A "Surrender" mechanic

[Republic of Mercury]

The events of last Tuesday developer stream prompted quite a bit of discussion, and I think we need to move that discussion out of the multiplayer thread, because it's not hugely on-topic there. For the uninitiated: The Ottomans, allied with Hungary, Austria and Bohemia, invaded Lithuania. As you might imagine, Lithuania did not stand much of chance. The war dragged on for quite a while, however, because the Ottomans wouldn't send any peace deal, or accept anything the Lithuanians offered, opting instead to 100% occupy Lithuania and completely wipe their armies, leading the latter to bankruptcy and effectively removing them as a contending force in the game.

A lot of people have been saying that there needs to be a mechanic in place to deal with situations like this. Some argue that if a side is willing to accept a 100% peace deal, then the other side shouldn't be able to continue the war, since they can't gain anything from doing so. Others say that crushing an side can be more important than ending a war, with the 15 year truce timers meaning that there's no other way from preventing them from recovering and becoming a threat to you later.

What do people think? I think that there's certainly room for a surrender-like feature in the game, but I'm not sure how it would be implemented.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

- That there is incentive to extend wars in the first place is strong evidence of a design issue wrt war score/truces, because extending wars is inherently costly.
- Why do large nations need more protection than small nations?
- What historical or gameplay basis (especially the latter) necessitates battered nations recovering consistently?

There is room for a surrender mechanic, but it will not fix the incentives that led to that war happening. I hope the discussion here does not ignore that reality as it did in the MP thread.

 

[happymix91]

It is a good system. Not only in reality, but also in gameplay aspect. Wipe enemy's armies, don't siege their territories enough to feel totally won, and just keep trolling.. There is no meaning for this thing in gameplay aspect and if someone did it at real history, he would be definetely called as crazy guy.

If dev can't change whole war system in near future, adding simple mechanism like this can be a good choice. And I think that whole war system isn't bad to be blamed harshly. If it is, how can EU4 be 2nd most played strategy game in Steam?

 

[yerm]

- That there is incentive to extend wars in the first place is strong evidence of a design issue wrt war score/truces, because extending wars is inherently costly.
- Why do large nations need more protection than small nations?
- What historical or gameplay basis (especially the latter) necessitates battered nations recovering consistently?

There is room for a surrender mechanic, but it will not fix the incentives that led to that war happening. I hope the discussion here does not ignore that reality as it did in the MP thread.

There are two major problems as I see it.

First, due to the negative effects of losing war, it is often actually worse for a nation to be losing a war than to lose the war. The lost war may mean lost treasury and income, but the losing war can mean constant loans and possibly bankruptcy. A lost war often means ceding territory, but a 100%-warscore-limited amount, while forcing widespread rebellion can splinter a nation or leave it broken for years and years. For this reason, in situations ranging from multiplayer battles to a single player war against the dominant AI blob, the REAL goal is more often not for you to win, but for your opponent to lose, and game mechanics dictate that the continuation of the war is a bigger loss than a peace agreement.

Surrender would potentially block this when a human is the victim, but doubtfully be used ever by the AI. Ideally a fix here might include things like rebels spawned in enemy-occupied provinces not being hostile post war, or debt forgiveness options. Surrender simply fixes the worst excess when its a human is the victim, not the larger issue. I do think it's a solid fix, if not perfect, for human on human crimes like the MP setting described.

Second, there are far too many instances where (like it or not, Wiz, sorry) the AI presses this issue incidentally. I don't think the AI is purposefully doing it to spite the player, rather, the coding causes them to just do it anyway. Inability to siege desired forts/provinces, or length of war + coalition, can and do cause situations where a human losing the war is camped into ruin by an AI who will not accept a peace offer.

Surrender here strikes me as the perfect solution. So long as it opens up all options (eg it considers all land to be occupied) I don't see how the AI ends up with anything less than the maximum possible peace deal, and its only loss is potential incidental camping of a beaten defender which, if I read Wiz and Groogy right, is not intended at all anyway.

There are minor issues to work out like how the penalty would work for the attacker for not accepting, but these are just tweaks. I realize it's not a perfect fix to the first issue, but it's an improvement, and a stopgap for at least the worst of the excess.

 

[RadRussian]

Yeah, there are two sides to this.

One can argue that a nation should surrender once they know they are doomed. Instead, they're forced to burn their manpower and borrow tons of money knowing they would lose the war. What happens next is they get declared by 4 other countries so they are doomed for decades to come. When France or Ottomans declare war on me, I usually surrender 100% so I have a chance to blob and fight them back.

However, removing AI desire for peace completely will give player an insane advantage and he will be able to smash his neighbors in a few decades and break dangerous alliances.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It is a good system. Not only in reality, buy also in gameplay aspect. Wipe enemy's armies, don't siege their territories enough to feel totally won, and just keep trolling.. There is no meaning for this thing in gameplay aspect and if someone did it at real history, he would be definetely called as crazy guy.

Non-sequitur to my point. You'll always have in-game griefing possibilities, but this problem is different. Camping them for WE is *viable* and *preferable to alternatives*, by design. Someone who does this isn't trolling, they're using gameplay rules to legitimately damage their opponent within the rules.

If dev can't change whole war system in near future, adding simple mechanism like this can be a good choice.

Partial/incomplete implementations tend to get abused like crazy by players who punch holes in their implementation within days of release. It's happened over and over again. It will probably wind up as a MP-only thing and thus not really solve the issue, else it opens to exploits.

Surrender would potentially block this when a human is the victim, but doubtfully be used ever by the AI. Ideally a fix here might include things like rebels spawned in enemy-occupied provinces not being hostile post war, or debt forgiveness options. Surrender simply fixes the worst excess when its a human is the victim, not the larger issue. I do think it's a solid fix, if not perfect, for human on human crimes like the MP setting described.

It creates a major design issue. It *buffs large nations*. You know, the nations that are already winning? The nations that least need the help? Yeah, it's those guys who get another magic shield from such a mechanic, because the game rules protect them.

You are correct to point out that the problem is that players have incentive to use rebels right now. The answer isn't to shoehorn in nonsense like buffing large nations repeatedly. The answer is to axe nonsensical incentives in the first place.

Second, there are far too many instances where (like it or not, Wiz, sorry) the AI presses this issue incidentally. I don't think the AI is purposefully doing it to spite the player, rather, the coding causes them to just do it anyway.

I'm glad you brought this up here because the MP thread devolved into ad hominem attacks against me (plus a strawman response). While the 20+ year war camps are gone, there are still plenty of instances (very common with allies, occasionally with war leader) where if you go to "suggest demands" it is greyed out as an option. You can't make sufficient offers that the AI will accept...even if you offer everything with a green marking it's insufficient, it won't take money as part of the deal etc. Making peace is literally impossible then until the AI feels like it.

Regardless of "intent" (which is an odd concept wrt an AI anyway), the AI can and on occasion does camp both the player and other AIs in a fashion that causes the same end result as Groogy experienced.

The obvious consideration wrt a surrender mechanic and attacker penalty is what that penalty is and whether allies in wars experience it. The AI playing by different rules wrt this mechanic would be vexing too, as there's already enough of that with disingenuous reasoning as is wrt stab hits.

 

[WSnova]

Thats just a bandaid for the overall issue that war is too cheap in this game and victory is too limiting.

Someone who managed to completely dominate a country would probably outright annex it if the diplomatic situation is right, but warscore limits you, so there is an incentive to kick them down so hard so that you can continue killing them later.

Also since war is relatively cheap, there is no rush in finishing the fight quickly. So you have all the time in the world to beat them around so that they are no threat in the future.

And yeah this would be a mechanic that protects the big and powerful. Its an artificial mechanic that punishes the ones doing well.

Now, I see the necessity for catchup mechanics, but I don´t think this is it.

 

[happymix91]

Non-sequitur to my point. You'll always have in-game griefing possibilities, but this problem is different. Camping them for WE is *viable* and *preferable to alternatives*, by design. Someone who does this isn't trolling, they're using gameplay rules to legitimately damage their opponent within the rules.

Every other exploitable things can be explained like that way.

Partial/incomplete implementations tend to get abused like crazy by players who punch holes in their implementation within days of release. It's happened over and over again. It will probably wind up as a MP-only thing and thus not really solve the issue, else it opens to exploits.

How?

 

[yerm]

Yeah, the MP thread went a bad way, but I just shrugged it off as they're probably in hectic hell over yonder and in shitty moods.

You raise a valid point on the implementation of this - it helps large nations, and it helps humans over AI. I don't know that the large nation buff is really concerning, as frankly, I just don't see instances where a small nation is faced with this dilemma and needs surrender. If you can be killed in the peace deal, you can be killed without camping your land. This helps big nations because simply put they're the only real victims here. Parking on a nation and pummeling their WE and debt into oblivion is done precisely because said nation is too big to deal with in a single peace agreement.

To put it to example, if I pick Hansa in a MP game and lose my first war, am I going to get camped? There's no point. I can be wrecked in the peace deal without the need to add injury on top of it, it's pointless. Surrender is sorta meaningless for me, as a 100% peace is nearly death as is anyway.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Every other exploitable things can be explained like that way.

Using a non-term creates a non-statement. What point are you trying to make?

How?

Guarantee/revoke, full annex = no dip cost, dow-chaining coalitions before truces canceled them, disabling DLC to bypass limitations, rebel demands accepted = enforced (that wasn't always a rule, and lead directly to what Groogy experienced), fabricating 15 year truces on purpose to lock out potential coalition members permanently despite hundreds of AE, overseas coring in present usage...

Well I could go on for a long time. The point is, slopshod attempts to block perceived exploits that don't hold a candle to the damage that can be done with WAD mechanics have a history of doing more harm than good. Look at military access for example.

You raise a valid point on the implementation of this - it helps large nations, and it helps humans over AI. I don't know that the large nation buff is really concerning, as frankly, I just don't see instances where a small nation is faced with this dilemma and needs surrender. If you can be killed in the peace deal, you can be killed without camping your land.

That is *exactly* my point. What theoretical reason is there that as a nation grows, it becomes increasingly impossible for it to be under existential threat, even if people *really* batter it? A small nation gets no revanchism, truce, or magic anti-WE mechanic. It just gets dead, which is an inferior state to any damage that can possibly be done to a large nation under the present rules.

Given that 1) large nations are inherently preferable and stronger anyway and 2) they are already afforded extra protection, what credible gameplay basis does buffing the most powerful nations on the board serve? I look at the perceived need for surrender to protect large nations along the same lines as the perceived need for long truces: a fundamental design issue. Not as bad as regencies, perhaps, but still a design choice that makes no sense from a gameplay standpoint.

Groogy and Wiz both whiffed on my point that when truces were 5 years and rebels didn't break out territory if accepted, this behavior in MP had much less incentive, because the player camping had a similar direct cost, a larger opportunity cost, and less benefit in terms of opponent damage. It is shoddy rule placement that created the incentive for camping behavior in the first place, and now there's a perceived need to shield nations that don't need shielding.

 

[User4035]

Revanchism is supposed to solve this.


I don't see much of a point in discussing this in the main forum. Threads here get pushed down the pages pretty quick even with constant posting. It takes time to check these things which is why they have the registered user sections so its easier to check stuff from players who are a bit more dedicated to the game. (I assume)

And the devs know this is a problem already. And its pretty easy to brainstorm a mechanic. But programming that mechanic I assume is not so easy or they would have done it.


And what do you do when you get gangbaned with their intent to occupy country until bankrupt? well that type of MP game doesn't have any rules so your basically playing an elimination game. Once you lose a war your dead so you quit and come back as someone else or you wait until a restart.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Revanchism is supposed to solve this.

Revanchism further pushes a fundamental design issue, but it's more minor than some of the things before it.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

Revanchism is supposed to solve this.

How? Revanchism only takes effect after the peace deal is signed. If anything, revanchism seems like it would encourage this kind of behaviour. If your enemy is going to get bonuses after the war ends, make sure they're too broken to make good use of them.

 

[happymix91]

Using a non-term creates a non-statement. What point are you trying to make?



Guarantee/revoke, full annex = no dip cost, dow-chaining coalitions before truces canceled them, disabling DLC to bypass limitations, rebel demands accepted = enforced (that wasn't always a rule, and lead directly to what Groogy experienced), fabricating 15 year truces on purpose to lock out potential coalition members permanently despite hundreds of AE, overseas coring in present usage...

Well I could go on for a long time. The point is, slopshod attempts to block perceived exploits that don't hold a candle to the damage that can be done with WAD mechanics have a history of doing more harm than good. Look at military access for example.

You see those things as a reasonable plays, and I see those things as ungentlemanly and unintended plays. And from what Devs said at last MP session, I felt that they didn't see them as ordinary plays. Many other exploits have been advocated but deciding something as an exploit or not is totally on developer's hand.

And how can someone exploit with unconditional surrender? To me, peacing 100% term with intentionless enemy or give 100% offer to winner as intentionless loser is totally reasonable and no room for being exploited. And every bugfixing has possibility to make other bugs, so does system changing.

 

[HansBaer]

There was a time when "Liberation Rebels", not sure how they called them, spawned much more often and more importantly sooner. I don't know why the devs took it out. How about giving every occupied a fixed 5-10% rebel chance and additional rr from WE of the aggressor. The global Revolt-Progress of the specific Culture (or country, not sure) would go back to 0%, but the RR of 5-10% in every province stays as long as they are occupied, no matter what. It can only be reduced by stationed Troops. After the war, the revolters would just go back to their wives and chickens.
There is just no way that a huge ass country like Lit can be occupied for decades without much of an effort.
This wouldn't hurt small aggressors all that much because it would take a long time for rebels to spawn on a 5pm. However, if Brandenburg decides to dogpile Poland when it gets smashed by the Ottomans and just park 1 infantry on every provinces, the will have a big problem pretty soon and might even loose the war, as it should be.
Or alternatively, let the besieged's WE dictate the rate at which those rebels spawn. Additionally, every revolt should increase LA, it must have a drawback for the defender, by which i mean the besieged, too.


This would make a surrender mechanic obsolete which would only be useful in mp anyway.
As a nice side-effect, it would put an end to those endless and devastating AI vs AI wars that happen before the high tier forts come into play.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You see those things as a reasonable plays, and I see those things as ungentlemanly and unintended plays. And from what Devs said that last MP session, I felt that they didn't see them as ordinary plays. Many other exploits have been advocated but deciding something as an exploit or not is totally on developer's had.

Their whim changes and is not a viable criteria for a universal definition/discussion of the term. It's also utter nonsense in this case; the developers changed the rules in a way that actively incentivizes this behavior (rewarding it greatly) and defended those changes. To turn around and claim it is an exploit/wrong can't be valid, unless simultaneously changing stance on previous statements. Otherwise, the message is inconsistent.

Regardless, I've been gaming a long time. Players bust out the "e" work to describe tactics they don't like/jive with their expectations, but they will readily accept higher-utility tactics as legitimate. There's no consistent sense in the application of the term, and it comes off as a rather high-and-mighty message of "the way I prefer playing is better than yours". If I claim that full-annexing a player before they can grow is an exploit, there is literally zero objective/defensible basis you, the developers, or anybody can possibly use to make that claim any more or less valid than claiming rebel camping someone is an exploit. It all just comes down to opinion at that point.

But opinions vary. From a rule enforcement perspective, absent anything against doing one action vs another in-game, there is no valid basis for complaint when a player chooses an in-game option. Exploit claims tend to be players complaining because they perceive something as unfair but don't have any way to demonstrate that it is actually unfair.

And how can someone exploit with unconditional surrender? To me, peacing 100% term with intentionless enemy or give what winner wants as intentionless loser is totally reasonable and no room for being exploited.

Hahahahaha . No room for being exploited at all huh? Maybe you're right this time. We'll see.

 

[User4035]

How? Revanchism only takes effect after the peace deal is signed. If anything, revanchism seems like it would encourage this kind of behaviour. If your enemy is going to get bonuses after the war ends, make sure they're too broken to make good use of them.

Well, when people voiced their concern about how Revanchism works in the dev diary they got slammed down for it. So let the people who created Revanchism explain how its supposed to work.

Its also why I asked for Revanchism to be an option feature or a paid feature instead of automatic. I got flamed for that comment as well.

I'm not sure if Wiz commented on these concerns. I know other posters did, and if wiz did comment it was his typical "no" reply to a 2 option question with no explanation.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, when people voiced their concern about how Revanchism works in the dev diary they got slammed down for it. So let the people who created Revanchism explain how its supposed to work.

Just like how the people who created 15 year truces told us that it creates disincentive for total war, right ?

Wiz clarified that revanchism only applies when provinces are lost (to avoid the ability to pay money away for pretty strong bonuses). Thus, it's not so great a solution to this particular "problem" after all, since camping someone to leave them with WE and rebel hell is done with the intention of putting them in an unrecoverable state, and you can't lose provinces in a peace deal without making peace.

 

[User4035]

Just like how the people who created 15 year truces told us that it creates disincentive for total war, right ?

Wiz clarified that revanchism only applies when provinces are lost (to avoid the ability to pay money away for pretty strong bonuses). Thus, it's not so great a solution to this particular "problem" after all, since camping someone to leave them with WE and rebel hell is done with the intention of putting them in an unrecoverable state, and you can't lose provinces in a peace deal without making peace.

If they are AI you leave them with 1 provinces so the AI keeps raising armies and going into dept. They can only raise 1 at a time so its easy to wipe.

I suggested that they program the AI to recruit units in provinces that are not next to occupied ones, or right next to an enemy army. And when the AI sees the war is lost that the just go sit on some defensive terrain and stop recruiting in order to save manpower and money. There were many agrees to this but no dev response.

I think that when they make a game they have lots of programmers which allows them to get all the difficult programming done like AI behaviour - require a bunch of if/than statements and lots of testing. But for DLC's they only have a 4man team so they only focus on tweaks that are easier to program like modifying values.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I think that when they make a game they have lots of programmers which allows them to get all the difficult programming done like AI behaviour - require a bunch of if/than statements and lots of testing. But for DLC's they only have a 4man team so they only focus on tweaks that are easier to program like modifying values.

A little off topic - but most of the DLC have had large mechanical effects, beyond simply tweaking values.