• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #89 - What’s next after 1.3?

16_9.jpg

Hello and welcome to our Post-Release Plans update dev diary for 1.3. Just as we did in Dev Diary #79, in this dev diary we’ll be going over what changes and improvements we have planned for the game in future free updates such as 1.4, 1.5 and beyond. In the previous Post-Release Plans Dev Diaries we outlined four key areas of improvement for the game, which we’ll be sticking to for this one: Military, Historical Immersion, Diplomacy, and Internal Politics. The Other section is also still there for anything that doesn’t fall neatly into one of the four categories.

Just as last time, I’ll be aiming to give you an overview of where we stand and where we’re heading by going through each of these four categories and marking on each one with one of the below statuses:
  • Done: This is a part of the game that we now consider to be in good shape. Something being Done of course doesn’t mean we’re never going to expand or improve on it in the future, just that it’s no longer a high priority for us. Any points that were already marked as Done in the previous update will now be removed from the list, to avoid it growing unmanageably long!
  • Updated: This is a part of the game where we have made some of the improvements and changes that we want to make, but aren’t yet satisfied with where it stands and plan to make further improvements to it in future updates such as 1.4, 1.5 and so on. Note that this section will mainly focus on updates made in 1.3.
  • Not Updated: This is a part of the game where we haven’t yet released any of our planned changes/improvements in any currently released updates but still plan to do so for future updates.
  • New: This is a planned change or improvement that is newly added, ie wasn’t present on the list in Dev Diary #79.
  • Reconsidered: This is a previously planned change or improvement that we have reconsidered our approach to how to tackle from previous updates. For these points we will explain what our new plans are, and change the list appropriately in future updates.

Finally, just like in the original Post-Release Plans dev diaries, we will only be talking about improvements, changes and new features that are part of planned free updates in this dev diary. So then, let’s get to the categories and see where we stand! For each point in each category that isn’t new to this update there will be a sub-point detailing our progress on the point so far.

Post Launch 2 v2.png

Military​

Done
  • Solving the issue of armies going home after Generals die during a war by adding a system for field promotion
    • Field promotions have been added to the game in 1.3 to solve the most critical issue of armies simply going home. In the future we’ll aim to further improve this through changes to armies/navies and having defined successors for your commanders.
Updated:
  • Improving the ability of players to get an overview of their military situation and exposing more data, like the underlying numbers behind battle sizes
    • This is an area where we are continuously making improvements but where we still definitely have more work to do. A particular area of improvement we’ve identified is the need to more clearly be able to see a summary of a country’s military strength instead of just seeing unit counts.
  • Increasing the visibility of navies and making admirals easier to work with
    • As above, this is an area where we are continuously making improvements but still have work to do. In particular, we want to improve the sense of where exactly your navy is and what exactly it is doing.
  • Finding solutions for the issue where theaters can split into multiple (sometimes even dozens) of tiny fronts as pockets are created
    • We have mitigated this issue in update 1.2 by auto-closing small pockets and improving battle province selection but the issue still persists (particularly in wars with a large number of small countries) so further improvements are needed here
New:
  • Adding a system for limited wars to reduce the number of early-game global wars between Great Powers
  • Adding systems for organizing your generals and admirals into discrete armies and navies to allow more control over geographic positioning, military composition and unit specialization
  • Adding more options for strategic control over your generals to allow for more ‘smart play’ in wars
  • Adding more on-map graphics for armies and navies, including soldiers on the map
Reconsidered:
  • Experimenting with controlled front-splitting for longer fronts
    • After some internal design consideration, we have decided that this is not the best approach going forward - instead we will aim to solve the issues with long fronts by supporting multiple battles and improving the strategic options you have to direct your generals.

Historical Immersion​

Updated:
  • Tweaking content such as the Meiji Restoration, Alaska purchase and so on in a way that they can more frequently be successfully performed by the AI, through a mix of AI improvements and content tweaks
    • Improvements to this were made in both 1.2 and 1.3 (the most significant being preventing journal entries such as Fragile Unity from being broken by revolutions) but we still have some work planned here, particularly to the Meiji Restoration and the willingness of AI countries to open up Japan.
  • Ensuring unifications such as Italy, Germany and Canada don’t constantly happen decades ahead of the historical schedule, and increasing the challenge of unifying Italy and Germany in particular
    • The German Unification received a significant rework in 1.3 to more closely follow the historical narrative, with other unifications planned to receive similar improvements in the near future.
  • General AI tweaks to have AI countries play in a more believable, immersive way
    • This is something we are continuing to work on in every update. Some tweaks and improvements were made in 1.3 but the biggest improvements here should come alongside planned updates to diplomacy.

Not Updated:
  • Adding more country, state and region-specific content to enhance historical flavor of different countries

New:
  • Going through the base game Journal Entries and events and making improvements and additions to ensure that they feel meaningful and impactful for players to interact with


Diplomacy​

Not Updated:
  • ‘Reverse-swaying’, ie the ability to offer to join a side in a play in exchange for something
  • More things to offer in diplomatic plays, like giving away your own land for support
  • Trading (or at least giving away) states
  • Foreign investment and some form of construction in other countries, at least if they’re part of your market
  • Improving and expanding on interactions with and from subjects, such as being able to grant and ask for more autonomy through a diplomatic action
  • Allowing peace deals to be negotiated during a Diplomatic Play instead of only having the option to give in

Internal Politics​

Done:
  • Improving the mechanics of law enactment and revolutions to be more engaging for the player to interact with
    • Law enactment and revolutions received a significant rework in 1.3 to behave in less random and more engaging ways, while also somewhat (intentionally) increasing the challenge involved in rapidly reforming your country
  • Adding more mechanics for characters and giving the player more reason to care about individual characters in your country:
    • Agitators were introduced as a new character type in 1.3 that directly interacts with political movements and serves to push more forcefully for political reforms. There are definitely more types of characters we want to add and more we want to do here in the future, but right now it’s not a high priority when compared to the other items on this list.
  • Added Petitions to ensure the Interest Groups you add to your government has agency in demanding political change
    • This was not previously on the list but is something we’ve added since we consider it a fairly significant change to internal politics.

Updated:
  • Making it more interesting and ‘competitive’ but also more challenging to play in a more conservative and autocratic style
  • New laws were introduced in 1.3 (such as One Party State) that makes late-game autocracies more viable, and the addition of Agitators means that conservative countries now face a greater internal push for reform.
  • Adding laws that expand on diversity of countries and introduce new ways to play the game
    • A number of new laws were introduced in Update 1.3, but there is definitely more we want to do in the future here

Other​

Updated:
  • Improving Alerts and the Current Situation widget to provide more useful and actionable information.
The Current Situation widget received a series of tweaks in 1.3 to give more useful and actionable information. In the future, we want to improve this further by giving the player much more custom control over the alert/current situation system similar to what we’ve done with message settings.

New:
  • Increase the overall challenge in the economic core loop, as well as creating more clear mechanical differences between different countries and their starting positions in ways that encourage more economic specialization.
  • Find a way to deal with the excessive fiddliness of the trade system in large economies, possibly by allowing for autonomous trade based on your laws in a similar way to the autonomous investment system.

So when can you expect these changes to reach the game? I can’t give specifics for any particular points but what I can say is that we are planning a large update with an extended open beta period in the second half of this year which will check off a considerable number of points from the list. In particular, that update will be aiming to tackle many of the points from the Warfare and Diplomacy sections of this list. I’ll end this dev diary by reminding you yet again that this list only covers changes and additions that will be part of free updates.

Well then, that’s all for today’s update. We will see you in two weeks for our next Dev Diary, on the 22nd while we work on 1.3.3!
 
  • 132Like
  • 44Love
  • 14
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
This comment is reserved by the Community Team for gathering Dev Responses in, for ease of reading.


magriboy0750 said:
Good afternoon,a great dd and really looking forward to all these updates.However,i have a question regarding the future war rework,will the current options for general such as Advance Front,Defend Front and so on will still be available for people like me who don't want to micromanage every general and what they do,or will these be removed with the rework?
Thanks for any replies about this.
The plan is not to require extensive micromanagement of generals, but to expand the strategic and operational level options available to the player. We're still very much following the original warfare vision, we're just adding in areas where the current system is lacking.


Fallofthepurple said:
Very happy to see that the state of warfare has been clearly identified as an important issue and has been reprioritized appropriately. A bit sad about the large front splitting thing though (Ottomans v. Russia gives me pain) but im curious to see how these changes will pan out.

One important aspect for me personally that stands out is the new "economic core loop" part in the Others section, I know this is something the you had already tried in the past but do you at all consider changes to Market Access right now? (No this is not another Market rework joke).
Its weird that say Siberia has 100% Market Access just like Moscow and the only difference between States is geographic in the form of resource deposits and traits, neither of which really pushes the player to consider which regions to develop and how to do so.
A change that we're trying out internally right now is to remove the concept of 100% market access and ensure that local supply and demand always plays a role in price setting, to promote local synergies and add more weight to the decision on where to build buildings.


Vityviktor said:
What about the Carlist Wars for Spain? Can we get at least a placeholder vanilla revolution/war during 1836 (like in V2) ??
This is one of the pieces of content that is definitely part of the 'add more narrative content' bullet-point for this roadmap.


WeissRaben said:
Lol. Nice white all over for diplomacy. It's so good to know that diplomacy is one of the fundamental pillars of V3, as evidenced in DD#0, because otherwise I'd think it an insipid goop with basically no choices or impacts with the only actual activities being "let's go to war in a few months". Wars that then become a locked-down club, with no evoving goals and no people jumping in as needed.

If there's one thing I regret buying V3 over, is the horrid state of diplomacy and the blatant disregard for improving it.

Hello! As noted at the end of the Diary, we intend to have a major update addressing many of the points from the Warfare and Diplomacy sections of this list, which will also be within an Open Beta we plan to have later this year.


WeissRaben said:
Lol. Nice white all over for diplomacy. It's so good to know that diplomacy is one of the fundamental pillars of V3, as evidenced in DD#0, because otherwise I'd think it an insipid goop with basically no choices or impacts with the only actual activities being "let's go to war in a few months". Wars that then become a locked-down club, with no evoving goals and no people jumping in as needed.

If there's one thing I regret buying V3 over, is the horrid state of diplomacy and the blatant disregard for improving it.
We chose to focus on different parts of the roadmap for 1.2 and 1.3, but Diplomacy is next on the list alongside Warfare.


FryFroFella said:
Thanks for the updates and communication. I know it's been said elsewhere repeatedly that it is being worked on, but need to emphasize that for many of us by far the biggest issue with the game is that performance issues make it unplayable despite meeting or being well above recommended specs. For myself personally, this seems to change every other patch or so from "playable but significanf slowing after 1900" to "completely unplayable after around 1850."

Really enjoying the game overall, which is why its so frustrating I'm not able to play it most of the time.
Performance is absolutely a top priority for us, and we have a change planned for the update later this month that we hope should make a significant impact. It is something that is hard to put on a roadmap though, since we always have programmers working on it but it's hard to tell exactly what impact their work will have, especially on all the myriad hardware configurations involved.


David Tah said:
Please allow generals the freedom to change units under command. I know that in some countries at that time, the army was the private property of the generals, such as the Beiyang Army of the Chinese general Yuan Shikai, but in most countries after 1900, the army was subordinate to the state, and the generals were only responsible for commanding battles and could change command at any time the troops
Part of our plans involved in creating discrete armies and navies is indeed to allow reorganization of units in this way. We'll of course go over all this in dev diaries when it's closer to release.


TripleAgent said:
So the one thing that we've been screaming for re: military play, the ability to actually tailor our front designations to our needs so that we can actually have some semblance of strategy in our GSG, is kaput? Incredibly disappointing. Guess we're stuck with the Turkmenistan to Vladivostok and New York to Utah fronts forever.

If "Adding more options for strategic control over your generals to allow for more ‘smart play’ in wars" isn't really solid and an in-depth, well thought-out mechanic, I'm a bit less optimistic about the upcoming update.
The problem identified isn't one we've given up on solving, but we want to solve in a way that one long front acts more like a number of small fronts rather than actually dividing it into said smaller fronts, as the latter comes with all the issues involved when creating, splitting and merging fronts. More on this in future dev diaries, though.


jimkoons said:
Diplomacy has to be the top priority focus for the game and not in Q1 2024.

For example right now when I'm playing France and follow the Indochina event chain I can have the East India Company that is swayed by Dai Nam. It makes absolutely no sense: they are not supposed to be autonomous in their foreign policy. Besides, there is absolutely no interest for them to go at war against France.

Swaying in general is frankly badly implemented since many countries accept those swaying for an obligation that provide nothing to them. We can feel it is just +30 obligation -10 this, +15 that which feels completely artificial and make a poor description of the diplomatic tractations of the time.

Warfare is not the main problem but diplomacy is since it regularly breaks the suspension of disbelief.
As mentioned in the dev diary, Diplomacy is one of the top priorities for the large update coming later this year.


Butter For Less said:
Hello! Please add "make Vancouver Island an Island" and "add Puget Sound" to the roadmap please.

Also, with the plans to automate trade, are there any ideas to automate PMs? Like the most profitable one will always be chosen?
I believe these are actually fixed internally already!

For automating PMs, it's an idea we've toyed around with but we've gone no further than that right now.


Froonk said:
Could you consider front joining for small fronts so they consolidate between sides? It currently gets extremely micromanagement heavy in Europe and India, which the system is not built to handle.

It could work very well with multiple battles per front too.
Yes, this is part of the roadmap and in fact something we're working on right now. Austria and Krakow against Prussia should be one front, for example.


MrRazza said:
Honestly, I'm still quite concerned at how underbaked the actual mechanics of internal politics is. There's still no complexity or nuance to the preferences of POPs, their behaviour in elections, the party system, or in the behaviour and alignments of IGs. The addition of agitators were a nice bit of extra something, but still way short of making politics, well, actually feel like politics.

Appreciate some of this would be future DLC material, but also hope this isn't simply the case that political mechanics are regarded as "done", with just more laws needed now. (Not least because the most recently added laws are... well, let's say mixed.)
As mentioned in the dev diary, something being 'done' doesn't mean we don't plan to expand or build on it, just that it isn't on the roadmap for the next few updates. This also isn't a complete list of everything we'll be doing for those updates, just the most important items.


redrum68 said:
I see some new things on the roadmap which are good to see. Can you expand on this item?
  • Increase the overall challenge in the economic core loop, as well as creating more clear mechanical differences between different countries and their starting positions in ways that encourage more economic specialization.
Hopefully this means addressing the issues around construction points growing exponentially while running out of population to build stuff? Also hopefully means the core construction loop is improved some to have more variety depending on what nation/region you are playing? Outside of some issues around military and diplomacy systems, addressing this is probably the number one thing to make the game more compelling and replayable.

Hey @redrum68

Rather than fixing the construction point/population issue (which we should take a look at at some point, but independent of this), the goal is about what you said: "the core construction loop is improved some to have more variety depending on what nation/region you are playing". Which is also exactly what the original text says.

I can't give too many details yet, but the idea is to add a new (but related) layer of difference between most countries (due to player's and AI's specialization), while also providing a bit of extra interesting options for the most relevant countries during the time. If you're playing as Great Britain you should have some different options to specialize your economy than if you're playing as Hamburg. We will probably talk more about it in a future Dev Diary. Hope this helps you a bit more.


@ero_sk

In HoI, if a front split occurs, some of the units of the same army can simply split up to the newly created front while keeping all of the units under the same army commander. In our case, there's one general that controls all units, so they have to decide which of the two fronts they go to now.
That's why we're trying to mitigate the issue with the merge of allied fronts etc.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Lol. Nice white all over for diplomacy. It's so good to know that diplomacy is one of the fundamental pillars of V3, as evidenced in DD#0, because otherwise I'd think it an insipid goop with basically no choices or impacts with the only actual activities being "let's go to war in a few months". Wars that then become a locked-down club, with no evoving goals and no people jumping in as needed.

If there's one thing I regret buying V3 over, is the horrid state of diplomacy and the blatant disregard for improving it.

EDIT a few hours later: a reminder to not post when mood is really bad for IRL reasons.
Not that the core of the message is any different, mind you: diplomacy is laughable, for something that was described as a central focus of the game, for the reasons I (sourly) expressed above, and it fails utterly in representing many of the diplomatic maneuvers that happened in the time period.
 
Last edited:
  • 37
  • 18
  • 3Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Good afternoon,a great dd and really looking forward to all these updates.However,i have a question regarding the future war rework,will the current options for general such as Advance Front,Defend Front and so on will still be available for people like me who don't want to micromanage every general and what they do,or will these be removed with the rework?
Thanks for any replies about this.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Very happy to see that the state of warfare has been clearly identified as an important issue and has been reprioritized appropriately. A bit sad about the large front splitting thing though (Ottomans v. Russia gives me pain) but im curious to see how these changes will pan out.

One important aspect for me personally that stands out is the new "economic core loop" part in the Others section, I know this is something that you had already tried in the past but do you at all consider changes to Market Access right now? (No this is not another Market rework joke).
Its weird that say Siberia has 100% Market Access just like Moscow and the only difference between States is geographic in the form of resource deposits and traits, neither of which really pushes the player to consider which regions to develop and how to do so. It also makes it hard to emphasize regional differences as market prices are the same everywhere and stuff like regional famines are virtually impossible to occur.
 
  • 28
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Autonomous trade sounds cool, I wonder if export route could flip to being import route and back :)
 
  • 9
Reactions:
Good afternoon,a great dd and really looking forward to all these updates.However,i have a question regarding the future war rework,will the current options for general such as Advance Front,Defend Front and so on will still be available for people like me who don't want to micromanage every general and what they do,or will these be removed with the rework?
Thanks for any replies about this.
The plan is not to require extensive micromanagement of generals, but to expand the strategic and operational level options available to the player. We're still very much following the original warfare vision, we're just adding in areas where the current system is lacking.
 
  • 34Like
  • 19
  • 10
  • 5
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
Very happy to see that the state of warfare has been clearly identified as an important issue and has been reprioritized appropriately. A bit sad about the large front splitting thing though (Ottomans v. Russia gives me pain) but im curious to see how these changes will pan out.

One important aspect for me personally that stands out is the new "economic core loop" part in the Others section, I know this is something the you had already tried in the past but do you at all consider changes to Market Access right now? (No this is not another Market rework joke).
Its weird that say Siberia has 100% Market Access just like Moscow and the only difference between States is geographic in the form of resource deposits and traits, neither of which really pushes the player to consider which regions to develop and how to do so.
A change that we're trying out internally right now is to remove the concept of 100% market access and ensure that local supply and demand always plays a role in price setting, to promote local synergies and add more weight to the decision on where to build buildings.
 
  • 57Like
  • 24Love
  • 12
  • 11
Reactions:
  • Adding a system for limited wars to reduce the number of early-game global wars between Great Powers
  • Adding systems for organizing your generals and admirals into discrete armies and navies to allow more control over geographic positioning, military composition and unit specialization
  • Adding more options for strategic control over your generals to allow for more ‘smart play’ in wars
Sounds wonderful! Now ofc that does not mean the implementation will be perfect, when it comes out, but i am exciteldy lookin forward to it! Especially the geographic positioning. (Maybe you took a note from CK 3s travel system? ;))

  • Adding more on-map graphics for armies and navies, including soldiers on the map
How come this is the point i'm the most giddy about? Ofc that does not mean we'll get big soldiers like the last games, but i always did miss the uniforms and whatnot! Glad to see your willing to make improvements! (I always wanted to see the Victorian Unfiforms in full style of the new PDX games. It always added so much to my immersion.)
 
Last edited:
  • 13
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
What about the Carlist Wars for Spain? Can we get at least a placeholder vanilla revolution/war during 1836 (like in V2) ??
This is one of the pieces of content that is definitely part of the 'add more narrative content' bullet-point for this roadmap.
 
  • 26Like
  • 14
  • 10
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Lol. Nice white all over for diplomacy. It's so good to know that diplomacy is one of the fundamental pillars of V3, as evidenced in DD#0, because otherwise I'd think it an insipid goop with basically no choices or impacts with the only actual activities being "let's go to war in a few months". Wars that then become a locked-down club, with no evoving goals and no people jumping in as needed.

If there's one thing I regret buying V3 over, is the horrid state of diplomacy and the blatant disregard for improving it.

Hello! As noted at the end of the Diary, we intend to have a major update addressing many of the points from the Warfare and Diplomacy sections of this list, which will also be within an Open Beta we plan to have later this year.
 
  • 27Like
  • 15
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Lol. Nice white all over for diplomacy. It's so good to know that diplomacy is one of the fundamental pillars of V3, as evidenced in DD#0, because otherwise I'd think it an insipid goop with basically no choices or impacts with the only actual activities being "let's go to war in a few months". Wars that then become a locked-down club, with no evoving goals and no people jumping in as needed.

If there's one thing I regret buying V3 over, is the horrid state of diplomacy and the blatant disregard for improving it.
We chose to focus on different parts of the roadmap for 1.2 and 1.3, but Diplomacy is next on the list alongside Warfare.
 
  • 25
  • 18Like
  • 5Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Can you add charts that show how different POP professions increase/decrease over time? Maybe when you have your cursor over a pop it shows the chart similar to how it appears for other sorts of information. Also in population growth please add net immigration and emmigration data.

Also in the outliner maybe show what IG a politician belongs to and their age. If possible to fit, then their ideology and traits.

Any plans for having a separation of head of government and head of state?

And any ideas for living spaces such as public housing and issues such as overcrowdedness, squalor, and organized crime?
 
  • 14
  • 3Like
Reactions:
A change that we're trying out internally right now is to remove the concept of 100% market access and ensure that local supply and demand always plays a role in price setting, to promote local synergies and add more weight to the decision on where to build buildings.
Thats lovely, I really hope this works out well!
How come this is the point im the most giddy about? Ofc that does not mean we'll get big soldiers like the last games, but i always did miss the uniforms and whatnot! Glad to see your willing to make improvements! (I always wanted to see the Victorian Unfiforms in full style of the new PDX games. It always added so much to my immersion.)
This is actually one aspect where Vicky 3s warfare system can shine aesthetically but (just like all things warfare) it falls flat, since armies are not moving around bespoke provinces you can afford to have more tiny men, supply caravans, artillery pieces and so on to really get into the immersion whereas in say EU4 you'd prefer the big tall guys for clarity purposes.
 
  • 14
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Adding systems for organizing your generals and admirals into discrete armies and navies to allow more control over geographic positioning, military composition and unit specialization
Will you implement a solution like in I:R (with the possibility to assign more than one general to an army, a history of the army and medals), HOI IV or will it be a complete new concept?
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Y’know I ask this every single dev diary for post-release plans, but will some map changes be coming in 1.4? The things you all have done in 1.3 is wonderful (especially a certain Tahiti), so will 1.4 have some more to boot?
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Has the Roman Curia preferring Monarchy to Theocracy been fixed for this patch?

Sorry for constantly mentioning this, but the Papal States do feel as though they should have a greater tendency to be a theocratic state than other countries, or even have a special event chain a la "Stamp Out Monarchism" before they can be made a monarchy. Certainly the leaders of the Catholic Church in Rome itself shouldn't simply decide to abolish the Patrimony of St. Peter when the Roman Landowners and Intelligentsia have special ideologies which make them like Theocracy.
 
Last edited:
  • 12
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Thanks for the updates and communication. I know it's been said elsewhere repeatedly that it is being worked on, but need to emphasize that for many of us by far the biggest issue with the game is that performance issues make it unplayable despite meeting or being well above recommended specs. For myself personally, this seems to change every other patch or so from "playable but significanf slowing after 1900" to "completely unplayable after around 1850."

Really enjoying the game overall, which is why its so frustrating I'm not able to play it most of the time.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
Reconsidered:
  • Experimenting with controlled front-splitting for longer fronts
    • After some internal design consideration, we have decided that this is not the best approach going forward - instead we will aim to solve the issues with long fronts by supporting multiple battles and improving the strategic options you have to direct your generals.
So the one thing that we've been screaming for re: military play, the ability to actually tailor our front designations to our needs so that we can actually have some semblance of strategy in our GSG, is kaput? Incredibly disappointing. Guess we're stuck with the Turkmenistan to Vladivostok and New York to Utah fronts forever.

If "Adding more options for strategic control over your generals to allow for more ‘smart play’ in wars" isn't really solid and an in-depth, well thought-out mechanic, I'm a bit less optimistic about the upcoming update.
 
  • 16
  • 14
  • 1Haha
Reactions: