so hear the story 

i am playing on medium difficulty First War i have done.

so i go to war against the other Civ, my bar if full and his is about 70%, i am much more powerful, much larger in every aspect, but i just don't understand the force surrender and the out come at the end

-  before the war my society windows shows i have 100% / 95% influence over the city's 

- the war starts and I take it in about 10 turns before i take all 4 city's, (i planed my units in locations before the war)    there a force surrender, witch is fine I guess, I mean I just defeated the enemy, but now this is where i am confused about what happening. 

- i am being forced to ask them for the Land I have just taken, i don't understand this, they have no barging power, they have nothing, i don't understand why the war score means anything, i mean i understand you need the support to war but not after,  what the point of going to war when you win you have to give it all back them them once I  you have crushed them, i also cant keep going, its forcing me to act on this, its giving the power to the loser of the war.  it just makes no sense. why cant I just crush them, why do i have to stop, my war support is still at 100 and they are now at 0.  its very frustrating to be pulled out of a war because of a game machinic,    

  so in the surrender terms  they have to give me there all 4 city's witch they had to do from the start lol, I can only take some of the outposts because of my war support giving then control back to some spots, making there outpost into city's, again dumb and frustrating as again Why,   i do the deal witch annoys me to say the least  go from +341 influence to -1600 influence, so how do i get this back up out of the negative?, i mean before the war they where 100% influenced buy my society so the people shouldn't be to unhappy that they are under my control, they should be happy lol. i mean, i sped all that time on influence and what not only for it not to be a factor in anything. 

i really like the parts of this game so far, the change of Civs is a good one and very fun and the outpost are good, I really like how you can attach them to a city( i seem to be sticking to a one city 3 outpost seem to work best, i always add building that add to suability, generally i like to expand expand  expand, then upgrade the city's like crazy then crush, lol docent always work but its fun lol    

I understand your frustration but honestly I like this mechanic.  Every game out there is a map painter game, one of the reasons why I like this one is because its not a map painter.  

Yah Nah, they need to fix it, it doesn't work, i think if you have to negotiate with a individual  city / city regions  City once you have taken it would be better, if you have more influence in the city the more they want to become part of your empire, the less, you have to keep troops in the city,( dispensing your troops into the city, the bigger it is  the more troops).    

You are lacking claims/demands on the territory you are trying to take. You need strong influence and thereby cultural pressure or strong religion and thereby religious conversion to get greviances on enemy territory before the war. When you start a war, any territory you have made a demand on will only cost 10 war support to take and will be automatically enforced (otherwise it's ~80 for occupied main plazas, ~40 for attached territories and ~20 for outposts).

Therefore if you start the war with lots of claims on all their land you will be able to take a lot more of it. Some of the t1 and t2 religion tenets give bonuses to generated war support which I believe should add to your pool of negotiating power during the peace talks. Unfortunately, the game doesn't show any war score over 100 during the war (despite often having ~200 in negotiations afterwards) so I haven't been able to see how effective those are, but worth considering too.

I think in principle this is a good system in a middle ground between Crusader Kings style where you need a casus belli for anything and Civ style where you take everything immediately. That said, I do think the systems could do with some improvements. Those greviances are only generated once per territory and if you don't enforce a demand off them in the 10 turns before they expire they are gone forever. If you miss the popup or aren't militarily strong enough to risk making the demand right then, tough luck.

I my game design suggestion would be keep the system as it is, but add the ability to use your Influence to 'reignite' (buy) those old greviances with influence at a later time. This could even have the cost scale with number of currently active demands made or similar to limit the ability to just demand an entire empire mid game. This would work well as a tech unlocked ability in the Medieval era probably (this is so it's universally accessible, civic would be more thematic but risks being a null decision unless there was a VERY good alternative such as a flat diplomatic boost with all empires for a peaceful trading game).

airslo wrote:

I understand your frustration but honestly I like this mechanic.  Every game out there is a map painter game, one of the reasons why I like this one is because its not a map painter.  

I don't get your point at all.  Map Painter?

Eh.  Anyway... They need to fix this.  
The entire forced surrender system is broken beyond belief.  
1st - you are forced to select territories.  Huh?  What?  Which territory is which?  It is not like you can select one to see?  They certainly don't publish the names of the territories?  How is anyone supposed to know that these two check marks = these 2 territories?  
Stupid idea #1.

Second:  I cannot attack an island city?  W.#.@
Stupid idea #2.

Third:  All of your armies are gone.  Literally.  
You have been utterly defeated.

And now you think I should give you back everything I cannot support with your silly calculation?
Hang on... I have to go to the bathroom to give my opinion on that logical-fallacy.  

Forth: you (the programmers) will not give me the ability to persecute a war once their war support gets to zero?  Are you kidding me?
I cannot cancel out of the dialog and keep building war support amongst my population because "they are tired of losing"?  
THEY STARTED IT.  # them.

ITS A BUNCH OF BULL.

Yes it is. But let me... alleviate some of your concerns.

#1 You can see the names of the territories in the background during surrender term selection. Its really hard to see and move and definitely one of the many UI/UX problems that will be fixed sooner or later.

#2 You cannot attack if all coastline fields are districts with city walls. You can change that by bombardment (although only available late game).

#3 This is rather a game balance decision. You are not supposed to annex entire nations with just one war, some people here like that and I can see why.

#them I cannot alleviate that one, it is garbage and has to go. Maybe give us some debuffs for "massacre on surrendered" but that should be it.

so, the whole war thing still make no sense

i am at war with some other small empire, they had  2 city's, I went to war with them, I had taken the city I want ( it had oil), so since I'm there I keep going and wanted to take there last city, but i cant take it because i don't have enough war support, it just utter dumb, I cant attack there solders or take there city, I cant do anything, it dumb, i have about 15 units there, they have 3, but i cant do anything, my units just sit there, like useless pile of rocks,  i have a battleship and a aircraft carrier that is 2 turns away, they have nothing, but i cant do anything, because  of a game machinic, i really getting sick of being stopped from playing and being forced  to time waste. its like the game is forcing me not to go to war and take city's buy influence. I did that, I wanted to change it up, i had 150 turns left, I'm in first place, it was getting boring, i wanted to finish's so I can start a new game on a higher difficulty, but what's the point in finishing the game. i am the most powerful in every way in a sense i have won, but i cant even destroy the other opponent, its just dumb 

if my civ cant handle taking the city's and or land, then let me find that out the hard way, let my gold and influence go into the negative until i am almost forced to give them back, or maybe i have shop the City/Land around to see if anyone ells want it, but don't stop me from doing things because of of stupid reason, the war support seems like a good idea, but its just poorly executed                            

Cind13 wrote:
#1 You can see the names of the territories in the background during surrender term selection.

I have not been able to reproduce this.
Crappy covid computer laptop.  with graphics turned down to low.  But I have tried to determine this, and cannot.  
so maybe it is my fault, but it should be an easy fix if it is.  I can see the names of forests, easily.  Just fix the font type.

Cind13 wrote:
#2 You cannot attack if all coastline fields are districts with city walls. You can change that by bombardment (although only available late game).

Hmmm..

I have the Ming rocket lauchers, howitzers, and ships that can fire cannons.  But I cannot fire on or attack a city from 2 tiles away?   
they need to bring this into effect much sooner.

Cind13 wrote:
#3 This is rather a game balance decision. You are not supposed to annex entire nations with just one war, some people here like that and I can see why.

I am not supposed to?

Hmm.  

They were in an alliance with me and 2 others.  But they decided to break the alliance and attack another civilization that had been their partner in good faith...
If there is anyone to blame for this, its them.  They can # sand on what I am "supposed" to do.

CitricComet wrote:

Cind13 wrote:
#1 You can see the names of the territories in the background during surrender term selection.

I have not been able to reproduce this.
Crappy covid computer laptop.  with graphics turned down to low.  But I have tried to determine this, and cannot.  
so maybe it is my fault, but it should be an easy fix if it is.  I can see the names of forests, easily.  Just fix the font type.

Quick update: if you exit out of the 'negotiation' screen.  Then click on one of the administrative centers of the enemy.  Then the names show up.
Most certainly not what any rational person would describe as: 'user-friendly'.

CitricComet wrote:

Cind13 wrote:
#3 This is rather a game balance decision. You are not supposed to annex entire nations with just one war, some people here like that and I can see why.

I am not supposed to?

Hmm.

They were in an alliance with me and 2 others. But they decided to break the alliance and attack another civilization that had been their partner in good faith...
If there is anyone to blame for this, its them.  They can # sand on what I am "supposed" to do.

I think what was meant by 'not supposed to' is that the mechanics appear to be trying to simulate the fact that historically, empires were not eradicated to dust in one war. This is somewhat uncommon in the 4x genre so it's not surprising a bunch of people feel like something is wrong, but it is novel and worth exploring I think.

However, I would agree the system as is could do with some decent re-works, I explained previously in this thread how the greviances system works with this, I don't know if you read that CitricComet but could be useful. Genuinely if you have greviances on all the enemy territories you probably can take it all in one war. It's just that acquiring greviances at the right time is a challenge.

At a more fundamental level though I am inclinded to side with those that think the game is currently too restrictive on what you can take in a war, especially in a situation like yours where you're unlikely to have territory claim greviances just after they've broken an alliance. On large scale games like much of what Paradox put out, this sort of mechanic would work best because there are literally 1000s of territories on the map. In HK where an enemy could have 2 cites spread over 6 territories I agree it's perfectly reasonable to think that shouldn't take for than one war to conquer, however without demands on any of it that would cost 2 main plazas (2*80) + 4 attached territories (4*40) = 320 war support which is very difficult to get.

Another point to consider is that while it might be easy to just delete some systems cos they've got some flaws right now, if the core system is good (as I think the greviance system/war support is) it's worth waiting a little longer for them to make good improvements to it than hoping then nuke dodgy systems cos they're not quite tuned properly yet.

CitricComet wrote:

Cind13 wrote:
#3 This is rather a game balance decision. You are not supposed to annex entire nations with just one war, some people here like that and I can see why.

I am not supposed to?

Hmm.  

They were in an alliance with me and 2 others.  But they decided to break the alliance and attack another civilization that had been their partner in good faith...
If there is anyone to blame for this, its them.  They can # sand on what I am "supposed" to do.

But if you can, Why not, its a strategy game, its all about winning a war, a quick war is a good war. if you have the production, the units, influence, and everything else, why not, its a pointless restraint otherwise, and what's worse its a Time wasting Filler, its concerning that it maybe hiding shallow game mechanics i.e. bad AI design or something. 

to be clear, i like the concept  war support, but i really think war support should come down to if your people support the war, if they don't you get unrest and maybe half strength units, I like the that you need a reason to go to war, its a good idea, but overall strength of your empire should over ride any war support,                     

fossar_ wrote:

CitricComet wrote:

Cind13 wrote:
#3 This is rather a game balance decision. You are not supposed to annex entire nations with just one war, some people here like that and I can see why.

I am not supposed to?

Hmm.

They were in an alliance with me and 2 others. But they decided to break the alliance and attack another civilization that had been their partner in good faith...
If there is anyone to blame for this, its them.  They can # sand on what I am "supposed" to do.

I think what was meant by 'not supposed to' is that the mechanics appear to be trying to simulate the fact that historically, empires were not eradicated to dust in one war. This is somewhat uncommon in the 4x genre so it's not surprising a bunch of people feel like something is wrong, but it is novel and worth exploring I think.

However, I would agree the system as is could do with some decent re-works, I explained previously in this thread how the greviances system works with this, I don't know if you read that CitricComet but could be useful. Genuinely if you have greviances on all the enemy territories you probably can take it all in one war. It's just that acquiring greviances at the right time is a challenge.

At a more fundamental level though I am inclinded to side with those that think the game is currently too restrictive on what you can take in a war, especially in a situation like yours where you're unlikely to have territory claim greviances just after they've broken an alliance. On large scale games like much of what Paradox put out, this sort of mechanic would work best because there are literally 1000s of territories on the map. In HK where an enemy could have 2 cites spread over 6 territories I agree it's perfectly reasonable to think that shouldn't take for than one war to conquer, however without demands on any of it that would cost 2 main plazas (2*80) + 4 attached territories (4*40) = 320 war support which is very difficult to get.

Another point to consider is that while it might be easy to just delete some systems cos they've got some flaws right now, if the core system is good (as I think the greviance system/war support is) it's worth waiting a little longer for them to make good improvements to it than hoping then nuke dodgy systems cos they're not quite tuned properly yet.

in some since your right in history if a empire  is defeated there people stay the city's stays, but the empire is gone, IE roman, yes they live on in anther culture, but the Romans are gone, gone for good. i guess you could argue, is the nazi party a empire in its self or a county lead buy a restraint. because you could say  the same for any empire. 

but your right i think with a few different reworks it could be a good system, just don't hamstring players  

The other thing I think we need to play around with more is the vassal mechanics. That is one way that you can take all of the opponent's land in one war and not have it count to your city limit, this requires a flat 200 war support which you should easily have if you occupty every city of theirs. If you vassalize everyone in the game you win so it is definite progress to a wincon.

I/we need to do some more testing on what the benefits of having a vassal are. I certainly think you should take a tithe of money from their income and get regular science osmosis events to compensate for not owning the land yourself and potentially have options to integrate them further down the line. I vassalised a neighbour once but didn't check to see if they were contributing FIMS to me and somehow they managed to become unstuck as my vassal later without winning a war so seems a bit weak at the moment.

Dazza wrote:

in some since your right in history if a empire  is defeated there people stay the city's stays, but the empire is gone, IE roman, yes they live on in anther culture, but the Romans are gone, gone for good. i guess you could argue, is the nazi party a empire in its self or a county lead buy a restraint. because you could say  the same for any empire.

         

I'm not meaning just the people of that empire survived under occupation, I'm meaning empire would not lose all their citiies and territory in one war as the is doing perhaps too good a job of replicating at the moment. The English and French fought in countless wars over centuries. In ancient times the states of modern Greece fought and vassalised, then rose up and regained independence then got conquered by macedon but not compeletely, then fought back. Wars are rarely quick and decisive. It is also an anti-snowball mechanic, they are looking for ways to not let and one player get so far ahead so quickly that the game is decided in the first two eras every game I think.

That said HK is a fast game, it takes time to build war support and fight two separate wars probably pushes you into the next era. The way HK is designed doesn't lend itself to having long protracted wars over multiple eras as war is a poor investment if you have the military strength to do so, you should be able to make meaningful gains.

It's not that weird, keep in mind that you are controlling an empire, of people. People even with war support might not be so thrilled with the idea of utterly taking over an entire empire just like that, after one war... The war support is to simulate actually needing your population to agree on it

Besides, if you want to take over everything, just take every demand of "oppressing my people" or "oppressing my faith" since those demands in the next war will give you the territory essentially for free. Imo it simulates pretty well that unless your people actually feel they desire/deserve the claim for lands you occupy, you can't just flat out get it without some serious support. 

You can make those demands even of allies without too much negative impact, weirdly enough. They either just flat out give the territory, or you get a semi-permanent "next war I win you will lose this territory" token against them.

I've had several wars where I have taken all the territory in one war, just needed some pre-war demands for those lands, or some serious war support. If I'm not mistaken you can also farm war support by winning fights, unless I have misunderstood it.

Your war support is capped at 100, which is about one city center. Demands are not reliable since culture and religion spread can get a bit... one-sided. Also, you cant assume the attacker dominates in terms of faith or culture AND military.

WarBaby10 wrote:

Dazza wrote:
i understand the developer needs to make it different to CIV or what's the point, but not giving a player freedom to make decision good or bad is a Game a bad game mechanic, negotiation terms before a war, is not a war. the whole point is to take as much as you can, if your Civ cant handle it then bad luck, i really thing the game is confused about the reason to go the war, and war itself, yah to need a reason to go to war, made in the forum of a grievance, but once your at war, its open slather, if you pick a fight you cant win, bad luck, you your opponent picks a fight they cant win Bad luck, if pick a fight win, but cant deal with the  consequences, and have your empire crumble because your eyes where bigger then your stomach, then again Bad luck.                                                                  

       

Guess I'll have to agree with you on most of this.  For a game that wants to throttle your war effort for you, it sure seems to be littered with a lot a weapons of mass destruction that you're supposedly not allowed to use without a computer minder looking over your shoulder to approve, veto, or assign to you your most important decisions.

Sticking too dogmatically to an anti-Civ design philosophy (which has one of the longest strings of successful editions in 4X gaming history) might achieve exactly that; a one-hit shooting star wonder; pretty, but flame-out and just as quickly forgotten.  But hey, it's sure not Civ, right?  Yay.  Mission accomplished.

Too bad. The game does have potential.

Their reviews on Steam aren't terrible--"mostly-positive" is just two notches above "mixed."  That's definitely not a bad rating, but it really is just barely above so-so.  So, not terrible.  But not great, either. Amplitude is a small studio.  Maybe their goal is to stay small.  That would be weird, but o.k.  The rubber has just hit the road.  Let's see where they take it from here.

yah, its not a terrible game, as for a new title, its pretty smooth, not too many bugs, apart from  grayed out tiles, it dose have potential, they do something right.   there not a lot they could change, and to be honest, i haven't played much of Civ 6, I mean I started paying civ games a very long time ago, and by Civ 5 i was all Cived-out, i think i have a copy somewhere on some Store page lol    

there still a lot they need to fix or change,  War support this the biggest  one so far, unit pathfinding is something that needs attention but i found making little movements can get you where you need to go, city's don't change when you build stuff,  I mean when i build a aqueduct, i would like to see it , items give negative stability( correct  me if I'm wrong but stability is happiness)   when they probably  shouldn't , if you have airports they should add to your stability, people can travel around your empire, see wonders and so on, 

the pop up from time to time are grate, some of them really made me think, i want more of them.  the change of Civ is also a welcome, all though they have the Australians as a empire, knowing Australian  the government they can barley run anything it in real life. so I wouldn't  trust them with nukes lol . but yah. lets see what happens with this game                       

Cind13 wrote:

Your war support is capped at 100, which is about one city center. Demands are not reliable since culture and religion spread can get a bit... one-sided. Also, you cant assume the attacker dominates in terms of faith or culture AND military.

This is incorrect, your visible war support during the war is limited to 100 but that is different from the war score/negotiating points available during peace talks. And yes, hopefully they will get to distinguishing these terms soonish.

The tooltip in game says war score/negotiating points "Is calculated from war support at the start of the war, war support at the end of the war, plus bonuses from battles and occupied cities. The details of this aren't 100% transparent, but it's a new game you can't expect them to lay all the mechanics on the table from the get go. Either way, I have regularly got negotiating points over 200 and often up to nearly 250. Without any demands, this does only mean a couple of small cities but thought I should clear up that war score/negotiating points is limited to 100 as that is incorrect, and evident quickly in game if you do well in a war.

fossar_ wrote:

I think in principle this is a good system in a middle ground between Crusader Kings style where you need a casus belli for anything and Civ style where you take everything immediately. That said, I do think the systems could do with some improvements. Those greviances are only generated once per territory and if you don't enforce a demand off them in the 10 turns before they expire they are gone forever. If you miss the popup or aren't militarily strong enough to risk making the demand right then, tough luck.

I think this is part of the reasons why I like this war support system. It requires you to do some strategic thinking and planning long before you actually initiate and engage a war. It forces you to think carefully the point of the coming war for your own story of empire building. "Warmongering" is no longer a no-brainer method for empire expansion as in most "4x strategy games" that in fact don't need any strategic thing.

fossar_ wrote:

Cind13 wrote:

Your war support is capped at 100, which is about one city center. Demands are not reliable since culture and religion spread can get a bit... one-sided. Also, you cant assume the attacker dominates in terms of faith or culture AND military.

This is incorrect, your visible war support during the war is limited to 100 but that is different from the war score/negotiating points available during peace talks. And yes, hopefully they will get to distinguishing these terms soonish.

The tooltip in game says war score/negotiating points "Is calculated from war support at the start of the war, war support at the end of the war, plus bonuses from battles and occupied cities. The details of this aren't 100% transparent, but it's a new game you can't expect them to lay all the mechanics on the table from the get go. Either way, I have regularly got negotiating points over 200 and often up to nearly 250. Without any demands, this does only mean a couple of small cities but thought I should clear up that war score/negotiating points is limited to 100 as that is incorrect, and evident quickly in game if you do well in a war.

So we agree that War support is capped at 100. War score on the other  hand is calculated like so: Winner war support at start of war + Winner war support now + 10 per demand + 30 per conquered city center. Battles are not factored in at all. All in all this number does not grow far beyond 200, so for each total annihilation after perfect war score preparation you get around one city and 3-4 districts and gift back all the rest. Demands may grant you extra territories, but as @fossar_  states they only last 10 turns each and it is hard to actively pursue them.

I totally understand the desire to balance out war as just another tool instead of the go-to win-it-all solution and agree that the war support and war score systems are great additions to the 4X system. But the way to create demands is limited, there is no propaganda, nationalism, expansion desire or anything that drove most wars in history. The way the system is implemented now is too restrictive and simple. With the intricate combat system, the strong city defenses, high unit maintenance cost even a rather soft war support/score system would make for an interesting tactical warfare that requires preparation. The way it is know however? Why even bother with diplomatic preparation, you won't get a bang for your military buck anyway. Just rush in, ransack as much territories as possible before the enemy runs out of war support and forces you to stop for 10 rounds, then rush in again until you win.

war score symbolizes a population morale.

if one faction runs out of it, the war ends in a surrender of that faction.

This "cease fire" is decided by your population, and not by a faction leader.

The war rewards depend on the "war intensity", so a short skirmish does not get you a vassal state or all the won territories.

A lot of wars are broken up into multiple smaller wars by this, each one with its own grievances and Morales (which tend to repeat).

between 2 such wars, alliances and affiliations may change A LOT.

World war 1 and world war 2 is basically a single war with a short cease fire between them.

Alright so a few things. 

1. You totally can take an entire empire over with one war. I have taken over 10+ territories in a war before and I think my max is like 14. 

2.You need grievances like others said and it's also good to ransack their outposts and build your own. So going into a war with a lot of influence is also required, just don't burn down the places where you have a grievance lol I usually keep cities though as it gives the enemy too big of a boost if burn them down.

3. the war support is capped at 100 but the war score is not. Someone already did a break down of it but you get an increased score for each city, extension, and outpost you take. You should also click on the enemy's logo to see where their support is at. 

4. Certain civs will offer a surrender if their support gets to a certain amount and you can refuse this to give them a support boost, also gives you a negative so be careful, so it can extend the war if you want to take another city. 

5. You can see what cities are being taken, there is a magnifying glass next to the territory name so you can see where it is located. Though I do agree the screen needs to be less cluttered so we can see where exactly it is.

I like this approach because you actually have to think about going to war and get an idea of want you want to take and what your okay with letting them keep. It is different and take as bit getting used to but it is totally possible. I myself am a warmonger so I am always going to war. To help build war support you can also ask for things like a map sharing. The ai will usually refuse and you can then make a demand. Also if you expansionist you can roam in there territory and they usually will attack you, causing a grievance. I only do this if I can't build grievances any other way like through faith or influence. Also in would try out the beta as the war score screen is much better and easier to understand.