I originally posted this on /vst/ and someone said I should post it here too.

I went to war with the Olmecs very early, just a few turns after settling our capitals in bordering territories. I swiftly wiped out their army and took their city. However, I can't actually take their city in the War Resolution screen because that would eliminate them, which isn't allowed for some reason.
Never found whatever unit the Olmec have hiding somewhere on the map (I've searched for atleast 40 turns with no sign of them). So, about every ten turns their city reaches two population then spits out two rebels. Most of their city's existence has been spent under my occupation but that doesn't matter cause they have some guy hiding in a bush somewhere.

I soon got into a war with the Harappans who started a territory away from the Olmec (the map is a little tight). Their units kept retreating from me, losing war support every time. which made the war very easy. I finally got a peace deal where they gave me all their outposts except for their main city. Three turns later they declare war on me to take the outposts back! There does not appear to be any sort of peace timer like in civ or a penalty for breaking peace like in paradox games. Somehow the diplomacy is more busted than in Civ 6, which is actually quite the achievement.

The war and diplomacy is just too obtuse. I think the actual battles are fun. But the war support, grievances, and war resolution systems are made unnecessarily complicated. If you just want to pelt a fortified unit with some arrows you are going to lose war support if you do not kill every unit within three turn because technically your attack failed. The war support is just confusing. I would replace it with a war score system where you are rewarded for killing units and taking territories. You shouldn't lose war support just because your scout retreated from a battle or you used an archer to harass enemy units. The grievances are fine as a casus belli, but you don't need them because their is no consequence to a surprise war. I also had an issue where I used a grievance to dow the Harappans, but then I razed the outpost I had a grievance on so I could not ask for it in the war resolution. It was my only option so I had no way to propose peace. Eventually the game decided I could also take other territories in the peace for some reason. The war resolution screen is bad because as I've explained the options it gives you for peace often do not work. You are also awarded an arbitrarily decided amount of reparations which you have no say in adjusting. And of course peace is meaningless anyways since anyone can dow whenever they want, so you might as well be in a constant state of war.

Ideally, you should just keep whatever territories you take in a war. If you peace out you keep the territories with the option of demanding gold or more territories. If a player loses all their cities then they should be eliminated either that turn or soon after.

CLSGNCapra wrote:

I originally posted this on /vst/ and someone said I should post it here too.

I went to war with the Olmecs very early, just a few turns after settling our capitals in bordering territories. I swiftly wiped out their army and took their city. However, I can't actually take their city in the War Resolution screen because that would eliminate them, which isn't allowed for some reason.
Never found whatever unit the Olmec have hiding somewhere on the map (I've searched for atleast 40 turns with no sign of them). So, about every ten turns their city reaches two population then spits out two rebels. Most of their city's existence has been spent under my occupation but that doesn't matter cause they have some guy hiding in a bush somewhere.

I soon got into a war with the Harappans who started a territory away from the Olmec (the map is a little tight). Their units kept retreating from me, losing war support every time. which made the war very easy. I finally got a peace deal where they gave me all their outposts except for their main city. Three turns later they declare war on me to take the outposts back! There does not appear to be any sort of peace timer like in civ or a penalty for breaking peace like in paradox games. Somehow the diplomacy is more busted than in Civ 6, which is actually quite the achievement.

The war and diplomacy is just too obtuse. I think the actual battles are fun. But the war support, grievances, and war resolution systems are made unnecessarily complicated. If you just want to pelt a fortified unit with some arrows you are going to lose war support if you do not kill every unit within three turn because technically your attack failed. The war support is just confusing. I would replace it with a war score system where you are rewarded for killing units and taking territories. You shouldn't lose war support just because your scout retreated from a battle or you used an archer to harass enemy units. The grievances are fine as a casus belli, but you don't need them because their is no consequence to a surprise war. I also had an issue where I used a grievance to dow the Harappans, but then I razed the outpost I had a grievance on so I could not ask for it in the war resolution. It was my only option so I had no way to propose peace. Eventually the game decided I could also take other territories in the peace for some reason. The war resolution screen is bad because as I've explained the options it gives you for peace often do not work. You are also awarded an arbitrarily decided amount of reparations which you have no say in adjusting. And of course peace is meaningless anyways since anyone can dow whenever they want, so you might as well be in a constant state of war.

Ideally, you should just keep whatever territories you take in a war. If you peace out you keep the territories with the option of demanding gold or more territories. If a player loses all their cities then they should be eliminated either that turn or soon after.

I think that Amplitude wants to avoid "elimination" as an early game fate.
Essentially allowing a defeated player to return to the game and potentially retake their place.
which I honestly don't mind, avoids early zerging to be too powerfull and broken.

Tnecniw wrote:

CLSGNCapra wrote:

I originally posted this on /vst/ and someone said I should post it here too.

I went to war with the Olmecs very early, just a few turns after settling our capitals in bordering territories. I swiftly wiped out their army and took their city. However, I can't actually take their city in the War Resolution screen because that would eliminate them, which isn't allowed for some reason.
Never found whatever unit the Olmec have hiding somewhere on the map (I've searched for atleast 40 turns with no sign of them). So, about every ten turns their city reaches two population then spits out two rebels. Most of their city's existence has been spent under my occupation but that doesn't matter cause they have some guy hiding in a bush somewhere.

I soon got into a war with the Harappans who started a territory away from the Olmec (the map is a little tight). Their units kept retreating from me, losing war support every time. which made the war very easy. I finally got a peace deal where they gave me all their outposts except for their main city. Three turns later they declare war on me to take the outposts back! There does not appear to be any sort of peace timer like in civ or a penalty for breaking peace like in paradox games. Somehow the diplomacy is more busted than in Civ 6, which is actually quite the achievement.

The war and diplomacy is just too obtuse. I think the actual battles are fun. But the war support, grievances, and war resolution systems are made unnecessarily complicated. If you just want to pelt a fortified unit with some arrows you are going to lose war support if you do not kill every unit within three turn because technically your attack failed. The war support is just confusing. I would replace it with a war score system where you are rewarded for killing units and taking territories. You shouldn't lose war support just because your scout retreated from a battle or you used an archer to harass enemy units. The grievances are fine as a casus belli, but you don't need them because their is no consequence to a surprise war. I also had an issue where I used a grievance to dow the Harappans, but then I razed the outpost I had a grievance on so I could not ask for it in the war resolution. It was my only option so I had no way to propose peace. Eventually the game decided I could also take other territories in the peace for some reason. The war resolution screen is bad because as I've explained the options it gives you for peace often do not work. You are also awarded an arbitrarily decided amount of reparations which you have no say in adjusting. And of course peace is meaningless anyways since anyone can dow whenever they want, so you might as well be in a constant state of war.

Ideally, you should just keep whatever territories you take in a war. If you peace out you keep the territories with the option of demanding gold or more territories. If a player loses all their cities then they should be eliminated either that turn or soon after.

I think that Amplitude wants to avoid "elimination" as an early game fate.
Essentially allowing a defeated player to return to the game and potentially retake their place.
which I honestly don't mind, avoids early zerging to be too powerfull and broken.

If we can mod this game, that "feature" is going to be one of the first that gets modded almost without a doubt, and I bet that mod will be extremely popular. In my first run through Victor, the AI plopped their capital right on my capital's border. If I'm able to conquer that city (which I was), I should be able to eliminate the guy. As I couldn't, he settled another city further from me, so I took that one too. Then, with no city anywhere near the area, he took over a peaceful free (not sure if this is the right term) city on my capital's other border. So I took that too. After all that, the guy was *still* on the board - it was annoying.

Once you understand the mechanics it's actually quite fun and makes lots of sense.
Vassalize is the option if they only have one city left. Maybe complete annexation might become an option later on depending on civics/techs.

You don't need to kill all units either, fights can continue for many turns. But holding the flag might be required in some circumstances.

AOM wrote:

If we can mod this game, that "feature" is going to be one of the first that gets modded almost without a doubt, and I bet that mod will be extremely popular. In my first run through Victor, the AI plopped their capital right on my capital's border. If I'm able to conquer that city (which I was), I should be able to eliminate the guy. As I couldn't, he settled another city further from me, so I took that one too. Then, with no city anywhere near the area, he took over a peaceful free (not sure if this is the right term) city on my capital's other border. So I took that too. After all that, the guy was *still* on the board - it was annoying.

You can raise Outposts early on, which prevents him from settling next to you.
The other option is to wait for him to settle another city and then take his capital, or just vassalize him.

I understand the mechanics. The problem isn't that I don't understand how to play, the problem is that I don't like being forced to retain an enemy on the board when what I want to do is remove him from the game. I want to be able to do what you can do in just about every other military or civ game I've ever played - kill the enemy. It isn't fun if I cannot remove an aggressor who forward settled my capital. You may think it is, but a lot of other people disagree. If the game is moddable, this "feature" will be modded. If the game cannot be modded to remove it, I won't bother to play the game again. History is full of civs that were annihilated by stronger civs. It isn't realistic to think that a civ that could do so wouldn't remove an aggressor from their border, put its leader in prison, and take the land themselves. History proves otherwise.

I reckon they'll have an easy workaround for it by making it a setting: Eliminations - On/Off. The easiest way to appease both sides, and as much as I'm content with the mechanic now after a dozen playthroughs, I was pretty pissed off when I first realised I couldn't just eliminate the civilizations completely - after they had caused so much grief, wasted my time and efforts, I still have to leave them as a vassal at the very least. If I had the choice, I would definitely have full eliminations back on, I cba having to deal with splitting land with an AI when I could be micromanaging everything myself, which I value more than some unreliable vassal or rogue civ that's 3 eras behind.

Whether they do or don't, we modded it already. It's much better playing when you can take an aggressive AI out. At least this isn't a difficult mod.

I do think that the mechanism makes sense in a way that historically war was never easy to end and in my opinion it makes sense that players or AI could not be completely wiped out but could have the opportunity to "come back". It limits the risk of the snowballing effect that you can get in Civ 6 for example. Once you take out one AI you will just trample any other civs quite easily.
On the other end the diplomatic system feels a bit frustrating as there is not a lot a liberty in the decisions you can make and the demands you can have (amount of money you can ask, territories you can ask for, luxuries...)
Although interesting it feels a bit restricted.

AkashaX1885 wrote:

Vassalize is the option if they only have one city left. 

Currently trying out the Victor OpenDev and this doesn't seem to be an option either?

In my current game I'm occupying the last city/territory of the Nubians but it seems I'm going to have to do that for eternity. I can't force them to cede the territory, as it's their last, and I don't have enough score to force vassalization (124 out of 150 needed).

So now what?

I'm with the OP on this, allow me to eliminate opponents - at the very least in the early game - and 'dumb down' the war resolutions to be less of an exercise in obtuse mechanics. If the opponent has nothing that should be trivially reflected in the result.

Good morning.

I read a review from IGN.
[QUOTE]As neat as this system is, it didn't put a lot of pressure on me unless I went looking for a fight. Even on the higher difficulties, I never had a war declared on me even once over the course of three campaigns. That included when I had a very small army that couldn't have stood up to my neighbors if they’d come knocking. And the Independent People who sometimes gave me trouble were all too easy to pacify with money or influence compared to Civ's sometimes nasty barbarians. It's altogether too trivial to keep everyone happy by making trade agreements, paying bribes, and forgiving your grievances against them. [/QUOTE]

Is this really true?