I really love nearly all of the game.  Same genre as Civ, same theme as Civ, but very different and well put together mechanics.  Really, just what I was hoping for.  BUT WITH ONE EXCEPTION.

The War Support mechanic W.R.T. Ransacking really needs to be re-worked.   I was two eras ahead of one civ, and invaded one of his cities.  I just wanted the land. He was in my way of getting to my real target.  Militarily I slaughtered him in one turn.  It wasn't even close.  I started ransacking him the next turn, as soon as I could, with a full stack (8) of my strongest units.  The count down got down to one more turn and I ran out of war support.  It forced me to "Win," but I wasn't awarded enough points to take over that (or any other) city.  So I got cash (which I didn't need in the slightest) and he got to keep his city.

This is seriously immersion breaking, to say the least. How would Truman have felt if, the day before Hitler's suicide, all of his troops had said, "Well, time's up.  We're going home now," and arbitrarily left Berlin the day before victory?  "Commander-in-Chief?  What the heck is that? I've got a ball game to catch!" Seriously, I do know how Truman would have felt.  Why is this even possible in this game?  Instant ransacking would seem to be an easy fix.  Why should it take 4 turns to ransack a city that I clobbered in 1 turn?  I mean, I am the only military presence in that city; all alone, all by myself.  How is it even a point of control for the loser in negotiating the end of the war?  I.e., how does the loser retain arbitrary control over a circumstance that he doesn't have anywhere near the military muscle needed to enforce?

Alternatively, ransacking shouldn't allow War Support to deteriorate.  In the above scenario, there wasn't any other military actions against my opponent.  I was literally just counting down turns to take over the province.  This scenario seems common (It's happened twice in this same game so far), and definitely detracts from the fun factor A LOT.  I'm way ahead on Fame.  I mean, I'm definitely going to win.  That's not the issue.  This aspect of the game seems so arbitrary, and it just isn't fun.

i think what you're missing here, is that the americans were very much in favor of kicking hitler's butt than the situation you describe.

the point for this system it to limit people's ability to just brutally murder everyone around them. you need a bunch of grievances to justify going at war, and even more to seize entire cities. as you describe, the guy you attacked did little to nothing wrong, yet you attack him and try to raze his cities ? do you think your people would be okay with that ?

if you just wanted to go through his territory, you should have demanded for free passage, either the AI accepts and you can just go, or they refuse and that makes grievances that increase your nation's willingness to belgium your way through their territory. 

i mean, granted, overall you could ditch the entire system and go for a civ-like casus belli / warmongering penalty system, but they are clearly going for something where war has limited purpose and interest. Right now the AI is too militarily inept to be much of a challenge even on higher difficulties, so not murdering your neighbors is probably a more interesting way to play the game.

No, I don't think I'm missing that point at all.  I invaded him, but it was in response to his declaration of war on me.  Not the other way around.  So in your hypothetical scenario support from "the people" wouldn't have been an issue.  But that's kind of beside the point.  No military takes blow-by-blow direction from "the people."  Certainly not down to deciding which day to exit a major military undertaking without regard to the commander in chief's own decision.

Vietnam would be a good proxy for the scenario you are describing.  And even in that case, Nixon, under advice of his generals,  made the call on timing the exit from that theater; not "the people," who indeed were very much opposed to the war and protested for more than a decade before their collective voices finally had an impact.  But in the end, Nixon decided the timing because it's nobody's call but his to make.

In Humankind, deteriorating Stability would seem a much better abstract to express "the peoples" simulated opposition to a war, rather than picking an arbitrary date outside of either of the warring leaders control.  That's just a contrivance that doesn't represent anything to do with humanity.  And again, the war was essentially over 3 turns prior.  This just shouldn't have been an issue.  Forcing ransacking to take 400% longer than the war itself is just arbitrary no matter how you slice it.  And then losing control of that defeated territory during that artificially imposed extended period of ransacking is just plain silly; way beyond arbitrary.

Edit: And just in case my forum name doesn't give it away, I think murdering my neighbors is tons of fun, and the game very obviously is designed in support of that.  ;)  Seriously, though, I am planning on playing this game with my flesh-and-blood nephew.   An inept AI wouldn't be part of the equation in any case.  So, no, we don't play pillow-fights when we play games.  It's no fun if we're both not gushing arterial blood sprays from multiple mortal wounds.  Having the game arbitrarily decide when we should release our grip from around each others throat would seriously limit the replayability of this game for both of us. 

>  What were your demands in the war? Did you have any?

The AI declared war on me.

> You said you wanted the land, but did you do anything in game to make that want actionable?

Yes I did.  Once declared upon, I mobilized and seized the AI's city in one turn, after traveling for

several turns to get there (I was two tech eras ahead, so it was rather a quick victory -- muskets

and cannons against tier 1 arrows and chariots).  I then immediately started ransacking so I

could build my own city afterwards.  But the game imposed peace before ransacking could complete.

The game didn't award me enough points to keep the city, so I was given cash that I didn't need,

instead.  I was the sole occupant of the territory (not counting all of his dead guys) when the

game seized my territory and gave it back to the loser.  He didn't have any territories anywhere

nearby, either.  A totally contrived outcome that couldn't possibly happen in real life.

So yeah, I didn't know about the mechanic where an aggressor declares war on me, loses badly,

and then gets to keep all of his stuff anyway for no apparent reason, after losing it decisively, and

then suffer nothing of any consequence at all.  My bad.  That's on me.  Fair enough.  ;)

I think if Stability started to deteriorate after war support drops below 20, and then the Stability deterioration started to accelerate after war support drops to zero, that would stop the steam-rolling of the map.  In other words, it would force the human player to weigh pros and cons of his decision, each turn, rather than the game making that decision for the player in such an arbitrary fashion.

In my opinion war support is a great idea that is very badly implemented at the moment :( Which is a shame, really, because the game has all the big pieces needed to do it really well already built.

Dang!  The way you're going on, I'm afraid we're not going to find much to argue about at all.  ;)  Seriously, as a just-released triple A title, this game is a gem in the rough.  This is my first experience with Amplitude, so I hope your faith in them proves to be well deserved.  Cheers!

Asolutely agree with your stance, and solution, to war support. I absolutely hated this mechanic and the city cap before my third game where I figured out that you can just leave grievances open to tick up your support and sack your newly taken cities to solve the influence negatives. Also do yourselves a solid and throw money at Endless Space 2, just get the base game and the first DLC's up to and including the Hissho one, the others just add more tedious gameplay mechanics/clicking windows. It's seriously one of the best 4x games ever made and the aesthetics are on point AF.

They should think about the system from stellaris and ck2, casus belli for taking that province and then war for it but nothing more, to not murder everyone. 

I mean that the win condition could be described before the war starts and all know what they fight for

+ will be that player wont loose everything at 1 war and quit gaming especially in multiplayer games