>An unciv DLC
>Shutting you out of Africa and Asia
> I would never buy Victoria ever again
>Shutting you out of Africa and Asia
> I would never buy Victoria ever again
Basically, no.
The entire intent behind the DLC model is cross-compatibility between games with different DLCs involved. So if I'm using the hyper-super-duper 312-good economy with realistic banking and international trade DLC, and you're not, we couldn't play multiplayer together.
What would happen instead is, DLCs would unlock certain features for certain players - so since I have the 'unciv' DLC, I can play as Persia and use the unciv mechanics, while only the AI can use them in your game. They still operate in the background, and are still patched into your game... it's just that you can't use them yourself until you pay for the DLC.
Could we ever see a combination of these two models? Say for CKII, if the developers decided that some core mechanic needed to be changed rather than just added, could there be at least one compulsory expansion plus the little DLCs?
Not really; part of the CK2 approach is that such changes are patch-based. All the changes of Sword of Islam or the Republic are in base-game CK2 now. If I load up my (completely un-DLC'd) CK2, I have Islamic Caliphs who suffer decadence, and Republics with families fighting over them. I just can't play as them. You get the 'expansion' for free, in effect, but you don't get to take advantage of the changes yourself without owning it.
So in a putative V3 with such a DLC model, you'd expect regular patches which altered game mechanics in line with what was required for the latest DLC. If a core mechanic needs changing, then Paradox change it and release it for free. Different gameplay experiences are 'unlocked' by DLC, but are present in the game even if you don't have the DLC. So say they wanted to fundamentally change how the WM works - that's a freebie which you get automatically for owning the game. However, if you (say) wanted to play as a popular movement in a country, then you'd need to buy the 'V3: Jacobin Uprising' DLC which allows you to pick playing as the Jaconbin Rebels.
One would also have to consider whether or not CK2's "unlocking" model is compatible with Victoria in the first place: It'd be weird for Paradox to start segregating countries into playable and not-playable when previous iterations of the games have allowed you to play as anyone, compared to CK2 where the ability to play Muslims and Republics and Pagans needs to be paid for, but is a paid-for improvement over CK1's feudal lords only.
>An unciv DLC
>Shutting you out of Africa and Asia
> I would never buy Victoria ever again
This is another reason why the model isn't really backward-compatible. Considering how to apply a DLC-based model to the game needs to be built into the initial design phase of development. Essentially, the new policy concentrates on getting 'core' mechanics right for the initial release, and stripping away other stuff for later inclusion as DLC. This means shallower, but considerably more polished games at release, with replay value being added over time through the DLC model.
I really would like it if government changes were more gradual too.
Currently becoming a communist nation happens something like this:
Please add some events regarding the Paraguayan war! is it possible?
No built in paraguayan war events as well!