I think it needs to be tweaked, not reworked. I quite like it, but I also agree that capturing multiple cities from the ennemy and not being able to keep at least one of them due to low war support should be fixed.

Just needs improvements.

-No units getting caught in opponents sieges. Size of siege zones improved

-Small and large stacks getting destroyed shouldn't give the same amount of War support (e.x. a single scout dying shouldn't be the same war support change as a stack of 8 units dying).

I like the system as is. I think people just have to get more used to using grievances to get discounts on their demands during surrender. It's just not all about declaring surprise war and taking everything. I like how you can build military focused support increases through civics and religion, or playing as a military culture and getting the extra starting chunk of support (20-30, can't remember the exact amount).

Cristata wrote:

Just needs improvements.

-No units getting caught in opponents sieges. Size of siege zones improved

-Small and large stacks getting destroyed shouldn't give the same amount of War support (e.x. a single scout dying shouldn't be the same war support change as a stack of 8 units dying).

Totally agree with this. I also think we should get bonus war support if we destroy a larger number of units compared to our own. I.e., if I go into battle with 10 and the enemy has 20, and I win the battle, a heroic victory should count for more.

All that said, I love the war system and how it interacts with grievances. Enhancements will help, but the fundamentals are sound.

Not replying to anyone, just stating my own opinion for the record.
The way war system works with grievances is really good, it really forces you to play that diplomacy game and somehow remembers me of Crusader Kings where you need valid claims for territotires. It also gives a chance to weakest military size if he played his grievances well. Great idea overvall and good alternative to CIV wars.

That being said I have noticed a few issues :

- I wish they would be more grievances cases, expecially coming to ressources : if for any reason you can't get that 3rd oil from a player (he can't exploit it, you can't trade it, etc...), it actually pretty difficult to work getting that specific ressource node unless you are a mercantile culture.  

- Unless I missed something you can't "request" a player to become your vassal before you actually go to war with him and win it.

- The sudden ending of wars can be a bit frustrating, especially with how a very small battle affect the issue of war on the same scale as a big one.  I wish there was a "begin negotiations" option, allowing a few more turns before the peace is actually enforced and you decide on the final terms. Could/should come at a cost (stability, ressource output) and require a minimum War Support on the victor side for not choosing the immediate end to war.

- Maybe I didn't had them yet, but I wish some civics could actually allow you to go to war more easily in exchanges of diplomatic penalties. Might be possible through some civs though but I didn't pay too much attention to the militaristic ones yet.

Simple make an Option to Disable War Suport thats all.

Sarge232 wrote:

Simple make an Option to Disable War Suport thats all.

The UX is simple, that feature itself might not even be feasible. It is a common suggestion though so, if possible, the more knobs and dials the better!

One thing I wish was reworked is that when the AI has enough money to do it, it will propose surrender the turn before it is about to lose its war support, which makes sense. The problem is that, sometimes, it is able to do so unlimited times per turn (I assume it is a bug). Since every time you deny their surrender proposal the AI gets +20 war support and you lose 10, they can effectively build up war support and get yours down, effectively getting better deals the more you refuse their surrender. Your only option then, is to accept on the first try, as any other option will just get you a worse result. Even if this bug gets fixed I wish the offer surrender mechanic had a longer cooldown (at least 5 turns) or, if not, that once a proposal is refused you have to add more terms as compensation if you want to send another one. For example, if I offer to convert the war score to money as the sole surrender term and it gets refused, I can't present the same offer again and I should add, for example, give x outpost in order to be able to make another surrender offer.

Lots of good suggestions to improve the war system. My top pick: If another empire declares war on me, I'd love to add grievances to that war right away.

Plenty of times I held off on pressing grievances to avoid war with a comparable neighbor, they declared war anyway (especially aggressive AIs), I won the war, and my grievances were sitting there useless the whole time. Very frustrating.

roger212 wrote:

One thing I wish was reworked is that when the AI has enough money to do it, it will propose surrender the turn before it is about to lose its war support, which makes sense. The problem is that, sometimes, it is able to do so unlimited times per turn (I assume it is a bug). Since every time you deny their surrender proposal the AI gets +20 war support and you lose 10, they can effectively build up war support and get yours down, effectively getting better deals the more you refuse their surrender. Your only option then, is to accept on the first try, as any other option will just get you a worse result. ....

What I've done is X out of the diplomatic window completely. It gets you out of the screen without accepting or denying.

HermesBird wrote:

 I personally adore it. It just takes sometime for people to wrap their head around how it works and before doing this they pop in a negative review clamoring for removal. I can't tell you how many hours I've sat in discussion forums explaining to people who whine about it how to accomplish their goals using or undercutting it via ransacking.

Same, it started with people asking how/why and was relatively civil. Then the WTF threads started and I noticed the heat turned up a bit. Everything from-to "scrap it entirely" : "it only serves to protect the weak AI." : "You should allow us to disable it." : "Most people...[insert negative opinion here]..."  After a few days of that I wanted to make a poll. 

The majority of these kind of threads give the impression, or blatantly admit, that they simply want to steamroll the AI. That's fine, but this system wasn't designed to make that harder for you. If anything it was designed to make that harder in PvP. Please don't advocate to neuter it. There's a reason why the steamrolling warmonger is meta by default in other 4X games and I'm glad to see that it's not in HK. It is refreshing to see devs level this playing field or at the very least attempt to.

It's kinda surprising how many people are unaware of ransacking and/or saboteurs, or feel that ransacking is a band-aid to a bigger problem Forced Surrender. A tutorial tip about it would go a long way. Same for the WarScore tooltip, this information should be front and center. Many have approached conquest as they would in Civ and that is practically begging to lose the war (possibly your cities in the process.)

I personally find this system to be far more engaging compared to others.