War and peace - a system too rigid and an experience too frigid

[Mastikator]

Part 1: The TL;DR version (of this suggestion)
TL;DR: the the way war- especially joint war works is too rigid, it leaves empires with too few options, it feels stiffing and these harsh rules do not make sense from an RP sense. They also suck as game mechanics.

But there's a better way, one that makes sense, is fair, is fun, and will improve the whole game. Please join me in the non-TL;DR version.

Part 2: The non-TL;DR version (of this suggestion)
Okay now that it's just us nerds left let me start by saying we should probably overhaul the entire war mechanic. The 1.9 system had a lot of bad but it had a lot of good too, a lot of good that was removed unnecessarily. But I'm a visionary and wish to only learn from the past, not emulate it. So for this I'll have two segments of part 2, one dedicated to Wargoals and Peace Treaties. The other dedicated to the Rules of Joint War

Wargoals and Peace Treaties

• Claims work like they do right now, I like claims, claims are a good idea IMO
• You may also "claim" policies and effects on the enemy, like Humiliation, Despoilation, End Atrocities (slavery/genocide), Stop building robots (if spiritualist)
  * You must also have those policies that you seek to impose, imposing a policy claim costs 50 influence, you gain 100 if they surrender to them
• You can also claim their government type, this will result in a liberation type war rather than a war of conquest
  * If you sue for peace then this claim is mutually exclusive with systems claims, and if they surrender to you then they change policy
• When you attempt to sue for Status Quo peace you may bargin for claims that you have occupied to encourage the enemy to accept peace
  * Example, you have claim and occupancy of a 5 systems, you offer status quo peace if you get only 4
  * Your claims will be relinquished if you propose it, the AI will be strongly encouraged to accept.
• You may declare war during a peace treaty, but there are several costs
  * It costs 250 influence to break a peace treaty
  * You gain the Oath Breaker malus of -25% diplomatic weight (as your words are seen as less valuable)
• If you have access to a "Total War" style CB then that replaces the regular claims but you must still claim their empire (similar to claim policy)

Rules of Joint War
Hello
When you have a single war with two or more parties on one side the rules for the participants works like this

• All individual empires track their own War Exhaustion individually
• Any members can sue for status quo peace individually
  * Every enemy has to decide individually whether they accept status quo peace
  * Those that accept become non-hostile and enter a truce
  * Those that don't accept remain at war
• Any member can surrender to any individual or all opponents
  * When they surrender only they, your allies do not surrender, you can never surrender of behalf of your ally (unless they are a vassal or protectorate!)
  * When you surrender you leave the war
  * If you signed a defensive pact and surrender before your own War Exhaustion reaches 75% AND the other empire (which you signed) is still at war then you become humiliated and gain a -25% diplomatic weight malus for 10 years to represent your reputation as an oath breaker
• You can join an ongoing war IF you guarantee independence to an empire, this will apply similar effects as Defensive Pact
  * You can also be invited into a war in exchange for favors, but that does NOT impose the effect of Defensive Pact

 

[Tincan322]

Part 1: The TL;DR version (of this suggestion)
TL;DR: the the way war- especially joint war works is too rigid, it leaves empires with too few options, it feels stiffing and these harsh rules do not make sense from an RP sense. They also suck as game mechanics.

But there's a better way, one that makes sense, is fair, is fun, and will improve the whole game. Please join me in the non-TL;DR version.

Part 2: The non-TL;DR version (of this suggestion)
Okay now that it's just us nerds left let me start by saying we should probably overhaul the entire war mechanic. The 1.9 system had a lot of bad but it had a lot of good too, a lot of good that was removed unnecessarily. But I'm a visionary and wish to only learn from the past, not emulate it. So for this I'll have two segments of part 2, one dedicated to Wargoals and Peace Treaties. The other dedicated to the Rules of Joint War

Wargoals and Peace Treaties

• Claims work like they do right now, I like claims, claims are a good idea IMO
• You may also "claim" policies and effects on the enemy, like Humiliation, Despoilation, End Atrocities (slavery/genocide), Stop building robots (if spiritualist)
  * You must also have those policies that you seek to impose, imposing a policy claim costs 50 influence, you gain 100 if they surrender to them
• You can also claim their government type, this will result in a liberation type war rather than a war of conquest
  * If you sue for peace then this claim is mutually exclusive with systems claims, and if they surrender to you then they change policy
• When you attempt to sue for Status Quo peace you may bargin for claims that you have occupied to encourage the enemy to accept peace
  * Example, you have claim and occupancy of a 5 systems, you offer status quo peace if you get only 4
  * Your claims will be relinquished if you propose it, the AI will be strongly encouraged to accept.
• You may declare war during a peace treaty, but there are several costs
  * It costs 250 influence to break a peace treaty
  * You gain the Oath Breaker malus of -25% diplomatic weight (as your words are seen as less valuable)
• If you have access to a "Total War" style CB then that replaces the regular claims but you must still claim their empire (similar to claim policy)

Rules of Joint War
Hello
When you have a single war with two or more parties on one side the rules for the participants works like this

• All individual empires track their own War Exhaustion individually
• Any members can sue for status quo peace individually
  * Every enemy has to decide individually whether they accept status quo peace
  * Those that accept become non-hostile and enter a truce
  * Those that don't accept remain at war
• Any member can surrender to any individual or all opponents
  * When they surrender only they, your allies do not surrender, you can never surrender of behalf of your ally (unless they are a vassal or protectorate!)
  * When you surrender you leave the war
  * If you signed a defensive pact and surrender before your own War Exhaustion reaches 75% AND the other empire (which you signed) is still at war then you become humiliated and gain a -25% diplomatic weight malus for 10 years to represent your reputation as an oath breaker
• You can join an ongoing war IF you guarantee independence to an empire, this will apply similar effects as Defensive Pact
  * You can also be invited into a war in exchange for favors, but that does NOT impose the effect of Defensive Pact

In addition to the other war goals, I think it would be interesting to add demilitarized zones or demilitarization penalties like what was done to Germany post WW1, when you sign a status quo you could select systems that remain in the enemy's control but they cant move ships or armies there without proking another war goal or an oathbreaker penalty. Possibly also you could set a condition on the loser that they agree not to build their fleet beyond a certain fleet capacity. If it's a status quo peace both sides might agree to each have a demilitarized zone or fleet restrictions in a similar war to the Romulan/Federation border. I think this would be a useful war goal for more pacifist empires that just want to keep the peace or for anyone who simply wants to prevent their enemy from starting another war.

 

[peter_m]

Once upon a time I made a post about calculating the value of systems for AI so that you can buy it.

The short story was that
systems that cut off their empire = no, no buy
systems with megastructures = no, no buy
systems with planets = depends, they're extremely expensive! (see below!)
systems with only space resources = can be bought, price depends on spent resources and expected income from system

It IS possible to calculate the value of a system, the AI should always calculate the highest reasonable value. A human player would probably do that in multiplayer.

I don't think these transactions are ever accepted by the AI, but I do believe this already exists as a diplomacy option. There have been times where I offered a system to an ally in exchange for energy. They were always willing to take it for free, but never willing to pay even 1 cent for it. So I think this is a feature that is already there, it just needs to be turned on.

 

[TheRevanchist25]

Part 1: The TL;DR version (of this suggestion)
TL;DR: the the way war- especially joint war works is too rigid, it leaves empires with too few options, it feels stiffing and these harsh rules do not make sense from an RP sense. They also suck as game mechanics.

But there's a better way, one that makes sense, is fair, is fun, and will improve the whole game. Please join me in the non-TL;DR version.

Part 2: The non-TL;DR version (of this suggestion)
Okay now that it's just us nerds left let me start by saying we should probably overhaul the entire war mechanic. The 1.9 system had a lot of bad but it had a lot of good too, a lot of good that was removed unnecessarily. But I'm a visionary and wish to only learn from the past, not emulate it. So for this I'll have two segments of part 2, one dedicated to Wargoals and Peace Treaties. The other dedicated to the Rules of Joint War

Wargoals and Peace Treaties

• Claims work like they do right now, I like claims, claims are a good idea IMO
• You may also "claim" policies and effects on the enemy, like Humiliation, Despoilation, End Atrocities (slavery/genocide), Stop building robots (if spiritualist)
  * You must also have those policies that you seek to impose, imposing a policy claim costs 50 influence, you gain 100 if they surrender to them
• You can also claim their government type, this will result in a liberation type war rather than a war of conquest
  * If you sue for peace then this claim is mutually exclusive with systems claims, and if they surrender to you then they change policy
• When you attempt to sue for Status Quo peace you may bargin for claims that you have occupied to encourage the enemy to accept peace
  * Example, you have claim and occupancy of a 5 systems, you offer status quo peace if you get only 4
  * Your claims will be relinquished if you propose it, the AI will be strongly encouraged to accept.
• You may declare war during a peace treaty, but there are several costs
  * It costs 250 influence to break a peace treaty
  * You gain the Oath Breaker malus of -25% diplomatic weight (as your words are seen as less valuable)
• If you have access to a "Total War" style CB then that replaces the regular claims but you must still claim their empire (similar to claim policy)

Rules of Joint War
Hello
When you have a single war with two or more parties on one side the rules for the participants works like this

• All individual empires track their own War Exhaustion individually
• Any members can sue for status quo peace individually
  * Every enemy has to decide individually whether they accept status quo peace
  * Those that accept become non-hostile and enter a truce
  * Those that don't accept remain at war
• Any member can surrender to any individual or all opponents
  * When they surrender only they, your allies do not surrender, you can never surrender of behalf of your ally (unless they are a vassal or protectorate!)
  * When you surrender you leave the war
  * If you signed a defensive pact and surrender before your own War Exhaustion reaches 75% AND the other empire (which you signed) is still at war then you become humiliated and gain a -25% diplomatic weight malus for 10 years to represent your reputation as an oath breaker
• You can join an ongoing war IF you guarantee independence to an empire, this will apply similar effects as Defensive Pact
  * You can also be invited into a war in exchange for favors, but that does NOT impose the effect of Defensive Pact

All of the Yes, absolutely all of it.

 

[TheRevanchist25]

Part 1: The TL;DR version (of this suggestion)
TL;DR: the the way war- especially joint war works is too rigid, it leaves empires with too few options, it feels stiffing and these harsh rules do not make sense from an RP sense. They also suck as game mechanics.

But there's a better way, one that makes sense, is fair, is fun, and will improve the whole game. Please join me in the non-TL;DR version.

Part 2: The non-TL;DR version (of this suggestion)
Okay now that it's just us nerds left let me start by saying we should probably overhaul the entire war mechanic. The 1.9 system had a lot of bad but it had a lot of good too, a lot of good that was removed unnecessarily. But I'm a visionary and wish to only learn from the past, not emulate it. So for this I'll have two segments of part 2, one dedicated to Wargoals and Peace Treaties. The other dedicated to the Rules of Joint War

Wargoals and Peace Treaties

• Claims work like they do right now, I like claims, claims are a good idea IMO
• You may also "claim" policies and effects on the enemy, like Humiliation, Despoilation, End Atrocities (slavery/genocide), Stop building robots (if spiritualist)
  * You must also have those policies that you seek to impose, imposing a policy claim costs 50 influence, you gain 100 if they surrender to them
• You can also claim their government type, this will result in a liberation type war rather than a war of conquest
  * If you sue for peace then this claim is mutually exclusive with systems claims, and if they surrender to you then they change policy
• When you attempt to sue for Status Quo peace you may bargin for claims that you have occupied to encourage the enemy to accept peace
  * Example, you have claim and occupancy of a 5 systems, you offer status quo peace if you get only 4
  * Your claims will be relinquished if you propose it, the AI will be strongly encouraged to accept.
• You may declare war during a peace treaty, but there are several costs
  * It costs 250 influence to break a peace treaty
  * You gain the Oath Breaker malus of -25% diplomatic weight (as your words are seen as less valuable)
• If you have access to a "Total War" style CB then that replaces the regular claims but you must still claim their empire (similar to claim policy)

Rules of Joint War
Hello
When you have a single war with two or more parties on one side the rules for the participants works like this

• All individual empires track their own War Exhaustion individually
• Any members can sue for status quo peace individually
  * Every enemy has to decide individually whether they accept status quo peace
  * Those that accept become non-hostile and enter a truce
  * Those that don't accept remain at war
• Any member can surrender to any individual or all opponents
  * When they surrender only they, your allies do not surrender, you can never surrender of behalf of your ally (unless they are a vassal or protectorate!)
  * When you surrender you leave the war
  * If you signed a defensive pact and surrender before your own War Exhaustion reaches 75% AND the other empire (which you signed) is still at war then you become humiliated and gain a -25% diplomatic weight malus for 10 years to represent your reputation as an oath breaker
• You can join an ongoing war IF you guarantee independence to an empire, this will apply similar effects as Defensive Pact
  * You can also be invited into a war in exchange for favors, but that does NOT impose the effect of Defensive Pact

Dude, this is exactly how I've wanted this damn game to work since I bought it. The way War works right so is so damn frustrating, mainly because of the Rules of Joint War. Like the way the game works right now just massively discourages me from ever making military agreements with anyone, makes me never want to join or create Federations, makes me never want to do anything other than be a solo lone wolf really, because cooperation is just fundamentally broken at the conceptual level. My current campaign has only reminded me of how much I hate this crap because I'm doing a Hegemony and it effing sucks in so many ways.

If I'm in a Federation that is at war, and my allies are getting hammered, I fully expect them to pull out and save their people. I am prepared to keep fighting for the Federation alone if I have to. What I don't wanna have to do, is divert precious military resources across the galaxy/ in the opposite direction to go liberate my allies because their all occupied purely because their not allowed to surrender despite being utterly finished. Nor do I want to have to run around the ENTIRE enemy Federation and occupy every square inch of it in order to claim victory. If I've/me and my allies have pushed certain enemy combatants so hard that feel like their finished, they should likewise back out. This is not how military alliances work unless your facing Fanatics. If your enemy is a Fanatic Militarist whose Imperialist or Xenophobic then they logically should switch to a "No Retreat" Doctrine and fight to the bitter end unless you can force them to accept terms through a WMD like a Colossus. You Crack/Purge "Hiroshima" and demand Surrender. They refuse? Crack/Purge "Nagasaki" and demand again. Eventually they either accept or just get all their worlds obliterated. Ethics should absolutely play into how wars take shape and progress. As it stand their mostly just stat modifiers and that's really boring.

That's one the major things about this game that's also bugged me. The Colossus. You get a TW CB for it, there is laws in place to outlaw World Crackers in particular but not Neutron Purges for some reason despite it still killing everyone. If you use a Colossus on a nations homeworld, they should become enraged, and swear revenge on your entire civilization with a "Revenge" CB that never expires and an unrepairable Opinion modifier. It should also come with massive buffs to resource production, reductions in army and ship construction speed and costs etc, to reflect their entire race putting aside everything else for the sake of their revenge. WIth you likely being denounced by the Council and facing Sanctions for your barbarism. If your Emperor, then you face a sweep of Revolts and Rebellions refusing to follow someone capable of such a deed.

 

[taltamir]

The ability to make negotiations of X for Y or "I will drop claims 1,2,3 but want 4, 5" during peace talks would be a godsend for this game. it is really really far too ridged with the current system.

 

[TheRevanchist25]

The ability to make negotiations of X for Y or "I will drop claims 1,2,3 but want 4, 5" during peace talks would be a godsend for this game. it is really really far too ridged with the current system.

Your not wrong, I've started bloody 30 year wars with powerful empires just for the sake of wanting like 3 or 4 uninhabited systems. What's worse is the Trading Systems mechanic just straight up does not work. You could theoretically offer your entire empire and everything it owns in exchange for 1 system and the AI still wouldn't accept. Like I hate when Strategy games don't let you negotiate for territory. TW had it for years and year then removed it out of nowhere. They finally brought it back in 3 Kingdoms before they took that game out back and assassinated it for no reason. I get it, the Devs don't want you to "cheese" and just slowly buy all the systems in the game over time. But honestly, SO WHAT? Who gives a damn if people cheese in a single player campaign? Why does that matter? Don't tell me Multiplayer either, because every player would be able to buy systems until it's only them left, then they'd have to fight it out.

I'm sorry, it makes no logical sense for a Nation to go to war for almost an entire lifetime of their population for the sake of 1 or 2 systems that literally nobody lives in. If they were actually using them as chokepoints or something I would understand, but the AI rarely ever fortifies Starbases at chokepoints in my experience, nor would I think they're able to calculate that systems value as a chokepoint.

 

[taltamir]

Your not wrong, I've started bloody 30 year wars with powerful empires just for the sake of wanting like 3 or 4 uninhabited systems. What's worse is the Trading Systems mechanic just straight up does not work. You could theoretically offer your entire empire and everything it owns in exchange for 1 system and the AI still wouldn't accept. Like I hate when Strategy games don't let you negotiate for territory. TW had it for years and year then removed it out of nowhere. They finally brought it back in 3 Kingdoms before they took that game out back and assassinated it for no reason. I get it, the Devs don't want you to "cheese" and just slowly buy all the systems in the game over time. But honestly, SO WHAT? Who gives a damn if people cheese in a single player campaign? Why does that matter? Don't tell me Multiplayer either, because every player would be able to buy systems until it's only them left, then they'd have to fight it out.

I'm sorry, it makes no logical sense for a Nation to go to war for almost an entire lifetime of their population for the sake of 1 or 2 systems that literally nobody lives in. If they were actually using them as chokepoints or something I would understand, but the AI rarely ever fortifies Starbases at chokepoints in my experience, nor would I think they're able to calculate that systems value as a chokepoint.

It isn't even playing it wrong, it isn't cheese but realistic economic victory.

And it is annoying that they make trading for systems not work at all instead of demanding like for like... that is, they could just insist on getting empty systems for empty systems, and colonizeable planets for colonizeable planets.
but no, they just flat out refuse to trade 50 of your planets for 1 of their planets

 

[TheRevanchist25]

It isn't even playing it wrong, it isn't cheese but realistic economic victory.

And it is annoying that they make trading for systems not work at all instead of demanding like for like... that is, they could just insist on getting empty systems for empty systems, and colonizeable planets for colonizeable planets.
but no, they just flat out refuse to trade 50 of your planets for 1 of their planets

Honestly I'm about at wits end when it comes to the games war mechanics. I've hit a point where I just try to avoid it entirely, which is just unacceptable for a strategy game. I want to fight wars for my goals sometimes, for various reasons. It's just unbearable to do so.

 

[Toby-wan_Strife]

Part 1: The TL;DR version (of this suggestion)
TL;DR: the the way war- especially joint war works is too rigid, it leaves empires with too few options, it feels stiffing and these harsh rules do not make sense from an RP sense. They also suck as game mechanics.

But there's a better way, one that makes sense, is fair, is fun, and will improve the whole game. Please join me in the non-TL;DR version.

Part 2: The non-TL;DR version (of this suggestion)
Okay now that it's just us nerds left let me start by saying we should probably overhaul the entire war mechanic. The 1.9 system had a lot of bad but it had a lot of good too, a lot of good that was removed unnecessarily. But I'm a visionary and wish to only learn from the past, not emulate it. So for this I'll have two segments of part 2, one dedicated to Wargoals and Peace Treaties. The other dedicated to the Rules of Joint War

Wargoals and Peace Treaties

• Claims work like they do right now, I like claims, claims are a good idea IMO
• You may also "claim" policies and effects on the enemy, like Humiliation, Despoilation, End Atrocities (slavery/genocide), Stop building robots (if spiritualist)
  * You must also have those policies that you seek to impose, imposing a policy claim costs 50 influence, you gain 100 if they surrender to them
• You can also claim their government type, this will result in a liberation type war rather than a war of conquest
  * If you sue for peace then this claim is mutually exclusive with systems claims, and if they surrender to you then they change policy
• When you attempt to sue for Status Quo peace you may bargin for claims that you have occupied to encourage the enemy to accept peace
  * Example, you have claim and occupancy of a 5 systems, you offer status quo peace if you get only 4
  * Your claims will be relinquished if you propose it, the AI will be strongly encouraged to accept.
• You may declare war during a peace treaty, but there are several costs
  * It costs 250 influence to break a peace treaty
  * You gain the Oath Breaker malus of -25% diplomatic weight (as your words are seen as less valuable)
• If you have access to a "Total War" style CB then that replaces the regular claims but you must still claim their empire (similar to claim policy)

Rules of Joint War
Hello
When you have a single war with two or more parties on one side the rules for the participants works like this

• All individual empires track their own War Exhaustion individually
• Any members can sue for status quo peace individually
  * Every enemy has to decide individually whether they accept status quo peace
  * Those that accept become non-hostile and enter a truce
  * Those that don't accept remain at war
• Any member can surrender to any individual or all opponents
  * When they surrender only they, your allies do not surrender, you can never surrender of behalf of your ally (unless they are a vassal or protectorate!)
  * When you surrender you leave the war
  * If you signed a defensive pact and surrender before your own War Exhaustion reaches 75% AND the other empire (which you signed) is still at war then you become humiliated and gain a -25% diplomatic weight malus for 10 years to represent your reputation as an oath breaker
• You can join an ongoing war IF you guarantee independence to an empire, this will apply similar effects as Defensive Pact
  * You can also be invited into a war in exchange for favors, but that does NOT impose the effect of Defensiv I think there should also be a random chance at surrendering added in. In that as war exhaustion increases, there is a chance that at any point the empire will decide to surrender. This is dependent on the ethics, civics, technologies, traditions, and even the war goal of the empire. Pacifists for example have a dramatically increased chance at surrendering, whereas militarists and militarists with nationalistic zeal have a reduced chance of surrender, but it always still exists. Gestalt consciousness empires and genocidal empires however will never ever surrender. Also if an empire's whole territory is claimed it will also never surrender as surrender would mean their total destruction.

Part 1: The TL;DR version (of this suggestion)
TL;DR: the the way war- especially joint war works is too rigid, it leaves empires with too few options, it feels stiffing and these harsh rules do not make sense from an RP sense. They also suck as game mechanics.

But there's a better way, one that makes sense, is fair, is fun, and will improve the whole game. Please join me in the non-TL;DR version.

Part 2: The non-TL;DR version (of this suggestion)
Okay now that it's just us nerds left let me start by saying we should probably overhaul the entire war mechanic. The 1.9 system had a lot of bad but it had a lot of good too, a lot of good that was removed unnecessarily. But I'm a visionary and wish to only learn from the past, not emulate it. So for this I'll have two segments of part 2, one dedicated to Wargoals and Peace Treaties. The other dedicated to the Rules of Joint War

Wargoals and Peace Treaties

• Claims work like they do right now, I like claims, claims are a good idea IMO
• You may also "claim" policies and effects on the enemy, like Humiliation, Despoilation, End Atrocities (slavery/genocide), Stop building robots (if spiritualist)
  * You must also have those policies that you seek to impose, imposing a policy claim costs 50 influence, you gain 100 if they surrender to them
• You can also claim their government type, this will result in a liberation type war rather than a war of conquest
  * If you sue for peace then this claim is mutually exclusive with systems claims, and if they surrender to you then they change policy
• When you attempt to sue for Status Quo peace you may bargin for claims that you have occupied to encourage the enemy to accept peace
  * Example, you have claim and occupancy of a 5 systems, you offer status quo peace if you get only 4
  * Your claims will be relinquished if you propose it, the AI will be strongly encouraged to accept.
• You may declare war during a peace treaty, but there are several costs
  * It costs 250 influence to break a peace treaty
  * You gain the Oath Breaker malus of -25% diplomatic weight (as your words are seen as less valuable)
• If you have access to a "Total War" style CB then that replaces the regular claims but you must still claim their empire (similar to claim policy)

Rules of Joint War
Hello
When you have a single war with two or more parties on one side the rules for the participants works like this

• All individual empires track their own War Exhaustion individually
• Any members can sue for status quo peace individually
  * Every enemy has to decide individually whether they accept status quo peace
  * Those that accept become non-hostile and enter a truce
  * Those that don't accept remain at war
• Any member can surrender to any individual or all opponents
  * When they surrender only they, your allies do not surrender, you can never surrender of behalf of your ally (unless they are a vassal or protectorate!)
  * When you surrender you leave the war
  * If you signed a defensive pact and surrender before your own War Exhaustion reaches 75% AND the other empire (which you signed) is still at war then you become humiliated and gain a -25% diplomatic weight malus for 10 years to represent your reputation as an oath breaker
• You can join an ongoing war IF you guarantee independence to an empire, this will apply similar effects as Defensive Pact
  * You can also be invited into a war in exchange for favors, but that does NOT impose the effect of Defensive Pact

Another thing: I think there should be a random chance of surrendering added. As war exhaustion increases, so does a random chance an empire will surrender. This is highly dependent on ethics, civics, technologies, and even the war goal itself. Pacifists for example have a dramatically increased chance at surrendering, whereas militarists and those with nationalistic zeal have a greatly reduced chance at surrendering. Gestalt consciousness and genocidal empires will never surrender however. In addition if an empire's entire territory is claimed it will also never surrender, as surrender would mean their complete destruction.