• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

EU4 - Development Diary - 19th of March 2019

Good morning everyone. Today I’ll be shifting the focus from maps to missions. I’ll be offering a retrospective on the history of the mission system, some insight into our design philosophy, and speculating about future mission trees.

oldmissions.png

A rather boring selection of missions in patch 1.24

Here we see a relic of the past, the old mission system as seen prior to the 1.25 patch. Practically identical to the mission system of EU3, it was long due for a change. Chief among the reasons for transitioning into a new system was the desire for missions to be impactful and immersive rather than forgettable and generic. While the old system still has a few ardent defenders, we consider the redesign of missions to be a great success both in terms of improving the game and in terms of community reception.

The mission redesign was rolled out in patch 1.25, alongside the release of the Rule Britannia immersion pack. This first round of mission updates was highly experimental. Much of the work involved translating as many of the ‘unique’ old missions as possible into the new system, taking the opportunity to improve many of them and find interesting ways of linking them together to create some semblance of narrative. Examples of this process include the current French, Burgundian, Ottoman, and Swedish trees.

currentmissions.png

Burgundy had very few missions prior to 1.25. After translating the old missions into the new system the result didn't feel adequate, so we added a few original missions.

Notably, most of these adapted trees contain only simple ‘Conquer [place]’ style missions. These kinds of missions certainly have a place, but we quickly recognized that we could do so much more with this new system. Cue the impressive English/British mission tree:
britishmissions.png

The British mission tree remains one of the largest and most content-heavy trees in the game

The British mission tree is extensive and covers nearly everything you might want to do while playing as England and Great Britain. We simply don’t have the time or resources to make something of this scale for every nation, but it was certainly fitting for Rule Britannia, and opened our eyes to the possibilities both in terms of extent and design.

Mission tree design evolved further over the course of the ‘Mughals’ (Dharma), ‘Poland’, and ‘Spain’ (Golden Century) updates. While we had plenty of unique mission trees in Dharma, we also create a ‘generic Indian’ tree for those nations without them, as well as for players without the Dharma DLC. We found generic missions both inherently more difficult and more time-consuming to design, and less fun to play through than even shorter mission trees that were unique to a country. In the future we’ll be less likely to take this approach, instead adding smaller but more immersive missions for minor nations. Navarra, for instance, received a small but interesting mission tree in the 1.28 ‘Spain’ patch that contained high risk/high reward options for the plucky OPM as well as a colonial branch allows them to bypass the usual restrictions and move their capital to the New World.

So how do we design a mission tree? First we need to establish design goals by asking ourselves some key questions - how large will the tree be? Will it be free or part of a DLC? Will the theme be conquest, colonization, trade, etc? How far to we want to incorporate existing content such as events? I’m currently in the process of drafting a new mission tree for the nation of Burgundy. As an example, some design goals for Burgundy include: a) concerned with elevating rank to kingdom and eventually empire, potentially incorporating a tag switch to Lotharingia, b) interacting with and potentially joining and leading the HRE, and c) clashing with France, possibly through interaction with a restored French vassal swarm (inspired by the League of Public Weal). When we have a clear idea of what we want to achieve, we hit the books and start researching. Research can include not only looking through books, maps, and academic articles, but also reading through community suggestions and seeking inspiration from mods. When we feel like we have a solid set of ideas for missions, we create a first draft. Personally I like to do this with good old pen and paper, but others sometimes use fancy computer software.

burgundy.png

A very messy, confusing, and unimplementable early draft of a new Burgundian mission tree. Yes, I know my handwriting is awful.

Drafts usually have to go through many iterations as we discover that our original plans don’t even fit into the interface, or we need to rethink positioning because we had a great idea for a mission that needs to be squeezed in further up the chain. It’s at this stage that we start to get an idea of how each mission will work mechanically. After all this, it’s finally time for implementation into the game using our scripting language. This can be a time-consuming process - we need to make sure that we always have fallbacks in place in case the player does something unexpected like converting to Shinto as Gujarat, we need to make sure that highlighting functions correctly and is intuitive, and of course we need to iron out as many potential bugs as possible before QA get their hands on it.

What can you expect from the mission trees in the Q4 European update? It should come as no surprise at this point that Burgundy is on the cards. We’re planning to bring a mix of large and small, paid and free missions to nations across our focus areas (Germany, France, Italy, and the Balkans). Some other strong contenders for larger mission trees include France, Austria, and the Papal State. There’s a great deal of space, both historical and fantastical, to create content for these nations, and they’re consistently popular among players. Serbia, Provence, and Saxony are good candidates for mid-sized mission trees, while Ulm and Hesse may receive minor additions.

As always, we’re eager to hear your thoughts on which nations are most deserving of a brand new mission tree, and we welcome your ideas for what kinds of missions these trees could contain. Next week I’ll be taking a break from writing dev diaries. Instead I’ll hand you over to Jake, who’ll be discussing our future ambitions for more mechanical aspects of the game
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
So many people here mentioning the flaws with the current mission system:
-it´s restrictive
-unless you are one of the majors or countrys wich got a dlc, then you don´t have missions
-always follows a set path meaning it´s always the same leading to you seeing the same outcome everytime
-buffs majors even harder thanks to ridiculous perma claims wich railroad everything even more
-even nerfs majors in ridiculous ways like by having Ottos never get any perma claims on egypt because they allied a turkish minor
-also leads to diplomacy being broken, if you are playing as Spain you will never be able to get a stable alliance with England unless you don´t own Rule Brittania
-generic missions are somehow more bland and uninteresting than the mission system beforehand, since the missions give you barely any bonus worth a damn, run out extremly quick unless you actively avoid them and run out meaning you lack 1/4th of the game after 1600

As many others suggested this can be easily fixed by combining both systems. Bringing back random missions will make playing a minor nation wich didn´t get a mission tree for 19,99 euros much more fun since you got actual goals you can do in peace time, like increasing your relationship with a random asian minor too 100 for that juicy 5 prestige.
 
So many people here mentioning the flaws with the current mission system:
-it´s restrictive
-unless you are one of the majors or countrys wich got a dlc, then you don´t have missions
-always follows a set path meaning it´s always the same leading to you seeing the same outcome everytime
-buffs majors even harder thanks to ridiculous perma claims wich railroad everything even more
-even nerfs majors in ridiculous ways like by having Ottos never get any perma claims on egypt because they allied a turkish minor
-also leads to diplomacy being broken, if you are playing as Spain you will never be able to get a stable alliance with England unless you don´t own Rule Brittania
-generic missions are somehow more bland and uninteresting than the mission system beforehand, since the missions give you barely any bonus worth a damn, run out extremly quick unless you actively avoid them and run out meaning you lack 1/4th of the game after 1600

As many others suggested this can be easily fixed by combining both systems. Bringing back random missions will make playing a minor nation wich didn´t get a mission tree for 19,99 euros much more fun since you got actual goals you can do in peace time, like increasing your relationship with a random asian minor too 100 for that juicy 5 prestige.


Random is a bad word. Current missions would work if they were CONTEXTUAL.

Let's take Poland. Before 1.25 I was waiting for opportunity. Few times I managed to press claim on Bohemia. Other time Ottos lost war and I could press there hard, or go east, or finish Teutons, etc.

With current trees I'm PUNISHED for going wrong direction or even order - If I press claim on Bohemia first I lose all the permanent claims and bonuses it could bring. Same with bonuses like morale boost that would be wasted if I click it at wrong moment.

What mission system really needs is CONTEXTUAL mission tree:
- I may get claim on Bohemia if:
a) I do previous conquest like in the current static tree, or
b) if Bohemia has no ruler for 3 years (contextual)
- I may get claim on Muscovy if:
a) static claim like in the current tree or
b) Muscovy/Russia stability drops to -2/-3 (smuta - contextual)
- I may get claim on Ottos land:
a) like in the current static tree or
b) when my ruler is zealous (holy war - cotextual)
etc.

This is what I expected from mission trees from the beginning and was asking on the forum: LET PLAYER ACTIONS AFFECT THEIR PLAY-THROUGHs MORE, NOT LESS.

Static mission trees could stay for AI to help it play better - but help players to make new interesting decisions out of opportunity or their choices IN THEIR CURRENT GAME.
They have to much money? Give them mission to spent it.
They expand too fast? Give them something to do in peacetime.
They invest in trade? Give them opportunity to get rich.
They don't want to became absolutist bastard? Give them golden freedom!

There is so many things missions could depend on: playstyle, policies, science, state stats, cities, ruler traits, big battles, events near the country borders... right now it is just a waste of great opportunity really. I'd rather play with old mission because they gave me at least SOME opportunity and variation.
 
I like alot of the new missions. The part with them I don't like is that it forces you do them proceed down the tree. If I don'r want to everything brittain did historically, that mean I can't be awarded for doing anything they did. I can't ally Spain because them I can't take Gibraltar there are loads of missions I can't do. And it´s the same with htem all. Enforcing a play path onto a sandbox game is quite paradoxal :)
 
Switch to patch 1,24. You get the good of cardles of civilization but leave behind the bad everything Paradox has done since 1.25.

yes, I'm still loading my 1.24 Aztecs from time to time, if not to play, just to see the map again :D
Hope Imperator would not repeat all those mistakes.
 
Please do not forget that Austria surprisingly also cannot form the german nation. I get that it’s mission should be the Holy Roman Empire, but still I rather convert culture to form the nation and when I am Germany change all provinces and my main culture back to Austrian
Yeah that's just odd. Austria practically led the German Landstag (which would become Germany) until Prussia wrested it from their hands. I like the way HPM handles it in Vic2, where if Austria wants to form Germany diplomatically (not even possible in EU4) then they have to give up Hungary, but since there's no way to diplomatically form Germany in EU4 anyway I see no reason to lock them out.

There is the option to keep your old idea set. The AI also does this and keeps its old ideas.

I, at least, fully support Germany (and the HRE) getting their own idea sets. Germany is made up of a bunch of different sub-cultures and you can see in reality how they began to blend together, despite Prussia essentially "uniting" it. I think a German tag idea set could take the various strengths and weaknesses of the different component states and mix together to make a very satisfying idea set.
Germany as it is today maybe but the Germany that existed until the end of ww1 or even ww2 was very much permeated with Prussia. The whole militarism thing. Though I will grant you that there were other influences. For an example Westphalia's Napoleonic constitution created a haven for intellectuals which is very pivotal to Germany's rise as an intellectual and financial giant.
 
So many people here mentioning the flaws with the current mission system:
-it´s restrictive
-unless you are one of the majors or countrys wich got a dlc, then you don´t have missions
-always follows a set path meaning it´s always the same leading to you seeing the same outcome everytime
-buffs majors even harder thanks to ridiculous perma claims wich railroad everything even more
-even nerfs majors in ridiculous ways like by having Ottos never get any perma claims on egypt because they allied a turkish minor
-also leads to diplomacy being broken, if you are playing as Spain you will never be able to get a stable alliance with England unless you don´t own Rule Brittania
-generic missions are somehow more bland and uninteresting than the mission system beforehand, since the missions give you barely any bonus worth a damn, run out extremly quick unless you actively avoid them and run out meaning you lack 1/4th of the game after 1600

As many others suggested this can be easily fixed by combining both systems. Bringing back random missions will make playing a minor nation wich didn´t get a mission tree for 19,99 euros much more fun since you got actual goals you can do in peace time, like increasing your relationship with a random asian minor too 100 for that juicy 5 prestige.


The Old system should not be brought back as it was. It needs to come back modified to work with the mechanics that have since been added. The best suggestion for missions priror to 1.25 was to tie them to estates. The game clearly functions with three main categories Admin, Diplo, and Military. The problem with the old mission system was getting three terrible missions and having to wait five years for the RNG to roll again.

Tie the options to estates. Tie it to Government reforms. Tie it to the Parliament or absolutist mechanics. Integrate it to the existing design.

Once Paradox can figure out how they are going to make Estates into the great restraint, the internal complement to AE, then we can see them manage a new mission system that makes sense and is reasonably dynamic like the old system.
 
Last edited:
The Old system should not be brought back as it was. It needs to come back modified to work with the mechanics that have since been added. The best suggestion for missions priror to 1.25 was to tie them to estates. The game clearly functions with three main categories Admin, Diplo, and Military. The problem with the old mission system was getting three terrible missions and having to wait five years for the RNG to roll again.

Tie the options to estates. Tie it to Government reforms. Tie it to the Parliament or absolutist mechanics. Integrate it to the existing design.

Once Paradox can figure out how they are going to make Estates into the great restraint, the internal complement to AE, then we can see them manage a new mission system that makes sense and is reasonably dynamic like the old system.

Several good points.

However I wouldn't ties mission, if it is ever going to happen that is, into the estate as certain govt type and certain nation have non-standard number of estates.

For example, some govt to best of my memory still use the faction system (spend MP to make faction the majority for bonus) but have no estate otherwise. Venice is one such example.

Steppe Horde are limited to only one estate and don't have any of the normal ones.

Certain India tag will have 4 or 5 estate depending on the situation.

Most Muslim have 4 estate.

It would be hard to make context mission to fit all possible scenario.
 
Honestly, I would like mission trees if it weren't for the fact that they remove the ability for old missions to randomly provide you a claim or a task that was dynamic, and flexible to your current situation. Neondt mentions attempting to make it so that missions can always be fulfilled no matter how crazy or how many janky or out of the blue strategies you pull, but the previous mission system did exactly that, by adapting and changing available missions to your current situation. I won't deny that some types of missions constantly repeating became a little dull, but the conquer 'x' region or province missions were always nice at least because they gave any nation free claims. Now, missions guide expansion in a single route that is the same for every single game as that nation, rather than providing novelty each time.

How some dynamism could be provided to mission trees is currently beyond me, but any step towards that direction would make me enjoy them a lot more.
 
Several good points.

However I wouldn't ties mission, if it is ever going to happen that is, into the estate as certain govt type and certain nation have non-standard number of estates.

For example, some govt to best of my memory still use the faction system (spend MP to make faction the majority for bonus) but have no estate otherwise. Venice is one such example.

Steppe Horde are limited to only one estate and don't have any of the normal ones.

Certain India tag will have 4 or 5 estate depending on the situation.

Most Muslim have 4 estate.

It would be hard to make context mission to fit all possible scenario.

This only gets at how poorly implemented the Estate mechanic is and how detached it is from the things in game that already served a similar function. The Divine Wind factions in China and the Merchant Republic factions should have been folded into the estate mechanic. The estate mechanic should have served a similar function as those faction mechanics and been available for each government. They should be tied to the Parliament mechanic as well. Hell the Parliament mechanic could be the mission mechanic for Parliamentary governments. There is no need for government types to remove estates. The English Government gets rid of nobles for some reason, despite the English parliament literally having its upper house restricted to the Lords.

Then we got Government reforms, which is also completely detached from the other governing mechanics in the game. I don't think rebels can effect government reforms either, unless they shift the base form of government. Wouldn't it be nice if one of the options in a peasants war was the peasants instituting a Parliament? But that also gets at how limited the disaster mechanic is. Only Court and Country as well as the Revolution disasters work as a means to an end. Everything else is a temporary speedbump with no lasting effect.
 
Oh, some Burgundy love! I feel like I'm going to buy this expansion outright now with just that post.
(Burgundy is my favourite Euro power)

Hopefully the Mission Trees will help resolve the Dutch revolts if you are Burgundy.

Speaking of Burgundy, are you going to fix the constantly early deaths (usually 1447 to 1450 in-game; historically 1467) of Philip the Good? Burgundy is probably my favorite European major, but that problem persisting from patch to patch makes playing as them quite frustrating (and alters the balance of power in Europe even if playing as someone else). Alfonso V of Aragon has the same problem so it seems to derive either from their PUs or from them being starting generals.
I think its because Phil starts off as a general, and is hence subject to twice as many deathrolls. Not having him as a general would be the most simple solution
 
Last edited:
I would like to see an expanded mission tree voor the Netherlands. They should have missions to conquer most of the Indonesia, Malaya and Moluccas regions.
Also maybe it is an idea to shuffle or choose your rivals before you start a new game. Or something like that. I had to restart the game like 15 times with Castile before Burgundy didn't rival me. I wanted a RM with them to make a chance for the Burgundian Inheritance.

I would als love a new mission tree for Denmark. They to had colonies in history.
 
I think a limitation of the misison system is that the missions activate as soon as you meet the prerequistites, that means you can't have the path lockouts you have in the HoI4 focus trees. Where pursuing one goal is at the expense of another. essentially you don't have choices. You can chose to not pursue a mission but it will always just be sitting there with no real drawback for pursuing it. It makes not doing a mission seem like a less meaningful choice.

Also I get you were flexing the muscles of the system with England but doing so totally blew all balance out of the water. They need to be reigned in, they get permanent claims to everything.

How does it get permanent claims on everything? It is mainly for the coastal / island provinces which makes sense given the traditional English / British emphasis on Royal Navy (they always had a larger navy but a smaller standing army since the establishment of Royal Navy). There is no permanent claims for larger interior such as, say, Russia or most of the Asia inland except for the Indian subcontinent and I think a few ports (can't remember if mission tree gave a permanent claim on Canton or not. Ironically, that province happen to be where Hong Kong is located). There is not permanent claims for inland Africa, either.

Frankly, I think it is misleading to say England got permanent claims on everything, as I think all of the permanent claims they get are a mere fraction of the entire EU4 world map. Besides, they are permanent claims, not free giveaways as you still must fight to gain them.

One other thing to consider is that not all players will seek all of these permanent claims. Typically, I try to establish the British Empire covering all of what it had historically controlled at any point, which meant the missions giving me permanent claims on North Sea ports would not really interest me at all. In fact, I modified some of the missions in my own personal mod to remove the permanent claims for Sicily and Sardinia (or was it Corsica? Don't remember) that didn't fit in my plans as neither were ever the British possessions in actual history. I also modded in a chain of events leading to the Union of Crowns between Scotland and England, which led me to mod further removing or replacing the permanent claims on Scotland by England and vice versa so to not wreck that diplomatic path towards the union. It generally worked well so I am happy with how the modding worked out.

Honestly, I would be totally OK if permanent claims were removed for any provinces that were not historically part of the British Empire at any time but I suspect some players would like to pursue an alternative path.

Since you mentioned the path lockouts from HOI4, I think this could maybe help force England / Britain to choose which path to go for, building an overseas empire or continental empire. However, the caveat is that some missions will need to share both paths somehow because they concerned the islands that 1) belonged to Europe and 2) were historically part of the British Empire. I would not be thrilled to see that permanent claims for Gibraltar and Malta locked out because it was part of the continental path. One possible solution is to make duplicate missions for both paths.
 
Frankly, I think it is misleading to say England got permanent claims on everything, as I think all of the permanent claims they get are a mere fraction of the entire EU4 world map.

What he said with emphasis "you get claims to everything" was to be understood "you get claims to so much (good) land that comparatively any country has just crumbles, permaclaims wise". And you're absolutely not denying that. Bear in mind also for Russia, that Russia gets permas on very poor land. It's a lot of permas so I think it makes up for it, but it's still garbage land. Not the case for england, you get claims on MORE land and more importantly VERY VALUABLE (including prized TC) lands. So yeah you didn't make a dent in his argument that GB missions are imbalanced.
 
How does it get permanent claims on everything? It is mainly for the coastal / island provinces which makes sense given the traditional English / British emphasis on Royal Navy (they always had a larger navy but a smaller standing army since the establishment of Royal Navy). There is no permanent claims for larger interior such as, say, Russia or most of the Asia inland except for the Indian subcontinent and I think a few ports (can't remember if mission tree gave a permanent claim on Canton or not. Ironically, that province happen to be where Hong Kong is located). There is not permanent claims for inland Africa, either.

Frankly, I think it is misleading to say England got permanent claims on everything, as I think all of the permanent claims they get are a mere fraction of the entire EU4 world map. Besides, they are permanent claims, not free giveaways as you still must fight to gain them.

One other thing to consider is that not all players will seek all of these permanent claims. Typically, I try to establish the British Empire covering all of what it had historically controlled at any point, which meant the missions giving me permanent claims on North Sea ports would not really interest me at all. In fact, I modified some of the missions in my own personal mod to remove the permanent claims for Sicily and Sardinia (or was it Corsica? Don't remember) that didn't fit in my plans as neither were ever the British possessions in actual history. I also modded in a chain of events leading to the Union of Crowns between Scotland and England, which led me to mod further removing or replacing the permanent claims on Scotland by England and vice versa so to not wreck that diplomatic path towards the union. It generally worked well so I am happy with how the modding worked out.

Honestly, I would be totally OK if permanent claims were removed for any provinces that were not historically part of the British Empire at any time but I suspect some players would like to pursue an alternative path.

Since you mentioned the path lockouts from HOI4, I think this could maybe help force England / Britain to choose which path to go for, building an overseas empire or continental empire. However, the caveat is that some missions will need to share both paths somehow because they concerned the islands that 1) belonged to Europe and 2) were historically part of the British Empire. I would not be thrilled to see that permanent claims for Gibraltar and Malta locked out because it was part of the continental path. One possible solution is to make duplicate missions for both paths.
Obviously "everything" is hyperbole.
You get permanent claims on provinces all over the place which allows you to cycle wars between many diffrent fronts and contantly expand like no other power in the game. And no british naval preeminence was a post napoleonic war thing. Before that they were a naval power not the naval power. Spain portugal and the netherlands were other important naval powers (heck even France was a naval rival at one point) and they don't get nearly as much claims as Britain does, never mind that half the stuff Britain gets claims on it didn't actually have in this period. Oh and it also get easy access to a PU over france.
 
What he said with emphasis "you get claims to everything" was to be understood "you get claims to so much (good) land that comparatively any country has just crumbles, permaclaims wise". And you're absolutely not denying that. Bear in mind also for Russia, that Russia gets permas on very poor land. It's a lot of permas so I think it makes up for it, but it's still garbage land. Not the case for england, you get claims on MORE land and more importantly VERY VALUABLE (including prized TC) lands. So yeah you didn't make a dent in his argument that GB missions are imbalanced.

Well, at any rate, missions for most part is generally intended to reflect the historical extent of a given country. I would be very loath to give up permanent claims for England of Gibraltar, Malta, Egypt, Zanzibar, and the Indian subcontinent, among them. I would, however, have no problem excising the permanent claims for territories not historically under English / British rule (post-100 years, that is) such as Sardinia and Sicily as well the North Sea / Baltic ports. I have also forgotten about permanent claims on France but I think it should also either be excised or made into regular claims that eventually expired. I do not care for these provinces and I often try to gradually dispose of my continental holdings in France as I started colonizing overseas.

What we need is a way to incentivize disposal of these holdings in France in favor of overseas expansion if you are pursuing the overseas path as England. Maybe a decision providing certain bonus for overseas expansion that is unlocked if conditions for which French holdings are disposed of is met? To maintain gameplay balance, some bonuses related to overseas expansion from ideas or missions may need to be removed from there to that decision to lock it in until such holdings are disposed of. In my opinion, continuing to hold substantial territories in France while expanding overseas at same time 1) gives England too much power and 2) does not make sense for overseas focus.

There could be a way to make the territorial holdings in France an expensive drain for England / Britain possibly by increasing costs of maintaining these provinces through a modifier, probably through triggered province modifiers.

The arguments you made about garbage land for Russia is simply due to its geographical proximity. It is not Russia's fault that they just happen to be near the lands of such low value. I don't know how else to make it better except to maybe add to these permanent claims the development cost reduction modifier for a set period for these provinces?

As I said earlier, the path lockouts as used in HOI4 might be a good way to resolve this problem without compromising the historical path for British Empire as it historically had been. You would have to choose either continental vision or overseas vision but not both.

I think the permanent claims for territories except for those that were never historically under English / British rule (again, post-100 years or at least excluding the holdings in France) well reflected the English / British maritime ambitions.
 
Well, at any rate, missions for most part is generally intended to reflect the historical extent of a given country. I would be very loath to give up permanent claims for England of Gibraltar, Malta, Egypt, Zanzibar, and the Indian subcontinent, among them. I would, however, have no problem excising the permanent claims for territories not historically under English / British rule (post-100 years, that is) such as Sardinia and Sicily as well the North Sea / Baltic ports. I have also forgotten about permanent claims on France but I think it should also either be excised or made into regular claims that eventually expired. I do not care for these provinces and I often try to gradually dispose of my continental holdings in France as I started colonizing overseas.

What we need is a way to incentivize disposal of these holdings in France in favor of overseas expansion if you are pursuing the overseas path as England. Maybe a decision providing certain bonus for overseas expansion that is unlocked if conditions for which French holdings are disposed of is met? To maintain gameplay balance, some bonuses related to overseas expansion from ideas or missions may need to be removed from there to that decision to lock it in until such holdings are disposed of. In my opinion, continuing to hold substantial territories in France while expanding overseas at same time 1) gives England too much power and 2) does not make sense for overseas focus.

There could be a way to make the territorial holdings in France an expensive drain for England / Britain possibly by increasing costs of maintaining these provinces through a modifier, probably through triggered province modifiers.

The arguments you made about garbage land for Russia is simply due to its geographical proximity. It is not Russia's fault that they just happen to be near the lands of such low value. I don't know how else to make it better except to maybe add to these permanent claims the development cost reduction modifier for a set period for these provinces?

As I said earlier, the path lockouts as used in HOI4 might be a good way to resolve this problem without compromising the historical path for British Empire as it historically had been. You would have to choose either continental vision or overseas vision but not both.

I think the permanent claims for territories except for those that were never historically under English / British rule (again, post-100 years or at least excluding the holdings in France) well reflected the English / British maritime ambitions.
Why should Britain get claims on Egypt and india? They held neither in this period.
In that case Prussia should get claims on France because the nazis conquered france at a later date. But Prussia doesn't even get claims to any part of Germany that they didn't hold in this period.

Russia only gets permanent claims on people they could fabricate on anyway and all their claims are fairly close together. While Britain gets claims on people that they couldn't fabricate on.
 
Last edited: