So obviously I want to preface this by saying I've thoroughly enjoyed SE thus far; it's certainly a difficult game and will require quite a bit of trial and error, but I'm sure by the time the virus blows over my head'll be full of thoughts of logistics, chokepoints, and stratagems.
But naturally, the game isn't perfect, and there's a few things I specifically want to point out and weigh in on (hopefully constructively):
1. I know for many, the logistics system isn't popular/needs to be reworked (simplified), but the one thing I would request that Vic consider is including a new logistics system, not reworking the current one. If possible, I think it would be beneficial for all parties if the startup settings of the game were expanded to allow for these differing approaches and styles of play. In general, I think more player choice is much better than less - especially for a game which prides itself on its randomness/replayability.
2. Following in the theme of randomness and player choice, I think SE should strive for more leeway in how the game operates, especially at the start. Essentially, what the randomness of SE boils down to is selecting the planet/its circumstances, designing a flag/nation, and assigning ourselves a title, but honestly, it can feel very dry. That title affects nothing; we can be a 'Supreme Leader' or an 'Emperor', but start the exact same as a 'President' or a 'Chancellor', tied to the same basic stratagems until we get something that can hopefully carry us in the direction we want. We clear the surrounding area to secure our borders, search for supplies and valued regions, et cetera; thus, the gameplay is the same. We never see any distinctive government functions based on whether it's a titular democracy or a kingdom. Even just the little things are the same - for example, our 1st SHQ commander, which is always known as the 1st SHQ, always has a seniority of 100. We always have 'Directors', even though my desert-based fanatical leader (think Immortan Joe) would probably not call his principal ministers 'Directors'. And I think a lot of that can be rectified simply by opening up modding, or at least using some form of text or spreadsheet file for naming, localizations, and so on. Thus, it would be easily modifiable by people who want to create new content with the game and/or make it into something fresh. And I know the 1st SHQ commander always having a seniority of 100 seems like a nitpick, but it's one of those 'death by a thousand papercuts' things - after all, how random can it really be when all these starting parameters are the exact same? Sure, I can start with a couple more zones and some more brigades, but I still don't feel like an 'Emperor' OR a 'President'; I feel like another dude behind a computer screen.
3. Lastly - and this is entirely my own thinking, so it ought to be safely ignored if disliked by the people - I feel as though there should be tertiary level to the leader management, at the unit/building level. Even if nominally (AKA without any stat bonuses and the like), I feel there should be distinct 'unit commanders' and 'building managers' listed somewhere in the unit/building's information. I feel like it'd add significantly to the roleplay to be able to take a commander from one of the subordinate units and place him in charge of the OHQ if the OHQ leader falls, or to promote the manager of a crucial water mine to the governorship. And while I wouldn't necessarily advise recreating the whole leader stratagem/appointment process for this lower level (although, hey, player choice ), I think it would add a lot to a game which already emphasizes those leader management and roleplay features. Honestly, it just feels arbitrary just clicking on a 'Recruit Junior' or 'Recruit Commander' stratagem and sticking them in some OHQ or directorate, and with only two layers of management (the advisor/secretary level can safely be ignored), it doesn't feel as deep or as roleplay-conducive as I think it could.
I know there's a lot here to read through and give input on, but if anyone has opinions on what I've said here (agree or disagree), I'd love to see them. Thanks in advance.