) come striaght from EIH. So testing in the board game environment of those changes has been done. Of course i still dislike them, but then I dislike a lot of the EIH changes.
On the interface I'm trying to be sure that I understand the way it works. If I select a major power in the "If aggresor is" line, am I saying that I will support all the selected minors against all the selected powers? As an example, Russia in 1805 might well want to support Denmark against Prussia, support Sweden against Britain, but feel that it's not worth getting into a war with Britain over Denmark. Is it possible for Russia to support Sweden against GB, support Denmark against Prussia, but not support Denmark against GB?
I don't think these sorts of situations arise all that often in the game, but if my interpretation of the interface is right, this isn't a question of having to think through diplomacy more carefully, but rather forcing a stark choice on my hypothetical Russian - He has three choices
-let Prussia have Denmark so as not to get in a war with GB over that issue
-let GB have Sweden so as not to get into a war over Denmark (and no, I don't think any sane Russian would do this
), or-risk getting into a war with GB to keep Prussia out of Denmark.
Makes for some tough decisions. It's possible that this is a better way to set up diplomacy, but in some cases this dramatically reduces a players choice compared to the board game.
