booted YES, surrendered NO...perhaps in a team game when the other teammate could take over the booted players territories

I hate having to take EVERY territory from a player. It's only happened a few times, though.

Vote for the booted-players-only alternative.

I'm generally in favour of this in principle, as it may help, but giving a players territory to an "AI-fits-all" might not work as well as hoped... If the player is worse than the AI that takes their place, then the players that (under the previous system) would have benefited from booting now get an undeserved penalty; similarly even though the AI might replace the territories, if the AI is significantly worse, then it still yields an unfair advantage to those adjacent. If there were a way to combine this idea with the idea of rankings to offer an accurate AI substitution difficulty (even though the AI couldn't gain a win for the player booted), I'd like it much more.

Additionally, it would make more sense to only do booted players, since surrenders are voluntary and mean that they wish to stop playing -- not continue until they are eliminate. This rids players of the tedious elimination of every single territory after a player has surrendered.

Booted players yes, Surrendered players no. I voted for the other feature. It only has 65 votes while this one has 225. Those of you how think the same way should change your vote from here to that one.

I would like live players to be allowed to sub in for players booted. They can be on a wait list and if a player gets booted then the next player on the list is notified they they can fill in and they either accept or reject; if there is no response in "x" hours then they are dropped and the offer goest to the next in line. If no one is in the wait quene then an AI takes over.

In FFA games, a surrendered or booted player gives an advantage to those who border him. In any game, as we all know, a player who sticks around until elimination can make a difference, even if they have no chance to win. But, I can understand players not wanting to continue taking their turn if it's a sure sign of defeat for them, especially on a large map, where it could take several turns for someone to hunt them out and kill them off. In all cases, having an AI take over (or for boots, having a stand-by player or opening the seat to the public) makes the game more competitive for all.

i say, when the person surrenders/quit hes territories are randomly distributed too all human players,

but randy i like your idead, got my vote

I'd perfer Sajdon's solution where a surrendered player isn't taken over by the AI...

I made a new idea based on this one, but changed a bit, check if out if you like it more: "AI replaces booted players. Game is over when AI is the only opponent."
http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/1107763-ai-replaces-booted-players-game-is-over-when-ai-i?ref=title

IMHO, this should just apply to team games, and surrendering player's territories and troops should go to his teammates (maybe with a penalization to prevent players to exploit this feature).

In a poker tournament, if you time out you are typically put into an autofold state where each hand is automatically played (folded) immediately until you return to the table. Unlike warlight, it is fairly sustainable to skip hands early in a tournament, though you won't get ahead that way. I could see switching a player over to AI when they time out and allowing them to switch back in later. The presumption is, of course, that the AI player will perform at a lower level than the player who is sitting out. As the AI improves, an AI performance setting might make sense. Like Duke said, you shouldn't be able to let AI take over and win the game for you.

Would it be possible to open the booted player's seat to the public?

I don't see the purpose of having an AI take over a surrendered player. If someone surrenders, they're submitting themselves to defeat.

The 'replacement' issue I find to be more valid as an alternative to booting inactive players from games. But even so, I would much rather focus this towards allowing other players to replace an inactive, with an AI as a last resort of sorts.

This should NOT be an option in 1x1 games as it would exist just for spite and annoyance. Plus one should never get a "win" when an AI plays for them. With these caveats you have my vote.

Part of the reason people surrender is so that you don't have to spend a dozen or so turns hunting down and destroying them. AI force you to do exactly that.