teenage boy smashing a hammer, then that's the perfect time to find players who aren't like that because they will gravitate towards you for alliances. If they're all like that, then its a little more volatile but still equally straightforward in terms of strategy. Play into it, play one against the other. Whether it works or not is based on a host of variables some in your control some not. I've played all sorts of groups, I've had people who suicide into you the minute they lose a single battle, I've had people who betray you at every turn. I've had games where everyone is convinced you need to be destroyed from the very get go because you won the last game. Not all of these are all equal starts, but all of these are interesting situations for you to find your way out of. They can put an unconditional surrender in, but I don't think the net effect will be interesting negotiation because its forced and your entire empire isn't on the line, I think it will just make wars more transactional. The antigonids will just be getting one auto-surrender after another, taking territory left, right and centre for free, because why fight them at all when you know they're going to win and take what you're giving them anyway. But if I can't force them to take a small chunk, I have to convince them to take a small chunk, and that's the same outcome, but it relies on skill and persuasion with each situation being different, as opposed to the hammer solution of those discussions are effectively 80% automated, because getting them to the table is the main part of the work in diplomacy, once they're there they've tacitly shown that a negotiated solution is possible.

Another point I'll make is that up to now I've been accepting your assumption that your playing group is like this. That has not at all been my experience though. I am in a multiplayer game now, where we have aggressors, firm allies, secret confederations, we have agreements on territory splits now and into the future. The political atmosphere from the player end is rich. We can already negotiate a peace, and we soon may have too. To improve diplomacy I want more options to formalise agreements, offer mercenaries, provide assistance beyond gifts etc.
Excellent post ! :D

ledo
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Formal Surrender Terms

Post by ledo » Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:46 am

To be fair we started a game explicitly with the intention of encouraging diplomacy, so maybe that might help your problem. There are a few around. I think games run by Geffalrus and 13obo tend to be those.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory: Empires”