Why am I forced to accept their surrender? What if I want to keep comp-stomping them till they no longer exist? I want to cancel this and keep going.

Yeah I've noticed this too, I could easily siege the rest of their cities but the cancel button is always greyed out so I can't grab cities because "you haven't taken this city during the war"

Okay, I'm sorry but end of war resolution is just so annoying and illogical. I have occupied every city of this nation 3 wars in a row. But even now, when they had 1 city left and I smashed them, I still cannot take everything.

This needs to be fixed.

Yes, you can't do it, cuz YOUR war support is low. Maybe YOUR people don't want to fight for you so much. You don't have enough demands or grievances on this empire. It's pretty logical IMO.

Light_Spectrum wrote:

Yes, you can't do it, cuz YOUR war support is low. Maybe YOUR people don't want to fight for you so much. You don't have enough demands or grievances on this empire. It's pretty logical IMO.

It isn't logical, and there is no reason for it either. The logical situation is if I have totally conquered someone, wiped out ALL resistence, then what is stopping me just taking it all? There is no one left to negotiate with about "demands" or "grievances". It's stupid that the loser dictates the end of the war.

Like EU4 you need to do multiple war to get the thing. Raise the war support after each war and keep going.

You can view this as a flaw if you'd like but other strategy games have utilized a system like this for quite awhile. Some were mentioned already but another one off the top of my head is also Stellaris. You won't be fully eliminating people in one war you will be crippling someone or having something closer to stalemates via this system. If you look at this system by just thinking I want to kill them this is lame, I get it. However if you look at this system when big empires fight eachother it comes off quite well with how it's a long ordeal that enables back and forth opportunity and bitter rivalries.

It's possible to wipe out a player completely. It takes a few wars. After you sign peace, bully his armies to get some war support and start a new war. After you got all of the cities, some units remain. If you wipe those out the player is gone. I hope this helps.

I like this feature and dislike this feature I agree that it keeps you from snowballing and then being able to curb stomp the AI but in a logical sense it makes no sense to force me to agree with the looser. I understand that games like EU have always had that feature in EU IV there is no way to conquer a big country in one war but you can take a bunch of little guys and get the aggressive expansion debuff with neighbors. I think it could use some refining maybe make turning them into a vasal cheaper or easier. I don't know i just want to make my continent my color.    

jfinley12 wrote:

I like this feature and dislike this feature I agree that it keeps you from snowballing and then being able to curb stomp the AI but in a logical sense it makes no sense to force me to agree with the looser. I understand that games like EU have always had that feature in EU IV there is no way to conquer a big country in one war but you can take a bunch of little guys and get the aggressive expansion debuff with neighbors. I think it could use some refining maybe make turning them into a vasal cheaper or easier. I don't know i just want to make my continent my color.    

I think the idea is conquest needs more than just units.  You need War Support to be able to do conquest, which means getting those Grievances, etc. Once you have War Support+Units then you can paint the continents.

Krikkitone wrote:

jfinley12 wrote:

I like this feature and dislike this feature I agree that it keeps you from snowballing and then being able to curb stomp the AI but in a logical sense it makes no sense to force me to agree with the looser. I understand that games like EU have always had that feature in EU IV there is no way to conquer a big country in one war but you can take a bunch of little guys and get the aggressive expansion debuff with neighbors. I think it could use some refining maybe make turning them into a vasal cheaper or easier. I don't know i just want to make my continent my color.    

I think the idea is conquest needs more than just units.  You need War Support to be able to do conquest, which means getting those Grievances, etc. Once you have War Support+Units then you can paint the continents.

it does need war support mine was at 100 and theirs was at 0 which is why it made me accept their surrender i needed a war score of 200 to make a vasal but only had 180 but could not continue to capture another city as it forced peace. the thing that is kind of buggy is my influence spread to their empire and in like three turns I had 80 war support again so I could go right back too war  without any penalty as far as I could tell.

CK3 does this as well. I think the main gist of it is to prevent massive snowballing but, like in those other games mentioned, it adds more nuance imo cause you know you cant take everything in one war, therefore you're already planning for the "next war"--as Patton would say--before the inks even dry on the peace treaty. 

Also, it makes it to where you wanna try and control the course of the war throughout by making sure your score is as high as you can get it, and that the enemy's war score doesn't drop too quickly so you have time to rack up points to demand more cities at the bargaining table. Just my two cents.

kryton24 wrote:

You can view this as a flaw if you'd like but other strategy games have utilized a system like this for quite awhile. Some were mentioned already but another one off the top of my head is also Stellaris.

Please stop telling me to look at PDX games. I've only played EU2 and HOI3, and I hated the exact same concept in them which is why I stopped playing those games.

The way it is in HK eliminates a strategic choice I as a player could make. If I want to risk rebellions, and war weariness, and instability all over my Empire, let me! It is a valid choice to choose between the safe route (take bits and have no instability) or the risky route (take the lot and quell rebellions). 

In a strategic game where it's all about a player's strategic choice being pushed down the designer's choice and eliminating the player's choice is a flaw. Or bad design if you want to call it that.

I have a 100 war score and they have zero and I'm in the middle of a siege; put a penalty of 10 war score each turn or something but don't force me to end it because they gave in when it was best for them.  If my war score was 60 or less, I could see it, but my peeps are still very excited to crush the enemy who has locked religion for the entire world since turn 20 and we are on turn 240.

If only the Taliban had a low war score… ?