There have been 10's of discussions on boots/surrenders, so I'm not going to go into all the arguments about why they happen, and the merits of each.

I think the general consensus between people is that there are three types of people who exit a game without playing it out:
1) Those who accidentally boot, because life got in the way.
It was an accident, real life is more important than WarGear, we've got a working solution (turn timers which cause skips/boots)

2) Those who voluntarily boot because they want to slow down gameplay.  
These people are d***s so governing for them is a waste, and we don't have a way to stop this (because if we did, they'd just find a different way to be disruptive) so we just ignore this group.

3) Those who voluntarily stop playing because they are losing, they are frustrated, or ???, and they just want out of the game, but they don't actually want to be disruptive.

For #3, we have created an option: Surrender
The goal being that if you opt for surrender, then your opponents can make sure the they all agree that your bowing out of the game wouldn't disrupt gameplay, and if so, accept your surrender, and you are removed from the game (and limit excessive delays from boots).

However, I feel like the surrender doesn't actually work.
a) Either your opponents are too ignorant to actually read the game page to see that a surrender has been volunteered, so they don't accept it, or.....
b) your opponents see that the surrender was offered, but don't accept it, because they think it would disrupt the game too much.

Either way, the surrenderer still voluntarily skips turns, and ends up getting booted.
This means even in the best of intentions, the surrender isn't working as hoped.

So I propose two changes:

1) There are always going to be those who don't believe that Surrender actually works, and who are going to voluntarily skip-boot, but don't particularly want to be pricks about it.
For these people, I propose the addition of a "Voluntary Skip" button.
With this button, (which is invisible to their opponents) when their turn comes up, the turn skip/boot happens automatically and immediately, without having to wait for the actual turn timer to expire.
The game engine will handle it just like a normal skip, just without having to wait for 3 days for the timer to expire.

2) Make some changes to the Surrender option

a) If a players Volunteered to Surrender is active and then their turn comes around again, they can still play (this is the same as current design, no changes here).
This covers the situation where someone has requested surrender, but their opponents think it will be too disruptive, so the surrenderer decides to play on (just like how surrender is supposed to work).

b) If Volunteer to Surrender is active, and they don't play their turn (either deliberately or accidentally), then their "Voluntary Skip" is automatically activated, meaning that their next turn won't have to wait for the turn timer to elapse for the game to continue.
This helps move games along for those who are going to skip-boot out whether surrender is accepted or not. 

c) Volunteer to Surrender is Active, and the player's turn is skipped (because of turn timer or Voluntary Skip is active) then the player isn't skipped like a normal skip.
Instead, the game engine will generate the army bonus that the player earns for their turn, will auto distribute those armies (randomly, just like during initial setup) across all of the players countries, and then end the players turn (no attacks, so no card is taken).

Maybe the opponents refused a surrender because that player's exit would be too disruptive.
In this case, the players turns still happen (he isn't neutralized/removed from the game) so he is still playing a role in the game, albeit not actively, so it makes the refusal of an offer to surrender actually worth something.
But it also means that (because of "b" above) the player is moved to Voluntary Skip status, so that his future turns don't delay the game.

At any point later, the player could decide "hey, I do actually want to play this game," in which case he can deactivate Surrender and Voluntary Skip, and he's right back in the game again like normal.

TLDR -
Proposing a Voluntary Skip button, which allows player to say "don't wait for turn timer on my next turn, skip and move on immediately."
Proposing changes to Surrender that doesn't result in boot, but keeps player in the game and amassing armies (so as to not throw the balance of the game) while also expediting that players turns, in case they are just refusing to play turns.

That voluntary turn skip idea sounds interesting.  Lets someone sit on the sidelines without interfering with game flow, but, the other players would have to ignore him/her at their own peril.  For troop disbursement, you had suggested a random placement, but, for boards where reserves are held, maybe it should just sit in their reserves so if they decide to re-enter a game where the players had been ignoring them in their dormancy, then they could come back with a BOOM!  This would actually introduce all kinds of new strategies for using it and also for playing in games where others have utilized it, so, maybe it should be a game option where voluntary-skip would need to be activated so game creators could choose between classic or voluntary-skip games?

I might also suggest that if players were stuck in a deadlocked game and all the players decided to put on their voluntary skip button that instead of the game-generator going into a rapid turn-skip mode that it instead be set to auto-terminate the game as soon as the last active player puts on their voluntary-skip.  Also, if a person(s) has put on their voluntary-skip and the remaining players decide it would be unfair to continue with that player(s) sitting idle then the remaining active players should be allowed to terminate WITHOUT a vote from the player(s) who elected to put on their voluntary skip.

Sounds good to me BTF. I am not for the random placement of armies thing (a skip is a skip) but overall I like it.

A37:  My logic behind the random placement was this:
If a skip is just a skip, then there is no downside to NOT attacking him because he won't be any more of a threat the following turn.
The whole point behind opponents having to accept surrender is to avoid a situation where someone's surrender would alter game dynamics.
By removing the fear of that player, you're doing exactly that, in which case, why don't we just let him skip-boot like he does now?

Since the game engine is going to continue placing his armies onto his current positions, it makes his opponents still treat him as a viable opponent, because if they don't attack his positions that border theirs, then his defenses have the potential to grow on his next turn.
Also, because he stays active in the game, (like Berick said) you can't treat him as a neutral barrier because the player could potentially take off surrender at any point and start playing again.

Many many moons ago, there was a previous discussion of the potential of a future "game-bot" that would play out a players turns if they decided to surrender, and of course if that ever comes to fruition, I'd suggest using the game-bot as a replacement for the auto placement of armies.

Berick -

Let me make sure that I differentiate the two suggestions.  
The Voluntary Skip option was only so that the person who normally walks away from a game for a skip-boot would be able to volunteer to do so without making his opponents wait for his turn timer.
If someone sets the Voluntary Skip option, then their first next turn happens instantaneously and so does the following turn, but then that's two skips in a game, so they are booted, and their play in the game is done.  

They aren't going to use that checkbox to step away from a game for 4 rounds, then start playing again, because they'll have already been booted after the 2nd round.
To do what you're proposing, they'd use the new version of Surrender.

Also, the person who is doing a skip-boot is going to do it whether this option is available or not, so by making it ALWAYS available, they're more likely to exercise it, and it creates the benefit of allowing them to skip-boot with no disruption to opponents.  Hence why I think it should NOT be a configurable option, and would always been allowed.

I hadn't considered all players trying to Voluntary Skip, but I don't think we have to establish a specific solution to that scenario.
Since boots will still happen after the second skip, players will be removed as the turns are skipped, so it will dwindle the game down (and not cause for an infinite loop in play).

Maybe we could treat a VS the same as a Surrender for a 2 player though.
As soon as there are only x2 players left, and one turns on VS, it's an automatic surrender and the game ends? 

For Surrendering, I had already thought about your other suggestion, but had forgotten to mention it, so thanks for the reminder:  If reserves are allowed, those units would not be placed.  
I like this because it makes the surrenderer even more of a threat, therefore giving more reason for opponents to treat the surrenderer like he's still in the game.
He could, afterall, come back and pounce on them at any point.

This is going back a ways but it's related. I once suggested that the site should have AI (Dumb) bot. There are many uses for a Dumbbot, for instance including testing boards, etc. But one is simply to have a Bot take over for a player. In fact, Surrender is never necessary. Just turn on the Bot. At first, the bot could be as simple as amassing units, not unlike the suggestion above. From there, it's not too hard to imagine eventually giving it a simple algorithm - for instance to attack with all units it randomly places - in effect leaving the player with at most the number of units he had when he enabled the bot.

I thought you meant indefinitely, and when I think about it, I tend to think it should be indefinite. I think that the voluntary skip player should just sit idle with the potential to rejoin the game until there is just one active player left and then they would be automatically surrendered so that the last active player isn't left attacking dormant armies.  I think it's important to maintain the game dynamics so long as their are at least 2+ active players still in the game so that that potential threat remains even if it is an dormant threat.  If it's only just accelerating the boot, however, then there might as well just be non-vote surrenders so they could leave immediately without input from the other players.  The voluntary skip as you are explaining it, would basically just then kick them quicker when their next turn reached after their first missed turn, which would really be no different to the game as it is right now except to save a little time.  If the boot effected the game dynamics badly (hence why the players wouldn't want to vote to accept the surrender in the first place) then the purpose of just accelerating the boot really serves no purpose as far as what I was envisioning the setting to achieve, this being to maintain some kind of game dynamic despite one (or more) players feeling that they no longer wanted to actively participate in the game.

That's why I'm trying to differentiate the two features I'm suggesting:

The one you're describing at first (allowing a player to sit on the sidelines, and then restart again if he so chooses) is the new functionality I'm proposing for "Surrender."  If a player wants to exit, he requests surrender.  If his opponents don't want him to leave, they don't accept surrender, and he stays on the sidelines, turns playing automatically, and the game progressing.  If he decides down the road to start playing again, he can.  If we get down to 2 players, then his surrender status automatically ends the game.  It's all the same as you described, but just the different feature name.

The "Voluntary Skip" function is the latter one that you described:  It's only purpose is to speed up someone forcibly exiting the game.  I agree that the preference is that there would be no need for that feature, because we'd love for all players to just choose surrendering, but there will always be people who aren't going to offer surrender, and are instead just going to walk away from the game.  I'm just trying to offer that person a method to be less of a prick when he does it.

Thirdly, I'm also proposing a combination of the two:  Namely player X offers surrender, and so now he's "on the sidelines of that game."  But if he only has Surrender active, then every round, the opponents would have to wait for his turn timer to elapse (3 days, for instance).  This slows the game down a bit, but would also give him a chance to wait for his next turn because he wants to jump into the game again.  But if he wants to be out and doesn't want to play, then I propose that person could ALSO turn on Voluntary Skip, and then every round when his turn comes up, it would happen immediately (random placement of armies, etc)...and then advance to the next turn.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

 (random placement of armies, etc)...and then advance to the next turn.

This is the first step toward the AI solution.  It's potential flaw is that those territories (by virtue of not attacking) will artificially build up and create buffers or choke points.  My proposed solution for this is the AI player ALSO attacks (randomly) with any 'placed' armies - right down to a single die roll if necessary.

The premise is that there really should be NO surrender.  When a player throws his arms in the air and gives up, at least the dumbbot keeps playing for him - and I see no reason that the player shouldn't be allowed to turn the bot off - as long as it's REALLY stupid.

Did anyone ever suggest that the holdings of the surrendering player are randomly distributed to remaining players?  I can think of flaws with this as well - I prefer a route that leads to AI, but all avenues should be investigated.

If you read my post above, I too referenced the same previous discussion about an AI bot.
And I agree that I'd love to have one.
I'm not suggesting that my solution is a replacement for an AI player, nor do I propose that it's the best option, because I agree that a bot that actually attacked and was able to make decisions just like a real opponent would be best.

I'm suggesting that whipping out an AI bot to play for a surrendered player is likely toing to take hours upon hours, upon hours of work from Tom.
Hell, generating the list of rules that the AI would use to make decisions would take a day or two at least, followed by weeks of back and forth to get that list of rules approved by the cast of 50 on these boards who will want to weigh in.
(Example: Look at the time/number of "options" that have been generated over the last X months in trying to create a new ranking system)

So, I've proposed random placement of armies because (as it works out) Tom already has the code to do it (he could pull the code from the engine that places random units at the start of any game) would be the best solution that could be enacted in less than a couple hundred hours of development time.
And in a couple of years when Tom has the income from this site to dedicate the time to build one, then I'm all for replacing random army placement with a true AI bot.

One of the nice things about the way Tom runs this site is that decisions are made by committee ..but only at Tom' pleasure. I.e., the need for the 'cast of 50' is optional at his discretion.  If at some point he likes an idea and has a vision for how to make it happen - he just does it, and as you point out, what's nice about the AI idea is that it can be incrementally implemented. - e.g., starting with just placement.

Don't get me wrong, I love being part of said committee.  I wouldn't be making suggestions like the above two features if it weren't for Tom's willingness to crowdsource enhancements and fixes.  I just don't want development of an easy feature that would give us 70% of the functionality we want (and fix a feature which isn't functioning the way it should, namely acceptance of surrender), because there's a feature in the pipeline for 2 years down the road.  I think we're both on the same side of the AI Bot feature, I just want to steer this particular discussion back to fixing Surrender.

Is it worth it?  
What other benefits could be added?  
Is random placement of armies not a good idea?
Maybe the engine should place new armies proportional to the dispersement of armies that the player already has - place more armies on spaces that already have multiple armies on them, thereby fortifying a chokepoint like how a real player would do? 

My concern is that in the absence of any kind of attack protocol, random or even semi-random placement can be just as detrimental as no placement as the armies build up. Depending on the design of key choke-points, or how factories work with some boards, it could be decisively advantageous to a given player. It's almost as if the designer would necessarily want to be able to have some input on how the bot works with respect to each board - which puts us WAY ahead of ourselves. I'm beginning to feel like we're sliding down a rabbit hole.

It seems reasonable that whatever the eventual solution, the designer, in knowing the algorithms the bot follows, should minimally have the option of turning off the AI component of the game.

M57 wrote:

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

 (random placement of armies, etc)...and then advance to the next turn.

This is the first step toward the AI solution.  It's potential flaw is that those territories (by virtue of not attacking) will artificially build up and create buffers or choke points.  My proposed solution for this is the AI player ALSO attacks (randomly) with any 'placed' armies - right down to a single die roll if necessary.

The premise is that there really should be NO surrender.  When a player throws his arms in the air and gives up, at least the dumbbot keeps playing for him - and I see no reason that the player shouldn't be allowed to turn the bot off - as long as it's REALLY stupid.

Did anyone ever suggest that the holdings of the surrendering player are randomly distributed to remaining players?  I can think of flaws with this as well - I prefer a route that leads to AI, but all avenues should be investigated.

Is it me or is it not just better for a player who want to be skipped NOT to receive troops. It's his choice, therefore that is the consequence. That way they will also not build up a barricade. This also detracts this option from being manipulated/abused by people 'playing dead', as they have to sacrifice their troops they would have been given

"Playing dead." Interesting..

There is a real world analogy here.  Just because the General throws his hands in the air and walks away, it doesn't necessarily follow that the army will stop fighting, or that the general can re-think his position and come back.   I agree that building without fighting is not preferable.  If there is placement, there should be fighting - especially in the absence of a leader.  I stand by my earlier suggestion that the bot attacks with everything that was randomly placed.  If you really want to simulate a 'leader-less' army, make them attack with 2 dice max, or a -1 dice mod, or -10% percentage dice, etc.

With respect to playing dead:
If you're nervous that a player is doing this, why wouldn't you just accept his surrender then?
The only way that the player gets into the position where he's not controlling his army's play is by specifically offering Surrender to his opponents who have not accepted it.
You (his opponent) haven't accepted his surrender.
If you click the button to accept (same with all the other opponents) then he's removed from the game, and you don't have to worry about him anymore.

I'd argue that it would the potential for playing dead is actually a beneficial feature of the design:  It's that fear that will keep opponents treating the surrendered player as a potential threat, which is what is needed to keep the original gameplay strategies in place.
(which is why we're trying to fix this feature in the first place: people haven't accepted surrender because they think it will change gameplay if he is reverted to neutral/a non-player) 

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

I'd argue that it would the potential for playing dead is actually a beneficial feature of the design:  It's that fear that will keep opponents treating the surrendered player as a potential threat, which is what is needed to keep the original gameplay strategies in place.
(which is why we're trying to fix this feature in the first place: people haven't accepted surrender because they think it will change gameplay if he is reverted to neutral/a non-player) 

doesn't it also matter on the board settings? if there's no reserve available (which i'd venture to say most don't), then they can't stack anything up...