Honestly I do like the idea behind War Support and the idea that you can't just stomp out a rival in a few turns like CIV offers but at the same time... I too did a playthrough like yourself, went into war as early as I felt was safe - get a few districts, try to set up a basic economy and go straight into 4 units+ and then attack my neighbour. I take the capitol and I save the game to play around with what I SHOULD be doing from that turn onwards.

It turned out that just occupying their capitol was amazing for my influence gains but terrible for my stability in my own capitol over time. I could immediately upon claiming the city demand two of their outposts for the return of their capitol... But, I want that capitol, what exactly is stopping me from taking it? This is the ancient/classical era, why is making them my Vassal the only option and even then I was 4 war support AWAY from being able to do that despite a solid victory? Sure it does not take them out the game and it was a straight up war declaration. But I want a reason to go to war, I want their land. Even if I just swoop in and claim just their capitol and end the war, that is what I intended to do and simply could not.

I do however like the war support mechanic for long drawn out wars where its a stalemate, it creates a clear picture of both sides getting worn out and wanting peace.

Your situation however is quite odd, and obviously you should have been at the Diplomacy table to argue that you should have right to the land. Something that should be looked at for sure. 

Digitalhawk96 wrote:

Honestly I do like the idea behind War Support and the idea that you can't just stomp out a rival in a few turns like CIV offers but at the same time... I too did a playthrough like yourself, went into war as early as I felt was safe - get a few districts, try to set up a basic economy and go straight into 4 units+ and then attack my neighbour. I take the capitol and I save the game to play around with what I SHOULD be doing from that turn onwards.

It turned out that just occupying their capitol was amazing for my influence gains but terrible for my stability in my own capitol over time. I could immediately upon claiming the city demand two of their outposts for the return of their capitol... But, I want that capitol, what exactly is stopping me from taking it? This is the ancient/classical era, why is making them my Vassal the only option and even then I was 4 war support AWAY from being able to do that despite a solid victory? Sure it does not take them out the game and it was a straight up war declaration. But I want a reason to go to war, I want their land. Even if I just swoop in and claim just their capitol and end the war, that is what I intended to do and simply could not.

I do however like the war support mechanic for long drawn out wars where its a stalemate, it creates a clear picture of both sides getting worn out and wanting peace.

Your situation however is quite odd, and obviously you should have been at the Diplomacy table to argue that you should have right to the land. Something that should be looked at for sure. 

Here's the dilemma I have. On one hand it has happened in history and I do like the idea of a country losing a lot or maybe even all of its territory but still having an army and continuing to fight, but on the other hand, if you conquered the capital of an empire (or literally all their land) then you should be able to put forward your demands. Maybe the player or AI refuses the demands, if they think they have a chance, but there should be an option to end the war early at that point.

In my case the enemy still had like 30 war support left even though they had 0 land left and like, 1 or 2 units total. It's kind of anti-climactic. A lot of wars end not with the epic siege and the bang of excitement but rather with a drawn out whimper of waiting turn after turn for an arbitrary set of values to go down to 0.

At the very least I'd expect to get an option to sack or enslave or ravage a city when I conquer it like Total War.

My problem is... what the heck does vassalizing even do to help me win? Other than get them off my back. In theory they go to war with me, but in practice I've never seen them help (and the one time they did "help" they sent 1 scout into the enemy and gave me -8 war score).

vgsmart wrote:

My problem is... what the heck does vassalizing even do to help me win? Other than get them off my back. In theory they go to war with me, but in practice I've never seen them help (and the one time they did "help" they sent 1 scout into the enemy and gave me -8 war score).

In most games vassals give you money/tribute, I don't know how it works here, I never really tried it, I want the land for myself usually.

Mered4 wrote:
Vassalizing an empire forces them to pay a tribute to your empire in money.  This tribute is a percentage of their total income.  My last playthrough, I chose Huns in Era 2 and steamrolled the entire 1st continent.  By the end of Era 3, when I had finally vassalized Yellow and divided up the spoils, I was sitting on almost +2000 money just from tributes. 

I've found that the AI has average to terrible taste in cities and attachments, and its usually easier to just cripple them by taking all their outposts and making my own cities out of them or making my own cities bigger.  Taking their cities only to deal with the horrid choices they made sounds rather frustrating.  

Vassals are technically *allies* in all your wars (provided you dont cheese a stronger AI and vassalize them, they'll just rebel as soon as you try to war with someone else) but the AI has the military mind of a child and will hardly leave their own borders while they are under your rule.  Which is mildly disappointing, but when I already have a horde of Huns and gunners that covers the entire continent, its rather unnecessary.

Vassals remind me of a gamemode my friends and I used to play in Endless Legend/Space - in a war, if you feel you are lost to your opponent, you have the option to surrender and become their vassal, essentially being *forced* to join their team. Instead of everyone getting frustrated when someone started steamrolling, you could just surrender if you lost and keep playing, which kept the games fun and engaging for everyone (mostly).  I like the idea of formalizing this in Humankind, and it will certainly be more fun for multiplayer than it would ever be for AI stomps in singleplayer.

Ah this makes sense - In my game I was playing economic focus and apparently didn't notice whatever they gave me (they only had one city with one territory attached). Whereas the late-game money making is a bit insane. You go from like "hey this district gives me  +6 gold!" early to "Hey this gives me +100-130 gold!" - So I guess whatever they were paying me was just lost in the Scrooge McDuck money bin I was filling.

Is there no way to completely destroy an enemy culture?
At All ??

I'm looking at this same scenario right now ... 
It's still the Ancient Era. I have conquered the enemies ONLY city. I have scoured the continent killing ALL of their units.
Yet the ONLY option available to me is to force them to become a Vassal.
I don't want a Vassal. ... I want to destroy them .... 

Does this game not have a War based win scenario at all??

Without a war or conquest based win-condition, this game will suck hard. I'm stuck at 143 war support and unable to vassalize the enemy. I'd rather just destroy every living trace of their existence, but it doesnt seem to be there. Very disappointing, compared to Civ or Total War series, which were SO much fun.