Wishlist: Capitulation

[Zapmeister]

This wishlist item (the only one I've ever done) is about addressing the problem of game dropouts.

When a player loses interest in (or the ability to continue) a game, their withdrawal often has serious side effects in terms of game balance which detracts from the remaining players' enjoyment of the game, mostly because the AI is not competitive.

The wish, then, is for an action I call "capitulation" to replace the current practice of "going AI". Capitulation should be enforcable on the server, to cope with password-setting AWOLs that disappear without a word when the going gets rough.

When you capitulate, the Dominions server uses some algorithm based on dominion and the proximity of forces to divvy up your territory between your neighbours. Your former nation is thereby extinguished, leaving nothing for an AI to control. Perhaps also, the special sites in your capital (if you still control it) should be destroyed.

I imagine people might argue for a while about the fairness of the division algorithm but, in my view, any half-decent system would be better than leaving an abandoned nation in the hands of the diplomatically fickle and militarily incompetent AI.

[Micah]

Non-lopsided wars in Dominions (especially early on before defender turn 1 advantage really kicks in) are generally sinusoidal in nature in terms of resource loss.

The beginning skirmishes don't end up trading many provinces until there's a decisive battle, at which point the loser faces a rapid loss of provinces as the winning army splits up to gobble up territory once the threat of an opposing army is removed. Then there's generally a mop-up phase to get the last few points of resistance taken care of.

Being able to "capitulate" in this manner the turn after a major loss completely robs the winning side of the majority of the spoils of war, and is thus not a goo solution to the very real problem of vanishing players and insufficient AI skill to handle the complexity of the game.

Perhaps an idea with some merit, but it needs some major revisions, Zap.

[Zapmeister]

Originally Posted by Micah

Being able to "capitulate" in this manner the turn after a major loss completely robs the winning side of the majority of the spoils of war, and is thus not a goo solution

I disagree with this comment for two reasons.

1. I mentioned that the division algorithm would be based on dominion and the proximity of forces. This means that an unassisted invader, present in force on the capitulator's border, will receive the lion's share of the spoils.

2. More importantly, conquests are rarely completed in full by a single invader. When the defender diverts his forces to the main front, opportunistic third parties swoop on the newly-undefended borders and can wind up taking more spoils than the nation that earned them. Because of this, I think that a capitulation mechanism could actually make for a fairer division of spoils in many cases.

[LDiCesare]

Originally Posted by Zapmeister

1. I mentioned that the division algorithm would be based on dominion and the proximity of forces. This means that an unassisted invader, present in force on the capitulator's border, will receive the lion's share of the spoils.

I think Micah is right. A big dominion would give an allied neighbor lots of free territory he wouldn't have seized otherwise. Also, LA Ermor having huge forces would get more territory than a lone SC or a scout, which may be right for the scout but wrong for the SC.
You would also have to take into account Province Defense. I've seen some PD40+ provinces (sometimes thanks to events), which would be hard to crack and would slow down progression of enemy troops.

2. More importantly, conquests are rarely completed in full by a single invader. When the defender diverts his forces to the main front, opportunistic third parties swoop on the newly-undefended borders and can wind up taking more spoils than the nation that earned them. Because of this, I think that a capitulation mechanism could actually make for a fairer division of spoils in many cases.

I disagree. Third parties will take some territory but PD may change that, as third parties are likely to have their main armies engaged somewhere else to begin with.

Rather than use complex algorithms to split the territory, just turning everything into independents would probably fit the bill, with the caveat that province defense should be converted into independent troops, since indeps don't have PD.

[VedalkenBear]

Why not make the provinces go independent, and re-produce appropriate Independent defenders of the provinces? Alternately, if someone 'quits', have the computer zero all of their dominion. That will do the equivalent, but IIRC leaves the national troops in place.

My issue with your proposal is that it gives provinces when they could not have been conquered as quickly otherwise.

AFAICT, there is _no_ problem with AI control of quitting players. I am not sure what your performance measure is, here. You say 'better'. Better in what way? According to whom? Do you mean more challenging? Certainly, it's not. Having a hole in the map (player-wise) leaves all kinds of challenges, most diplomatic. Allied players who only allied to defeat the leaving player now have to reassess their diplomacy _while carving up the remaining territory_. Other players now have to assess this windfall, and what that does to the balance of power. Etc. etc. etc.

Also, if you want to do instant division, you need to make sure it is applied dead last in turn order. Otherwise, you can have players who are allied suddenly invading each other's territory.

All in all, I think this idea is not healthy for the game unless and until better standards can be provided to judge it vis-a-vis the current system.

[Gandalf Parker]

The game does have a recommended fix for that already.
The Master Password allows the person running the game to enter as any player. Usually if the player stops playing its to set the player AI. But it can also be used to allow a replacement player, or for the person running the game to make moves for that player. Or even can be used to do some of the dividing which people are recommending.

Providing more options for breaking up the departing players property sounds like more trouble to add than it would be worth for the problem.

Yes I know that its easy to not think about the need for master password until its needed which is too late. I HIGHLY recommend that all hosts ALWAYS set a master password. And if you are the kindof person which always forgets then just change the defaults to always put one in. Add to your dom3 icon the switch to do
--masterpass masterblaster

Gandalf Parker
--
To some people, unlimited options seems to them to be zero options.
Without a menu of choices, they are lost.

[Illuminated One]

I think the main problem is that the AI goes hostile to everyone.
If there was an AI just passively defending against attacks that might be fine.

[VedalkenBear]

Ill: The stated reason is that the 'AI is not competitive'. Presumably, this means that it's not a challenge.

While this may be true, certainly needing to take X turns to take Y territories is far more challenging than taking 1 turn to 'take' Y territories based on an algorithm, isn't it?

[thejeff]

Why does the AI go hostile to everyone?

In SP, the AI knows who it is at war with. It declares war, responds to attacks, eventually goes back to peace if there have been no battles for long enough, etc. There's a tendency not to attack a new opponent while still at war with another.

Obviously, when a player sets himself AI, the new AI can know nothing about allies, NAPs, or other deals, but it should know what happened that turn and set itself to war with anyone it fought. Does this not happen?

I can't remember. Does the AI actually go hostile to everyone? Will it attack without declarations? I wonder if setting the AI type to the least aggressive would produce better behavior.

And I thought the AI was so pathetic by MP standards, that it didn't matter what it did, everyone would just jump in to grab provinces anyway?

[VedalkenBear]

thejeff: Precisely. Part of my assumptions have been that everyone _knows_ when a player 'goes AI'. If so, then clearly NAPs will be disbanded at that time. If someone is so foolish as to rely on that NAP to the point that the _AI_ poses a threat on that front... I'm not sure what that means, except that it's not good.