Another Option we need added to the game: AI Surrendering OFF

I second the idea. It wouldn't hurt anyone or need any balancing as far as I can tell.

One of the strong points of Civ4 is the list of options you can activate/deactivate for game setup, it wouldn't be a mistake to borrow from there, I think.

Thirded. I hate how absolutely unbalancing the surrendering of enemy Civ's to one another is. It throws the whole game into a state of chaos that makes many games lose any hope of being fun. Sometimes they surrender for no good reason too!

The original reason for the surrendering was to make the endgame was less frustrating. No more "I've already won this war but I still have to spend 50 turns going through the motions to actually WIN win." That's why the AI surrender decision makes no sense from their perspective, it's a decision to make the game more fun.

If people are getting irritated by it, it would be nice to have the option to turn it off. I know I'd welcome the option.

Another option would be to make the decision to surrender actually make sense. What about rather than an entire empire surrendering, a planet will surrender if they're on the losing end of a war and would prefer to join the other empire rather than be exterminated by the enemy soldiers. Something based on loyalty and the cultural victory system. It'd work well with the way Xeno Ethics gives a loyalty bonus to good civilizations. Altarians would fight to the death rather than surrender to the Drengin.

Also, what about something like in Star Trek, where the Cardassians surrender to the Dominion to beat the rest of the quadrant, or something.

Ya. But that's life. Hence part of the game. I like the way it can swing things for or against you. Perhaps this is an advantage of being good ? (Ie they surrender to you)

In one game I had recently three of the nine civs surrendered to the Thalans making them the strongest civ in the game!! They had me surrounded on two sides...

I have no problem if the A.I surrendered if they only had 2 or 3 crappy planets left with no military.But they are surrendering with 6 or more planets left, more than 50% of their economy intact.This has ruined many of my games.I don't expect this anoyance in a single player game.

I would like this option.

I've had the AI surrender on tough when we were fairly evenly matched though I was starting to pull ahead in tech. The problem was though it would have taken me a really really long time to fully conquer it because I had to defend against 2 other AI at the same time so it should have had enough time to catch up or to even involve another race. He didn't even surrender to someone that was fighting me either though, he surrendered to my ally that had up until a few turns ago been at war with him.

Urk. No.

This forum is not "create your own game". Having too many options will take from the original game.

I'd rather they write up code to make surrenders more fun rather then flush it down the hole.

just make it so surrender is actually surrendering, the one that actually means surrendering.

1- the a.i will only surrender to the people who are at war with it
2- the a.i will surrender to the player which did the most dmg to it in the last z turns before the a.i surrenders.
2- the a.i will only surrender when its down to x pop or y planets.

atm the algorithm behind surrendering is too random and stupid, Iv seen some galciv2 players actually think that surrendering in RL is like it is in this game.
example: In another thread about surrendering, one guy thought that england would have surrendered to america in ww2, to make usa have more chance vs nazi germany, if only he actually knew what surrendering actually meant.

Surrendering has caused me to go to war with another race entirely. You see, the planets that surrendered were the ones i was ONE turn away from conquering. So instead of taking some fresh planets for my empire, stood there and watched as the Thalans symbol entered that planet. I went ahead and took them anyways, but wouldn't it be nice that the Thalans could have said....no.

I agree. This is an effect that can be really unbalancing on the game, and it is one that should definetely be made optional or done away with entirely. Having three mid-sized empires surrender for no good reason to random civilizations right in the middle of the game both makes no sense and detracts from the enjoyability of the game.

oh an example of the above algorithm to surrendering is the following:

The yor and you are both attacking the humans.

The humans decide to surrender in turn 403, because they have under 15 pop.
Between turn 353-403 you destroyed 33% of the humans population and the yor destroyed 64% of the humans population(not 100% together cause 15 human pop still left).
The yor destroyed more pop in the last ~50 turns and for that reason the humans surrendered to the yor

this way the a.i will always surrender when its quite weak and surrender to the a.i/player that did the most dmg to it recently.

ps: the numbers for number of turns and pop or even how they consider dmg, maybe pop and ships destroyed can be modified

As an "option", it would be a very nice thing to have.

Urk. No. This forum is not "create your own game". Having too many options will take from the original game. I'd rather they write up code to make surrenders more fun rather then flush it down the hole.

Because if this were implemented, they'd send a Drengin to your house to punch you in the face if you didn't select the option, right? This would be a minor change that would make a lot of people happy, and it's not mutually exclusive with a more in depth tweaking of the surrender system. You're saying this forum isn't "create your own game" but you've got your own opinion about how they should change the game, just like everybody else. I should also point out that an option to disable surrendering would be a whole lot easier than a rework of the entire surrendering system.

I'd also like to see something to make surrenders more fun, but this change would require very little time to implement compared to a more extensive reworking and a lot of people would like to see an option to disable surrending. So far you're the only one I've seen who doesn't like the idea, and your reasons are pretty shaky.

Urk. No. This forum is not "create your own game".

EVERYBODY! Stop posting suggestions! featauril likes how the game how it is, so no more patches, enhancements, suggestions, or criticizm!

seriously though... if you want surrenders and you leave that option on... this will affects you how?

I also find surrendering annoying. option to kill it would be fantastic.

I could live with it as an option, but I don't forsee myself using it. The random elements in the surrender system are sometimes realistic. Even if the AI is handing a specific player a win, its because they would rather give someone a victory than die at the hands of the (often backstabbing) human (or other AI) who is crushing them.
Frankly I've strategically used surrenders to win before. Maxing out my diplomacy skill as a race ability, combigned with every tech that could give me a bonus, and the galactic wonder that doubles the odds they surrender to you yielded me a pair of pretty hefty civilizations from wars in which I was never directly involved.

I would like to see it improved rather than just have the option to shut it off. It's a good idea; it just needs to be tweaked. One simple way to improve it would be not to allow surrender till their homeworld was taken, or it was their last planet. Maybe espionage should tell you ahead of time who they are most likely to surrender too.

Have different types of negotiated surrender rather than just total surrender. Also planets that have enemies around them can't be surrendered to anyone but the occupying force.

Urk. No. This forum is not "create your own game". Having too many options will take from the original game. I'd rather they write up code to make surrenders more fun rather then flush it down the hole.

Oh, boy, an interesting new application of doublethink. Look, dude, either it's bad for users to suggest ways to change the game, or it isn't. Make up your mind.

EDIT: I think the option to turn surrenders off would be a good thing. Then again, so would some of the other improvements mentioned in this thread.

As an option- it would be a good idea.

I'd also want to see some tweaking- the AI shouldn't surrender unless it's under 25% of its peak strength...
The AI should only surrender either to the race it's at war with, an ally, or a race that's at war with a race it's at war with.

It shouldn't surrender to a neutral power in the middle of nowhere.

I'm always for whatever options they can add to the game to make it more enjoyable for the player. The more I can customize the game to my personal preferences the better. Not only that in increases the HD life of the game because I can then play more games with other options on/off depending on what I tried before. Honestly I didn't think I'd like the *No Tech Trading* option but after a few games with it on I'm actually enjoying the neck and neck tech races it creates. So I'm sure this would be a welcomed addition at some point too.

For the record I like the AI surrender. Could it be improved? Well sure. But as it stands it does make the end game go much faster no matter what victory condition you are looking to get. My fav is probably the diplo win where you've gotten 3 of 4 to ally with you. Then you get the 3 to beat on the 4th until it surrenders to someone. No matter who it surrenders to you win

Count me in the "would like to see it improved, not switched off" camp. Random surrenders may act as a brake on the game ending too early, or getting too boring, when one faction gets an upper hand.

I know that happens with me in Rome:Total War, because the enemy always fights to the death, and it's easy to predict how the game will end by the time you reach the mid to late game phase. It may not be working perfectly, but to the extent it keeps things stirred up, I think that's a good thing.

Yet another option we don't need. The AI does give up, yes. But first it fights a good fight with what it has and if it gets crushed will throw in the towel. It doesn't wait for you or another AI to invade each and every planet, after sustaining enough crippling loss they give up.

Rome Total War, had a protectorate surrender option. It was a good idea, but they botched it. It was too hard to get, and about worthless. It even harmed your economy before they patched the game. But I think it's still worth considering that type of option for Gal Civ 2.

The Korx have three planets. I blindside them and take their homeworld and their little buddy planet. I thought they would surrender. They didn't, so I took my one remaining transport that was close by and escorted it too the third planet. Turns out the Korx had quite a large military that I was ill equiped to deal with in that particular location. They came in with some transports out of nowhere and recaptured the two planets before I had time to get the third!! Awsome job Korx, I am impressed!!! Then, "we have decided to surrender to the yor, we will hate you forever". Ya, not so good job Korx.

I hate surrenders

I can understand the demand for this option however I would ask that the words "surrender" and "random" (or any derivatives thereof) please not be used in the same sentence. I sincerely doubt that anyone posting in this forum (myself most certainly included) really understands the AI with the exception of the programmers. I can hazard a guess that when an AI surrenders, its reasons are ridiculously complicated. The arguement to remove surrendering is weakened by people who claim that the AI will just up and leave for no reason. This claim is completely illogical and impossible to back up. Have some respect for the complexity of the AI code, and for the intelligence of others on this forum.