• 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:
What I actually like most of the missions system, especially since Dharma, is the "back-loading" of missions. For examply all the north Indian muslim tags have missions that lead them towards forming Delhi, which then has its own expansive missions tree that leads it towards forming Hindustan, which gives it a third and final mission set to complete. Considering this, I'd actually wouldn't like to see too expansive mission trees in the HRE, but rather a chain of small-ish to medium trees culminating in you becoming either Germany or the HRE and then getting their massive mission tree. I'd say Austria (PUs EVERYHWERE) and Bohemia (for lack of an intermediate formable) would be the only tags warranting a "large" (similar in size to the Indian majors excluding Mughals). All other tags should only have medium-sized mission trees that lead into one another. For example, Brandenburg has a small to medium tree that nudges it towards forming Prussia, which then gets another medium sized tree that nudges it towards forming Germany.
 
The loss of repeatable missions is a major downside of the new system.

If they were repeatable and dynamic like in the past you could tie in other game mechanics like institutions where you actively have to do something specific to the institution to spread it instead of just hammering the development button.
I agree on this bit quite strongly, but this bit:
But I disagree that there should be more claims through missions. Imo the current missions already give to many claims. We need less, not more.

not so much. It is true a lot of the strong countries already gain a lot of claims, but it are the smaller nations which miss out on it, they too should be getting some good claims and help to expand. If they were to get some of those abiliteis the big countries have it would certainly allow for a more randomised system of which country ends up on top. my current playthroughs always have the same getting strong
 
I do not feel like making a list, but what's important for my immersion is:
- Give the Hanseatic cities unique missions, Novgorod style, that reflect their desire to control trade along the Baltic and North Sea, instead of generic unify Germany mission.
Lübeck, Hamburg and Bremen would care more about Antwerp, Bergen and Visby than Munich, Wien and Stuttgart.
 
How about a "Nicopolis Redemption" mission for Burgundy? It's my understanding that the 1396 defeat against the Ottomans was something of the brainchild of the Duke of Burgundy. The whole expedition was an excuse for him to build prestige. Subsequent generations in an alt-history would plausibly fixate on righting that wrong. It would also be a fun way to steer the realm a peculiar direction.
 
If Burgundy gets a mission tree focussed on claiming the Lotharingian crown, then there should be a competition between them and the tiny Lorraine for that. You know, Lorraine, this country with the Lotharingian coat of arms, whose name comes directly from Lotharingia (Lotharii Regnum > Lothorigiae > Loheregne > Lohereigne > Lohorranne > Loyierengne > Lorraine).

Lorraine needs a mission tree to offset the Burgundian one. I know the starting location is difficult but it would be a good challenge and an alternative way to form Lotharingia.
 
I do not feel like making a list, but what's important for my immersion is:
- Give the Hanseatic cities unique missions, Novgorod style, that reflect their desire to control trade along the Baltic and North Sea, instead of generic unify Germany mission.
Lübeck, Hamburg and Bremen would care more about Antwerp, Bergen and Visby than Munich, Wien and Stuttgart.

And of course colonial missions. A major factor in the decline of the Hansa during the first half of the 16th century was the shift of the global trade routes from the Silk Road to the Transatlantic Trade. With the exception of Hamburg the heart of the Hansa was located on the Baltic coast and thus in a terrible spot to get involved in America and Southern Asia. Together with the increasing power of what we would later call "states" this rapidly crippled the Hansa.
 
Maybe nation formation decisions should be incorporated into mission trees. Rather than having one-time administrative tech and land requirements, the requirements can now be spread out into a series of missions which need to be completed in order to form a tag. It models the building of a new nation by achieving a series of concrete steps towards the end goal.

The admin tech requirements should go, in any case. They are artificial and pointless. Why should Scandinavia and Germany require tech 20 and others tech 10? It makes no sense.
 
@neondt How would you like missions posts to be made on the suggestions forum? Do you want them put in an image or just in organized text? :)
 
We need an Austria/HRE update with new units for Eastern European Nations. They still all have the ugly units from the release of the game. Also I beg you fix regnal names for Poland and England. Also making it easier to keep a Jagellions until the 1600s.
 
I would love to see similar mission amount and quality in "the big" countries 4 ex. France, Bohemia, Austria, Netherlands, Prussia, Hungary, Poland, Burgundy (but this one's already getting more love).

I hope for more hungarian missions.

If you have any ideas on how to improve hungarian missions, please have a read in this thread and share your thoughts about them. I am mainly interested in ideas about a potential rework of Old alliances but any feedback is welcome.
 
On the whole I agree the new mission system has been pretty great. There are two parts of the old system however that I think keeps people defending them

- They never run out. Once you finish a new mission tree, that's it. The old missions could nudge you into doing something if you were running out of ideas.
- They were dynamic. Spain could randomly get a claim in the middle of Persia if they had expanded there. Now that is exceedingly unlikely.

On the whole the tradeoff is worth it, but I can sympathise with those who miss that part of it.

To offer my own critique of the generic tree, I think it's a shame it never gives you claims to help you get your empire up and running. The big nations get permaclaims like candy, while the minor nations have to do absolutely everything themselves. It would be neat if, say, Build To Force Limit let you get some claims on adjacent territories or what have you.

One more thing that made dynamic missions useful is that (with a decent spy network) you were able to see what missions your neighbors were pursuing. That doesn't happen with the new mission trees.

@neondt Is there a possibility of modifying the current mission system to incorporate a bit of the old system with the new trees? Basically, I think the best option might be a rule that a nation always has at least 3 missions available to them, with the old dynamic missions acting as filler when your tree begins to look a bit thin. This solves the problem of missions running out and not being dynamic. It also prevents the player from becoming lost after they have finished their country's tree
 
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

The tale of Charles the Bold is one of the most interesting tales of personal ambition and intrigue in early modern Europe, and it would be absolutely fantastic if Lotharingia was added as a formable tag so the player can attempt to succeed where he failed. Unlike some of the more memey tags added in recent memory like restoring Rome or Yuan, this is something that almost actually happened in history during the timeframe of the game. If Charles just lived a little bit longer, or didn't piss the Emperor off, we'd be looking at a radically different Europe, with a third major power between France and what would become Germany. Perhaps instead of a Dutch republic, the whole Benelux region would be subsumed into this new realm as well, and that of course would radically change European colonization, and therefore, the histories of many other regions of the world. It's just such a wonderful what-if, and it'd be a great goal for a Burgundy player to try to strive for.

A tag switch should not only elevate the realm to a kingdom, but completely avert the Burgundian Succession altogether. The legal claim of being a seperate kingdom, instead of the de jure vassal of France, will mean the legal claims that led to the Succession would be null and void. Of course, France could still try to pursue their claims by force, but that should be represented with war instead of an annexation event.
 
It is true a lot of the strong countries already gain a lot of claims, but it are the smaller nations which miss out on it, they too should be getting some good claims and help to expand. If they were to get some of those abiliteis the big countries have it would certainly allow for a more randomised system of which country ends up on top. my current playthroughs always have the same getting strong

I think this all come down to a fondamental debate that has been there since the day eu4 was released : should the game focus more on interactive gameplay (with the world going in a different way every game) or on historical accuracy (with nations ending most of the time in a situation similar to what happened in real life) ?

I have no answer to this, and while I personally love historical accuracy, allowing the game to be more randomized and different for every playthrough would definitely increase its already huge durability. So I guess the answer lies somewhere in between :D

PS : I'm mostly thinking about AI behavior there, historical accuracy doesn't make any sense for the player's country
 
In addition to the ones you mentioned, I'd like to see a more developed mission tree for Brandenburg and/or the Teutonic Order to lead into Prussia.
Brandenburg is already very directed towards Prussia and why would the Teutonic order form Prussia, Prussia came into being because the Teutonic order failed, not because of it's success.
And after a very short time, Brandenburg Prussia was larger than Saxony
It pretty much always (in the eu4 period) was if you count land area but there's a reason everything in brandenburg is called something -mark, because Brandenburg was a march, a border or frontier area. Loads of land but it is where Ostsiedlung had progressed the least, Saxony on the other hand held much richer and more populous lands and also one should remember that while saxony in 1444 is a very small state it is a mere two or three centuries since the Hohenstaufens broke apart the duchy of greater saxony which was a very powerful duchy inside of the holy roman empire. The power of saxony may be gone in 1444 but there's prestige tied to it that Brandenburg has not yet attained at the time. And while they decline over the course of the period in 1444 there's quite a lot of wealth there too.

In fact the idea of saxony is so important I made saxony reformable by saxon and westphalian (low saxon" tags who control the enough of the north German region (except Brandenburg who are their own thing).
it would be awesome if the prerequisite of independence could be somehow modified a bit as to allow overlords some kind of control and bonusses for having their vasals finish their mission trees. Would certainly add a whole level of game play onto the overlord/vassal position, instead of just using vassals as a way to manage overextention, aggressive expansion, and expansion in a slow manner.
It would also be historically a bit more correct since especially in a personal union both states were IOTL/IRL still somehwat independent and had their own goals, besides a King of multiple nations wouldn't see his 'other' lands as just a thing which follows the main country, but he'll have goals for those lands also.
If you mean relating to the netherlands I always felt that the dutch subjects of should unite first and then declare independence. The main problem with their relation to burgundy now is that since they are all fairly small perosnal unions they each count against burgundy individually which means they stay eternally loyal and beat up anyone who burgundy goes to war with.
 
Last edited:
Please can forming Scandinavia (by Denmark, Sweden, or Norway) become part of the mission system, rather than being an arbitrary 'Tech Level 20' button-click?

Prerequisites can be based on royal marriages with the other two nations, or alliances, or relations, or whatever.

Also, perhaps instead of being called "Scandinavia" the formable nation could be called the "Nordic Union" or something, to better reflect the Kalmar Union?
 
Could you give us an idea of the approximative amount of focus trees you intend to create for this dlc? If you really want to ask the community for suggestions, it would be quite helpful. I doubt it could be less than what we got with Dharma.
Besides, I'm a little bit disappointed to hear you don't plan on reusing the modular generic focus trees from Darma, it helps make the experience less repetitive when you play minors. Different branches depending on the region/culture, religion and government form would be really interesting, after all a protestant German free city won't have the same goals as a catholic Italian theocracy. However, I completely agree if you want to focus on more important tags, especially since we should have a lot of them in this expansion.