Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: September 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#6269) [proposal] Surrender
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#6269) [proposal] Surrender

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#6269) [proposal] Surrender
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 03:01:13 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, John Wheeler wrote:
> > If both nations accept the surrender, the surrendering player dies.
>
> This would definitely make for shorter games, but I'm not sure they
> would be more fun (IMHO, of course).

I guess this is a place where single player and multi player games differ.
(I would very much like to see multi player games end more gracefully and
sooner when it is obvious that we have a winner.)

So this is a case where different options for single and multi player is
warranted.

> In other words, "Surrender" would not be so much a new treaty clause as
> it would be a diplomatic state. (Perhaps "Occupied" would be a good
> name for it.)
...
> As far as making the game shorter, "Occupied" would count towards an
> "Allied" victory.

This is a possible idea. The 'Surrendered' nation could pay tribute to the
domnating nation, and would not count as an active nation when counting
whether the game ends. I am not sure how it should figure into the score
counting afterwards, though.

Another idea is to let 'surrender' be an option that has nothing to do
with diplomacy. When a player surrenders, his units and cities become
either neutral (like in Warlords) or are handed over to a barbarian player
(the nastier option). But this makes mostly sense only in multi player.

> If country A is occupied by country B, effectively B
> would have all the privileges of alliance with A, but A would only have
> the advantages of peace with B.

This would be immensely complicated to implement, so no, that's not an
option.

> More importantly than all of this, I would like to see the AI ask for
> cease-fires much more frequently when they are being beaten badly,and
> being willing to make concessions if necessary.That's more what
> surrenders are like in real life.

Sure, but the problem is making the AI recognize when it is 'being beaten
badly', as opposed to a smaller setback. We need to take into account such
things as the fortunes and options of allies and team mates when we decide
whether to make a stand or cave in, as well. We also need to break our
alliances upon accepting a cease-fire with a common enemy.

Can you try to list up the sufficient conditions for an AI to plead for
mercy, and how to calculate how much to offer for it?

  - Per




[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]