I went to war with an opponent because they had strategic resource deposits that they weren't advanced enough to harvest and I was. My goal was to capture the 2 cities that had the deposits and then ride out the rest of the war. Instead, the game decided that it was time for me to force a surrender, even though neither of us had either 100 or 0 war support. I don't like that the game can just decide that a war is over even when the goals I set for the war haven't been met. Is this a bug, or is there some kind of timer that I need to pay attention to? The in-game wiki says that the participant whose war support isn't 0 can choose to force a surrender, but I didn't have a choice (The "Cancel" button was disabled).

Wars shouldn't force end unless someone is at 0 war support. Are you sure the AI wasn't at 0 war support?

Hey Buzzkill,

Any side can offer a surrender proposition to their enemy at any point of a war, in those cases, the one receiving the surrender proposition can refuse the surrender proposition and go on with the war.

On the other hand, when the losing side of the war gets to 0 war support, the winning side has to force them to surrender which will be applied anyway.

If you encountered a situation not respecting these rules, you might have stumbled upon a bug and I strongly encourage you to report it with all the information you might give us in the Bug Report section of our forums :)

Cheers

I'll look into submitting a bug report. I wish I had taking a screenshot, but it looked like both of our war support was at 73. I still don't like having to force someone to surrender if they reach 0 war support. It means that it's possible that I can't accomplish my goals if I'm too successful too quickly.

Did you have allies at the time? Because allies also get a crisis to demand anyone at war with their ally surrenders immediately. If your enemy accepts this crises you’ll immediately go into the force surrender screen.

I did have allies and I did see that they forgave those grievances. It could be what you're suggesting, though.

Having a historical strategy game that prevents you from going to war for resources, which is why wars in the real world that this is simulating are fought, still doesn't feel good. I understand that it's a mechanic to prevent someone from steamrolling over everyone else, but when the AI is so far behind that you can't purchase strategic resources from them because they're not at the age that they can harvest them is frustrating. I've only got one saltpeter node in my territory (2 now that I managed to capture one from an opponent) which means I can't build my UU, and by the time the AI can harvest it I'll likely be in the following age.

buzzkill wrote:

I did have allies and I did see that they forgave those grievances. It could be what you're suggesting, though.

Having a historical strategy game that prevents you from going to war for resources, which is why wars in the real world that this is simulating are fought, still doesn't feel good. I understand that it's a mechanic to prevent someone from steamrolling over everyone else, but when the AI is so far behind that you can't purchase strategic resources from them because they're not at the age that they can harvest them is frustrating. I've only got one saltpeter node in my territory (2 now that I managed to capture one from an opponent) which means I can't build my UU, and by the time the AI can harvest it I'll likely be in the following age.

One solution is to play as a merchant culture as you can create extractors in other player territories which is pretty much perfect for that specific situation when they are behind in tech and cant extract resources you want.

Interesting, I didn't know that merchant cultures could do that. I thought all they could do was buy/sell resources from an intermediate source. Unfortunately it's too late in my game, but I will keep this in mind for future playthroughs. Thanks!