I think there's some confusion of terms going on here. Everyone agrees that logistics is important and should be modeled, but I feel like there's some unstated differences over what, exactly, logistics actually IS and should be in gameplay terms.
For those who welcome the new pull system, logistics means establishing logistical routes and bases, ensuring that infrastructure keeps up with logistical requirements in whichever direction is deemed vital for an offensive push, defending your logistical links from enemy action and acting to cut the enemy's own links where possible. In other words, logistics is mostly about setting up the infrastructure, with meaningful gameplay decisions coming in terms of where and when to establish that infrastructure, and how to protect it - that's the stuff that really matters to them, and to them the pull system doesn't affect what's important, and in fact makes it easier to focus on what matters.
Those who are opposed to the new system, on the other hand, seem to define logistics more broadly - it's not just establishing the infrastructure, but actively managing the daily traffic flow of logistics that constitutes logistics and logistical gameplay. For them, traffic management is so integral to their concept of gameplay that the automation of such would be like having a FPS server where everyone uses aimbots - there are still decisions and tactics to be made, but the heart of the gameplay has been removed for them.
It's not really a case of one side or another wanting the "better" game per se, it's just a case of different priorities that's been tangled up in argument since the word "logistics" is used to define two different concepts. "I want to do this thing you find boring" vs "I don't want to do this thing you find interesting" is what it boils down to. Frankly, both sides are free to want what they want - trying to find a compromise between that is Vic's headache as a game designer. If that compromise happens to displease someone - well, that's practically inevitable for anyone designing a game that appeals on as many layers as Shadow Empire does.
As an aside, can I just say that folks here seem to have some really skewed views about Steam? We're not all unwashed barbarians who scream in primal monkey rage every time more than four numbers come up on the screen, you know. Just take a look at the reviews for Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa - the vast majority of front page reviews are positive and praise its depth, with the one negative review complaining that the Soviet campaign wasn't as in-depth as the German campaign. Steam generally tries to recommend games based on what you already have and enjoy, and folks who come across Shadow Empire are mostly going to be fans of other complex strategy games including other grog games, of which there are many on Steam these days. Sure, folks are more likely to hold the game up to wider industry standards of UI design and such, but extra diversity of thoughts and experience is hardly the worst thing for a designer to take on board.
Besides, looking down on Steam gamers for being somehow intellectually inferior is kinda hilarious given that Steam gamers tend to bemoan PC games getting "dumbed down" for console kiddies, while Playstation and Xbox fans are united in their contempt for childlike Nintendo fans, while everybody turns their noses up at mobile casual gamers, and on and on it goes. Let's not think grogs are immune either - I guarantee there's chess players out there who sniff about how no video game can ever capture the elegance of strategy in chess, while Go players chortle about the need for representational pieces instead of pure, abstract strategy, and so it goes, same as it ever was, tale as old as time.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE MOBILE GAMERS
Good post bro, very nuanced.