Immersion packs

[ArtFart]

Thought I'd add my thoughts about the DLC content here.

I am liking the idea of going back and adding content where it's needed from reigons that haven't seen much love recently. But it seems a little odd.

The Third Rome immersion pack is supposed to be the immersion pack to spruce up the Russia reigon and Othordox faith, however now it will only really spruce up the Othordox faith, as the good Russia tree is going to be locked behind this upcoming DLC. So the pack dedicated to Russia actually doesn't do much for Russia anymore...

Same goes for Golden Century, it's supposed to be the DLC that adds all the content to Iberia and north west Africa, yet now with the annoucement of further plans to spruce up Iberia more, which are welcome by the way, it seems that DLC will also be a tad redundant. Also, if this adds content to Iberia, for example Portugal because Castile/Spain's tree is already healthy, that means I need to buy 2 DLC to get a full Iberian experience, which is not clear to someone new to the game.

So what will Third Rome give the player now? Will it give them the default tree we have for Muscovy already and will be the description be updated (and the price!)? Same goes for Golden Century.

EU4 DLC is already very confusing for a new player, I see regular topics arise about what DLC to get next etc. The subscription is cool and all but if a player wants to buy the actual DLC's it doesn't help when DLC's overlap each other in terms of content.

Just my thoughts, no doubt I will thoroughly enjoy the next DLC but it just seems to be convoluting the already convoluted DLC system.

 

[R.Graymarch]

I have the same feeling.

Not really fan of this development to be honest.
I'm not into Mission trees (too much filler and railroading to me) but I found pretty honest the last 2 DLCs which enhanced some regions (Africa, Scandinavia) with flavour. But here, it seems to me that the player paid for a richer experience on a region but now needs to pay again for the same region.

 

[ArtFart]

I have the same feeling.

Not really fan of this development to be honest.
I'm not into Mission trees (too much filler and railroading to me) but I found pretty honest the last 2 DLCs which enhanced some regions (Africa, Scandinavia) with flavour. But here, it seems to me that the player paid for a richer experience on a region but now needs to pay again for the same region.

Yeah it's unfortunate, and could be solved if they just added these trees to their respective DLC's. Naturally that can't happen because they do need payment for their work and this DLC does also include new mechanics etc.

 

[JaxElite]

Thr obvious and morally correct answer would be to introduce the dlc that get most of their content replaced (like third rome) into the basegame and announce it early enough, as well as drop the pricetag on older dlc getting overwritten like emperor, or golden century. And i say that as someone who bought all of those

 

[Traxium318]

Tbh for the most complete experience any playthrough you need some DLC

In case of Spain Golden Century comes to mind, but also El Dorado and Conquest of Paradise. But its also interesting to have some other DLCs from a mechanic POV: like Mare Nostrum or Art of War

 

[vaLor-]

This thread is really similar to another thread

Thr obvious and morally correct answer would be to introduce the dlc that get most of their content replaced (like third rome) into the basegame and announce it early enough, as well as drop the pricetag on older dlc getting overwritten like emperor, or golden century. And i say that as someone who bought all of those

I think dropping the price of these DLCs at least is very sensible. The value of the DLC has actually decreased over time. Removing DLCs is a step I don't expect them to ever take however.

 

[brifbates]

Thr obvious and morally correct answer would be to introduce the dlc that get most of their content replaced (like third rome) into the basegame and announce it early enough, as well as drop the pricetag on older dlc getting overwritten like emperor, or golden century. And i say that as someone who bought all of those

No, the morally correct answer is to adjust the trees unlocked by the prior DLCs free of charge. If that makes this proposed DLC lean on content then perhaps they should add something other than revised mission trees required due to flagrantly over-powered mission trees added in the last DLC. Until they went overboard on the Lions of the North mission trees the existing ones for France, Ottomans, Russia, and Spain were reasonable for the most part (Ottomans using two of the generic tree paths isn't great but it's not like those paths are useless). The problem being addressed with the current round of revisions was 100% created by them and should be corrected by them without additional payment required. It's just like automobile recalls for things found to be poorly designed after being in service a few years except the part where a game going horribly wrong isn't potentially fatal.

 

[Johan]

Pretty sure that Third Rome has no mission trees when we made it though.

 

[AFKaiser]

Pretty sure that Third Rome has no mission trees when we made it though.

But Golden Century did for Iberia, and Emperor for France. What about those cases?

 

[brifbates]

But Golden Century did for Iberia, and Emperor for France. What about those cases?

And it seems likely England will be getting a revamp as well so you can add Rule Brittania to the list. And while the Russia tree didn't ship with Third Rome it is content locked to owning it.

 

[Lord Fullmetal]

When you take a deep dive on the content of every DLC released, you realize that there are some features which have either be implemented in the base game, like the dev system of the common sense DLC (I think?), or others that are unlocked by two differents DLC (I know there are some but I cant remember off the top of my head).

Paradox has a "bad" habit of offering different ways to enjoy the most successful features of a DLC. When I say bad its because it negates some of the value that players actually paid to get the DLC to begin with, which is pretty unfair because they rarely go back to add new features to older DLCs, to compensate.

They revamped the russian mission tree of Third Rome, fair play to them, but revisiting older DLCs to give back some of the value they took away with some design decisions is way too rare.

I also believe and support that any updates of a mission tree that was included in a previous DLC should be tied with this specific DLC. Because otherwise, as I already said, they are just taking away the value of the immersions pack, as a mean to artificially boost the value of this new DLC.

 

[ArtFart]

Pretty sure that Third Rome has no mission trees when we made it though.

Yep you're correct. However, that doesn't explain Golden Century, granted we haven't seen the Iberia content just yet.

Also, if Third Rome has the content for Russia's unique mechanics, and this next DLC it's good mission tree, I can see conflicts IE the new DLC not being able to ultilise the Unique content without access to Thirds Rome, so the Third Rome mechanics will have no impact or implementation into the new tree, which doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Dakka]

Same goes for Golden Century, it's supposed to be the DLC that adds all the content to Iberia and north west Africa, yet now with the annoucement of further plans to spruce up Iberia more, which are welcome by the way, it seems that DLC will also be a tad redundant. Also, if this adds content to Iberia, for example Portugal because Castile/Spain's tree is already healthy, that means I need to buy 2 DLC to get a full Iberian experience, which is not clear to someone new to the game.

Plot twist: Golden Century was never about Iberia. It was a pirate DLC

 

[Sete]

Plot twist: Golden Century was never about Iberia. It was a pirate DLC

Dakka knows what's up.

 

[EUnderhill]

When you take a deep dive on the content of every DLC released, you realize that there are some features which have either be implemented in the base game, like the dev system of the common sense DLC (I think?), or others that are unlocked by two differents DLC (I know there are some but I cant remember off the top of my head).

Paradox has a "bad" habit of offering different ways to enjoy the most successful features of a DLC. When I say bad its because it negates some of the value that players actually paid to get the DLC to begin with, which is pretty unfair because they rarely go back to add new features to older DLCs, to compensate.

They revamped the russian mission tree of Third Rome, fair play to them, but revisiting older DLCs to give back some of the value they took away with some design decisions is way too rare.

I also believe and support that any updates of a mission tree that was included in a previous DLC should be tied with this specific DLC. Because otherwise, as I already said, they are just taking away the value of the immersions pack, as a mean to artificially boost the value of this new DLC.

Still though, even at full price, DLC is cheaper than a night out at the pub and lasts longer.