Copitulation

Post by **Freenhult** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:27 am

Why don't we add a copitulate button under Status? That way, people can surrender in a war and be forced to pay stuff. Like.. If Rudder attacked me and we were at war, and I was getting owned, He'd have no real way to force me to pay stuff other through attacking. But at any time, he could take the stuff and then attack me anyway. This way, it forces the war setting between those 2 empires to cease and not allow for attacking for 7 days. During this time, the loser pays 20% of all things generated, food, money, runes and troops to the person he capitulated too.

After the 7 days, he's able to leave assuming he gets within 50% of his masters networth. Otherwise, he's trapped there until he gets it.

Post by **The Beatles** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:04 pm

This imposes artificial limitations on the game, though. Say you camp and notice when Rudder attacks you. Within a few hits, you liquidate all your assets (say into the clan treasury), and immediately capitulate. Result? He gets nothing, and what's more can't attack you for some time.

A better way would perhaps be to allow a text field in war declaration, where you type your actual declaration, specifying objectives and deadlines. This is how real war declarations work anyway. Then, the user can either meet your goals by the deadline (send aid, leave a clan, whatever), in which case you can decide not to declare war (or be dishonourable and attack anyway), or prepare, etc. The user can at any time during the campaign, of course, accept surrender.

The thing is, nobody goes through this process (already possible through messaging) because we haven't made it a formal option. If we just add a few more buttons, like threaten, declare war, accept war (refuse terms), surrender, etc., then we don't need to impose arbitrary rules, yet more people will use it anyway.

Post by **Freenhult** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:11 pm

The point is that Rudder wouldn't get immediate rewards. Everytime the person he conquered ran, Rudder would get 20% of that outcome for each turn used. Rudder would get a whole lot. Plus, if he has many vassals from the same war... Perhaps, those vassals should prolly have to fight with Rudder as well. (Rudder can't attack him, he can't attack Rudder), but Rudder sets war to Sci Ops, the vassals are set to war with Sci Ops. Kinda like you are clanned, but not really. More like absorbed.

The point of this, was to circumvent abuse. People won't surrender easily normally, and this forces them to pay up. And it protects them. Which is a major plus.

No one goes through it, because most people would rather die then surrender normally. Mainly because they figure they're gonna get screwed in the end anyway. Atleast with this, they've some measure of protection and also their lord gets bonus resources. Not really abusable as I see it...

Post by **The Beatles** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:21 pm

The scenario I described in the first paragraph is just the most obvious way to abuse the system. It's an arbitrary restriction, it's bound to be abusable.

Post by **Freenhult** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:53 pm

Not entirely. I'm gonna wait. I wanna see if anyone else comments. Hopefully Nuke will or something.

Post by **bjornredtail** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:51 pm

Perhaps what is needed is a simpler "cease fire" system. If you wanted to end a war, you could offer to enter a cease fire, which would merely forbid attacks for a mutually agreed period. Enforcing other conditions of the peace would be entirely up to the warbands involved.

Post by **Freenhult** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:12 pm

Even so, I went over a few senario's in with the person can get out of it by deleting. Mostly, they FA someone there stuff and then delete and get FA'd back. Thats a problem, so I figure, why should a vassalized empire be able to FA or get FA'd? So, with that off, it pretty much solves that problem. They can still get out of it by deleting, but thats the same as killing them off.

Post by **The Beatles** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:27 am

In thinking things through, I now understand your rationale, and I am in agreement with the spirit (even if not the letter) of it.

First: I think the cease fire or formal war channels would be nice, but non-necessary additions at the moment.

Now, I think the fixed, forced production gathering is the wrong way to go about it. The defender should simply be able to also cede the land in question to the attacker, rather than this weird RWL protectorate-style hack.

So my proposal is this: formal diplomacy, with declarations of war, ceasefire, neutrality, peace, alliance, etc. etc. Essentially, the diplomatic relations between two empires should be definable and defined. It will take a bit of thought to decide how clans fit into this, as merely the highest tier or a separate category. A war should then also be a formal process, with objectives and terms for ceasefires or peace terms that can be stated and acquiesced to. These terms can then include goods or services, just as in our economy model. Naturally, I suggest that all this be implemented a. after the economic proposals, b. after cash sacking and hit limits are eliminated, and c. without imposing arbitrary restrictions on players, like the current war system does. Reasonable?

Nuclear Raunch · Post by **Nuclear Raunch** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:58 am

Freenhult wrote: Not entirely. I'm gonna wait. I wanna see if anyone else comments. Hopefully Nuke will or something.

Comment.

Post by **Gen. Volkov** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:04 am

I like it, with the modifications Beatles is talking about. Make it abuse proof, and I'll be for implementation.

BTW, the word is "capitulation" Freen. At first I thought this thread was about sex. *laughs*.

Post by **The Beatles** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:03 pm

Impossible. This is the forum primarily used by the FAF developers...

Post by **Freenhult** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:43 pm

The Beatles wrote: Impossible. This is the forum primarily used by the FAF developers...

Ah. So thats how new code gets made so fast.

But yeah, I got that from other people Volk.

Glad this sounds good. Its annoying that there is no viable option other than killing a person in war. Hopefully this can get worked out.

FireFrenzy · Post by **FireFrenzy** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:14 am

I think that this would be quite an excellent supplementation to the current clan system.

Also, I'm not sure if it's prevelant here, but clans in the Promisance-based game I have long played often create FDPs (Full Defense Pacts), wherein clans with such a pact will come to the aid of another during war. Thus, an additional idea is to have such definitions become explicit; that is, if two clans have an FDP and one is attacked, the other is automatically set to war with the offending clan. In basic, the suggestion is to add varying forms of "alliances." Or is this superfluous?

Post by **Freenhult** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:09 pm

No. I always called the Mutual Protection Pacts myself, but yeah. Its a good idea all in all. There should be a clan limit, such as you need x people before you can sign or make one. Otherwise, you'd have a bunch of one clan empires all alligned with a larger or powerful one.

Slasher · Post by **Slasher** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:05 am

Obviously the person who's pwning the other guy would have to accept the surrender option though, right? - and they would have to wait say, 6-12 hours from their last attack on that empire before they can accept? (stops them from pwning them totally then accepting straight after)

Frost And Flame Forums

Copitulation

Members connected in real time