War Support and Surrender in the Bolivar Update

These look like interesting changes!

All sounds like solid improvements. I do wonder about territories within enemy sphere of influence, because I'm pretty sure that's how it worked during at least some of the OpenDevs, think I'm glad to see it back, gives more utility to Aesthetes - or to introducing censorship to your Empire. It's also a nice, discrete option for introducing resistance, which wouldn't always take a form of armed uprising.

Stadia again being bitched out?

Sounds interesting! Hope this update comes soon.

Speaking of ransacking, what about prohibiting or giving serious disadvantage on ransacking one's own tiles too? Annexing a city is useless because it requires too much influence compared to the cost of ransacking a city center and absorbing its territories to adjacent cities.

Sounds like great changes! I was a bit worried that the whole war support would get abandoned. However, this seems like a good middle-ground for the warmongers. 

• Ransacking enemy districts will now cost the enemy War Support 

komodowaran wrote:

Territories under your control but under the enemy’s cultural influence will drain some of your War Support each turn:   This sounds good in theory, but sounds like somthing that will be problematic in multiplayer, since u can use your own culture in a offensive way, by just spreaking your culture, then declearing war, and see how they lose war suport, from being at war with you.    
This one would be best as "Captured Territories under your control but under the enemy’s cultural influence will drain some of your War Support each turn "

I'd also like to see some counterplay to this effect, just like in civ occupation gives you a loyalty penalty that can be partially negated by having military stationed in the city. Humankind could do even more with the ideologies, for example giving nationalist-leaning empires a higher tolerance for occupying territories under foreign influence, or even a bonus to war support with the right civic or so.

Yeah, I wonder what the devs have planned. As others noticed, this is a step in a very right direction, but it also opens the game for so many new and interesting mechanics that could be added to it. I do hope that further down the line we will get reworks of couple of major systems to catch up.

komodowaran wrote:

Force surrender, with a significant stability cost if u wan't to continue the war, sounds like a great change

Ransaking enemy reduces there war suport: sounds like a good change, since now ransaking coastal tiles, is a way how ships can help win a war

Territories under your control but under the enemy’s cultural influence will drain some of your War Support each turn:   This sounds good in theory, but sounds like somthing that will be problematic in multiplayer, since u can use your own culture in a offensive way, by just spreaking your culture, then declearing war, and see how they lose war suport, from being at war with you.     
This one would be best as "Captured Territories under your control but under the enemy’s cultural influence will drain some of your War Support each turn "

Since else enable a simmular situation as with the "Pacifist" chesse, where u attack a player, then seperate attack a AI and earn a pacifist III badge while camping on your continent, so win a offensive war vs a player, with out fighting a battle

This does 'sound better' to me.

I have to admit, I've supported the game since the first announcement trailer and I got quite disappointed with the way things got handled after release, but this update gives me hope, because it seems to dramatically improve immersion by weighing correctly the cost of battles and wars.

Now, it seems that choosing the Goths and create a couple of their EU in order to ransack your enemies lands without actually confronting them in battle too often could prove a good way to win a war and boost your economy without having to engage in huge open field battles, I just hope ransacks will get juicer with updates in order for it to become a viable and legit tactic.

To me honestly some improvements are still needed in order to bring back many players that left the game due to lack of content:

- Return of district adjacency from the Victor Open Dev. ( It made the game and city building so much better and engaging, I don't know why it got removed)

- Balance of religion tenets

- Dynamic luxury resources value based on the time period they are being traded at. ( Papyrus being far more powerful throughout the ancient and classical era, for then losing value later on)

- Culture balance and EU resource adjustment

This would make the game in my opinion feels smoother and immersive

Sewata wrote:
Return of district adjacency from the Victor Open Dev.

You mean districts boosting each other's yields, rather than simply clusters of same districts being preferable?

If we're at returning adjacencies, bring back harbors allowing connections (I know it was removed because sometimes you could get your fleet trapped in enemy territory - I don't care, too much was lost with that) or, even better, turn them into early hamlets.

DNLH wrote:

Sewata wrote:
Return of district adjacency from the Victor Open Dev.

You mean districts boosting each other's yields, rather than simply clusters of same districts being preferable?

If we're at returning adjacencies, bring back harbors allowing connections (I know it was removed because sometimes you could get your fleet trapped in enemy territory - I don't care, too much was lost with that) or, even better, turn them into early hamlets.

^ This

komodowaran wrote:
Territories under your control but under the enemy’s cultural influence will drain some of your War Support each turn:   This sounds good in theory, but sounds like somthing that will be problematic in multiplayer, since u can use your own culture in a offensive way, by just spreaking your culture, then declearing war, and see how they lose war suport, from being at war with you.     

This one would be best as "Captured Territories under your control but under the enemy’s cultural influence will drain some of your War Support each turn "

I mean, it adds complexity to the game, which is good, because it helps further disincentivize science and industry optimization.

DNLH wrote:

Sewata wrote:
Return of district adjacency from the Victor Open Dev.

You mean districts boosting each other's yields, rather than simply clusters of same districts being preferable?

If we're at returning adjacencies, bring back harbors allowing connections (I know it was removed because sometimes you could get your fleet trapped in enemy territory - I don't care, too much was lost with that) or, even better, turn them into early hamlets.

Yes, exactly bring back the synergies of creating a diversified city with districts benefiting from each other ( for example market and farmers) rather than this ugly blob of astronomy houses and factories...

This will add an additional layer of skill, since you will have to plan further into where you want your districts to be located.

Harbours should definitely feel more dynamic and more a part of a city rather than an abandoned district on the tip of an archipelago, either let them be some sort of Hamlet or increase the amount allowed per territory. Maybe they should not give right away a huge benefit on FIMS but they should instead highly increase the FIMS of the districts placed next to them, this way it will feel beneficial to incorporate them into your city radius and walls.

DNLH wrote:

Octavion wrote:

I actually liked that ransacking would give your enemy war support. I mean, if enemy soldiers busted into your home, would that really weaken your resolve to fight them, or would it make you hate them that much more. Ransacks were a good way to extend a war, and I feel like this particular change is playing to the lowest common denominator - players without the strategic foresight to exploit that effect.

Perhaps a better adjustment would have been for ransacks to affect war support situationally, whereby a ransacked aggressor looses war support (victims blame their own government for instigating the war) and a ransacked defender gains it (victims consolidate support behind their government's efforts to defend them), while ransackers gain or lose war support based on the culture's ideological position on the geopolitics axis (homeland bias increases war support from ransacking, world bias decreases war support from ransacking). It would make the ideological system more meaningful and add a layer of strategy in the form of deciding whether to declare war yourself or try to goad the enemy into declaring.

Ransacking some districts that would happen in distant territories that are yet to be attached, luxury extractors and alike, should indeed cost your enemy war support, as they've proven they're unable to take out the raiders harassing the countryside.

But ransacking occupied territories should raise the war support instead, motivating the troops to fight to liberate their people. Ransacking administrative centers should be either outright impossible unless they're under your control (not occupied) or come at heavy diplomatic penalty, preferably a badge that makes the wearer easier to target. I'm thinking here about discouraging the burning of conquered territory and replacing it with your outposts, to take it all in one sweep, now that War Support mechanic will work better and, frankly, I think War Score itself is already fixed to allow more gains upon victory, we no longer need such game-y things allowed.

I don't know how much can be done about it, but it does sound interesting to have additional mechanics attached to ideologies, so that, as a warmonger, you'd be encouraged to take choices in events that are just outright worse for sake of keeping your isolationist, traditional Empire that revels in offensive wars, while maybe more 'enlightened', artistically-inclined Republics would lessen the impact of retreating or receiving a beating.

Sewata wrote:
Yes, exactly bring back the synergies of creating a diversified city with districts benefiting from each other ( for example market and farmers) rather than this ugly blob of astronomy houses and factories...

I agree fully, Astronomy House is one of those fun districts that make the city planning better, because you can utilize it in non-obvious ways, we need districts that benefit from each other more - although, I'm wondering whether it was removed because it was difficult for those bonuses to keep up with infrastructure boosts, while it wasn't that obvious how to make infrastructure play into it well.

I understand it might be challenging to balance this district synergy method alongside the infrastructure, but I'm sure the result is worth the struggle, it will create a much better experience. Opting for the easiest way it's not always beneficial.

Great news! 

Don't forget the option to free vassals in the requirements and/or war resolution, because for now being vassals means being stuck forever.