I conquired Empire, taken their city and attached outpost, ransacked their last unfinished outpost. Have 100% culture over my/their territories. Have army in their city, stability 16%, i can make them vassals. How can I gain control over occupied city? They have scout somewhere - So i have to eliminate every unit or i miss something?

I'm not sure if you're describing the same issue I ran into or not. I conquered an enemy city, it said I occupied it, but I could not take control of it. I was finally able to take control when I noticed a bug in the surrender negotiation panel. When I looked at that panel, I could include one or more of the AI's cities as part of the surrender deal, but none of the cities offered there were the city I had taken. I finally realized that the panel was just misnaming the cities the AI had. I demanded one of the cities at random, and it was actually the city I was occupying (which had a different name). If the same is happening to you, negotiate a forced surrender and click the box that includes a city in the deal. If it turns out not to be the one you're occupying, just use the autosave and pick a different city from the list until you find the one that you're occupying.

westfood wrote:

I conquired Empire, taken their city and attached outpost, ransacked their last unfinished outpost. Have 100% culture over my/their territories. Have army in their city, stability 16%, i can make them vassals. How can I gain control over occupied city? They have scout somewhere - So i have to eliminate every unit or i miss something?

You can try and gain the city from the surrender menu after you reduce the war desire of the enemy to 0.

AOM wrote:

I'm not sure if you're describing the same issue I ran into or not. I conquered an enemy city, it said I occupied it, but I could not take control of it. I was finally able to take control when I noticed a bug in the surrender negotiation panel. When I looked at that panel, I could include one or more of the AI's cities as part of the surrender deal, but none of the cities offered there were the city I had taken. I finally realized that the panel was just misnaming the cities the AI had. I demanded one of the cities at random, and it was actually the city I was occupying (which had a different name). If the same is happening to you, negotiate a forced surrender and click the box that includes a city in the deal. If it turns out not to be the one you're occupying, just use the autosave and pick a different city from the list until you find the one that you're occupying.

This was actually changed from Lucy, where it used to be the names of the City and City Attachments, however in Victor it instead uses the base territory name... That the player cannot ever see. It's a little infuriating. Best to either remember all the territory names or do a reload shuffle until you find the right one.

Yes, I have been using reload to get the city I want, and I agree, it's a little infuriating. But, how do you remember region names if you can't ever see them? I just assumed this was a bug involving misnaming of cities on the surrender list when I never found the names of cities I'd conquered there. I hope they come up with a more efficient system, the trial and error technique is a bit cumbersome.

A magnifying glass icon next to the name in order to jump to the territory would also work

Was just coming here to look for an answer to this issue.  Needs attention.

RobotDoctorRobot wrote:

westfood wrote:

I conquired Empire, taken their city and attached outpost, ransacked their last unfinished outpost. Have 100% culture over my/their territories. Have army in their city, stability 16%, i can make them vassals. How can I gain control over occupied city? They have scout somewhere - So i have to eliminate every unit or i miss something?

You can try and gain the city from the surrender menu after you reduce the war desire of the enemy to 0.

AOM wrote:

I'm not sure if you're describing the same issue I ran into or not. I conquered an enemy city, it said I occupied it, but I could not take control of it. I was finally able to take control when I noticed a bug in the surrender negotiation panel. When I looked at that panel, I could include one or more of the AI's cities as part of the surrender deal, but none of the cities offered there were the city I had taken. I finally realized that the panel was just misnaming the cities the AI had. I demanded one of the cities at random, and it was actually the city I was occupying (which had a different name). If the same is happening to you, negotiate a forced surrender and click the box that includes a city in the deal. If it turns out not to be the one you're occupying, just use the autosave and pick a different city from the list until you find the one that you're occupying.

This was actually changed from Lucy, where it used to be the names of the City and City Attachments, however in Victor it instead uses the base territory name... That the player cannot ever see. It's a little infuriating. Best to either remember all the territory names or do a reload shuffle until you find the right one.

Yeah, I reduced enemy war desire to 0, i could make vassals of them. But I did not wanted it, I wanted to crush them. But as long as they do not have another city they own, they will not give me their city, because they would perish. So I would have to find and eliminate every unit they have I guess - then maybe, crushing will happen. So I waited 10-20 turns before they etablished new city, then I was able to take the city and subjugated them as vassals.

So there is really no way to do anything with those city? Can't even build anything it's really frustrating...

Win the war, the enemy needs to surrender in the diplomacy screen.
Basically peace talks, like it's customary.

- You cannot force the enemy faction to hand over their last city. You can vassalise them instead, provided that the warscore is high enough

- Or you can ransack/raze their last city, while it is occupied. It usually takes 7+ turns. That makes the whole faction disappear. 

Bronibor wrote:

- You cannot force the enemy faction to hand over their last city. You can vassalise them instead, provided that the warscore is high enough

- Or you can ransack/raze their last city, while it is occupied. It usually takes 7+ turns. That makes the whole faction disappear. 

Yeah, I think the problem with this is that it's directly against what players want and isn't fun.

I think there's a basic problem in that the game currently doesn't want to let other empires 'lose'. I understand why, it makes the race for fame side-stepable, as you could in theory always just crush someone way more famous than you by focusing on military.

I think the alternative would be to allow players to take the last enemy city - often we go to war to take particular cities because they're right where we want them and it's very annoying to have this option taken away because the AI is doing badly enough that it only has one city - but when this happens some 'partisan' units could spawn, which either try to find somewhere new to build or try to take back their city (ideally both). Flavourful, fun, and allowing the player to actually achieve what they want to achieve.

I have to say, I don't really understand the influence system yet, but if having a city be culturally 100% another culture (i.e. the defeated one), and have that mean that your stability was low and that rebels were likely to spawn (of the defeated empire) could also be fun, flavourful and create a problem that you can solve. You don't have to just defeat them militarily - you have to have a strong culture yourself to really win.

Look at most of history - strong military takes over decadent culture, gradually becomes that culture. There's a really interesting idea there which would be super neat to see reflected in the game. As I say, though, I have no idea what a region being a certain culture does, other than give Oppressing My People grievances, which seems a little weak sauce.

So i'm having a similar issue I think.

Pretty sure I took over my neighbor's last city (San Lorenzo is capital).  But it still shows the civ as alive.  i've even scoured most of the map, and don't see them anywhere else.

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one shaking my fists with frustration ... the Herrapans snuck attacked me first and now their entire civ must fall! (I have their last 2 cities occupied and have no idea how to wipe them from the planet)

same problem as u all have, what´s wrong with make them perish? and I personally don´t like ransacking so much... so feels wrong to ransack a city, just to take over control.

The dev has apparently taken the position that you cannot get rid of an AI by taking their last city. Instead you must seek, find, and kill every last element they have on the board. It will be the death of this game. No one wants to have to find every last outpost or unit of a defeated nation to remove it from the board. I get that they want "fame" to be the thing you win on. But, this is a military game with only military units. Given that, you should be able to annihilate a rival by removing their last point of power - their last city. It's a gamebreaker that you can't, imho.

AOM wrote:

The dev has apparently taken the position that you cannot get rid of an AI by taking their last city. Instead you must seek, find, and kill every last element they have on the board. It will be the death of this game. No one wants to have to find every last outpost or unit of a defeated nation to remove it from the board. I get that they want "fame" to be the thing you win on. But, this is a military game with only military units. Given that, you should be able to annihilate a rival by removing their last point of power - their last city. It's a gamebreaker that you can't, imho.

Well, there are different opinions. Humankind obviously has a different approach and I like it. The game is not about wiping your enemies off the map. Why should I want this? Eliminating a rival AI Player makes the rest of the game less interesting and less challenging.

I'm also wondering why do you want to eliminate your opponent so much. I have 2k hours in Endless Legend playing multiplayers mostly and I can say that the easiest way to win the game there is to create a big army and capture all Capitals. You can do it at turn 40 while the other types of victories can take 70 turns at fast speed making it less efficient. Do you want the same in Humankind? And most important - do you want to be eliminated in your multiplayer game at turn 20-30?

I personaly really love this war system in Humankind.

Although I understand the dev team's vision of keeping the game world alive and complicated by not allowing empires to be eliminated until the Imperialism tech is researched, I think they'll need to back off from that vision.

There's a lot of gamers who want to be able to steamroll and map-paint, and a lot of others who like to genocide AI who unjustly attack them.  The game should allow them to do so.  The Vassalize option is really powerful (too powerful, it needs a nerf in my opinion) and should be kept for players who want to stick to the designer's vision.  But it shouldn't be the only option after you've taken an empire's last city.  Those who want to should be allowed to relegate that empire to the dust-bin of history.

TravlingCanuck wrote:

Although I understand the dev team's vision of keeping the game world alive and complicated by not allowing empires to be eliminated until the Imperialism tech is researched, I think they'll need to back off from that vision.

There's a lot of gamers who want to be able to steamroll and map-paint, and a lot of others who like to genocide AI who unjustly attack them.  The game should allow them to do so.  The Vassalize option is really powerful (too powerful, it needs a nerf in my opinion) and should be kept for players who want to stick to the designer's vision.  But it shouldn't be the only option after you've taken an empire's last city.  Those who want to should be allowed to relegate that empire to the dust-bin of history.

I agree. I typically don't steamroll AIs, but there are sometimes good reasons for wanting to remove an AI from the board. In my first run-through of Victor, I had an AI settle their capital directly adjacent to mine after I settled. They persistently kept trying to settle my borders after that. Not only is it limiting to the player to ask them to put up with this but also it's an inaccurate depiction of what a powerful nation would do if an upstart continually disrupted their borders in that way. How can I grow my borders if someone else is hemming me in and I cannot remove them? To me, there is a difference between the real estate (the city they settled that I can incorporate into my nation) and the leader (the AI I want to remove). I think a powerful nation would eventually do whatever it could to imprison a leader who was consistently causing problems.

To the others answering, you must realize that other people have different gameplay goals and styles than you. To make the game appealing to a broader audience, I think the available options should be retained and the option to eliminate added. That's all. I'm not suggesting that the current plan should be scrapped. Just opened up a bit more to accommodate people who play differently than you do and give players more options.

It might be kinda cool if leaders had a "popularity" score of some sort and if you eliminated a popular leader instead of vassalizing, you would be faced with a rebellious city that produced poorly and/or sprouted rebels until you appeased it in some way. On the other hand, if you eliminated an unpopular leader, you could be welcomed as a liberator. That might be too much to hope for, though.

AOM wrote:

TravlingCanuck wrote:

Although I understand the dev team's vision of keeping the game world alive and complicated by not allowing empires to be eliminated until the Imperialism tech is researched, I think they'll need to back off from that vision.

There's a lot of gamers who want to be able to steamroll and map-paint, and a lot of others who like to genocide AI who unjustly attack them.  The game should allow them to do so.  The Vassalize option is really powerful (too powerful, it needs a nerf in my opinion) and should be kept for players who want to stick to the designer's vision.  But it shouldn't be the only option after you've taken an empire's last city.  Those who want to should be allowed to relegate that empire to the dust-bin of history.

I agree. I typically don't steamroll AIs, but there are sometimes good reasons for wanting to remove an AI from the board. In my first run-through of Victor, I had an AI settle their capital directly adjacent to mine after I settled. They persistently kept trying to settle my borders after that. Not only is it limiting to the player to ask them to put up with this but also it's an inaccurate depiction of what a powerful nation would do if an upstart continually disrupted their borders in that way. How can I grow my borders if someone else is hemming me in and I cannot remove them? To me, there is a difference between the real estate (the city they settled that I can incorporate into my nation) and the leader (the AI I want to remove). I think a powerful nation would eventually do whatever it could to imprison a leader who was consistently causing problems.

To the others answering, you must realize that other people have different gameplay goals and styles than you. To make the game appealing to a broader audience, I think the available options should be retained and the option to eliminate added. That's all. I'm not suggesting that the current plan should be scrapped. Just opened up a bit more to accommodate people who play differently than you do and give players more options.

It might be kinda cool if leaders had a "popularity" score of some sort and if you eliminated a popular leader instead of vassalizing, you would be faced with a rebellious city that produced poorly and/or sprouted rebels until you appeased it in some way. On the other hand, if you eliminated an unpopular leader, you could be welcomed as a liberator. That might be too much to hope for, though.

Exactly!

I'm not usually doing conquest victories at all, which is why i was drawn to Humankind.

But this civ spawned right next to me, we clashed pretty quickly for an outpost, and other neighbors also took land next to them too.  So they just had their one territory, and naturally it was easier to just get rid of them at that point.  I searched high and low for any other units they had, but i didn't find them anywhere.

I think erasing a civ from the game should be possible, but difficult, and not rely entirely on military might. If you truly want to erase someone, you need to erase someone militarily and culturally. 

Because otherwise it simply becomes a game of who can make the biggest army the fastest.

I think the idea of not allowing a civ to be removed from the map is an interesting concept but I don't think it works. Because how different is it really from razing everything and leaving them one province you surround completely? They got no shot at winning but remain an eyesore. 

In my case the last enemy city had 4 territories and I was unable to claim any of those in peace deal while it was perfectly fine to raze and resettle them. It is much easier to raze enemy to the ground than get a reasonable peace deal which in my opinion leads to frustrating game experience. Either make it so once an outpost is linked to the city you can't just raze it without razing the main city or lower the value of such territories in peace deal.