Forced to Surrender even though you win all the battles.....

PSG

Warlord
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
102
I can understand being forced by your populace to end an unpopular war, but to surrender territories to the enemy because of it is a bit mind boggling. I just had a scenario where I was not paying complete attention and it was as if the USA turned over New York and Massachusetts to the Taliban when we pulled out. Our government is bad, but not that bad.
 
I can understand being forced by your populace to end an unpopular war, but to surrender territories to the enemy because of it is a bit mind boggling. I just had a scenario where I was not paying complete attention and it was as if the USA turned over New York and Massachusetts to the Taliban when we pulled out. Our government is bad, but not that bad.

If you won all the battles, then You are forcing your enemy to surrender. When you Can force your enemy to surrender, that is the best deal you are going to get, and you don't give them anything, you only take from them (some of the cities you have occupied become yours, other ones go back to them).

The game probably should let you ignore the Forced Surrender if you are the one winning... but that should mean a hit to your war Support, so that you aren't likely to get better War Support for a better deal later on.
 
Something is off in the narrative you are presenting. What was the drain on your war support? How many battles you were winning? Did the enemy have claims in that war?
 
Yeah, the rival civ gets -4 War Support per turn for each of their cities that one has occupied. The penalty for declaring a war is -1 War Support per turn, and there might be some other War Support modifiers based on proximity, but occupying more rival cities should definitely put one ahead on War Support (and eventually War Score).

Also while I've become more accustomed to how war works in HK, I would also like to see an option to continue a war despite the opposing side proposing surrender terms. It could be something like:
Declining the surrender terms from an opposing civilization that has 0 War Support will grant the opposing civilization +50 War Support. One will also get a level 1 Warmonger badge, or else if one already have Warmonger badge, the Warmonger badge will increase by 1 level instead.

While at war against an opposing civ with a level X Warmonger badge, Units gain +X^2 Combat Strength when fighting units controlled by the Warmonger, and also gain +X^2 War Support per turn.

While at war, the Warmonger gets -X War Support per turn.

The Warmonger badge will fall off when the player is no longer at war with any other civilization.
 
You can definitely end up in situations where you declare war on a distant AI and your passive war support loss can get you to zero eventually. I’ve had situation (back in Victor admittedly) where borders changed after I declared war and I had no access to my adversary and lost for this reason. I don’t know if I played it out, but they would have been able to force surrender (and back then make you a vassal). However, currently they can’t take cities that aren’t occupied or territories that don’t neighbor their border, so that should only lead to a money reparation.

Presumably if you lose territory in this situation it could mean, narratively, that since you are not winning enough battles to keep war support above zero, that the people of that territory believe they would be safer as part of the other nation.
 
Also while I've become more accustomed to how war works in HK, I would also like to see an option to continue a war despite the opposing side proposing surrender terms. It could be something like:

I'm not sure that conquest needs to be made any easier, it's already pretty straightforward to take 2 cities or 1 city + vassalize two of your neighbours before the end of Classical. But you do need to have high initial warscore, some territory demands, win decisive battles instead of just a bunch of skirmishes, and capture 1-2 cities. This all takes some prep work and conscious effort but is all achievable. You shouldn't really be able to annex an entire culture because they were oppressing your religion in a single neighbouring province or because they attacked one of your scouts one time 300 years ago.

If anything you should need a demand on a city to be able to take it in a war, or suffer a massive and long lasting %-based stability hit - i.e. that city should be at serious risk of rebels and bad events for the next 30+ turns, that you can't just avoid by building an aqueduct and an extra Commons Quarter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSG
I didn't declare war. The Ai declared war killed a few scouts, pillaged a far off outpost, but when he got close to any of my cities I crushed his forces with malice. Then he pillaged a far away port and then suddenly have the attached outposts to my capital were in the hands of the enemy, but the game let me keep a city I founded on his continent even though that would have made the most sense for him to ask for since its founding is probably what triggered the war. I wouldn't have even founded it if the "random" resource generator had put more that one single bronze and one single gunpowder on my continent, but that is a different rant to make.
 
The game should say how much war support you're receiving. When you win or lose it'll say whether you gained support or lost support. It should say. You can also click on the civilization you're at war with in the top left corner and you'll see the diplomacy section and both of you on the opposite sides. On the top left or right corners you should be able to see the amount of war support you have and they have. Watch out that the AI wont get your support to 0 which will force you to surrender.
 
I didn't declare war. The Ai declared war killed a few scouts, pillaged a far off outpost, but when he got close to any of my cities I crushed his forces with malice. Then he pillaged a far away port and then suddenly have the attached outposts to my capital were in the hands of the enemy, but the game let me keep a city I founded on his continent even though that would have made the most sense for him to ask for since its founding is probably what triggered the war. I wouldn't have even founded it if the "random" resource generator had put more that one single bronze and one single gunpowder on my continent, but that is a different rant to make.

If you weren't the attacker and didn't have any of your cities occupied, and won a few battles, you must have lost a *lot* of scouts. (And/or retreated a lot, which is -5 war score). I think you also get positive warscore if they ransack your outposts.

You definitely need to pay attention to war score in this game, it's not entirely intuitive but barring a few oddities (skirmishes counting as much as huge battles) it's a good system that makes for interesting diplomatic choices. The early opportunities you get to make demands on your neighbours can have huge impact on the course of the game, and if you're expecting war you need to prepare for it, which ironically & accurately often becomes the cause of the war itself.
 
I'm not sure that conquest needs to be made any easier, it's already pretty straightforward to take 2 cities or 1 city + vassalize two of your neighbours before the end of Classical. But you do need to have high initial warscore, some territory demands, win decisive battles instead of just a bunch of skirmishes, and capture 1-2 cities. This all takes some prep work and conscious effort but is all achievable. You shouldn't really be able to annex an entire culture because they were oppressing your religion in a single neighbouring province or because they attacked one of your scouts one time 300 years ago.

If anything you should need a demand on a city to be able to take it in a war, or suffer a massive and long lasting %-based stability hit - i.e. that city should be at serious risk of rebels and bad events for the next 30+ turns, that you can't just avoid by building an aqueduct and an extra Commons Quarter.

It took an outpost that was adjacent to my capital and then one adjacent to it. I was going to rage quite, but I wanted to see what happened. I declared war back when it could and it felt good marching 5 melee troops + 10 machine gunners down his throat. It let me take back the two territories, but my economy was in shambles and I was in a death spin by this point. I had already researched nuclear fusion and the Ai was using great swordsman against me. Very frustrating that this is possible. I guess it's time to play around with nukes for the first time to vent some frustration.

If you weren't the attacker and didn't have any of your cities occupied, and won a few battles, you must have lost a *lot* of scouts. (And/or retreated a lot, which is -5 war score). I think you also get positive warscore if they ransack your outposts.

You definitely need to pay attention to war score in this game, it's not entirely intuitive but barring a few oddities (skirmishes counting as much as huge battles) it's a good system that makes for interesting diplomatic choices. The early opportunities you get to make demands on your neighbors can have huge impact on the course of the game, and if you're expecting war you need to prepare for it, which ironically & accurately often becomes the cause of the war itself.

I had a dozen or so scouts on auto explore and OMG I forgot about the dozens of ships I had. I never built a single one. I kept discovering abandoned ships and setting them to auto explore.....
 
I had a dozen or so scouts on auto explore and OMG I forgot about the dozens of ships I had. I never built a single one. I kept discovering abandoned ships and setting them to auto explore.....

Solo scouts in harm's way sure are a good way to lose a war, and too many "free" ships are a good way to tank your economy, it takes a lot of merchant quarters to pay for units, especially modern ones :)
 
You can see why you are losing support at any time by just going in the diplomacy screen, I suggest you reload some auto-saves and take a look fi you are caught by surprise.

A battle lost is a battle lost, the fact that it's a scout doesn't really matter much to the game.
 
Last edited:
Slightly off topic but related, I found a good tactic in my current game. I was attacked early in Classical by both my neighbours Aristos & Elhoim within a turn of each other. I had a stack of enemy approaching each of my 2 cities, and i only had 2 warriors and a bunch of scouts for defense. I immediately surrendered to Elhoim who had no territory claims and archers for 700 gold, which saved my second city from certain defeat.

Aristos had territory claims and had brought Hittite chariots to a siege, so I built a single Zhou chariot and defended my capital while my other city sent the 2 warriors plus a spear and archer to finish off the chariots on turn 2 of the siege.

I had to run max traders in each city for 10 turns to get out of the deficit but was able to take Aristos' capital, and then vassalise Elhoim immediately afterwards with 3 war elephants + a few swords and archers.

I had strong religion so was able to generate territory demands immediately after surrendering and my war score recovered quickly, especially after baiting him into attacking me a couple of times. His war score started very low so it was a short war - this probably isn't the ideal system, if you win a war because your opponent surrenders you should get back all your war score if they attack you before your score has recovered to 50.
 
Definitely should not be able to redeclare on someone and end up with a beneficial change in war-score from it. I like the lack of hard limits in this game, and also like how it feels in Stellaris that you cannot declare again for 10 years. A steeper penalty for unjust wars might help, or a 10T condition that adds 2-3 war score per turn penalty if declared while still active.

It feels silly to keep fighting wars with someone, taking a city or two each time.

Also, I’m really liking the feel or ransacking admin centers, and even sometimes cites to get more territory from a single war, though also weird that it is usually actually beneficial for the player to keep the AI war score high until you achieve your goals, and that ransacking helps with this.

Definitely appreciate how transparent the mechanism is, and it creates good dynamics.

If anything else, I still would rather turn opponents into vassals than effectively remove them from the game by taking cities. Some of the stability ideas on unjustly conquered cities might help with that.

Also quick question, so captured territories count toward expansion stars? It seems to me they do not.
 
I more meant if you capture a city (with or without territories attached). For me these don’t seem to be included in the total, and I seem to trigger pop and district stars by not expansion stars after wars. I might just be ebony oblivious.
 
The whole war support system straight up killed the game within a month.single player is boring and war support wiped out multiplayer.take out war support and you have a civ killer,especally with the blitz settings.A waste of money.

Moderator Action: Using the term civ killer is considered trolling on this site. Please stop using it. leif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You can see why you are losing support at any time by just going in the diplomacy screen, I suggest you reload some auto-saves and take a look fi you are caught by surprise.

A battle lost is a battle lost, the fact that it's a scout doesn't really matter much to the game.

The US and the Soviets sure did a good job of "scout" deaths during the Cold War. I don't think scout deaths should count as battles lost for the sake of war support. That is if you don't have a media whose goal is to bring down your nation.

Moderator Action: This thread is about Humankind the game, please keep current events and politics in the Off Topic forum. leif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The US and the Soviets sure did a good job of "scout" deaths during the Cold War. I don't think scout deaths should count as battles lost for the sake of war support. That is if you don't have a media whose goal is to bring down your nation.

Well a "Cold War" in Humankind terms is not actually a "War" there was no fighting of US troops on Soviet Territory or Vice versa. Instead a cold war is "Tolerate Skirmishes"... War support on one side or the other might go to 0, but that doesn't matter because they're not at War, so no Surrender.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’d include expansionist empires trespassing in the cold war category, I like that only one side can initiate attacks here… too bad your multi role fighters can’t take part in this 4G inverted action. Also IP, if any survived until late game and if there were ways to indirectly support them against aggressors (and a benefit to aligning with them).
 
Top Bottom