What do you expect in 2025?

[Prob32]

No, because in order for DLCs to flop, they need to be released first. There was no way anything could flop, because they've released nothing (worth talking about) for like a year.

I feel like you couldn’t be more wrong- no corporate type at PDX would cancel V3 before a Naval and Army re-work pack comes out.

There’s clearly a LOT of interest in a Navy re-work and an Army re-work. I can’t see them giving up such a strong opportunity for sales and to get players back into the game.

My total conspiracy theory is that from a strategy point of view it’s definitely better for them to fill out the game a bit like they’re doing with SoI and upcoming expansion so that when folks come cramming in the door for the navy or army dlc they find there’s a lot of interest depth content they enjoy

 

[47pik]

I feel like you couldn’t be more wrong- no corporate type at PDX would cancel V3 before a Naval and Army re-work pack comes out.

There’s clearly a LOT of interest in a Navy re-work and an Army re-work. I can’t see them giving up such a strong opportunity for sales and to get players back into the game.

My total conspiracy theory is that from a strategy point of view it’s definitely better for them to fill out the game a bit like they’re doing with SoI and upcoming expansion so that when folks come cramming in the door for the navy or army dlc they find there’s a lot of interest depth content they enjoy

Honestly, yeah. Players think that military is the biggest issue, but that's because players don't really know what they want. While I'm not exactly thrilled with the military implementation, there are much worse problems. Limitations of trade and diplomatic plays, not to mention the lack of logistics or gunboat diplomacy are much more significant.

Fixing those before doing the flashy thing players think they want is probably in their best interest. Military improvements patch + WW1 DLC will get people playing, but they won't stay unless the other systems are good. That, or they just give up, and just make this EU 1836 like people seem to think they want, but that would be deeply unfortunate.

 

[NATOaster]

Honestly, yeah. Players think that military is the biggest issue, but that's because players don't really know what they want. While I'm not exactly thrilled with the military implementation, there are much worse problems. Limitations of trade and diplomatic plays, not to mention the lack of logistics or gunboat diplomacy are much more significant.

Fixing those before doing the flashy thing players think they want is probably in their best interest. Military improvements patch + WW1 DLC will get people playing, but they won't stay unless the other systems are good. That, or they just give up, and just make this EU 1836 like people seem to think they want, but that would be deeply unfortunate.

Yeah, Logistics is really important and needs to be tied to naval power projection, which (I think?) they were looking at for 1.9 so it feels weird that it's decoupled from a logistics rework. The warfare hate always seems strange to me because yeah it's really bad but like I never feel like I'm annoyed at it for more than like 5 seconds at a time where I go "oh my front did something weird".

 

[47pik]

Yeah, Logistics is really important and needs to be tied to naval power projection, which (I think?) they were looking at for 1.9 so it feels weird that it's decoupled from a logistics rework. The warfare hate always seems strange to me because yeah it's really bad but like I never feel like I'm annoyed at it for more than like 5 seconds at a time where I go "oh my front did something weird".

I think it just comes down to players not knowing what they want. Which is fine, they don’t know game design, they shouldn’t be making design decisions. This is pretty normal in software - customers get hung up on all kinds of superficial nonsense, and you’ve gotta read between the lines to understand the problems.

 

[Citizen Caen]

Honestly, yeah. Players think that military is the biggest issue, but that's because players don't really know what they want. While I'm not exactly thrilled with the military implementation, there are much worse problems. Limitations of trade and diplomatic plays, not to mention the lack of logistics or gunboat diplomacy are much more significant.

Fixing those before doing the flashy thing players think they want is probably in their best interest. Military improvements patch + WW1 DLC will get people playing, but they won't stay unless the other systems are good. That, or they just give up, and just make this EU 1836 like people seem to think they want, but that would be deeply unfortunate.

Logistics by definition would be a military rework. I’d say about half of the military systems current problems would be solved by armies actually requiring sufficient supply to function. (The other half is the front splitting and army teleports)
I know when I imagine a military rework that’s what I’m thinking of.

 

[47pik]

Logistics by definition would be a military rework. I’d say about half of the military systems current problems would be solved by armies actually requiring sufficient supply to function. (The other half is the front splitting and army teleports)
I know when I imagine a military rework that’s what I’m thinking of.

I mean, of course military would be part of it, but it’s got to go deeper. It needs to affect the transport of goods generally, it needs to overhaul infrastructure and railroads and interact with trade both domestically and internationally. It has to involve naval vessels and blockades, etc.

This is not trivial. A real logistics system is months and months and months of work on its own, it can’t just be part of an idealized “military overhaul”.

What I’m saying is the framework for logistics mechanics has to be built before the military-specific implementation can be.

 

[Bisonmask]

Gold will be added to the Gold Coast

 

[Prob32]

I think it just comes down to players not knowing what they want. Which is fine, they don’t know game design, they shouldn’t be making design decisions. This is pretty normal in software - customers get hung up on all kinds of superficial nonsense, and you’ve gotta read between the lines to understand the problems.

I think it's also the dev's didn't really know what they wanted exactly until the game released and they got to play it and see what worked and what was missing. The entire Sphere of Influence DLC mechanic for building ownership was based on a suggestion early on about building ownership and the devs credited player feedback here.

Logistics by definition would be a military rework. I’d say about half of the military systems current problems would be solved by armies actually requiring sufficient supply to function. (The other half is the front splitting and army teleports)
I know when I imagine a military rework that’s what I’m thinking of.

Yes I think it's this but also we really will need province based frontlines to truly make military interesting again.