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

["John Wheeler" <jdwheeler42@xxxxxxxxx>]

[per - Thu Sep 25 10:01:12 2003]:

> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, John Wheeler wrote:
> > 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.

I would say the final score for the surrendered nation would be
calculated at the time of surrender, and then at the end the dominating
nation would get the difference between surrendered nation's score at
the end and its "final score", plus some bonus just for having them
surrender.
 
> > 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.

Looking at the source code, I think I see this now -- is it because for
all other diplomatic states, the direction doesn't matter (i.e., "A
allied with B" implies "B allied with A")?  In that case, I would just
go ahead and make them allies, but have a "surrendered_to" flag that
forces them not do diplomacy independently with anyone else.

> > 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?

Hmm, this is more difficult than I thought.  "Beaten badly" is so
obvious to me, but I'm not sure how I would put it as an algorithm.  
First, as far as allies are concerned, I would only count units that are
in my cities; if they're my ally and not sending me any help, they're
not very useful.  I would also keep track of how much aid they've given
me (primarily in technology); if they're the ones always asking for new
advances, they're not much use, either.

Looking deeper, I think the real dissatisfaction I have is the
algorithmic obligations alliances create.  In fact, the "occupied" state
I'm envisioning would work more like alliances do now.  For mere allies
(who join as equals, not by a surrender), I would like to see freedom to
conduct diplomacy as they see fit, with the addition of an "Insist" menu
on the diplomacy screen, which would give the other nation a choice:
obey the terms of the treaty, or break it (with appropriate damage to
reputation.)

-- 

++JohnWheeler