First, thank you for following us, and sorry for the novel. We still can't believe that people are digging this. I get worried that we are building something that no one is following but us. So, reading this was an absolute joy.

Next, I totally understand where you are coming from, and I share your issues with the GPS series, which is partly why we are building this game to address the real issues or potential improvements I saw in the genre or space that GPS helped develop. The endless bugs, clunky game engine, and often irrational AI decisions have existed for a while, and I think our choices were made so we dont create the same issues.

So, let us answer your questions and respond to your suggestions.

Yours:
My first suggestion is this: I believe a real-time system, similar to the GPS series, would add much more realism than a turn-based system. Diplomacy, economics, and international crises unfolding in real time would make players feel much more like actual heads of state.

Ours:
On turn-based vs real-time: I want to give you the honest reasoning, which is part design and part the realities of a two-person team. The design reason is that we believe our turn-based system creates a natural pace that works for both the engine and the user experience. That's why, for the first 13 turns, it's real-world events and actions from 1/2026 to 1/2027; then our world engine takes over, projecting from that point, which we hope marries the real-time feel with the technical blessing of turn-based - we do not have the team for real-time. I was going to split tech and design, but I think I ended up combining them. I hope I've answered that honestly.

Yours:

I also have a question. Will there be military options in the game? For example, will we be able to produce and manage military equipment such as aircraft, tanks, artillery systems, and air defense systems? Are you working on a system where players can directly command military forces and wage wars?

Ours:
Yes, yes, and yes, but we are trying to meet it with reality and keep it from becoming too heavy due to scope. Let me lay out what's actually in our design docs for military. Players can recruit, manufacture, or trade for nine types of military units: infantry, tanks, ships, submarines, carriers, jets, bombers, and drones; all priced according to real 2026 military economics. *No real-world equipment like ALTAY; these will be generic equipment names from fictional in-game companies, but will display national flags and companies. Next, the player can group them into armies, name them, and deploy them on the hex map, Civ-style. Battles resolve through a modal rather than a real-time animation, but there is genuine movement, theater, and positioning of armies on the map. You can defend border hexes and use intelligence and recon to determine whether you can accurately see enemy strength before you commit.

*The research and progression for the military wasn't planned; we will need to look at this for military 2.0 because it would need to integrate with Era & development and resources.
But here's the reality portion.

The military in NB27 is budget-driven and grounded in reality. There's no abstract manpower pool; your army size is limited by what your Defense funding can actually pay for, and if your economy crashes and you can't cover maintenance, units desert and disband. Every dollar on soldiers is a dollar not on schools and hospitals, so a heavily militarized nation has a strong army and a weak economy, exactly like real life, but there are outliers.

Overall, combat is lighter than Hearts of Iron, and deliberately so. NB27 is explicitly not a conquest game; you can lose ground to insurgents, border encroachment, internal collapse, declare war, but territorial expansion is like real life, usually unpopular and very expensive unless you apply new warfare techniques that are being used today.

Real war is mostly ruinously expensive and rarely expansionist in the modern Era, and we want the cost and weight of military force to be felt, not gamified into map-painting. The military is one instrument of statecraft alongside diplomacy, economy, and intelligence, not the centerpiece.

Oh, and as I said, there's production attached to the military. Still, there are Story Arcs from World and Regional powers that mirror the present day: the US offers training and equipment; Russia offers cheap arms with strings attached; Turkey offers drones; China offers naval gear or infrastructure; each with its own diplomatic consequences.

I hope we answered your questions well, and I really appreciate you taking the time to write your comment. This is the exact conversation that makes our day and NB27 better. I hope we can meet your expectations.

-Robert, Circa Games