War Support and Surrender in the Bolivar Update

ritchiaro wrote:

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

• The War Support change after a battle is now based on the losses on each side. A costly victory might gain you very little... or worse! 
• Ransacking enemy districts will now cost the enemy War Support

That sounds great! Awesome change! I was really hoping to see both of these change in exactly this way!

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:
Territories under your control but under the enemy’s cultural influence will drain some of your War Support each turn 

I am a bit concerned about this. Depending on the scaling of this this might have a huge impact on the balance of the war because of two reasons:

1) The AI is pretty bad at keeping their territories under their own cultural influence in the late game (probably because of poor choices in policies)  

Since it is already pretty easy to win wars in the late game due to the fact that the AI doesn't really manage the mid game well enough to have the growth arc that is needed to perform well in the late game, this means late game wars will just become an auto-win. I think the late game needs more challenges, not less challenges. So that is probably going to be a step in the wrong direction unless there were also changes to the AI that counter-balance these changes (I hope so!)

2) If this also affects occupied territories then early- and mid game expansion wars will probably become much harder to pull of. That's not necessarily a bad thing if the balance is right, but it will mean that you need to end the war quickly after winning over cities from your opponent (since those are much more likely to be under their cultural influence). In the best case (perfect balancing) this means war will become more strategical and players need to plan more accurately when they capture cities, maybe even coordinate multiple simultaneous attacks. In the worst case (poor balancing) this will mean that capturing cities will become less rewarding for a war then winning non-urban battles.

We will need to see how both of this plays out. But I'm a bit worried that these changes will have unintended side effects that will break the balance of the game. But I'm looking forward to trying it out and see how it will play out in practice.

Usually for me, the ai that is aesthest or expansionist has overwhelming culture. Also usually AI cultu es take over mine unless I focus on influence or specific civics but usually I tend to lose the culture war or be barely above on nation difficulty. Now going to war and taking over other empires does force your culture into their territories, so when that happens then my culture usually starts taking over. But for the most part I'm either even l, slightly above or getting swallowed. Could also be that I just suck at the game lol

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

• The War Support change after a battle is now based on the losses on each side. A costly victory might gain you very little... or worse! 
• Ransacking enemy districts will now cost the enemy War Support

That sounds great! Awesome change! I was really hoping to see both of these change in exactly this way!

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:
Territories under your control but under the enemy’s cultural influence will drain some of your War Support each turn 

I am a bit concerned about this. Depending on the scaling of this this might have a huge impact on the balance of the war because of two reasons:

1) The AI is pretty bad at keeping their territories under their own cultural influence in the late game (probably because of poor choices in policies)  

Since it is already pretty easy to win wars in the late game due to the fact that the AI doesn't really manage the mid game well enough to have the growth arc that is needed to perform well in the late game, this means late game wars will just become an auto-win. I think the late game needs more challenges, not less challenges. So that is probably going to be a step in the wrong direction unless there were also changes to the AI that counter-balance these changes (I hope so!)

2) If this also affects occupied territories then early- and mid game expansion wars will probably become much harder to pull of. That's not necessarily a bad thing if the balance is right, but it will mean that you need to end the war quickly after winning over cities from your opponent (since those are much more likely to be under their cultural influence). In the best case (perfect balancing) this means war will become more strategical and players need to plan more accurately when they capture cities, maybe even coordinate multiple simultaneous attacks. In the worst case (poor balancing) this will mean that capturing cities will become less rewarding for a war then winning non-urban battles.

We will need to see how both of this plays out. But I'm a bit worried that these changes will have unintended side effects that will break the balance of the game. But I'm looking forward to trying it out and see how it will play out in practice.

Genitor wrote:

Raziel5551 wrote:

Great news! 

Don't forget the option to free vassals in the requirements and/or war resolution, because for now being vassals means being stuck forever.  

never was a vassal but there are 2 achievements that require you to be vassal and then break free from vassalage. And ppl got that achievment so apparently its possible to do.

You sure you didnt miss something?

Changes sound like the biggest issues with the war-system are getting fixed. Awesome!

I am just wondering what time schedule we are looking at here.

To make it concrete: If i finish my current game today and cant play until saturday. Is it worth opening up a new game or should i rather play out the current game a little longer?

My assumption is it will probably be linked with the next event. At least thinking about it from a business stand point lol

Raziel5551 wrote:

Great news! 

Don't forget the option to free vassals in the requirements and/or war resolution, because for now being vassals means being stuck forever.  

never was a vassal but there are 2 achievements that require you to be vassal and then break free from vassalage. And ppl got that achievment so apparently its possible to do.

You sure you didnt miss something?

Changes sound like the biggest issues with the war-system are getting fixed. Awesome!

I am just wondering what time schedule we are looking at here.

To make it concrete: If i finish my current game today and cant play until saturday. Is it worth opening up a new game or should i rather play out the current game a little longer?

rectangle wrote:

These changes sound great. 

+1 for please add some dynamic to the vassal system as well. Vassals need to be able to break free, especially if they are militarily stronger than their ruler etc. 

What kind of timeline are we looking at for this update? I have been wanting to get back into playing but frankly these changes sound like the major ones I have been waiting on!

You never had a vassal uprising? I have seen it done. In one of my latest games vassals constantly broke free and I had to keep putting them in their place lol

These changes sound great. 

+1 for please add some dynamic to the vassal system as well. Vassals need to be able to break free, especially if they are militarily stronger than their ruler etc. 

What kind of timeline are we looking at for this update? I have been wanting to get back into playing but frankly these changes sound like the major ones I have been waiting on!

Looking forward to this!
I assume allies forcing their surrender will be declinable too?

These changes sound amazing, can not wait to try them out. 

Great news! 

Don't forget the option to free vassals in the requirements and/or war resolution, because for now being vassals means being stuck forever.  

DNLH wrote:

Octavion wrote:

I actually liked that ransacking would give your enemy war support. I mean, if enemy soldiers busted into your home, would that really weaken your resolve to fight them, or would it make you hate them that much more. Ransacks were a good way to extend a war, and I feel like this particular change is playing to the lowest common denominator - players without the strategic foresight to exploit that effect.

Perhaps a better adjustment would have been for ransacks to affect war support situationally, whereby a ransacked aggressor looses war support (victims blame their own government for instigating the war) and a ransacked defender gains it (victims consolidate support behind their government's efforts to defend them), while ransackers gain or lose war support based on the culture's ideological position on the geopolitics axis (homeland bias increases war support from ransacking, world bias decreases war support from ransacking). It would make the ideological system more meaningful and add a layer of strategy in the form of deciding whether to declare war yourself or try to goad the enemy into declaring.

Ransacking some districts that would happen in distant territories that are yet to be attached, luxury extractors and alike, should indeed cost your enemy war support, as they've proven they're unable to take out the raiders harassing the countryside.

But ransacking occupied territories should raise the war support instead, motivating the troops to fight to liberate their people. Ransacking administrative centers should be either outright impossible unless they're under your control (not occupied) or come at heavy diplomatic penalty, preferably a badge that makes the wearer easier to target. I'm thinking here about discouraging the burning of conquered territory and replacing it with your outposts, to take it all in one sweep, now that War Support mechanic will work better and, frankly, I think War Score itself is already fixed to allow more gains upon victory, we no longer need such game-y things allowed.

I don't know how much can be done about it, but it does sound interesting to have additional mechanics attached to ideologies, so that, as a warmonger, you'd be encouraged to take choices in events that are just outright worse for sake of keeping your isolationist, traditional Empire that revels in offensive wars, while maybe more 'enlightened', artistically-inclined Republics would lessen the impact of retreating or receiving a beating.

Sewata wrote:
Yes, exactly bring back the synergies of creating a diversified city with districts benefiting from each other ( for example market and farmers) rather than this ugly blob of astronomy houses and factories...

I agree fully, Astronomy House is one of those fun districts that make the city planning better, because you can utilize it in non-obvious ways, we need districts that benefit from each other more - although, I'm wondering whether it was removed because it was difficult for those bonuses to keep up with infrastructure boosts, while it wasn't that obvious how to make infrastructure play into it well.

I understand it might be challenging to balance this district synergy method alongside the infrastructure, but I'm sure the result is worth the struggle, it will create a much better experience. Opting for the easiest way it's not always beneficial.

DNLH wrote:

Sewata wrote:
Return of district adjacency from the Victor Open Dev.

You mean districts boosting each other's yields, rather than simply clusters of same districts being preferable?

If we're at returning adjacencies, bring back harbors allowing connections (I know it was removed because sometimes you could get your fleet trapped in enemy territory - I don't care, too much was lost with that) or, even better, turn them into early hamlets.

Yes, exactly bring back the synergies of creating a diversified city with districts benefiting from each other ( for example market and farmers) rather than this ugly blob of astronomy houses and factories...

This will add an additional layer of skill, since you will have to plan further into where you want your districts to be located.

Harbours should definitely feel more dynamic and more a part of a city rather than an abandoned district on the tip of an archipelago, either let them be some sort of Hamlet or increase the amount allowed per territory. Maybe they should not give right away a huge benefit on FIMS but they should instead highly increase the FIMS of the districts placed next to them, this way it will feel beneficial to incorporate them into your city radius and walls.

komodowaran wrote:
Territories under your control but under the enemy’s cultural influence will drain some of your War Support each turn:   This sounds good in theory, but sounds like somthing that will be problematic in multiplayer, since u can use your own culture in a offensive way, by just spreaking your culture, then declearing war, and see how they lose war suport, from being at war with you.     

This one would be best as "Captured Territories under your control but under the enemy’s cultural influence will drain some of your War Support each turn "

I mean, it adds complexity to the game, which is good, because it helps further disincentivize science and industry optimization.

DNLH wrote:

Sewata wrote:
Return of district adjacency from the Victor Open Dev.

You mean districts boosting each other's yields, rather than simply clusters of same districts being preferable?

If we're at returning adjacencies, bring back harbors allowing connections (I know it was removed because sometimes you could get your fleet trapped in enemy territory - I don't care, too much was lost with that) or, even better, turn them into early hamlets.

^ This

Sewata wrote:
Return of district adjacency from the Victor Open Dev.

You mean districts boosting each other's yields, rather than simply clusters of same districts being preferable?

If we're at returning adjacencies, bring back harbors allowing connections (I know it was removed because sometimes you could get your fleet trapped in enemy territory - I don't care, too much was lost with that) or, even better, turn them into early hamlets.

I have to admit, I've supported the game since the first announcement trailer and I got quite disappointed with the way things got handled after release, but this update gives me hope, because it seems to dramatically improve immersion by weighing correctly the cost of battles and wars.

Now, it seems that choosing the Goths and create a couple of their EU in order to ransack your enemies lands without actually confronting them in battle too often could prove a good way to win a war and boost your economy without having to engage in huge open field battles, I just hope ransacks will get juicer with updates in order for it to become a viable and legit tactic.

To me honestly some improvements are still needed in order to bring back many players that left the game due to lack of content:

- Return of district adjacency from the Victor Open Dev. ( It made the game and city building so much better and engaging, I don't know why it got removed)

- Balance of religion tenets

- Dynamic luxury resources value based on the time period they are being traded at. ( Papyrus being far more powerful throughout the ancient and classical era, for then losing value later on)

- Culture balance and EU resource adjustment

This would make the game in my opinion feels smoother and immersive

komodowaran wrote:

Force surrender, with a significant stability cost if u wan't to continue the war, sounds like a great change

Ransaking enemy reduces there war suport: sounds like a good change, since now ransaking coastal tiles, is a way how ships can help win a war

Territories under your control but under the enemy’s cultural influence will drain some of your War Support each turn:   This sounds good in theory, but sounds like somthing that will be problematic in multiplayer, since u can use your own culture in a offensive way, by just spreaking your culture, then declearing war, and see how they lose war suport, from being at war with you.     
This one would be best as "Captured Territories under your control but under the enemy’s cultural influence will drain some of your War Support each turn "

Since else enable a simmular situation as with the "Pacifist" chesse, where u attack a player, then seperate attack a AI and earn a pacifist III badge while camping on your continent, so win a offensive war vs a player, with out fighting a battle

This does 'sound better' to me.

Yeah, I wonder what the devs have planned. As others noticed, this is a step in a very right direction, but it also opens the game for so many new and interesting mechanics that could be added to it. I do hope that further down the line we will get reworks of couple of major systems to catch up.

komodowaran wrote:

Territories under your control but under the enemy’s cultural influence will drain some of your War Support each turn:   This sounds good in theory, but sounds like somthing that will be problematic in multiplayer, since u can use your own culture in a offensive way, by just spreaking your culture, then declearing war, and see how they lose war suport, from being at war with you.    
This one would be best as "Captured Territories under your control but under the enemy’s cultural influence will drain some of your War Support each turn "

I'd also like to see some counterplay to this effect, just like in civ occupation gives you a loyalty penalty that can be partially negated by having military stationed in the city. Humankind could do even more with the ideologies, for example giving nationalist-leaning empires a higher tolerance for occupying territories under foreign influence, or even a bonus to war support with the right civic or so.

Sounds like great changes! I was a bit worried that the whole war support would get abandoned. However, this seems like a good middle-ground for the warmongers. 

• Ransacking enemy districts will now cost the enemy War Support 

Sounds interesting! Hope this update comes soon.

Speaking of ransacking, what about prohibiting or giving serious disadvantage on ransacking one's own tiles too? Annexing a city is useless because it requires too much influence compared to the cost of ransacking a city center and absorbing its territories to adjacent cities.

Stadia again being bitched out?

All sounds like solid improvements. I do wonder about territories within enemy sphere of influence, because I'm pretty sure that's how it worked during at least some of the OpenDevs, think I'm glad to see it back, gives more utility to Aesthetes - or to introducing censorship to your Empire. It's also a nice, discrete option for introducing resistance, which wouldn't always take a form of armed uprising.

These look like interesting changes!