Next in the Pipeline?

[Daft]

Yet another prove that I:R is setting the trend, our friends in HOI IV now get to build railroads. Ofc this is a copy from our Roman roads.

HOI4 Dev Diary - Early look at at supply and the coming year

Hi everyone and welcome back to regular weekly dev diaries (if you don't count the april fools one last week). I know you are all super excited to hear what we have been up to since Battle for the Bosporus. The answers to that are going to take a...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Ohhh, cool!

War in the East 2 has a similar, but more involved, system. Will be interesting to see where they take HoI.

 

[Chehabian]

I guess we'll be seeing improvements to trade first, but I doubt they'll be able to squeeze it out before summer. Late August, or early September perhaps? After that, I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing some change to characters and internal management.

Trade / Characters / Diplomacy are all major elements I think have to get some serious updates.
I've been running a mod that makes interactions with subject states a little more interesting recently, and I find that it's made the world far more interesting. (Lots more independent breakaways - Thrace for example doesn't hold onto 10,000 subjects and tributaries for nearly as long)

That said - I do wonder about the aforementioned small flavor packs. In the Northern Lords feature demonstration, one of the devs mentioned that this is 'not a major expansion'. Which makes me think - okay so there will be major expansions at some point.

This brings me to the question - what *could* be a major expansion for IR? Then the second one - will this game actually get that kind of treatment?

 

[Torugu]

I could imagine "Barbarians" as the theme of a hypothetical major expansion:

1) Tribes could do with a major rework. They have received only the minimum level of adjustment to work with the new mechanics
2) There are lots of different tribal areas, more than enough for a major expansion, but maybe not enough historical facts to deal with each region individually
3) They are highly marketable. Collectively Gauls, Germans and Britons all appeal to a casual audience in a way that e.g. the Diadochii may not

 

[Daft]

I could imagine "Barbarians" as the theme of a hypothetical major expansion:

1) Tribes could do with a major rework. They have received only the minimum level of adjustment to work with the new mechanics
2) There are lots of different tribal areas, more than enough for a major expansion, but maybe not enough historical facts to deal with each region individually
3) They are highly marketable. Collectively Gauls, Germans and Britons all appeal to a casual audience in a way that e.g. the Diadochii may not

Yes, wouldn't surprise me at all to be honest. For Rome, that could mean some more interesting options in terms of alliance/vassalage as well.

It's a bit flat at the moment, being part of Rome had appeal to some, and it wasn't just might makes right. There's some nuance to be had, and that would probably fit in with a barbarian themed DLC. Both for Rome and the pleb... I mean, fine people that chose to play as those filth... I mean fine barbarians.

 

[Chehabian]

I could imagine "Barbarians" as the theme of a hypothetical major expansion:

1) Tribes could do with a major rework. They have received only the minimum level of adjustment to work with the new mechanics
2) There are lots of different tribal areas, more than enough for a major expansion, but maybe not enough historical facts to deal with each region individually
3) They are highly marketable. Collectively Gauls, Germans and Britons all appeal to a casual audience in a way that e.g. the Diadochii may not

Absolutely agreed on all counts.

One of the things that I've come to notice is that although Gaullic tribes tend to confederate and turn into rather large states - I've seen less so in Germania.
Saddest thing I've watched in my current playthrough is seeing the Teutones and Cimbri fight one another, the Cimbri winning - then promptly sitting around doing nothing.

No migrations, no invasions of other neighbors. We definitely have got to get some updates over there to make them more likely to push into adjacent territories.

 

[IsaacCAT]

This brings me to the question - what *could* be a major expansion for IR? Then the second one - will this game actually get that kind of treatment?

I understand expansions like in Stellaris. As unpopular as it sounds, features behind paywall.

These features should not be mechanics, as you do not want to have different games depending on what you have paid.

A major expansion could be oligarchs republics with a free upgrade on trade.

In fact, any specialized government type with the addition of branches in inventions/laws trees, accompained with free updates on game mechanics.

One or two each year.

 

[Phi]

I could imagine "Barbarians" as the theme of a hypothetical major expansion:

1) Tribes could do with a major rework. They have received only the minimum level of adjustment to work with the new mechanics
2) There are lots of different tribal areas, more than enough for a major expansion, but maybe not enough historical facts to deal with each region individually
3) They are highly marketable. Collectively Gauls, Germans and Britons all appeal to a casual audience in a way that e.g. the Diadochii may not

Maybe as 4), I think that it is currently far too easy to expand into tribal areas. In Gaul, Germania, but also Arabia. I am not sure what should be done, but something definitely should be done.

 

[OxfordNik]

Well, CK3 currently has this model as well, with the latest DLC focusing mainly on some part of the map, maybe this will be their new policy?

As I understand it (having bought the CK3 Royal Edition), that title will get 'flavour packs' like Northern Lords (focusing on a particular area/culture) and other as-yet-unannounced 'expansions': the Royal Edition includes two Flavour Packs and the first expansion, iirc.

So don't think it's a case of PDX moving towards one or the other type of DLC exclusively.

Hopefully I:R will get the same treatment.

I, for one, would love to see more ways for countries to be brought into one's orbit through peaceful means. If I'm Rome, with a tribe on my borders who buy all their goods from me, it should be easier to get them to become a client state (or even a tribal vassal) without needing to go to war/rely on missions/etc. Conversely, if a tribe buys all their goods from Carthage (and I'm trying to play historically and viewing Carthage as a rival), I should view that tribe more negatively... There's plenty of scope there if the trade system is getting another pass (as it's one of the few things left over from the old EU:Rome systems, as far as I'm aware, so could probably do with being looked at again?)

 

[Daft]

As I understand it (having bought the CK3 Royal Edition), that title will get 'flavour packs' like Northern Lords (focusing on a particular area/culture) and other as-yet-unannounced 'expansions': the Royal Edition includes two Flavour Packs and the first expansion, iirc.

So don't think it's a case of PDX moving towards one or the other type of DLC exclusively.

Hopefully I:R will get the same treatment.

I, for one, would love to see more ways for countries to be brought into one's orbit through peaceful means. If I'm Rome, with a tribe on my borders who buy all their goods from me, it should be easier to get them to become a client state (or even a tribal vassal) without needing to go to war/rely on missions/etc. Conversely, if a tribe buys all their goods from Carthage (and I'm trying to play historically and viewing Carthage as a rival), I should view that tribe more negatively... There's plenty of scope there if the trade system is getting another pass (as it's one of the few things left over from the old EU:Rome systems, as far as I'm aware, so could probably do with being looked at again?)

Yeah, the peaceful attraction part is definitely something I wish for. Many wanted to be part of Rome. Be Roman or at the very least be under it’s influence.

it had advantages for sure, and the game would be richer for it if more such paths existed.

 

[cristofolmc]

I'm firmly in the camp that thinks I:R isn't slotted in the event because they don't have anything significant to show. If the event had been before the 2.0 release, they'd probably have been there, but it wasn't. If the team was slotted right now, it'd be a team that had just finished a herculean effort, spent a week in bugfixing, then had a month or so to work on something after holidays. It would definitely not have been as exciting as what we just got, so instead, they gave the slot to a team that might have more to show. I don't think the no-show on the event is indicative of the health of the game.

But games aren't slotted at PDX depending on whether they have something to show or not. Not all of the games do every year. But they still put out every title so people can go and talk to the devs and things like that? ANd there is always a talk from the lead devs of every title. Whether is a recap of its development, or running down all the changes and features over the change of time, or what the future holds kind of thing. But there is always a stage for every title isnt there? :S

 

[cristofolmc]

If they announce Vicky 3, I can see I:R maybe struggling. So we'll have to see.

 

[Daft]

But games aren't slotted at PDX depending on whether they have something to show or not. Not all of the games do every year. But they still put out every title so people can go and talk to the devs and things like that? ANd there is always a talk from the lead devs of every title. Whether is a recap of its development, or running down all the changes and features over the change of time, or what the future holds kind of thing. But there is always a stage for every title isnt there? :S

Is every PDX game except I:R represented in the schedule?

 

[IsaacCAT]

If they announce Vicky 3, I can see I:R maybe struggling. So we'll have to see.

They will not. My bet based on business sales is an easy access game, on a popular and easy to relate time setting, e.g., EUV.

GSG warfare (1), characters (1), board game (1), POPs (2).

My bet is another GSG warfare based game like HOI with simulation/representation of battles ala stellaris and TW.

Edit: double bet: it will be set in Napoleonic wars, March of eagles II

 

[Flixbube]

I am hopeful for some more QOL changes, here are some examples of things that i would love to see:
minor characters need to create offspring too, its kinda useless to have the iulian family in rome when they die out within one generation anyways. also i want more historical characters, like famous leaders/philosophs/rulers to appear by event, just like archimedes of syracuse does. i think the characters aspect of the game is very fun and should be expanded, it's always nice to build a career for a character and having him/her achieve great things. this is ofc even better if that character is of historical significance irl, for example pyrrhus or the diadochi.

also we need more women, and maybe dont make AI women instantly married as soon as they turn 18? more often than not there is literally not a single woman in my realm that i am able to marry, sometimes i dont want to marry a foreign princess....

one personal thing that really annoys me about all the PDX games that i played, is the apparent irrelevance of straits/canals. if i control both sides of the bosporus, or if i fully control egypt including the pharaohs channel, rome shouldnt be able to conquer arabia or crimea. they literally dont have any way to access it?? straits/canals should have a toggle, that allows the controlling nation to block passage through the strait for any hostile nation and MAYBE allow trading partners to pass.


Edit: also i obviously want more flavor, but these are the actual mechanical changes that i want to see

 

[Nostalgium]

one personal thing that really annoys me about all the PDX games that i played, is the apparent irrelevance of straits/canals. if i control both sides of the bosporus, or if i fully control egypt including the pharaohs channel, rome shouldnt be able to conquer arabia or crimea. they literally dont have any way to access it?? straits/canals should have a toggle, that allows the controlling nation to block passage through the strait for any hostile nation and MAYBE allow trading partners to pass.

Controlled straits should require military access to pass through, simple as that.

 

[cristofolmc]

They will not. My bet based on business sales is an easy access game, on a popular and easy to relate time setting, e.g., EUV.

GSG warfare (1), characters (1), board game (1), POPs (2).

My bet is another GSG warfare based game like HOI with simulation/representation of battles ala stellaris and TW.

Offf no way they are announcing EU5 just yet. Next year? Sure, good chances. But they've just put out two big DLCs, just opened a new EU studio...I have no doubts that EU5 has started development but I have 0 doubts it will be ready to announce next month xd.

Vicky 3 seems the only option seeing at how long ago Wiz started to be the lead of the secret project, which is the one they are going to announce now. Makes much more sense.

Mind you, Im not saying is 100% Vicky 3. But its either Vicky 3 or something completely new either set on a new time PDX has no current title on or something different like an RPG (which I doubt if Wiz is the project lead).

 

[olivenkranz]

Controlled straits should require military access to pass through, simple as that.

Only if you have a fort though, cause how do you want to block ships from land? Maybe extend to all coastal territories that have afort then.

 

[Nostalgium]

Only if you have a fort though, cause how do you want to block ships from land? Maybe extend to all coastal territories that have afort then.

Same way lacking military access blocks land armies from entering without forts or armies present; mechanical abstraction. Generally speaking though, strait control was enforced with fleets and port authorities who extracted tolls for passage. Since fleets and armies in IR cannot block movement of units they are not at war with, simply disallowing it would be the best representation of the systems that did exist to stop fleets from land.

EDIT:
Of course, when you are at war with someone, they don't care about these niceties and would indeed be able to just barge on through. Then you might perhaps consider having fort ZOC extend into straits and rivers.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Again, I:R shows its leading role in PDX, now Stellaris is copying our Roman Imperial reform of the Senate in their Nemesis update (min 3:10) with rebellions included.

 

[Limbojack]

This brings me to the question - what *could* be a major expansion for IR? Then the second one - will this game actually get that kind of treatment?

I don't think we'll be seeing major expansions for this game (unless they decide to add China and Japan).

A couple of months back one of the devs (don't remember if it was Arheo himself) said that the DLC and patch policy of I: R would differ slightly from the other PDX games, and that they would focus on releasing frequent small patches accompanied by DLCs a year instead of only releasing a single huge expansion - which sounds like a good plan to me. Just look at the intention to squeeze out four major patches last year; spring of religion, summer of culture, and now autumn of war became patch 2.0.