I've just had my first occasion to do a team surrender, in a two team game.  I expected the game to end immediately when the last member of my team surrendered, just as it does when the second-to-last player in a non-team game surrenders.

It doesn't, the only other team has to vote to accept the Team Surrender.  Is this intentional, with a rationale which we could potentially debate?  Or is it an implementation difficulty issue?

One thing that comes to mind would be any case where there are more than tow teams, where all non-surrendering teams would need to agree to the surrender.  Coded this way, even a lone winning team would have to agree.

A surrender can significantly affect a game. There is a good chance that having the other guys accept that surrender is to keep consistency in the gameplay. Maybe some team would join a game just to build a big unit count and surrender to mess with other players.

M57: meaning an implementation issue is the explanation, I can see that.

Ratsy: "Significantly affect" in the sense that it ends it, yes. 

I'm talking about the case when there is only one other team, who should win immediately when their opponent surrenders.  That's how it works with non-team games, where the winning player doesn't have the option of declining the surrender and forcing the game to go on.  Conceptually, why should team games be different?

  Conceptually, why should team games be different?

 

Yeah, agreed. As long as the surrendering teams members agree, there should be no difference.