Surlaw Feb 22, 2014 @ 11:29pm
After all this time, not much improved, nor even DLC...
Last edited by Surlaw; Feb 22, 2014 @ 11:29pm
Showing 1-15 of 36 comments
< >
BrennanTate Feb 23, 2014 @ 12:12am 
This is a game that Paradox released only as a down load. It is not part of their main stable of games and looking at the background I believe it is the interest of some people that got ir this far. This game has been approx 3 to 4 years to get published.

As for not much improved I'm not sure what your getting at - this has been almost an incident free game from my experience with it.

On DLC the game is well set up and clearly is structured for expansions across the Napoleonic & Revolutionary Wars. Paradox are not DLC milkers of their player base. Most DLC for their dominant games bubbles up from their player forums. Where they have issued DLC this soon after a release it has always been stuff that got sidelined to get the game to "market".

I do suggest you head to the Paradox Forums and look around / ask there.
Chrisorc Feb 23, 2014 @ 2:50pm 
"Paradox are not DLC milkers of their player base"
I love paradox to death but they do sure love to spam us with DLC. Ever played HoI or Ck2?
BrennanTate Feb 24, 2014 @ 1:37am 
Yes I play and / or ployed both. the great bulk of the material like sprites & music for CK2 is player based / initiated. While the extras like republic etc are things explicitely asked for in the drive to get CK2 made and that missed the cut for initial launch. I also note that their DLC pricing is relatively cheap. I note that EU3 averaged less than 1 DLC per year and all were very significant additions if not fundamental changes. EU4 is running a touch over 1 significant DLC per year.

I to mostly love paradox to death too despite a few things that wind me up. The thing I probably most hold against them is their unwillingness to update setup research - the basis of HOI naval categorisation is one of the best or is it worst examples.
castel1x1 Mar 10, 2014 @ 5:07am 
"Paradox are not DLC milkers of their player base"

Pff, the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ you can read sometimes i swear lol. No other companies on the market pull more DLC than them but yes, no milking at all here, of course no.

Anyway, this game is like Rome, a sub product they released just to steal some bucks.
Lennart Stek Mar 10, 2014 @ 8:17pm 
There's a difference in milking us with dlcs and making loads of great DLCs. At least in my opinion.
Surlaw Mar 12, 2014 @ 7:01am 
Originally posted by Lennart Stek:
There's a difference in milking us with dlcs and making loads of great DLCs. At least in my opinion.

Why no great DLC for this game?
Wolfe1759 Mar 12, 2014 @ 4:26pm 
Originally posted by Surlaw:
Originally posted by Lennart Stek:
There's a difference in milking us with dlcs and making loads of great DLCs. At least in my opinion.

Why no great DLC for this game?

It unfortunatly didn't sell well enough to make it worthwhile from what I've read over at the Paradox forums.


Last edited by Wolfe1759; Mar 12, 2014 @ 4:27pm
castel1x1 Mar 12, 2014 @ 11:36pm 
Originally posted by Lennart Stek:
There's a difference in milking us with dlcs and making loads of great DLCs. At least in my opinion.

You mean great dlc like song of something number 47 lol ? Or maybe the sprite pack number 5465465454654546 ?

Yeah, so great. No milking at all.
Surlaw Mar 13, 2014 @ 12:28am 
Originally posted by Wolfe1759:
Originally posted by Surlaw:

Why no great DLC for this game?

It unfortunatly didn't sell well enough to make it worthwhile from what I've read over at the Paradox forums.

So like, just ♥♥♥♥ on the poor fools who bought it?
Lennart Stek Mar 15, 2014 @ 4:14am 
Originally posted by Surlaw:
Originally posted by Lennart Stek:
There's a difference in milking us with dlcs and making loads of great DLCs. At least in my opinion.

Why no great DLC for this game?

They said it didn't sell enough, sadly.
Lennart Stek Mar 15, 2014 @ 4:14am 
Originally posted by castel1x1:
Originally posted by Lennart Stek:
There's a difference in milking us with dlcs and making loads of great DLCs. At least in my opinion.

You mean great dlc like song of something number 47 lol ? Or maybe the sprite pack number 5465465454654546 ?

Yeah, so great. No milking at all.

Also, a difference in milking us with DLCs and making DLCs that we are forced to buy
Two Clicks Mar 19, 2014 @ 11:32am 
Originally posted by Wolfe1759:
It unfortunatly didn't sell well enough to make it worthwhile from what I've read over at the Paradox forums.

Sounds like the most probable reason. If you look at EU:Rome and Sengoku you can see a pattern as these games were comparable to MotE.

Never say never but.....
Shame... I liked MotE military emphasis and quick turn-around.
Two Clicks Mar 19, 2014 @ 11:38am 
Originally posted by castel1x1:
Originally posted by Lennart Stek:
There's a difference in milking us with dlcs and making loads of great DLCs. At least in my opinion.

You mean great dlc like song of something number 47 lol ? Or maybe the sprite pack number 5465465454654546 ?

Yeah, so great. No milking at all.

Lol.... dlcs are optional. That means you dont have to buy to finish the game.

From what Ive read and Im no mp player you dont need the dlcs to play the game in either SP or MP. Patches are also provided for non-owners of DLCs so Im not sure why people use the term "milking".

Milking to me means its required.... which is different to must get or cant play.

There again I guess you could argue that a base game should have the features included from some of the dlc... or at least some of them. Maybe thats a valid point. Then again adding those features into the main game before release would mean later release date or not enough QA.

Adding them for free after release would mean resources allocated to the project that arent going to make you the money the company needs to survive or fund their next project. So which does anyone want?

- Just remember that Paradox also releases some additional features to its core games free in some patches.
Swesal Mar 22, 2014 @ 10:51am 
Originally posted by BrennanTate:
Paradox are not DLC milkers of their player base.

Not that I am complaining but, Crusared kings 2? Like $150+ in DLC avaliable with another one coming out in a week or so, which is a good thing, it means they support their game two years later.

That being said March of the Eagles doesn't need DLC, unless it was to make a whole new campaign.
Philippe_at_bay Mar 22, 2014 @ 2:17pm 
What March of the Eagles needs is separate campaign start dates for 1806 (Jena), 1807 (Eylau and Friedland), 1808 (Spain), 1809 (Wagram),1812 (Russia), 1813 (Leipzig), 1814 (France), and 1815 (Waterloo). 1815 should come in two flavors, an historical one starting just after Napoleon's return from Elba, and a hypothetical one that posits that he won the battle of Waterloo and takes it from there -- essentially a rerun of the 1814 invasion of France.

This kind of thing cries out for DLC's, but it's not going to happen since development of the game probably died when Ageod split off from Paradox.
Last edited by Philippe_at_bay; Mar 22, 2014 @ 2:18pm
Showing 1-15 of 36 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50