Formal Surrender Terms

[choppinlt]

We are about 140 turns in to a 6 player MP campaign. Overall, it has been a ton of fun, much like I hoped it would be. We only have 5 players left due to one player having too many misfortunes against the AI. The rest of us have grown and are now bumping in to each other. We started playing about a week after initial release so there have been plenty of growing pains for everyone throughout the process.

I have played MP diplomatic level games before and there is a natural tendency for dogpiling. This game has been no different, and that's OK to a certain extent. It feels a bit too easy for human players to agree to attack and annihilate another human opponent though. I know there has been a lot of discussion about diplomacy, and there have been a lot of good thoughts and suggestions. I am looking forward to see what the devs are coming up with. I've seen the casus belli method suggested, but an alternative or complementary method would be the ability to allow for conditional surrender or unconditional surrender. Perhaps this method would only apply to human players. The basic premise works like this; if an enemy offers unconditional surrender a player would have to accept it. Conditional surrender doesn't have to be accepted, but terms would be less severe. Other Empire mechanisms could be tied in as well such as aging, progress tokens and legacy hits for surrendering/accepting terms. The winning side can choose from a list of different terms they wish as part of the surrender such as money, manpower, regions/provinces, gold, client status, forced alliances, forced to abandon alliances, extra length to peace treaties, exile leaders, etc. It could prevent the dogpiling from being as severe, especially in MP games. If a player surrenders more quickly then that can prevent losses from being severe. A defender could surrender to 2 factions to focus against a third faction. There are a lot of possibilities, and this seems in line with ancient political situations.

Not sure if this has been discussed at all, but I thought I would bring it up.

[desertedfox]

+1

[Lysimachos]

+1

[desertedfox]

There would need to be a proviso on this of course that you may only do it every so often. Imagine someone with a big lead in Legacy late game staving off attackers with such a diplomatic arsenal.

[choppinlt]

Yes exactly, some sort of proviso would likely be in order. Perhaps one or two of the surrender terms would be a legacy "exchange". They could be called "National Respect" and "National Dishonor"(or something of the sort). By choosing that as one of the terms of surrender the winner(s) could gain legacy with the Respect and the loser(s) could lose legacy with the Dishonor. The actual amounts lost or gained would depend on if it were a conditional or unconditional surrender, and could be a max/min amount and/or a % of the player's total legacy. Ex: 100 legacy or 10% current legacy score whichever is greater.

At face value this concept might seem gamey, but it would reflect the amount of respect gained/lost from your rivals and peers based on who you were surrendering to, or defeating. Generally speaking there are a ton of possibilities here with all the different game mechanics that Empires has to offer.

[desertedfox]

Very good ideas you have. Rather than a set amount of legacy lost it could be a % of the current total as the Lgeacy total raises as the game goes on.

[choppinlt]

Precisely! Thanks

[ledo]

It feels strange to recreate historic diplomatic situations for players only. I feel like you're almost changing the game to help yourself to act in your own best interests sometimes, compensating for bad diplomatic play in a way that you wouldn't for tactical play. I mean you wouldn't suggest the AI automatically fixes your army structure if you've built it incorrectly. Dogpiling is sometimes an issue in games, but if the power is overwhelming then I see no reason for the powers not to completely take all the enemies territory, and if there is a reason the player being dogpiled should have highlighted that before they got dogpiled and should continue to highlight that after. When dogpiling remember not every player gains the same advantage, use that to your benefit and build division and convince the other invaders that a negotiated peace deal is in everyone's best interest. If you can't do that, well then avoid painting a target on your back in the first place.

Now if historically the reasons were that the enemies don't want that territory, then two human players should be able to come to an agreement. If taking territory is more beneficial than it was historically they can tweak the existing penalties for taking territory in terms of decadence, as well as maybe a penalty for each additional territory after the first you take from the same enemy (if you feel that's relevant, but either way a tweaked solution to mechanics could make it more costly if you feel this is the problem).

If regardless of the cost human players refuse to be reasonable whether when being attacked or attacking and take the war to the point of annihilation I think that's fine, thats just bad diplomacy on their part and poor playstyle just like building your provinces badly or creating your armies poorly. The defending player needs to work twice as hard to convince the other players that its in their interest to allow them to survive (sometimes swallowing their pride) to act as a buffer, or convince someone that another player is a bigger threat. I once played a board game where I really wounded a players empire and he started beelining for me preparing a suicidal attack that would devastate me, giving up all hope of winning, after three turns of slowly moving towards me I finally on the last turn convinced him that he could still win and that his current ally was the bigger threat, he changed course on the last turn and surprise attacked their capital. It benefited both of us greatly, but if it went the other way it would have been a failure on my part to convince him and on their part for missing an opportunity, and that's the game, mistakes are made and they have terrible consequences.

A game of diplomacy requires constant reevaluation of your position and everyone else's positions. Everyone wants something, build trust between you and those who you feel threatened by, build suspicion between your enemies, avoid putting yourself in a winnning position unless you have your diplomatic ducks in a row and your armies in the right place. Indeed match your strength in measurable quantities (forces, gold, legacy etc.) to the intangible threat it generates, and make decisions on expansion and even wonder building on this basis, not just because you can conquer some territory or the wonder option comes up. And if none of these work and there's no diplomatic solution and you think you did everything right and you still get dogpiled even though you're not a threat, than either you're playing with completely irrational players, or more likely you did everything that you thought was right and missed an opportunity elsewhere. Look back at the situation, think about who didn't I talk to early enough, who did I trust too much, who gained the most from my conquest and why wasn't I able to make it clear to the others that declaring war on me would actually be to their detriment in a relative sense, which alliances did I allow to get too strong without working to split them up or casting them as a threat to others etc.

I think even if there is a problem as you are describing it, it's probably a problem with the players not the game, and while I support improvements to diplomacy, being able to force a peace on your enemy even at a cost, is really just a crutch that limits to some extent the importance of the diplomatic meta-game. I think it might just be easier to put a penalty on wiping out a nation, and any deterrence beyond that should rely on good diplomatic management. The civilisation cycle that this game introduces of expansion and decline, which limits steamrolling, should be matched by its diplomatic equivalent. If anything, to avoid dogpiling they need to create an innovative and volatile solution for team wins (where teams can change over time and people still need to trust their partner won't take the incentive to betray them). How that works, I don't know, but that would probably create a guard against dogpiling while not limiting diplomacy.

[devoncop]

I agree with ledo.

[choppinlt]

The peace terms need not be exclusive to human players, my intent was to suggest it may be quicker/easier for devs to implement for human players only. In fact I would like to see it for all factions AI or human controlled.

I'm less concerned about the fate of very small factions, but steamrolling of larger multi province factions wasn't really a thing in classical antiquity. Sure large factions waxed, waned and disappeared, but it typically happened over the course of time with multiple wars being fought (e.g. 3 Punic Wars, 4 wars with Macedon before complete annexation). The only exception I can think of is Alexander's conquest of the Achaemenids, and clearly that was an exceptional case in history. If a player refuses to swallow their pride and surrender unconditionally then they could suffer the same fate as the Achaemenids. So that is part of the historical basis of my suggestion.

I have found the basic calculus of diplo level games to work like this human opponents=biggest threat. Less human players=greater chance of survival. Therefore destroying human opponents=greater chance of surviving. Destroying human opponents=highest priority. Having surrender terms as I'm suggesting doesn't completely change this, BUT it makes it a bit more difficult and less likely an impetuous decision will lead to someone else's complete destruction.

In short, dogpiling can continue to happen, but a defender's option to surrender unconditionally makes it less easy for players to agree to immediately coordinate and eliminate another player faction that is of any size. It can still be done, but at least it would have to be accomplished over a series of wars against a larger opponent rather than a single combined blitzkrieg. IMHO this is good thing overall, both from a player perspective and a historical perspective.

Lastly, I agree with almost all of what you are saying ledo, but i feel like formal surrender terms (a conditional or unconditional surrender) in this manner would both make diplomacy closer to antiquity, and make for a more interesting diplomatic level nuanced game based on what I have seen.

[Lysimachos]

The case is well exposed by choppinlt.
In MP games is too easy to band together against one single player to annihilate it in a way that is completely unhistorical.
Moreover the lack of an in-game system of communication between single players renders really difficult to manage diplomatically this kind of situations because not always other players are logged on the Slitherine forum or care to look if a message has been sent to them ...
So an in-game system of communication would be a nice and useful add on to the game, due to the fact that not always you want to make your statement be read by all the players and moreover diplomacy needs secrecy!

[ledo]

The case is well exposed by choppinlt.
In MP games is too easy to band together against one single player to annihilate it in a way that is completely unhistorical.
Moreover the lack of an in-game system of communication between single players renders really difficult to manage diplomatically this kind of situations because not always other players are logged on the Slitherine forum or care to look if a message has been sent to them ...
So an in-game system of communication would be a nice and useful add on to the game, due to the fact that not always you want to make your statement be read by all the players and moreover diplomacy needs secrecy!

I agree with both of you on the point of communication. And I do see the distortion of a human player being a greater threat. I could still see it as they are a greater threat in the same way a good leader in a nation is a greater threat, since human players are far more effective than the AI, it represents a golden age of leadership for the nation which makes them more threatening.

I still think that those things should be fixed by improving communication in-game, and allowing you to look at the map when the game is not running, rather than a forced surrender mechanic. I also think its not so simple with the dogpile. Yes everyone can dogpile macedonia, but that breaks the balance of power and greece and gives the antigonids a free hand. Yes everyone can dogpile the antigonids, but then the Seleucids will have almost no concerns once they've dealt with Maurya and can just stack legacy. Carthage can immediately defeat the Syracusae army and start sieging their territory, but a peace might provide a useful buffer state against rome and free the carthaginians to consolidate land elsewhere. Dogpiling and eliminating players always helps one player more than others, often much more to the point that players aren't really acting in their best interests wiping out an opponent, but really furthering others. That sort of contemplation is what traditionally stopped unmitigated, war of annihilation in real diplomacy and politics. When the war is over who benefits the most, and if I set a precedent of unchecked belligerence, what do I do when that player who benefited most turns on me? I agree that not everyone wants to play that way, but it is really taking the burden off the player to think critically of the political situation and creating somewhat tactical arcade diplomacy. It encourages minmaxing and multiple low-risk wars, and one great thing about games that depend on diplomacy is that minmaxing your empire, having the largest army, racking up victory points whenever possible, are all often bad strategy. Instead it requires a more nuanced game of long-term planning and doing every move at the right time in the context of a changing set of circumstances around you.

[ledo]

Sorry just to clarify, I see this solution as the equivalent the AI needs to be toned down because the players favourite All-Cavalry armies are constantly losing. The answer to that would be that players are building the wrong type of army. Similarly, the diplomacy in this game is so tight I don't see much benefit assuming the tier 1 and 2 nations are all human players and its not set in one small area, to dogpiling. If I am Rome, I don't want epirus to collapse immediately. I want them to capture Aetolia and then remain a minor threat to Macedonia. As Macedonia I dont want Lysimachos gone, because that leaves me alone to face the Antigonids in the balkans. If I am almost anyone, I don't want the seleucids to lose against Maurya, because then the Antigonids can run wild. If I am the eastern powers I might attack Rome if it attacks Carthage and looks to win, but I would also work for a negotiated peace because I dont want the Antigonids to have all of Italy or for Carthage to be able capitalise and create an even greater western empire than I feared the Romans might have. Everything has a balance, and dogpiling is not a good strategy except in cases when someone has become so flagrantly strong it threatens everyone elses chances of winning the game simultaneously. And even then once that threat is removed, I would try to create a negotiated peace early to keep that player as a buffer against others and prevent the position of extreme frontrunner from just transferring to one of my erstwhile allies.

[Lysimachos]

ledo, you say that everything has a balance, and you're right about it.
But in the real game not all players understand this subtle principle and there is also to consider the fact that sometimes also friendship or pre-arranged deals play a role, when two or more players decide to part the world between themselves and only then fight each other ...

[ledo]

Absolutely it does. And this is why I always strive to get a strong alliance early. Two players doesn't make a dog pile, and two players who form a strong alliance should be a threat to everyone else, so should be targets themselves and face a coalition of players who act in their own interest as a group to counter such behaviour, whenever they attempt to aggressively expand. But yes I understand what you mean about the nuance, that's why I said that they are most likely playing poorly in my opinion, although i don't know the particulars. If the fix to their poor play is a forced surrender mechanic, that's fine but it seems odd that rather than enrich the diplomatic experience with improved communication and better theory crafting on strategies we decide to just artificially limit it to stop people acting against their own interests.

[ledo]

Absolutely it does. And this is why I always strive to get a strong alliance early. Two players doesn't make a dog pile, and two players who form a strong alliance should be a threat to everyone else, so should be targets themselves and face a coalition of players who act in their own interest as a group to counter such behaviour, whenever they attempt to aggressively expand. But yes I understand what you mean about the nuance, that's why I said that they are most likely playing poorly in my opinion, although i don't know the particulars. If the fix to their poor play is a forced surrender mechanic, that's fine but it seems odd that rather than enrich the diplomatic experience with improved communication and better theory crafting on strategies we decide to just artificially limit it to stop people acting against their own interests.

Further on that first point. Not only do I strive to make a strong alliance but I also strive to keep it as secret as possible and limit coordinated moves to necessity. This is my recognition that if I were to publicly announce a string alliance I expect the best play would be for others to attack us. But by keeping it secret it limits our ability to publicly ally and wipe out players one by one as you say. So by following a logical sequence of decisions alliances are still made but everyone is trying to move quietly and carefully to plan their moves and too aggressive maneuvers are discouraged. A strong diplomatic game usually sees most players wait for someone else to rear their head out rather than aggressive expansion and dogpiling which makes you the target.

The downside to that strategy is that most players are more scared of losing than not winning so they often placate their large neighbours and help with or stay out of wars against their own interests, avoiding being embroiled in any conflict that could see them be knocked out even if it's the only chance of winning. However such a strategy never really wins so eventually people will have to learn, or else the strongest initial nation with the best initial position, antigonids, will likely win most games. Forced peace mechanics or no.

[choppinlt]

ledo, you say that everything has a balance, and you're right about it.
But in the real game not all players understand this subtle principle and there is also to consider the fact that sometimes also friendship or pre-arranged deals play a role, when two or more players decide to part the world between themselves and only then fight each other ...

Precisely what I am saying above.

Call it what you will, dogpiling, ganging up on, whatever term you want to use the issue is the same. Ledo, while it is your opinion that ganging up to annihilate another player can be poor play (and I won't disagree with you), that may not reflect the opinion of the other players you are playing against... and that's what matters! If Rome, Dacia, Ptolemaics, Seleucids all decide it is time for Macedonia (that has grown to 6 or more provinces in size) to completely disappear and split the spoils, then the math looks really bad for Macedon. Currently there is no mechanic for Macedon to offer a surrender...to simply say "I give up, name your terms". In essence that is what offering an unconditional surrender would do. Do it early enough and your losses can be limited, but wait too long or fight too hard and your situation could become dire. Unless the player refuses to surrender (which is completely their choice) they can surrender to the east and fight to the west (or whatever direction). Again this offers some interesting diplomatic nuances. So the end result could still be the same for Macedon, at least Macedon made them fight 4 wars to do it. The way it currently works is that every single war could be an existential threat, and that doesn't reflect the diplomatic nuances of how it typically worked in antiquity.

Perhaps a simple example to help illustrate how the process could work... Player X and Y decide to attack Player A. Player A is hard pressed, but is holding his own. Player Z sensing an opportunity declares against Player A. A has some tough choices to make... Let's say that A offers X, Y, and Z all Conditional Surrenders. None of them accept because they sense they have the upper hand and can get a better deal. Next turn Player A offers unconditional surrender to X and Y so he can refocus on Z and perhaps force Z to favorable terms quickly. Player A will suffer the consequences of the unconditional surrender terms, but they still exist and perhaps were able to take something from Z to help make up for their losses. Z thinks twice before doing that again, X and Y gain spoils and the satisfaction of watching 2 rivals suffer. In the mean time Player A can re group for a short time and look at exacting revenge against X and Y in the future, perhaps with signing a deal with Z.

When a surrender occurs there would be an established process depending on the situation. Basically the victor chooses from a list of options that could be wide and varied to include forced retirement of leaders, naval size limits, reparations in gold or metal, forced alliances, forced dissolved alliances, ceding of regions and provinces, the giving of some units to the victor, additional time to an enforced peace, additional slaves, and more. It creates a formal process for those players that don't understand the subtleties, and formalizes a process for those that do.

[ledo]

Look I agree, and it would create interesting outcomes, although significant negotiation would be difficult in that system (it currently takes two turns just to ally with someone, 1 to send and 1 to accept), imagine if someone rejects an offer or two as they negotiate. That's ten turns of negotiations. But these can be fixed or worked around by players out of the game so it's not the biggest problem.

As far as existential threats and ganging up, I'd say two things probably:

Existential threats. Every war should be an existential threat, unless fought between two equal players that are likely to have some back and forth and time to discuss. The existential threat part is what makes it exciting and encourages players to seek peace even when they are slightly behind. Existential threats encourage smarter and more cautious play, they encourage fewer wars overall and patience. The removal of complete existential threat (whatever degree it initially was high- very low) reduces the need for complex diplomacy. It basically provides an emergency handbrake that says, go for it this is the worst that will happen. I prefer if at the back of my mind I know I need to keep the war civil so I can negotiate later, or that diplomacy needs to continue and I can reach out to other players, extolling what happens if I am destroyed to their chances of winning. A forced peace option would just have those people come back to me with peace out bro, I cant help you. It's no longer do or die, I can't rally the nations against the aggressor, when the rallying cry isn't my potential destruction and extreme empowerment of my opponent, but rather some limited territorial gains. Indeed I would peace out at first opportunity if I was say ptolemy or lysimachos and was fighting antigonos alone. We'd have a bunch of non-wars ending as soon as possible with none of the desperation to find a negotiated peace they don't have to give me, or to convince others they must intervene. I just hold on 5 turns or however long I need to, give over some territory and peace out. We'll come back to it later, and when we do if I have the advantage Antigonos will just do the same. Existential threat however small should always exist in the back of the players mind, because that's where the meta-game comes in, that's where you lose because you're not brave enough, or you win because you're willing to risk it all. And that's where the tension comes in, that's what drives even players not used to diplomacy to dip their toes in the water and try to get out of it somehow.

As far as my opinion not being reflected by other players, again that's what I believe to be wrong with their play. And I don't think it helps them win any more than it helps the person getting dog-piled.If some players can't play that way, that sucks but I'm terrible at optimising my provinces, that doesn't mean I call for changes to the infrastructure sharing system or call it an exploit, I learn how to use it and eventually I improve to the point where I can do it properly and not have it cause me to be under-developed compared to my neighbours. Bad gameplay, isn't broken gameplay, it's solved by improvement not by nerfs. After people play the game a bit more it will cease to be a problem. People will recognise who their natural potential allies are, who their threats are, who they need as buffers, who they need to target, who they should help early etc. Right now its a bit of wild west maybe, but as I said, if it's not helping people win the game, then people will grow out of it.

[ledo]

Things that are purely human controlled don't need to be nerfed. If a strategy is too strong players will adjust. In every dogpile someone benwfits more than the others so at some point players will stop joining or join the other side. The people that keep being aggressive will start to realise they're putting targets on their back and start playing games more cautiously. Eventually loss aversion will lead to too cautious play with strong nations like antigonids and seleucids benefiting through easy consolidation and expansion. Players will decide to become more aggressive and ally against these nations. These nations will start becoming more conservative and ceding territory to mid sized powers to avoid early gang piles. Mid sized players will become stronger faster and start absorbing smaller players. Smaller players will realise this and try to antagonise wars between the larger players and on and on and on. Every action a reaction and an adjustment. Endless variations and new strategies and innovation. A constantly shifting game that's different every time, each one tinged by the courage/cowardice and innovation/stagnation of the strategies of the players. When it comes to the meta game it corrects itself over time and the only thing anyone can complain about is they're not good at it or someone decides to throw the game away and your chances out with it too, but hey that's multiplayer.

I will just add one addendum from a boardgame I played back in the day. I was Empire A and Empire B on my border made a mistake in his troop placement leaving himself open for me to attack him. I contacted B and said that I was in a position to take his capital and wipe him out. I said I would not do so and in exchange we would become allies and he would me a favor at some point. Empire C then attacked Empire B. Empire B fought him off and was in a position to do a devastating counter attack that would knock C out of the game. I went to Empire C and offered to broker a peace in exchange for them becoming my vassal. I then went to Empire B and said this was the favor I asked; for him to back off C. This had the implied threat though not intentional that I might attack him if he broke our agreement creating a two front war, so because of this or because they wished to honor our agreement B complied. So without moving a single army I created an alliance on my border and gained a vassal, all through simple communication. All of these moves relied on both players fearing before hostilities even truly began that they might be wiped out. And it relied on me not jumping on my opponent the first opportunity I got, making myself seem a threat and an aggressor. The pay off for my reserve, took a few turns longer, but I ended up winning the game handily. Diplomacy is an excellent meta-game and allows for creating tangible value out of intangible qualities like fear, a sense of honor, strong rhetoric and reasoning and long-term strategic vision. It creates dynamic, impossible outcomes that cannot be recreated through tactical play alone. It should not be limited, nor should the capacity of the players to make threats or act be limited by anything other than equally good play on the other side, in my opinion.

[choppinlt]

To be clear I have never said (or even hinted) that game play is broken, however there has been a rather large chorus asking the current diplomacy system to be improved. Having a more robust diplomatic system (i.e. choices and options) would only enhance the game, and it sounds like you agree in principle. While there are a lot of great possibilities to improve diplomacy, my discussion was only focusing on the surrender term aspect.

The benefit of a formalized surrender process allows for players to deal in a nuanced manner with the AI. Currently you have to smash an AI opponent, take lots of land that you don't want, and grind them in to a bloody nub before they will accept peace. When peace is offered it is a binary process: Yes or No. There is no re-adjustment of borders or any other options based on a system of terms. A process would allow this to happen.

For multiplayer (which is mostly what we have been talking about) the process creates a framework for players to use and understand when coming to peace terms, AND it allows for a wide variety of diplomatic options that currently don't exist at all. The meta-game (the road to war, objectives, alliance building/breaking, short and long term goals, threats, general negotiations, etc) is unchanged, and remains vital to long term survival. Surrender terms don't change that at all.

It sounds like your biggest point of contention is the ability to surrender unconditionally, is that correct? If that's true, I respect your opinion, but we can agree to disagree on this point. I have found many players to have the diplomatic subtlety of a teenage boy with a hammer...and everyone looks like a nail! They are looking to find the next victim to smash... If that is how they want to play that's fine, but that is one benefit of being able to unconditionally surrender. Losing an entire province (or possibly more), gaining aging tokens, forcing my "Hannibal" to be exiled, and paying reparations (not to mention swallowing your pride and the ripple effect) are not easy consequences to simply accept based on my unconditional surrender of a single war. OTOH it can allow me to fight another day, plus it reflects the diplomatic reality of the time period.