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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.