Augustus wrote:

The devs have responded that this is an early alpha stopgap that they're going to change once we come up with something better.  So let's come up with something better.

It's right in front of everyone, war weariness is a far better alternative to arbitrarily stopping a war just like that. Though I must qualify that war weariness should also vary in severity depending on your faction trait and government affinity, and mechanics like say boosters from Endless Legend should also be available to allow the player the option to make it work for his strategy.

Let's be fair, Amplitude hasn't released the truce system in its present state. This is early access, which means that while this thread and its general thrust are appropriate (discussing and addressing a perceived issue), accusations of misconduct on the part of the developer are not. I'm harsh on the truce system, yes, but there's a difference between attacking the current system and attacking the people behind it. Cool your jets.

I do, however, question the design imperatives behind the current system. I understand them (put the brakes on someone winning a war so the loser doesn't just get curbstomped), but I question the priority behind its implementation. There are some game features that are important enough that them making sense doesn't matter, they have to exist. I, as, the ruler of the great and terrible Vodyani empire, do not possess the power to wrench the flow of time around to my whim, and yet the save/load system must exist from a game perspective, and that's fine. I do, however, violently contest against the idea of a preserve-the-loser-of-a-war system being a feature that warrants that sort of protection. If you can find a way to make it make sense and give it limits that also make sense, fine, but it's not important enough to exist in defiance of the in-character universe.

AndreasK wrote:

SethG wrote:

If you want to avoid people calling you out on terrible work, it's better not to release it until you've improved your efforts.

Assuming you want to be heard in your call for a change that is an irrelevant sentiment.

You know what, they're adults.  They've grown long past the point where every idea they have must be praised.  If they're at all honest with themselves, they know it's awful, and if all you have to offer is whiny white knighting.....

Yes, I know this is alpha, but the current system is so horrible that there can only be three things going on.

1. The programmer gave them exactly what they were asked to provide - This is terrible game design.

2. They asked the programmer for something else, and got this - This is terrible programming.

3. (And by far the most likely as far as I'm concerned) They told the programmer they had three months to work on it, came by after two days and crammed what was finished into the game - This is really poor decision making.

At this point the mechanic is so poorly implemented and game-breaking that it is impossible to understand what it's doing in alpha.  If it doesn't even work, wait until it does to put it in.  The truce is stopping people from being able to fully test the product that we have now.

Could be interesting if a victorious civilization might impose ideology conditions on the conquered.  This might lead to choices down the road for the conquered civ to diverge from that set path.  I'm thinking something like Germany after the Treaty of Versailles...  

The reason why diplomacy costs currency in the Endless games is because the games encourage you to use it in a more muscular and direct way than other 4x games do.

Augustus wrote:

Could be interesting if a victorious civilization might impose ideology conditions on the conquered.  This might lead to choices down the road for the conquered civ to diverge from that set path.  I'm thinking something like Germany after the Treaty of Versailles...  

If you could do something like demand a regime change and pick which party becomes dominant in your opponent's Senate, that would have really interesting implications.

SethG wrote:

You know what, they're adults.  They've grown long past the point where every idea they have must be praised.  If they're at all honest with themselves, they know it's awful, and if all you have to offer is whiny white knighting.....

Yes, I know this is alpha, but the current system is so horrible that there can only be three things going on.

1. The programmer gave them exactly what they were asked to provide - This is terrible game design.

2. They asked the programmer for something else, and got this - This is terrible programming.

3. (And by far the most likely as far as I'm concerned) They told the programmer they had three months to work on it, came by after two days and crammed what was finished into the game - This is really poor decision making.

At this point the mechanic is so poorly implemented and game-breaking that it is impossible to understand what it's doing in alpha.  If it doesn't even work, wait until it does to put it in.  The truce is stopping people from being able to fully test the product that we have now.

I did not suggest you should praise them for a feature you dislike. What I did suggest was that you moderate yourself when voicing your concerns. Explain why you are frustrated and feel need to describe the feature with loaded words and phrases instead of actually using said words and phrases. Being disrespectful might give you attention, but it is counterproductive in regards to getting any of the good points you might have across to the recipient.

SethG wrote:

You know what, they're adults.

Well I'm glad someone in this discussion is, because by god are you ever abrasive.

On topic with what others suggested earlier, I recognize they don't want the game to devolve in to war state, but that should be a player's call. And if you want to increase diplomatic options, give us diplomatic options. Having a forced mechanic only serves to completely stonewall a military approach (Which is necessary in certain races), while undermining intelligent diplomatic moves. It's the worst of both worlds.

As I like the idea of war weariness of aAmplitude, I just want to share this screenshot:

In this war I fought only a battle against a single sophon explorer. And received dust for free 20 turns after!

Don't sant to make another post blaming Amplitude (there are enough of them in these forums). Just put an example of how this feature is actually working. I'm sure they'll fix it before release, but I hope they, at least tweak a bit before next alph/beta.

lo_fabre wrote:

As I like the idea of war weariness of aAmplitude, I just want to share this screenshot:

In this war I fought only a battle against a single sophon explorer. And received dust for free 20 turns after!

Don't sant to make another post blaming Amplitude (there are enough of them in these forums). Just put an example of how this feature is actually working. I'm sure they'll fix it before release, but I hope they, at least tweak a bit before next alph/beta.

Yeah, that does seem hilariously punitive for having lost a single ship. Perhaps it calculates relative strength (As in, if you could conceivably just steamroll the Sophons if the war didn't end) as part of the payment?

Augustus wrote:

The devs have responded that this is an early alpha stopgap that they're going to change once we come up with something better.  So let's come up with something better.

There are plenty of suggestions in some of the other threads about it ;) Besides the devs have also revealed some of the things they will replace it with.

SethG wrote:

If you want to avoid people calling you out on terrible work, it's better not to release it until you've improved your efforts.

Assuming you want to be heard in your call for a change that is an irrelevant sentiment.

Wintermote wrote:

mezmorki wrote:

I agree - I found the truce mechanic terribly irritating.  

This is the same problem that Stellaris has with it's warscore.  There is an arbitrary limit to how far you can take a war in a given period of time - which is jarring to the player.

Stellaris warscore is a rough representation of your ability to actually make and enforce a claim on another political entity. It's a holdover from Paradox's Europa Universalis days, which largely deals with human history before we started fighting total wars; when fighting a war did not mean complete destruction / utter subservience to the winning party. You would instead fight and take a small territory - back and forth like this for decades.

What you want in your war, is a total war. This is quintessentially what World War 2 was, (and World War 1 kind of was) - something where the political landscape completely changes. Borders completely redrawn, absolute submission of your enemies, etc. etc.

The important question here is, "do you want to win everything all at once?" 

Being that Endless Space is not a war simulator like Hearts of Iron, but more politically minded - like the Europa Universalis games, I don't think that having every conflict turn into a "win everything / lose everything" proposition is a good idea.

Why shouldn't we win everything at once, if we've built up the strength to do it? Especially if the alien race we're roleplaying isn't the peaceable sort like Cravers? Should we never have games where there are innate conquering races who would stop at nothing, if they were having continued success? 

It takes a lot of the sci-fi fun out of the game, when systems like Stellaris' war score are carryovers from European history and jammed into a game where not everyone should act like a 15th Century Human. In Stellaris, exactly *who* is stopping me from declaring another war for a 10 year period? Some disembodied Galaxy God? It doesn't arise organically from the conflict between factions. It's just a forced system that feels out of place in a space 4x game.

I'm not against ways to slow down a steamrolling faction if it feels organic and "emergent", like war weariness. Or maybe an abstracted logistics chain spread too thin. What I object to are limits that just seem forced and arbitrary, like we're fighting the game designer and not the AI factions. 

Zenicetus wrote:

Why shouldn't we win everything at once, if we've built up the strength to do it? Especially if the alien race we're roleplaying isn't the peaceable sort like Cravers? Should we never have games where there are innate conquering races who would stop at nothing, if they were having continued success?

THIS. I have never understood why a game ever punishes those who performed well. If I'm out autocrossing, we don't suddenly throw extra time on the guy who finished first to "help even things up". He did best. He's earned the early advantage he has. Same goes for gaming. If someone has the best military, or the most tech, or did the best at exploring and colonizing, they should not be punished for that success. If they've become a threat, it's on the other players in the game to figure out how to deal with that threat.

There shouldnt be a real hard cap on this. Stellaris warscore changed also so you cant conquer a whole empire in a single run most of the time. I really dont get this why. If anybody wants me to stop try to do it.   In stellaris there are the fallen empires whose are much stronger than any other empire most of the time. There they could make one of them a peacekeeper like. If you wants to steamroll then they try to stop you.  In this game if you want to do it then implement a race to try to stop you. Or make the other empires form a pact against you whatever. Just not an automated stop

Well, the whole problem is more complex IMO.

In general, AI in Amplitude games behaves like a jerk.

All that "cold war" fluff means they just run amok and plunder your stuff, steal your pops, slap outposts in your face, and invade your systems as soon as they explore them.

This was the case in ES, was the case in EL, and now ES2.

It is even more affected by Endless difficulty, where you get huge hits on standings, basically making any sort of diplomacy except exchanging nuclear rockets impossible.

So of course, the rightful reaction to this is to mine all your planets to the core, build as much ships as you can, and go on a genocidal rampage spree of vengeance.

It is totally understandable.

And of course it is quite annoying when AI puts a truce leash on you every few turns to cool you down.

So, first things first, as with most 4x strategy lovers, we mostly take pleasure in exploring, expanding and building up our stuff, researching, and so on.

The actual need for violence comes when we literally have nowhere to expand.

Or we don't even care for violence when we pursue another sorts of victory (scientific, diplomatic, etc).

Like, in Civilization BE all you do as Harmony is smell flowers, build a bunch of cities, then needlejets to defend them and then just sit, wait, juggle your workers and cities while researching and building Mindflower to transcend everyone and finish the game. Meanwhile all the warmongering dickhead neighbors are going hysterical at your borders, even without having developed their own territories.

Or, to take Civilization V as example again, some wars are waged to just help your buddy when he gets jumped on by a tandem of warmongering imbeciles like Monty and Shaka. Even if that buddy is AI sometimes.

So, back to ES2 issues:

- The dickhead AI behaviour and "cold war" being actually quite hot of course eventually forces you to go to war

- It is pretty much impossible to make friends on higher difficulties

- There are no options to help someone, like "I want you to make peace with..." mechanic in Civ series to stop someone from being a dickhead

So, forcing a truce is a good mechanic which can be useful, just not in current implementation, of course.

Romeo wrote:

Zenicetus wrote:

Why shouldn't we win everything at once, if we've built up the strength to do it? Especially if the alien race we're roleplaying isn't the peaceable sort like Cravers? Should we never have games where there are innate conquering races who would stop at nothing, if they were having continued success?

THIS. I have never understood why a game ever punishes those who performed well. If I'm out autocrossing, we don't suddenly throw extra time on the guy who finished first to "help even things up". He did best. He's earned the early advantage he has. Same goes for gaming. If someone has the best military, or the most tech, or did the best at exploring and colonizing, they should not be punished for that success. If they've become a threat, it's on the other players in the game to figure out how to deal with that threat.

Because the logical outcome of this is that there's very little point to have a diplomacy system or going for anything other than "kill and take everything" routes.  No matter how much better I play than you in the early game, if you just mass produce ships, and I do not, you will take my systems (which are better than yours) and use them against me.

You shouldn't punish a warmongerer as the current system does, but you need a way for civs that are "non violent" to compete otherwise it's basically just business as usually (go wide and mass produce a fleet).  In fact right now with literally every race you can still do this.  It takes longer due to forced truce, but you can usually eliminate the other race in your arm by turn 20/30 and spring from there.

Romeo wrote:

If I mass produce ships, I've been neglecting planetary upgrades, economy and tech. If I don't kill you, or if you ally with a partner, I'm completely and utterly boned. I will be outperformed the longer the game goes on. It's certainly not a guaranteed win. You'll notice Galactic Civilization doesn't have a "force you to stop" mechanic, yet somehow, military isn't the most common means of winning.

Exactly. This has been dealt with in other strategy games without shackling the player with a Hand of God reaching out of the stars and saying "No, you can't do that!" as with Stellaris' white peace time limits, or this forced truce idea.

If the intent is to put a brake on a player steamrolling neighbors with an early military rush, then make the limitation organic like war weariness, or an extended logistics penalty. Or that old hoary standby.... unhappiness for conquered planets, so you have to dedicate resources to garrison duty. 

Zenicetus wrote:

Romeo wrote:

If I mass produce ships, I've been neglecting planetary upgrades, economy and tech. If I don't kill you, or if you ally with a partner, I'm completely and utterly boned. I will be outperformed the longer the game goes on. It's certainly not a guaranteed win. You'll notice Galactic Civilization doesn't have a "force you to stop" mechanic, yet somehow, military isn't the most common means of winning.

Exactly. This has been dealt with in other strategy games without shackling the player with a Hand of God reaching out of the stars and saying "No, you can't do that!" as with Stellaris' white peace time limits, or this forced truce idea.

If the intent is to put a brake on a player steamrolling neighbors with an early military rush, then make the limitation organic like war weariness, or an extended logistics penalty. Or that old hoary standby.... unhappiness for conquered planets, so you have to dedicate resources to garrison duty. 

Man, I have just delved into the magic world of Vodyani early Ark rush, and I must tell you, it is sexy.

The things they do to all other empires, the travesty... Ah

Zenicetus wrote:

Romeo wrote:

If I mass produce ships, I've been neglecting planetary upgrades, economy and tech. If I don't kill you, or if you ally with a partner, I'm completely and utterly boned. I will be outperformed the longer the game goes on. It's certainly not a guaranteed win. You'll notice Galactic Civilization doesn't have a "force you to stop" mechanic, yet somehow, military isn't the most common means of winning.

Exactly. This has been dealt with in other strategy games without shackling the player with a Hand of God reaching out of the stars and saying "No, you can't do that!" as with Stellaris' white peace time limits, or this forced truce idea.

If the intent is to put a brake on a player steamrolling neighbors with an early military rush, then make the limitation organic like war weariness, or an extended logistics penalty. Or that old hoary standby.... unhappiness for conquered planets, so you have to dedicate resources to garrison duty. 

Heck, if the current issue is early rush, remove the invasion ship types until they've been researched, and make the home planet far more difficult to invade. If someone has enough to research them, build a fleet, find your home system, destroy your fleet and successfully invade your planet before you could do anything to stop them, you deserve to lose.

Asuzu wrote:

Man, I have just delved into the magic world of Vodyani early Ark rush, and I must tell you, it is sexy.

The things they do to all other empires, the travesty... Ah

Yes, the Vodyani are currently balanced in absolutely no ways what-so-ever. They need to be leashed down HARD.

Just chiming in here to agree that the truce mechanic feels completely arbitrary and takes away player agency. As someone else mentioned in the thread, it reminds me of the war score system in Stellaris, which imposes an arbitrary mechanic on warfare and conquest, with ridiculous 10 year limits between fights and so on. 

I understand some of the arguments presented for these systems, like giving the loser in a conflict one last chance to recover,. But it still feels like the hand of the game developer interfering with what should be a player's decisions. 

I would hate to see any of this tied too strongly to the political system either. Otherwise we'll spend more time playing politics than furthering the natural goals of eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate, which a game like this is supposed to be concerned with. There is no "X" in politics! ;)

I'm not sure the full diplomatic mechanic is available to player yet.

So it could be that it's not supposed to work as it currently does and the force truce was just so the players war could end at all.

The whole truce mechanic (or idea, or whatever is it) is horrible atm. Especially with cravers :)
I hope it will be changed soon.

Hey guys :)

The current implementation of the mechanic is not final and is currently being worked on! Your patience shall be rewarded

I really hope it will be fine. To be honest ES1 was (still it is) my favourite 4x game. So my expectation maybe a little bit high.

So ill remain calm :) ... I hope it will be a great game, take your time, do not rush :)

I agree - I found the truce mechanic terribly irritating.  

This is the same problem that Stellaris has with it's warscore.  There is an arbitrary limit to how far you can take a war in a given period of time - which is jarring to the player. 

A MUCH better approach to handling this would be to have some political ramifications to a prolonged total war.  Perhaps as you fight more battles over the course of a war with a foreign empire, some percentage of your population switches to the peacekeepers party - creating are more natual internal tension between militarists and peacekeepers.  Obviously, this should depend on the faction you are playing - e.g. Craver's wouldn't be affected by this.  

mezmorki wrote:

This is the same problem that Stellaris has with it's warscore.  There is an arbitrary limit to how far you can take a war in a given period of time - which is jarring to the player. 

The less Stellaris the better really. Over on Steam they keep asking "is this like Stellaris?" and the only answer I want to give is "nothing like it!"

I'm happy for some sort of properly implemented war fatigue if we really need a limit, but the current magic Jedi truce is a big no.

A good work around for the Forced Truce is through the diplomacy screen. If you go to an empire that you want to continue your war with, simply make a huge political demand, i.e. a system or high level tech. The AI often refuses and declares war to get rid of the influence/political demand. BOOM. Your war is back on!

Under no circumstances does the losing side of a war get to tell the winning side that they have to take a time-out. They can ask for one, they can try to bribe for one (although that had better be one hell of a bribe...), they can fall on their knees and beg for one (and they had better not be Cravers...), but they sure as heck can't force the issue. To be frank, if they could force the issue, they wouldn't be losing the war to begin with.

The only feature even vaguely similar that I could see making sense would be some sort of tie-in with the political parties system; to whit, a regime change in the winning side's government to one that doesn't want the war for whatever reason (hi, pacifists, maybe scientists or ecologists). At that point, it's not the loser forcing peace, it's the winner's government making peace with the loser's government, also knows as the first case from my initial list. Now, for this to work as a system, elections would need speeding up, but that's not an issue as long as dust and influence costs are reduced accordingly. Diplomatically-speaking, I would also love to see 'stop fighting or else' be a viable diplomatic channel, wherein one party to a war convinces a third party to not join in and perpetuate it, but threaten to do so if the war does not stop. That provides the player with a stark choice: peace, or a much wider, perhaps unwinnable war.

In summary, to force peace, you need to be strong enough that you wouldn't be losing the war catastrophically to begin with.  Out of story, DO NOT SCREW WITH PLAYER AGENCY.

I'm glad people seem to agree with me. It makes the game unnecessarily slow and frustrating. Military victories take long enough especially when you have to fight the same fleets twice because of a draw or hunt down a bunch of Vodyani arks. 

My biggest issue with the Forced Truce option isn't that it exists so much, but how it can sneak up on you. We also have to remember that it is not at all a finished aspect of the game, and will probably be reworked in the future. 

From a realistic standpoint, fighting a complete and total genocidal war is generally not terribly easy to do or practical. Sometimes a war exists as a show of force or to take a certain military, industrial or socio-economical objective. Thus most wars are not end all be all fights tot he death. However, having said that, I would argue that the Cravers should have a method to negate a forced truce, and that will tie in with the suggestion I'm going to give.

So, we have a couple major problems with the feature as it currently stands:

1. Sneaks up on the player unless you are checking the diplomacy screen every turn.

2. The player has absolutely no way to negate a forced truce.

3. The only gain I've received from forced truces is in dust tribute, thus there should be more things to gain.

So, let's address each issue. For the first one, it can be fixed fairly easily I think, just have some popup messages happen when the enemy's or your "War Fatigue" reaches significant points, such as 50%, 75%, 90%. This allows you to gauge when the enemy (if you're winning) will try to surrender, or when you'll be able to surrender (if you're losing). For the second issue the winning faction should have the option to deny the surrender attempt, albeit at a cost. Perhaps it causes all population units not under a militarist opinion to decrease their approval rating (Double? for Pacifist pops). To give the Cravers a benefit, make their Craver population units immune to the approval change regardless of ideology, because no matter what they're Cravers and killing and consuming is their raison d'etre. Now, for the final issue the losing faction should be able to, or maybe even forced, to give alternate tributes than dust, resources or systems. Maybe if the winning faction is ahead by a significant portion, and they can choose the demand from a short list of options, and the losers must either accept the deal or sigh and keep fighting.

It's a system that is being worked on, and they've got good heads over at Amplitude so I'm sure it'll be fine. Hell, they probably already thought of my ideas xD

I do think there should be something to stop a full out genocide war from just being too easy.  Granted if you can do that, it should be possible, but I personally like the idea of the population getting war fatigued and eventually seeing approval hits due to this.  You can continue if you want, but you start to risk rebellion.

Cravers could, and probably should, be immune to this, but I do like the idea of some mechanic to at least make mindless war as any other race not so easy.

Not only is the truce system horrible, but it seems to be broken.  I had the Sophons pick a fight with me.  I defeated a few ships, and started blockading a system.  They forced a truce.  I invaded and captured  the system the next turn.

The basic idea behind the forced truce/war exhaustion mechanic seems to be giving losing or overextended factions a chance to limp away and lick their wounds for a bit. That's a good feature in theory, but it's clearly not working right now.

Here are my suggestions:

-Every player has a baseline 'war exhaustion' bar that represents the political will to keep fighting. This is fundamentally the same for all factions, but can be modified by faction traits, political ideology, and maybe government type. Every turn, this fills up by a certain amount.

-Suffering material losses should also increase this. Losing ships, population units, planet improvements, and trade routes, as well as having systems blockaded, should all be events that contribute towards filling it.

-Gaining control of a planet should initially generate a major exhaustion penalty every turn, which eventually grows lower as the planet is brought under control. This may seem a bit counter-intuitive, but from a lore perspective it represents the political will needed to consolidate and suppress new planets and from a gameplay perspective it makes pursuing wars costly.

-Conversely, losing a planet should significantly reduce the bar. This represents the renewed political will to keep fighting to take back one's planets on the one hand, and again, shifts the exhaustion costs of war onto the winning party. My next points will hopefully explain why.

-Once your bar fills up, you begin to suffer approval global approval penalties that worsen every turn. Remaining at war while overextended for a turn or two should be viable, but 10 or more turns should have all your planets rising up in rebellion (though a law to mitigate this might be a good idea)

-Once either side's exhaustion bar has filled up completely, either side can then force a truce. The costs for this should be heavily asymmetrical. The higher your exhaustion score, the more it costs to force a truce. Regular bilateral truce costs are unaffected.

-Forced truce tributes should be scrapped entirely. The winning side already has the upper hand when it comes to negotiation payments.

The basic idea behind my proposal is to make wars of attrition viable for outgunned factions. If I am attacked by a numerically or technologically superior enemy, but I manage to recoup my losses after losing a handful of systems and then shift to heavily defending my frontiers while harassing and blockading enemy planets, then I can effectively overextend them despite being militarily inferior. On the other hand, the winning faction can still negotiate regular truces for little cost and probably get significant tributes from the loser, while the losing faction will have to balance forcing the enemy to overextend vs. cutting their own losses.

Condorf wrote:

A good work around for the Forced Truce is through the diplomacy screen. If you go to an empire that you want to continue your war with, simply make a huge political demand, i.e. a system or high level tech. The AI often refuses and declares war to get rid of the influence/political demand. BOOM. Your war is back on!

Yes, though by the they respond, your ships are already on the way back home. It's just a frustrating mechanic to have absolutely no choice in the matter. It should be a choice: Hey, I'll give you this money every turn and this huge influence demand you can cash in for whatever you want, but please spare me. If the aggressor accepts, they get the Dust per turn, that "demand a favor" mechanic that's already in and possibly higher relations from other factions. If they say no, they sacrifice all those bonuses and will likely be viewed as a bully by the rest of the galaxy.

Ashbery76 wrote:

The Endless games and most 4x games suffered from easy wars of annihilation.You won that first big war and the game is over.Mature 4x games that require more than just a wargame victory approach should look at the manpower,casus belli,warscore,war weariness,etc like Paradox games.It is interesting that Civ6 is also trying new ways to stop this snowball 4X issues.I fully support way to shorten wars and easy conquest in a game that should require more than ships and gun tech to win.

It also fits pretty neatly into Amplitude's vision of Diplomacy/Influence-based gameplay as a style that is as active and decision-oriented as more traditional 4x gameplay styles.

Ashbery76 wrote:

The Endless games and most 4x games suffered from easy wars of annihilation.You won that first big war and the game is over.Mature 4x games that require more than just a wargame victory approach should look at the manpower,casus belli,warscore,war weariness,etc like Paradox games.It is interesting that Civ6 is also trying new ways to stop this snowball 4X issues.I fully support way to shorten wars and easy conquest in a game that should require more than ships and gun tech to win.

So maybe that is a problem, but the forced truce is broken garbage and not the solution.  Increase unrest or decrease industry to simulate war weariness.   Make pacifistic races intolerant of offensive wars.  Or....  Something other than a magic truce the AI can force on you the minute things don't go their way.

AndreasK wrote:

SethG wrote:

Ashbery76 wrote:

The Endless games and most 4x games suffered from easy wars of annihilation.You won that first big war and the game is over.Mature 4x games that require more than just a wargame victory approach should look at the manpower,casus belli,warscore,war weariness,etc like Paradox games.It is interesting that Civ6 is also trying new ways to stop this snowball 4X issues.I fully support way to shorten wars and easy conquest in a game that should require more than ships and gun tech to win.

So maybe that is a problem, but the forced truce is broken garbage and not the solution.  Increase unrest or decrease industry to simulate war weariness.   Make pacifistic races intolerant of offensive wars.  Or....  Something other than a magic truce the AI can force on you the minute things don't go their way.

If you want to convince someone to revise their piece of work, it is generally a bad idea to call the original piece of work garbage.

If you want to avoid people calling you out on terrible work, it's better not to release it until you've improved your efforts.