I think just allowing the winner to reject a "Forced surrender" at the cost of -5 War support/turn for the Winner who rejects forced surrender and a +5 War support for the loser whose forced surrender is rejected would work.  So you can push forward if you want to raze their stuff, but you (probably) won't get more points than you have now.

guys, there is talking just about AI diplomacy, but how about player vs player diplomacy? do you want stupid total anihhilation war like civilization? again? 

 i think winner can vassalize loser always  OR instead vassalization, winner may choose other suff by war score.

zlobno wrote:

guys, there is talking just about AI diplomacy, but how about player vs player diplomacy? do you want stupid total anihhilation war like civilization? again? 

 i think winner can vassalize loser always  OR instead vassalization, winner may choose other suff by war score.

100% Agree. People are complaining about the forced surrender, because they want to stomp Easy AI and feel the power, but they are not thinking about the reverse situation, cuz they never face it. Do you really want the 1 way winning condition of elliminating opponents again? And how do you imagine your game if you are LOSING the war, do you want to get stomped and just leave it?

Light_Spectrum wrote:

zlobno wrote:

guys, there is talking just about AI diplomacy, but how about player vs player diplomacy? do you want stupid total anihhilation war like civilization? again? 

 i think winner can vassalize loser always  OR instead vassalization, winner may choose other suff by war score.

100% Agree. People are complaining about the forced surrender, because they want to stomp Easy AI and feel the power, but they are not thinking about the reverse situation, cuz they never face it. Do you really want the 1 way winning condition of elliminating opponents again? And how do you imagine your game if you are LOSING the war, do you want to get stomped and just leave it?

If you suck that much, get out of MP.

Here's an idea. When a civ is forced to surrender, let the war victor keep what they control. If they have a demand on it, then they get to keep it no penalty. If they do not have a demand on it, give the loser a grievance and give that territory a huge stability/influence penalty.

Works with the grievance/demand system, ensures comp-stomping is still rare to happen, but gives warmongers an actual reward for being good at war rather than giving all their spoils back to the loser.

Dale_K wrote:

Here's an idea. When a civ is forced to surrender, let the war victor keep what they control. If they have a demand on it, then they get to keep it no penalty. If they do not have a demand on it, give the loser a grievance and give that territory a huge stability/influence penalty.

Works with the grievance/demand system, ensures comp-stomping is still rare to happen, but gives warmongers an actual reward for being good at war rather than giving all their spoils back to the loser.

If you're giving all the spoils back to the loser after winning a war, it seems more likely that you're doing something wrong in the UI. You should be able to take at minimum a territory or three.

TethysGrim wrote:

Dale_K wrote:

Here's an idea. When a civ is forced to surrender, let the war victor keep what they control. If they have a demand on it, then they get to keep it no penalty. If they do not have a demand on it, give the loser a grievance and give that territory a huge stability/influence penalty.

Works with the grievance/demand system, ensures comp-stomping is still rare to happen, but gives warmongers an actual reward for being good at war rather than giving all their spoils back to the loser.

If you're giving all the spoils back to the loser after winning a war, it seems more likely that you're doing something wrong in the UI. You should be able to take at minimum a territory or three.

If I am occupying 3 or 4 cities, plus all the attached territories, and can only take 1 city and 2 territories on war resolution, then yes I'm basically giving it all back to them.

problem with this mechanic is its great. it stops people from snowballing through wars, but the AI is not good enough to conduct battles so, they will always lose to a defensive player on fairly equal grounds because the AI takes fights when it shouldnt, not avoiding rivers or constantly running units into districts and their walls. the AI just loses stacks and stacks of armies that it can easily replace.

fight against another evenly matched player and boom, war score is suddenly amazingly hard to earn because you are going to win some and lose some. as a player you are finally gonna lose battles or not even have battles fought at places that is suitable for you.

Dale_K I am completely with you. It is ridiculous that I am unable to decline a surrender. It is even more ridiculous that I as the clear victor of a battle with overwhelming forces am required to GIVE BACK CITIES I HAVE TAKEN because of some limited arbitrary war support resource.

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.

I had the exact same thing happen to me but my war support was 100%.

I had conquered all but one of their cities their war support is at 40% mine is at 100% and i cant end the turn cause I am forced to force them to surrender. So i say screw it and conquer their last city that same turn and they are still there demanding to be put back in the game after being fully wiped out.

I can't wait for the modding tool to fix this.

And the loading screen.

I'll just post something along the line of what I've read on reddit regarding this situation over here.

Casus Belli (latin), Proschema (Greek) or a "Cause for war" is an act or event used to provoke war. Causes are needed to rally the people and gather internal supports while at the same time seeking support from your allies.

Then what are your causes for war? This is where the grievances system comes into play. Your influence exerts to your neighbor, culturally converting said territory into your culture? You get a grievance, "Are they oppressing your people?". Ok, maybe they aren't rrally oppressing them, but 12 turns later civic osmosis occurs, but your neighbor refuses to adopt your civics even though most of their people are of your culture? You get a grievance for "Refusing to accept civics osmosis". Your religion spreads to your neighbour, but they refuse to let their people practice your religion? They are "oppressing the faithful". Your culture worship your religion like fanatics, but your neighbir doesn't follow the same religion as you? Your people think "HOW COULD THEY DO THAT THERE IS ONLY 1 TRUE FAITH" and now you gain a grievance to force them to make your religion theirbstate religion. You built a city, but someone claimed a territory next to you? They "claimed a territory near your border" grievance triggers amd so on, you get the idea. There are mamy ways to gain a grievance, from civics, from yields like influence and faith, from them attacking your units, from expanding next to you, from blocking your trade, or even from "stealing my independent people" which I fimd pretty funny, but yeah THESE are your causes for war, your grievances against another nation.

If they didn't comply? You gain war support. Your people are getting pissed at said nation and when war support hits 80, it is finally time our nation stay silent on those matters no longer, and war can be declared.

Now, say that you occupied a lot of their cities and won many battles, your war score is 100 and theirs, 0. The nation you are fighting, even if the rulimg class still wants to keep fighting, their people don't want to anymore, and thus they finally surrender. All those grievances YOU demanded on them will be solved. They change their state religion/ accepts your treaty for open border/ give you the territory next to your city/ give back your independent people/ give you the territory with a natural womder you founded first/ give you the territory of your culture, whatever your grievances you demanded were YOU will get it. Then there are some war scores left and you can use those to ask for more stuff since they didn't comply with you at first and has to resort to declarimg war. Maybe you wamt some more territory/city. Maybe you don't want any more territory, they will then give you reparations in gold. If your war support were at 30 and theirs 0, well you still won, and thus you get every grievamces you demanded from them, it's just that your people are also tired from the war and now you can't really demand more territory that what you asked for with your grievances, but at least you still get some gold as war reparations.

"But this is historically inaccurate"

Cmon. The american civil war, even with constant hostility, only started when the confederate attacked Fort Sumpter (attacked my unit or outpost?). The Great War started because a nationalist boi shot an archduke (killed my nation's to-be-king). The Second World War started when Herr Hitler invaded Poland under the casus belli of the Gleiwitz incident where the Nazi regime staged an attack on their own radio station, claiming the polish did it (attacked my stuff?). The 2nd Opium war started under the casus belli that the Chinese executed a French missionary (attacked my unit?, oppressing the faithful?).

"But the Hun and Goths didn't care and raided people time and time again" "What about the Mongols under the great Khan?"

There are reasons why those culture are militarists. When picking a culture in Humankind, I think of it not as transforming from the Chinese into Romans, but as a cultire inspired by them under their name because how else are you going to identify the culture? Militarists defy the rules of war and need mot a cause or justification for war. If what you want is to rofl stomp people with conquest and care not for the diplomacy game, pick militarists cultures. It's not jist militarist cultires too. Expansionists are also geared for war, except that they do it in a roumd about way. Walking into others territory amd comverting their administrative center/outposts is a good way to get yourself to provoke a war. You even get their territory without having to shed a single blood with their ability which brings me to another part.

The contemporary does not have militarist culture. This is because humans have evolved so far both technologically and ethically. After the catastrophe that is the 1st and 2nd world war, it just shows us how deadly warfare has become. People think no more about purely building a statue for the divine beings and burning cities for gold, but more about themselves living to see another day and living happily. Which is why you no longer see a nation declaring war on another because "lol u suck I wamt ur silk farm now gimmi" or "ur people smelly and u look kinda annoying so ima wipr u off the dace of Earth" or "2000 years ago you said my ancestors face looks like a bagdl so now I will take all of your land". Like I mentioned before, even a ruler with a purpose of "eradicating the entire race" don't just go and declare war usinf that as an excuse. Diplomacy isn't easy, if you want a war while not being a militarist culture, you have to play the diplomacy game. Lure them out to attack your units, produce a lot of influence and/or faith, attack their units, find some excuses. Sometimes opportunity presents itself to you, sometimes you will have to seek it. Unfortunately there are no espionages right now so the diplomacy table is lacking a lot of pieces.


Ultimately, you can still declare surprise wars.

But then why would your people takes up arms and risk their lives? After the war they go back to their homes, and what? With a deformed face and a torn arm? Your people gain nothing. YOU gain their territory, not your people. The war reparation goes to YOU not to their pockets. Grievances are there for your people to fight for what they believe is right and they are ready to risk their lives for it.

I'm not telling you to roleplay and believe 100% of your grievances to be true. You declare war wanting their territory under the guise of liberating your people or whatever, its just that if you want a lot from the war, build up your grievances. Why would your people fight? If you have more war score left when they surrender, sure ask for more territory, but if your war score is low, does it not mean that it is also tiring for your people if you lose your war score from losing units? If you barely advance at all, why would your people risk their lives in a war if it doesn't look well? You gain war score from occupying territories amd winning battles to show your people you are fighting for a cause and fhat we will win this war. If you are too lazy for diplomacy then pick a militarist or expansionist cultures.

HUMANKIND is a game where you lead your people, to see how far you can push mankind, not a war strategy game for you to eradicate a culture because you want their land. I believe a lot of people who enjoy war strategies will like this game because their battle system is unlike any other system and I think that is amazing, but you have to remember. It is NOT a war game, it is a game where you lead your people, to greatness or to damnation none can tell.

Nevertheless, I think war score should depend on the size of your battle, but that can be polished over time. The game isn't perfect, it's got a lot of bugs and flaws, but what game is perfect? HUMANKIMD has just been out for 2 weeks, given time I am certain it will become an amazing game.
If you still want to solve everything with military might and commit unjustified wars and genocides and just stomp on everyone, wait for a mod to come out, I am certain someone will make it happen, but I ask of you to be understanding. HUMANKIND is a game where you lead your people, and mankind, to greatness. A game where you have to think about your actions and its consequences. In my humble opinion, I believe getting what you want while having the support of your people and not solve everything with pure force is definitely one of the traits of a leader fit to push mankind to its greatest extent.

Apologize for English if there were any mistakes.

I did not intend to insult, mock, or provoke anybody, just some thoughts on the matter. I hope all of you still enjoy this masterpiece even as it is now.

Syn-Kaan wrote:

The worst part is the bug with your units getting locked in the enemy territory and dying after the enemy force his surrender

I found this to be the most frustrating issue until I figured out that I had to direct the unit out of the enemy territory.  I wish there was a tooltip to notify us that we needed to leave that territory immediately.  It was only after trial and error that I figured it out.

Please don't make this game a map painter.

I'm, pretty tired of the "snowballing" excuse ,  why should players be be prevented from snowballing  ?  they put in the time resources and strategy to set them selves up for this strategy.  so why should they be denied ?  part of the fun of 4x game is controlling a devastatingly strong army.  yet for some reason  others have determined that snowballing is not fun,   and should be prevented to keep  other players from . enjoying the fruit of their efforts.

one of the 4s in a 4x stands for exterminate, if a player has placed the necessary resources, time, and economy to build an army capable of eliminating a threat  Then They Are Playing The Game as its Meant to be PLAYED !!. If they execute their startegy properly they should be rewarded rightfully so .. and if thats snow balling then so be it ... the player Earned it .

Steamrolling is not fun against the AI because it cannot handle it. It's like playing soccer against elementary school kids and boasting of your 30:0 win. Fun, huh?

If it was you on the receiving end, you would like to have it. But then again you would not care, because restarting the game is so easy if you know you have a strong opponent which you cannot steamroll and have to struggle.

I have little interest in whether or not we can steamroll the AI as there will always be ways to outperform them, they're AI. Multiplayer on the other hand...