View Full Version : I did not by this game for diplomacy

4th Jun 2005, 14:38
The diplomacy system is not the saving grace of this game vs RTW. It has flaws as well ....

1.) Russia owns 1/3 of the world.. is 95% favorable to me .. hates Britain .. they just fought a war few turns ago... they come after me solo... Take poland it asks if you want to free or hold... hold lose sympathy.. free gain sympthy...

1a. Free Poland get sympathy and let russia take it ... repeat until the map is on your side....

1b.Take Russia's capitol from Sweeden and get all their territories without the bother of picking liberation or occupation.

2. Hanover was at war with Britain.... 30 turns ago but was captured by France... I liberated Hanover as Prussia ...they are still at war with Britain and when Britain attacks them "I am their ally" since they are already at war with Britain I can't send in troops ... they won't allow right of passage to an ally with a British army on their capitol without several thousand gold....

3.Britain taking most of France it has 2 terrirories left... they wan't me to pay them a huge sum of gold to try to help them... they won't form a coalition or grant right of passage without large sums of gold.

4.you loan a country armies and they miraciously appear from every barracks on the board in their capitol country.

The best one is capturing the small country letting it get recaptured ane reliberating it until the map is yours ... 4 times should do it. Or liberate Hanover and Batavia or Piedmont in the same turn ;) OF course you have to have consulates to take advantage of the great boost of sympathy.

I do like having to get tech advances for certain diplomacy options .. that is a good idea. Just saying you can't count on this game to survive on diplomacy alone. Most will buy it for the combat portion. Remember they compare Kohan and Rise of Nations, Warhammer 40k, to the RTS theater of features expected even though those games are not Age of Kings or Starcraft, there are certain expectations of features. When you buy a car you expect windshield wipers and windows that raise and lower and probably even a spare tire. If those features are not there you can not say well this isn't a fair comparison. If IG had come first RTW would be compared to it.

I debated on posting this but they seem to still be in denial that this is a 6.7 game instead of the 8.7 to 9.3 it could be. Should be. Would be if they fix it.
And I want a 9.3 game in my collection instead of the 6.7 this one is at it's current state. Wonders if they mentioned working on a patch?

I've played it through to conclusion 2 times now. And I'm done until there is a patch. Once as France once as Prussia.. ah hell I have to play once as Britain maybe Russia.

4th Jun 2005, 16:01
I like the diplomatic aspects of the game. The campaign is what I had hoped RTW would be. Where RTW failed miserably (for me anyway), IG succeeds nicely.

4th Jun 2005, 16:20
I like the diplomatic aspects of the game. The campaign is what I had hoped RTW would be. Where RTW failed miserably (for me anyway), IG succeeds nicely.

I 100% agree

4th Jun 2005, 17:30
There are always features that the game designers added that dont really work because human players never fulfill the conditions. Then there are features that just dont plain work.

IG seems to have quite a lot of issues in the first category, but very very few in the second.

To use RTW, can anyone say "PROTECTORATE"? That just didnt work, period. You could have 4000 troops camping around their last city and they would refuse to even discuss it. That is bull.

4th Jun 2005, 19:51
The emperor has no clothes ;)