HUMANKIND跟文明帝國比較的幾個心得：

1.可以「轉職」

　如果你吃日式拉麵時，會想配 法式沙拉 配韓式炸雞 佐印度綠咖哩醬 配泰式奶茶。

　HUMANKIND就是你滿足你多元味蕾的最佳選擇。


2.戰鬥比較專心

　這是一款「我站超高我超強」的爬山打架遊戲。


3.可以拚到世界末日

　正常回合數是300回合，沒有要讓你睡的意思。
　我光玩快速模式75回合都花了12小時。

　遊戲結束條件除了征服世界、各種指標領先群雄之外，
　還有「讓地球汙染到不適合居住」、「往火星派任務」等目標，
　到底吸了什麼。

　對了，
　如果你汙染到太嚴重，其他國家都會敵視你，覺得你是世界毒瘤。
　所以等你後期太閒還可以種樹樹。


4.史詩感的聲光，死屍感的角色

　美術畫面很讚很細膩，廢話，人家是2021年的遊戲。

　放大還可以看到小馬車在跑，超療癒。

　旁白講話讓我很舒服，尤其遊戲勝利展示自己的文明的時候。
　真的覺得自己是世界偉人、宇宙救星，民族之光。


　至於捏角色這件事，

　雖然本遊戲的名字叫《人類》，
　但我捏的每一個文明領袖都比較像不死族牛頭人。

　如果你很懂1021年的時尚美感，你很會享受你捏的角色。

　如果你不懂，沒關係，我也不懂。


5.外交打架有點煩

　電腦欺善怕惡。（一句話講完）

　打仗不能無腦宣戰（不然就是偷襲，不講武德，被全世界唾棄），
　要先一直跟敵國摩擦，讓國民不爽，民心同仇敵愾，累積國內的支持度，

　一個認知作戰的概念？

　就像是你明明想跟女朋友分手，
　還要故意先找一間很爛的餐廳幫她慶生，讓她對你生氣，
　你就可以跟她順理成章的吵架翻臉，計畫通。

　所以本遊戲的外交，我一律統稱為「燒你全家之前的前戲」。


6.宗教逐漸母湯

　一開始宗教好像蠻重要的，會影響自己的城市被同化之類的。
　但後來科學時代之後大家都是無神論，
　大家都在搶稀有的科技資源，宗教什麼的幾乎沒影響了。

　我努力蓋的巨石陣＆吳哥窟：AM I A JOKE TO YOU？
　
7.4X大作

　你可能會想說，那我為什麼不玩文明帝國？

　我只能說，它是一款2021年的４Ｘ遊戲，也就是：

　Ｘ爆你的科技樹
　Ｘ爆這顆爛星球的資源
　Ｘ爆那些異教徒
　Ｘ爆你的睡眠時間

8.結語：

　如果你覺得，
　鮭魚壽司鮪魚壽司章魚壽司鯛魚壽司鰻魚壽司分開吃很麻煩，
　我推薦你一個創意的新吃法，就是全部裝進盤子拌在一起吃，

　沒錯，就是散壽司。

　所以，呼麵砍德，HUMANKIND，推薦給你。讚讚。

我两艘战略核潜艇被三个桨帆船击沉了。

Conceptually the game is really refreshing and interesting—each era provides an opportunity to further develop a premeditated long-term strategy, or dynamically adapt to the game's situation. In theory, this should lead to matches feeling unpredictably distinct from one another, and therefore prevent the game from getting stale as your experience, knowledge, and skill level increases from playing it. In practice, however, the cultures are too poorly balanced, and, consequentially, not distinct enough for many of these adaptive strategies to occur as they are seemingly intended.

For example, you may pick the Assyrians as your first cultural selection, intending to harass and plunder your neighbor's territories with your military, stealing gold and territory to further your own expansionist agenda in the process. This seems to be the clear design goal of the Assyrians, but they do not excel at it when compared to other cultures with entirely different design goals.

The Harappans, for example, are clearly intended to be a culture which focuses on empire growth and development (traditionally, 4X players might call the Harappans' design that of a passive, “tall” faction, and the Assyrians’ design that of a militaristic, “wide” faction).

The Harappans definitely beat the Assyrians at growth, as they ought to, but building and incorporating new outposts requires influence, and, because influence is generated per population, the Harappans are often better at claiming unsettled territories than the Assyrians. Additionally, military units cost population and either production or gold, all of which the Harappans should quickly outproduce the Assyrians in thanks to their ability to work so many population slots at once. So, when the Assyrians produce their superior unit to gain early dominance, they are crippling the early development of their first city by costing it population and vital early production or gold, to secure territories they don’t yet possess the influence to claim. Meanwhile, the Harappans’ growth advantage allows them to outpace the Assyrians in every important aspect of their design goal past the first handful of turns, making the Assyrians’ focus irrelevant.

All of the era’s culture pools contain these kinds of ‘illusionary’ choices, where some of the culture’s gameplay orientations are more of an aesthetic choice than a strategic one. Unless you are the kind of player who enjoys playing at a clear disadvantage for the sake of style, this results in the player feeling like only a minority of the faction choices are viable choices. Additionally, some of the factions excel at fulfilling their design goal so much (The Khmer are a particularly egregious example in this case) that choosing a similarly aligned culture in following eras becomes redundant.

These factors all result in the selection of your culture having the opposite effect to the intent; deciding what faction to play quickly becomes stale. If you’ve selected the Egyptians as your first culture—a culture which is very proficient at generating incredible amounts of production—you are less likely to feel like you need to select another faction focused on generating production later in the game. Considering the already small pool of viable cultures, this further shrinks your pool, making consecutive playthroughs much more similar than they should be. Separate playthroughs will contain a variety of cultural selections, but from a significantly limited pool, and with a dull, predictable combination of cultures representing each aspect of empire development.

The game’s approach to war and diplomacy require either of them to be long-term commitments, rather than impulsive choices, which I find quite good. Tradable resources are represented by an undepletable number relative to your number of deposits, of which access can be purchased. Diplomacy is streamlined through the removal of quarrelsome haggling between both by compressing everything into a number of progressive, independant treaties. This prevents trade from feeling unreasonable due to the uncompromising nature between both parties, especially since these interactions can generate war support in either direction.

War support is the resource required to maintain and reap the rewards of a war against each of your opponents, forcing you to take their actions, demands, and grievances more seriously. Though this system sometimes results in unexpected or seemingly unintuitive outcomes, like not having enough war support to keep occupied territory when your opponent is forced by a lack of support to surrender, I generally liked it. The mechanic prevents the game from becoming a snowbally steamroll when one opponent gains a sudden advantage, and keeps war from feeling frivolous and unpredictable.

The pacing of the eras is one of Humankind’s biggest problems. Early and mid-game eras are understandably the most important, since they establish your borders and early disputes, but late-game eras are far too compressed by comparison. Many of the technologies are made inferior by the one directly following it (like the technology for contemporary tanks directly following the technology for WWII era tanks), while others are completely irrelevant because they do not progress you towards the easy-to-execute scientific win condition enough to justify their rewards.

These problems are magnified by the player’s tendency to grow exponentially in nearly all possible categories during these eras, with science easily being the worst offender. This is primarily because of poor balancing on the features added by the later era’s technologies, which are able to propel even the poorest civilization to the moon if they have access to the right stuff, or, in the case of science, poor balancing of cultures traits you can only get access to later in the game. In extreme cases, it is possible to spend only a couple of turns in some of these eras, especially when trying to achieve a scientific victory.

The late-game eras are also the stage when the AI usually starts falling behind, and the game starts to feel like you're kicking a can down the road. In my playthroughs, it was normal for my neighbors to still have horsemen and swordsmen when I had the ability to produce tanks and planes, even when the scores were somewhat close. This is so much the case that I would usually abandon having a military at this stage, since the units any potential attacker would siege with were unable to beat my city’s free garrison and implacements, and going for a military victory almost always seemed too time-consuming compared to a scientific one.

In my first 30 hours or so, when I was still learning how to play this game, I was visibly excited to try and master all the fresh concepts and ideas this game brought to the genre. Once I had a good grasp of them though, I quickly understood how unrealized this game’s potential is in its current state. That excitement hasn't left, but it's been tempered by disappointment.

I don’t think Humankind is a bad game, I think it’s simply an unfinished one. I think Humankind will become an excellent game once the cultures have been rebalanced, the AI enhanced, and the technology tree more well-rounded, as well as some smaller things. If you’re itching for a new 4X game, Humankind will definitely keep you entertained while you master the new mechanics it introduces, but expect it’s replayability to be low when compared to other 4X games until these problems are addressed.

I really, *really* wanted to like Humankind, specifically because it promised to be a breath of fresh air in the ever-dulling scene of 4X-Civ games.

It started out with a pretty ambitious vision by the makers of the whole Endless franchise. Lots of dev diaries, detailed vision concepts... and, of course, the first 'open dev' program that has nowadays been adapted by quite a few other game titles during their developement.

The game did (and does) a lot of things right when it comes to fixing the classic pitfalls of civilization games: You do not play as one particular nation that assuredly didn't even exist for the full 10k of human history, but an amalgam of indiivdual cultures that move through the ages. You do not get one unit and a building for one specific age, and then end up being the exact same civ as anybody else for any timeframe outside of that age, but you pick a specialization and a playstyle focus per age, being able to shift and adapt to whatever your current situation requires. You do not just race down one tech/civic/military tree to reach one of multiple goals the fastest, but you strive to maximize score gain by fulfilling smaller scale goals that may even require you to pace your technological progress.

Buuuut, the game also runs into the same pitfalls as other civ-like titles: The game is very overtly built around the early game (which is obviously played and tested the most), but then someone loses track towards modern times, with tanks just being stronger cavalry units, airforce being an afterthought, nuclear deterrent and modern political problems being nonexistant.
The AI, as usual, can't remotely keep up with the player, and has to use massive cheats to not become immedeately redundant past turn 50. And even then barely evolves beyond being a sitting target.
The game's performance stutters and struggles as cities grow more and more, and all the numbers inflate to usually nonsensical levels of production, science or gold. And, in the end, it doesn't matter how you got there, or what you actually are, because the end-game tends to look the same anyways.

The game would still be a valid alternative to Civilization 5. BUT

I have to subtract a significant chunk of review point for the game's trajectory: Humankind started a buggy, half-finished mess in open dev. That's fine, early access / beta and all that. Upon release it was barebones, but playable. Then the next patch added religion, fleshed out civics, and added QoL. All good.
It's the most recent expansion when things, for me, started to turn sour: I was part of the open dev for the expansion, and the insights were... sobering. The expansion's theme was Diplomacy which, okay, wasn't going to fix anything about the lategame, and added the obligatory espionage system in the obligatory undercooked fashion... but it also made so many dumb mistakes, like adding mid-game 'exploration' menial tasks in regards to players micromanaging 'diplomatic scouts' to pick up 'diplomatic goodie huts'. For some reason it took *weeks* to even get a basic auto-'diplomatic explore' button after countless testers complained how the new system was a lot of manual pathing for nothing... but then that auto-explore was utterly incompetent, would run your non-combat diplomats units into foreign territory or just break when a diplomatic goodie was inaccessible.
The usage of the new diplomatic currency was clunky and often not even worth it. There was this grand idea of paying another civ with an expensive treaty in order to be able to build their emblematic units, in exchange for giving them a token payment that wouldn't scale with age and thus be absurdly irrelevant in anything but early eras.
There was one particular instant of a culture from the expansion having an emblematic unit with a special effect that was both abyssimal and counter-intuitive to that cultures 'diplomatic' approach. So when petitioned to change it, with countless alternative suggestions for the units special ability by the testers... the response of the devs was to just double the obscure useless bonus to 'fix' the problem.

Needless to say, overall the expansion was so much of a letdown, even in the final stages of open dev, I simply did not buy it upon it's release alltogether.

Now, after a couple more months and minor updates, I revisited the game and
it's straight up *worse* off than before the expansion: The AI on higher difficulties now 'deliberately avoids entering new eras in order to maximize score and competitively challenge the player'. Which sounds good in theory, but in practice means the AI will intentionally handycap it's technological progression, meaning now the players will be Age*S* more advanced even without ever picking up a scientific civ. And in the end, going for an extra star or two doesn't justify being overrun by your neighbour who's units completely outclass yours.
Then there's the new (non-expansion, thus 'free') cultures that add even more quadratically scaling modifiers that break the game's balance in hilarious (but not exactly balance-furthering) ways. All it took was one culture to swap me from the least populated to the most populated civilization in less than 10 turns. There's such a thing as overkill.
Additionally, I've noticed that a lot of menus and features have been reworked, not necessarily to the better: You no longer can see on a glance how your research is going, because for some reason, despite plenty-voiced concerns about it in the opendev, the research menu was moved from a helpfully informative circle in the bottom, to a small feature-less button at the top. And features like managing wonder production allocation by clicking the wonder and assigning cities with a few clicks was removed in favor of having yet another city production overview, which's tooltip claims you can assign them to the wonder here.. but doesn't actually provide that option (not sure whether this is just another instance of horrible UX design, a feature now locked behind the expansion, or an oversight).

So, by all perspectives I can apply, the game has legitimately become worse.
And I don't quite see that trend reversing, since a lot of focus seem to have been thrown at providing 'community challenges' and 'exciting scenarios', instead of actually fixing the problems of the actual game.

Overall, I'll give Humankind a 5/10, and place it into the "Interesting concept, mediocre execution, and woeful post-release developement" box.

As someone who played a whole heck of a lot of Civ, both SP and top-level competitive MP, I'd like to offer up on Humankind:
Humankind is a really good game. It's NOT a great game - yet - but it could be. It has some pretty significant balance issues that need resolving before that. (Some strategies are embarrassingly more potent than others, and some nations are absolutely a joke compared to others.)

...but that's to be expected from a "first generation" game. This isn't Civ 6 which is basically iterating on the same formula circa late Civ 3/Civ 4.

Humankind does some very bold things that Civ - inertia of time and tradition - would never have the guts to do. You change tribal identities every era. Humankind solves the SoD/bottleneck problem with a genuinely clever combat system that actually allows over time reinforcement. Humankind also solves the "why would I stop beating your face in?" problem rather nicely, and even solves Civ's perennial "endless sprawl" issue rather elegantly. "Go wide or go high" is a legitimate choice - and even more cleverly, you can reverse course later if you change your mind!

Having said that, Humankind is not (yet) in a position to say "We can/will unseat Civ for all time." Humankind still struggles with the "I already know I won the game and I still have to play it out" problem - much more so than Civ does. It has a fair number of bugs, a few of them genuinely gameplay disrupting. (Temporary, no doubt, but some genuinely rough.) Humankind's lack of diplomacy win is... curious. Their victory model will please some and infuriate others. (Looking at you, Apolyton SP gurus who steal deity-level wins at the last second.)

All in all, I'd encourage any/all 4x players to encourage this dev and buy this game. It might - or might not - be the game to unseat Civ. What it WILL do, most certainly, is light a fire under Firaxis's hindquarters to do more than just a lazy iteration for the next Civ. (I'd argue C5 and C6 are exactly this.)

Long story short: Humankind might or might not be a win for Firaxis's competition, but it's definitely a win for players. Give it a go!

Bom, minha primeira review aqui na Steam, vamos lá.
TL;DR: O game tem potencial, mas tem bugs frustantes que acabam com a experiência. Ainda muito desbalanceado. Até uns R$ 50,00 vale a pena atualmente.

Bom, o jogo tem uma ideia interessante em te levar pelas eras da humanidade com culturas diferentes e "ganha" quem mais influenciou a caminhada da humanidade (fama) durante toda a história, seja ganhando guerras, construindo maravilhas, descobrindo belezas naturais, sendo o primeiro a descobrir certos "game changers" da humanidade, enfim...
Pontos Positivos:
0 - ESSE FOI O JOGO QUE MELHOR CAPTOU A GUERRA E ANEXAÇÃO DE TERRITÓRIOS QUE EU JÁ VI. É incrível como faz sentido a questão de não é só no grito que você ganha o território, envolve toda uma circunstância global de "bom-moço" ou fdp.
1 - Combate, estilo Endless, pra quem gosta de combate por turnos estilo tactics é 10. Senão você pode skipar e torcer pelo melhor.
2 - Nem sempre o mais forte ganha (e isso é muito importante de entender, o jogo é sobre a caminhada da humanidade, não sobre quem consegue mais tropas e passa a régua no resto dos players) e pra quem realmente gosta de pensar, isso é bem legal.
3 - A sensação de realmente estar passando pelas eras da humanidade (desde o momento que nem cidade você pode construir, até lançar um míssil termonuclear naquele bot que te sacaneou o jogo todo) é cativante.
4 - É simples de se entender as mecânicas envolvidas no jogo.

Pontos Negativos:
1 - Tenha pelo menos 16Gb de memória e um bom processador i7+, fora isso, depois do turno 300 (que não dá pra chegar no final da árvore de tecnologia) você vai passar raiva.
2 - O game é completamente desbalanceado (existem dois jeitos de se conseguir a vitória de manira simples, o primeiro é construindo Machu Pichu, a maravilha mais absurda do game, o segundo é rushar a pesquisa, e com 4 unidades que utilizam pólvora, você vai limpar todo o seu continente, já que AI deixa muito a desejar na questão de agressividade).
Assim que você consegue o cívico que troca a anexação de territórios de influência para dinheiro, você elimina justamente o recurso mais difícil de se obter no jogo e facilita demais a expansão do seu império.
3 - As unidades aéreas do jogo deixam a desejar, e nem sei como é o combate, já que nenhum BOT conseguiu chegar até essa parte antes de eu enjoar ou o jogo TRAVAR (leiam abaixo).
4 - O jogo TRAVA, não do tipo do seu PC resetar, mas em certos pontos parece que falta um IF-ELSE na programação, isso no turno 564, depois de 5-6 horas de jogo. (NÃO, LOAD NÃO ADIANTA, FECHAR O JOGO E ABRIR NÃO ADIANTA, RESETAR O PC NÃO ADIANTA). Isso mesmo, você simplesmente deleta o save e começa outro. A última e que me levou a escrever essa review foi depois de uma guerra de quase 100 turnos, o BOT se rendeu, eu escolhi os territórios dele que eu queria e antes de terminar o turno, pedia para que eu terminasse com a escolha dos territórios e pronto, esse turno nunca irá acabar ... volte seu save para antes da guerra ;).

Eu realmente achei a ideia do jogo e a questão do combate superior ao CIV, mas a execução ainda está muito abaixo do preço pedido. Torço para os dev's continuarem a corrigir bugs, porém acho que estão gastando energia em algo que já era OK (o último update foi basicamente de interface, que já era bem jogável)...

You know that meme with the sketch of the horse that starts out realistic on the left but transitions to a child's drawing on the right? That's the progression of a game of Humankind.

The beginning of the game is great. Lots of new ideas, explorations, meaningful choices. But then it starts to get a little stagnant, but you're still intrigued and are interested in what might happen. But then it's just bad and you're shaking your head at the dumbness of it all.

I really think this game isn't finished. The last few eras have too many useless techs, clumsy balancing, and bad pacing. The events are pure filler and offer no meaningful decisions. An example: the global warming event. Every Civ-ish game has got to have this, right? So in Humankind you get a text box that says some scientists say something bad might happen and you get to choose between paying a little money (really, a negligible sum by that time in the game) to do the *right* thing, or collecting a tiny 'bribe from the oil companies' to ignore it (with the threat that this might have future consequences). And that's it, we're done. There is no meaningful choice to be made, it's just a banal public service announcement. Games are about making choices.

Many of the systems in the game are interesting, but don't work well.

War Support: You have little control over how a war ends. One game I just needed to make an enemy a vassal and I would win the game. But because I occupied so much territory at the end of the war and had made claims to certain cities, I was forced to take those cities in the settlement and didn't have enough points left to force capitulation. And when I attacked again, the war was over too quick to earn the points I needed! In another game, I tried to play aggressively from the start. I rushed an opponent in the Classical age and forced him back to his first city. But then suddenly the game decided that I had lost the war because it was waged without a valid reason. I had been bleeding 'war support' for many turns because of my naughtiness and now I had none left. My territorial gains were handed back by... I dunno? The UN?

Civics: You can pay an increasing amount of 'influence' to buy little perks to help define your civilization. Neat idea, but the perks are mostly useless and influence is more important than money for most of the game. So after your first game you will barely use this system.

Faith: I tried to find somewhere that 'faith' was tracked in the UI, but failed. A few wonders mention it but I don't know what it does. Religion is advanced by the number of followers, which is AFAIK the same thing as your civilization's population. And the religion perks are mostly useless, and you can't avoid getting them. The religion is really, really bare bones. No flavour, no choices; it would be a better game without it.

Sphere of Influence: I could not figure out how this worked. There was a map filter that would show how different territories were under the sway of the different powers. With percentages. But I couldn't figure out how they were calculated. And then they would change and I didn't know why. Sometimes, if a neighboring city fell under your sway, you would get the opportunity to demand it from your opponent. And sometimes they would give it to you! This would lead to bizarre 'cultural osmosis' events where that new city would receive free bonuses of tech points each turn. And not a trivial amount either, often more than a quarter of all my other cities combined! I do not understand what they were trying to simulate with this feature or how it worked.

There's more, but I'll leave it there. The thing is, the game is fun at the beginning. It's beautiful and fluid, and has that 'something' that makes you want to keep playing. Even now I'm thinking of trying some different options and seeing what happens. But I've played four full games now and I know what happens. It becomes tedious and stupid.

This game might become great. But it's not there yet. Keep working on it, guys.

臣等正欲死战，陛下何故先降？

I got Humankind in early access, played 110 hours in the betas, very impressed. High, high hopes for this game - confidently expected it to be a real breath of fresh air in the genre.

I played 30 or 40 hours on full release, terribly disappointed with its incomplete state at that stage. Well, I thought, Civ often gets off to a slow start, unfair to judge Humankind yet.

So I didn't review it, and waited for the dust to settle. After a year I decided it was time to give it another try.

Now it is true that a lot of the more glaring issues with the game have been resolved, or mitigated, or can simply be switched off at the player's option. I played with pollution switched off because that's such a soul-destroying mechanic. Otherwise vanilla.

So what's the final verdict? Well, I have 70 hours in the game now - ironically, that's 40 less than the betas - and that's enough for me.

The sad truth is that Humankind just isn't very good. It has so many moving parts that they get in each other's way, often with completely counterintuitive results:
- Annex a farming region to a city, for instance, and suddenly you are short 100 food per turn.
- When you are in the lead by around 8000 points, suddenly an AI decides to suicide by racing through 3 eras with minimal stars, just to snipe you out of your preferred civ.
- I thought I was taking a risk in the last era picking influence with under 3k influence per turn, but I needn't have worried, because it so happens that when you use the special influence ability, just pressing a button gives you 120,000 influence for 240 gold!

Sometimes a game mechanic becomes utterly counterproductive. What's worse is that it's easy to understand why, while at the same time finding the devs' choices intensely annoying. Railways for example. The devs want to create pollution and discontent, so they require stations in every single territory between your cities. Amazingly, it's the same with aircraft; you have to have a vast network of airbases to move your planes from city to city. So either your cities have to make their own troops until well into the last era, or you have to take a big hit to discontent. A simple question - how is that 'fun'??

And my main competitor, the suicide guy? Interesting story. By the end of the game he'd developed EVERY SINGLE HEX in his core territories. Since he went gold for the whole game, his other stats were pretty rubbish, so I ask 'How did he do that?' Well, over the whole game, he made around 200-300,000 more gold than me - of which, around 180,000 in the last 20 turns. That translates into over 600 hexes in development? Colour me suspicious!
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2865808047

No doubt somewhere in the game's labyrinthine rules, all this is explained. But to get far enough into Humankind to work out why would require a substantial sustained effort, which would in turn require the game to be interesting and absorbing in the first place. And it just isn't.

Often, when I finish a game of, say, Endless Legend, I'm tempted to start over at once, so I have over 300 hours in that game to date. With Humankind, it was the opposite; I felt much the same as Bart Simpson did when playing Lee Carvallo's putting challenge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=capTpivF8n0

"Friendly" AI: give us your capital city

Me: uh, no thanks, that's alright.

AI: haha, no seriously give it to us.

Me:...no.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\WAR//////////////////////

(Narrator: Three hours later)

AI: ok ok, we give up. Sheesh.

Me: I'm going to take this territory of yours bordering my capital so you'll stop bugging out about me being "on your border". You're lucky I don't just wipe you out.

AI: fine, fine, it's a deal.

Me: alright, glad we're over this.

AI: Actually, give us that territory back.

Me: Are you kidding? You literally just agreed to give it to me. Why would I give it back to y-

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\WAR////////////////////////

(Narrator: one turn later)

Me: Wait. I HAVE to surrender to you? Wtf? You didn't even do anything. *I* didn't even do anything. How does that work?

AI: Well you see, because we demanded something, and you refused, we got to have warring resources, and you didn't. Because Reasons. So we automatically won this new war. Now we know what you're thinking; what's the point of going through all the trouble of winning a long hard fought war with units and tactics and battling and stuff when we can just come right back and instantly win a war on a technicality based around an abstraction for conflict management? That must seem like a giant waste of your time and effort, right? That's because It is.

Me: oh.

AI: Yeah. Hey, give us your capital city.