First let me say I like the model the game uses for managing wars, but I encountered a frustrating situation in my current game that I think should be addressed.

I had complete control of one continent except for one city that an AI player had gained by influencing a minor city. So they owned it, fine. I went to war with them and easily took it over. They had no more troops on my continent and their warscore ticked down by 4 per turn. However once they got to 4 warscore they offered to surrender to me, but they didn't offer the occupied city as part of my reparations. I refused their surrender and they gained warscore and I lost warscore. This process repeated 3 times until I was running out of warscore and had to accept the reparations of money only and they still had one city on my continent.

This was a bit frustrating and seems silly given I thrashed them, I occupied their city, their one city on my continent, but I couldn't make them give it to me.

Mmm I get the sentiment but I'm not sure I completely agree. The game needs to impose some mechanical restrictions for the purpose of gameplay. Imagine being on the receiving end of that deal from an AI player that defeats you? I guess the intention is to draw out the process of the war between two nations so it can't be resolved either way in one big bang. It's quite easy to push your warscore back up again if you try, and then you can go to war again and grab more cities.

Offering (non-forced) surrenders with insulting proposals to basically cheat yourself more war support is a way the AI abuses the system yes.

However (unlike forced surrenders which is horrible) you can just ignore the offered surrender without accepting or refusing it. Just close the diplomatic window, you will be able to continue to the next round. So this aspect can be defended against.

Guryon wrote:

First let me say I like the model the game uses for managing wars, but I encountered a frustrating situation in my current game that I think should be addressed.

I had complete control of one continent except for one city that an AI player had gained by influencing a minor city. So they owned it, fine. I went to war with them and easily took it over. They had no more troops on my continent and their warscore ticked down by 4 per turn. However once they got to 4 warscore they offered to surrender to me, but they didn't offer the occupied city as part of my reparations. I refused their surrender and they gained warscore and I lost warscore. This process repeated 3 times until I was running out of warscore and had to accept the reparations of money only and they still had one city on my continent.

This was a bit frustrating and seems silly given I thrashed them, I occupied their city, their one city on my continent, but I couldn't make them give it to me.

You have to have a grievance towards the foreign empire that lets you demand that city you want and you have to demand that city before you go to war. Open demands must always be fulfilled in the surrender terms. Going to war without any open demands is a gambling game in regard to the offered surrender terms.

If i am not mistaken you can close the negotiations and end your round without refusing or accepting. This way you wont lose warscore and the AI wont gain some. This may repeat several times but ultimatly you may be offered the city.