There it goes, fun factor low.

[jsberry]

It hit me today too. The weariness, the boredom. It's just about buying another stack of troops to go take another enemy capital - way too easy.

The essence of 1700s diplomacy was that nobody should be allowed to get too powerful. That should be very easy to hard-wire into the AI diplomatic choices. Likewise, nobody went for the jugular. Frederick's conquest of Silesia (ONE province) took two major wars and was considered "great." He never came close to taking Vienna. Only one major power was removed (Poland) and it took three concerted invasions by other powers, in the LATE half of the century.

This game is the other extreme. Any game that allows Hollard to conquer and annex France (and England... and Prussia...) is fundamentally flawed.

Here's a no-brainer that the developers could easily implement: Certain regions (France, England, most home nation capitals) CANNOT be conquered - the major powers CANNOT be removed from the game. If capitals are taken, the loser must agree to terms (X regions, Y money, Z techs). That would keep the game both balanced and grounded in a 1700s context.

[Smellycat]

all the diplomatic status +/- thgings are worthless if you can be hated by everyone and still noone attacks you.

[mmk]

It hit me today too. The weariness, the boredom. It's just about buying another stack of troops to go take another enemy capital - way too easy.

The essence of 1700s diplomacy was that nobody should be allowed to get too powerful. That should be very easy to hard-wire into the AI diplomatic choices. Likewise, nobody went for the jugular. Frederick's conquest of Silesia (ONE province) took two major wars and was considered "great." He never came close to taking Vienna. Only one major power was removed (Poland) and it took three concerted invasions by other powers, in the LATE half of the century.

This game is the other extreme. Any game that allows Hollard to conquer and annex France (and England... and Prussia...) is fundamentally flawed.

Here's a no-brainer that the developers could easily implement: Certain regions (France, England, most home nation capitals) CANNOT be conquered - the major powers CANNOT be removed from the game. If capitals are taken, the loser must agree to terms (X regions, Y money, Z techs). That would keep the game both balanced and grounded in a 1700s context.

Sounds like a very good idea!

Overall, my experience with the game is similar to yours.
And I really still don´t understand why Prussia would want to trade East Prussia for Courland.
The diplomacy of this game drives me crazy and takes away a lot of the fun. I must say that I enjoyed playing MTW II much more.

[Maladin]

I agree. I enjoyed Empire: Total War for two weeks after buying it, but now every campaign is the same. Race for the trade spots, plan what to build in each town, search for the same technologies, bribe nations into trading with you, fight off the suicidal one-province powers... I never even got past 1730 because I was already bored by then.

Come to think of it, Dawn of War II is pretty boring once you finish it too.

Someone mentioned Master of Orion; I never played it, only the second game, but I loved it and still play it from times to times. The diplomacy system was particularly good: you could ask people to stop wars, for example.