[.95]Diplomatic "Demand Surrender" Option Currently Bad on Many Levels

from Elemental Forums

I was tempted to call it "broken". Sadly, Hyperbole always gets more attention for your issue. I know Frogboy hates it when people casually refer to features as broken, but I think it fits.  For starters:

 

1) It doesn't work in any logical fashion. The AI is willing to become my thrall for life at the drop of a hat, whereas they wont accept a peace treaty when my vast military machine has them down to a tiny, resource-bankrupt outpost in a corner of the map, for less than 5 times the amount of gold in my entire treasury. They should be paying me for peace.  Enslavement of an enemy Sovereign should be far more difficult to effect than the cessation of hostilities.

That can be fixed easily enough, but even so:

 

2) It allows the AI, already in danger of being knocked over by a strong breeze on the harder difficulty levels, to be conquered far too quickly. An option to avoid mop up is fine and good, but again, they roll over far too easily.

Again, that can be rebalanced, but:

 

3) It gives you an army of free champions. Even with the "Broken" penalty, they are still effective support casters, capable of leading armies.  And with the right level perks and equipment, can be pretty easily put back into fighting shape, for zero wages.

They bring with them new spell schools and powerful new buffs and global spells.

Perhaps best of all, they bring with them big Prestige bonuses, that are hard to get any other way.  You can rack up a huge prestige score with an army of enslaved sovs. Even if they do nothing more than sit in cities, it's worth it for that alone.

It eliminates the need for Champion Recruitment tech, and most armies.

 

 

(Aside: Enslaved Sovereigns really like leather greaves. They always have like ten in their inventory.  They also all tend to have similar traits. Multiple "Path" traits ...more than they should be able to have by level, usually Assassin and one other. Perhaps that is indicative of their bonuses from me playing on "Hard" difficulty, but it only makes for a more potent slave.  Perhaps enslaved Sovereigns should be stripped back to level 1)

 

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm totally in favor of a vassalization option, to help eliminate mop up.  But vassals should be a Civ that goes independent, stops expanding beyond whatever property they have left at the time of vassalization, stops building their filthy outposts on my nice clean borders,  pays you a % of their income and research, and counts towards a conquest victory. And it should be harder to effect than a peace treaty, which still leaves an active competitor on the map.

An enslaved Sovereign should be something different. To enslave a Sovereign, you should have to fight them to the last man, and hold their broken body in your hands. Instead of simply wiping out a Civ when you finally defeat a Sovereign, give an option for enslavement, or a "there can be only one" style of quickening, where you either get chunk of XP, or a spell level by absorbing their souls.  And you should probably get rid of  their Prestige bonus.  It's too much.

 

Two cents.

6,715 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

And they should only surrender to your sov, not any other army or hero.  Good idea.

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top

Agreed, this is one of the (few) things that really bugs me, mainly because I'm not strong-willed enough not to abuse it. Point 1 is the critical one, really, as it's what makes it cheesable - it should really be harder to get than a peace treaty, not the other way around. But also a general +1 to everything else mentioned.

CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top

Don't get me wrong. I'm totally in favor of a vassalization option, to help eliminate mop up.  But vassals should be a Civ that goes independent, stops expanding beyond whatever property they have left at the time of vassalization, stops building their filthy outposts on my nice clean borders,  pays you a % of their income and research, and counts towards a conquest victory. And it should be harder to effect than a peace treaty, which still leaves an active competitor on the map.
End of quote
  

Yes.  Make them like historical vassals.  A good system of vassalization was one of my requests from the early WoM days.  I'd still love it, although its probably too much to expect for version 1.0.

Reply #4 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting MisterAedan, reply 2
Agreed, this is one of the (few) things that really bugs me, mainly because I'm not strong-willed enough not to abuse it. Point 1 is the critical one, really, as it's what makes it cheesable - it should really be harder to get than a peace treaty, not the other way around. But also a general +1 to everything else mentioned.
End of MisterAedan's quote

I know, neither am I.  I have finally managed to mature to the point I don't need to enslave Procipinee every game in order to get two copies of her crown, but I still tend to use the feature just to avoid tedium at mopping up every last backwater a Faction has once I've broken them.

Like I said, I'm very much in favor of of a "mop up reduction" feature (one where I actually get their stuff, not an infuriating one like in Gal Civ 2 where the Faction would give their remaining stuff to someone else). But this one teeters on being game breaking at present.

Reply #5 from Elemental Forums Top

I've actually been able to rush ahead of the AI early on and demand surrender of the first one I meet, on Challenging.

 

It is nice because prestige is so hard to get and hunting down their remaining forces when they are almost dead is tedious. I think that they should be a little less willing to submit, especially if you are the opposite faction (kingdom vs empire) 

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting UmbralAngel, reply 6
I've actually been able to rush ahead of the AI early on and demand surrender of the first one I meet, on Challenging.

 

It is nice because prestige is so hard to get and hunting down their remaining forces when they are almost dead is tedious. I think that they should be a little less willing to submit, especially if you are the opposite faction (kingdom vs empire) 
End of UmbralAngel's quote

 

I don't really see that as a good thing. I'm not sure how you meant it.

 

Prestige is supposed to be hard to get.   But yes, mop up is tedious. A feature that reduces it without breaking the challenge of the game would be super.

Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top

Agreed, the current "demand surrender" mechanic is ridiculous and will be something that reviewers are going to have a field day with chopping to bits.

Reply #8 from Elemental Forums Top

True, logistical issues asside, the thing is badly bugged, it is impressive how eager some rulers are willing to surrender...

Far more eager than making peace with an overwhelming foe

Reply #9 from Elemental Forums Top

I'm guessing it's there for us beta testers to quickly "finish out" a game so we can begin testing anew.  I mean come on, we don't get some special perk or "games played" award or anything, so it's not really broken to avoid the far worse draggy endgame.  I expect as a part of the balancing stage, this option will be balanced more like you mentioned, with it taking considerably more effort to bring them to heel (like destroying 80+% of their armies, taking half or more of their cities, and beating the sov at least once in direct combat).  I think in the balancing stage (once all the gameplay mechanics are in place), our input will be important in preventing cheese and making every avenue more viable.