• 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:
Instead of the current imperial authority points system, the HRE could get its own (very long) mission tree, to be completed by generations of emperors. The fulfillment of each mission could then yield a benefit for the HRE, much like HRE reforms. Towards the bottom of the tree would be (hard) missions that produce a unified HRE.

This would be much more interesting then just waiting for imperial authority to slowly rise. It also gives the flexibility to evolve the HRE in different directions, instead of the linear progression used by the current system of reforms. Successive emperors might try to expand the HRE east vs. west, embrace Catholicism vs. tolerance, etc. as they try to follow different paths down the tree.

And if nothing else, it could help give some direction for AI emperors to do something for the sake of the HRE, rather than just forgetting about their position except when demanding unlawful territory.
 
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?
Oh that actually reminds me, the whole techlevels to take a decisions should be switched out for either it being era specific, or based on having adopted a certain institution or a certain institution having spawned.

Doing it like that means it becomes a little more reliable and predictable.
 
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.

This indeed would be very interesting, especially if you as an overlord can do something like this, it would then be a matter of balancing the rewards and cost for the overlord. If the overlord unites the Netherlands it gets a lot of power, and frees up a lot of diplo slots, at the same time, helping the region could be dangerous for they could start to see themselves as a separate region from the overlord proper.

I'm stating overlord since depending on the timeline involved (and how the Burgundian Inherritance goes) the overlord would be France, Austria or another HRE Emperor. It would then however also require that upon inheriting Burgundy you no longer also directly inherit the Dutch minors, but get them as vassals/PU (I personally would also like the non-French part of Burgundy to also be inherited as a vasal/PU). Then again I've always found it weird for PU-parts of Burgundy to be inherited in full when the BI fired.
 
Also, perhaps instead of being called "Scandinavia" the formable nation could be called the "Nordic Union" or something, to better reflect the Kalmar Union?

Perhaps have two tags available? The Union one being based on diplomatic game play (ie. get the other countries as vassals/PUs) and Scandinavia by conquest? Possibly as the first trial of doing a mutually exclusive mission tree?

Instead of the current imperial authority points system, the HRE could get its own (very long) mission tree, to be completed by generations of emperors. The fulfillment of each mission could then yield a benefit for the HRE, much like HRE reforms. Towards the bottom of the tree would be (hard) missions that produce a unified HRE.

This would be much more interesting then just waiting for imperial authority to slowly rise. It also gives the flexibility to evolve the HRE in different directions, instead of the linear progression used by the current system of reforms. Successive emperors might try to expand the HRE east vs. west, embrace Catholicism vs. tolerance, etc. as they try to follow different paths down the tree.

And if nothing else, it could help give some direction for AI emperors to do something for the sake of the HRE, rather than just forgetting about their position except when demanding unlawful territory.

I would really like this, and this could also be implemented for other countries which used to be very decentralised (such as France) but managed to form a single country by centralising. Might even tie into the fight between France and England; France and Burgundy; and France vs the HRE.

Oh that actually reminds me, the whole techlevels to take a decisions should be switched out for either it being era specific, or based on having adopted a certain institution or a certain institution having spawned.

Doing it like that means it becomes a little more reliable and predictable.

Utterly agree! Then again, I also think that the mission system should take into account various institutions and or eras. I'd suggest moreover that every era should even have their own era-specific missions in the mission tree with some permanent bonii and some temporary bonii based on those missions. These could be nation specific and function alongside the already existing ones which are more general.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps have two tags available? The Union one being based on diplomatic game play (ie. get the other countries as vassals/PUs) and Scandinavia by conquest? Possibly as the first trial of doing a mutually exclusive mission tree?
You don't need two tags for that.
 
perhaps not, but by using two tags you can have two different idea sets based on how the country involved is formed, ánd it would allow a breakaway nation to form the other version in a kind of civil war like system
You can have two idea sets for the same tag dependent on how you form it. No problem, but having two tags for the same country for a civil war type scenario could potentially (and most likely would) cause a lot of weirdness, so the country would have to really be worth all the trouble it likely will cause. Scandinavia is not.
 
Last edited:
So I guess it’s the good DD to ask you if you have been in touch with the Missions Expanded mod team ? :) I love their work but I also love to play for achievements...
 
I'm not particularly fond of the previous mission system, but I think it would complement nicely the new one.
Rather than have the new system completely take over, as it is currently the case, would you consider having both mechanics coexist for each nations? Both systems have different benefits, which could be combined.
The old system could give you an alternative objective to the current mission system, which sometimes appear too straightforward, and it would add a lot for small nations with small mission trees.
 
Mission trees were one of my favourite additions lately, I welcome new trees, and I hope we will have reworks of existing underestimated trees.
And yes Ottoman tree was one example of "conquer this, subjugate that" type of trees. Ofc it should include realistic claims to help ai increase in size realistically, but these claims should be bigger like "conquer aegean islands" "conquer iraq and syria" etc

So we can have more rooms in tree for expeditions, developments, reforms, diplomatic actions, global influence, religious actions in tree :)
 
Ah yes. National foci of eu4.

I'd rather have random events that occur as you do things.

Like that Sweden and Paris Easter egg one. Doesn't spoil. You don't expect it. Doesn't hold your hand. Doesn't force you into any path.

Just random events as random things player does:

"Okinawan Subjugation of the European nobility."

<insert amusing description of what that would look like here.>

This though. This is just good old clippy in a branching tree format. With the exact same direction for each branch:

Unfun OP late game country with centuries to spare.
 
will Austria finally be able to form Germany? at least fromt eh XVII century
 
Wait, Austria can't form Germany??

yup, just like the Dutch minors cannot. It is logical the Netherlands cannot, but the Dutch minors should be able to since the difference between the Dutch and Germans only really formed during and after the 80 years war and the peace of westphalia in 1648. In 1648 the Dutch republic got recognised as an independent country, as in outside the HRE and independent of the Spanish monarch (he was deposed), and as such should not be able to form Germany, but the Dutch minors were very much part of the HRE and their culture was very similar to that of the Rhineland and as such should be able to form Germany (except for Flanders and the Walloon minors). Flanders and the Belgian minors were technically French not HRE, and as such should be able to form France.
 
I am not a big fan of the missions.
I wanted to bring up something which isn't getting too much of a mention here and which I suspect is the reason for me not buying any of the last few DLCs. That is the opportunity cost of making all of these huge mission trees. I mean some of the recent DLCs like Rule Brittania or to a much greater degree Dharma don't seem to offer very much at all for regions outside their focus. I mean the totality of changes is basically government reforms (make a decision every 50 years), upgrading centres of trade (doesn't really change that much, still easier to conquer node) and development with settlers.
I think that the temptation to add loads of cool stuff to specific nations adds very little to the game as an alt-historical sandbox. Personally, I would prefer that there be more investment in creating a game which is mechanically deep and interesting for every nation.
The Devs response to criticism of Dharma seems to be "ok we will focus on Europe next" but that doesn't address the fundamental problem that the DLCs just aren't going to have much for large groups of players. India would have benefitted far more from having a different and interesting way to play than just more flavour. Setting up trading systems and pursuing imperialistic ambitions are how you play the game as a European nation. Maybe rather than just adding missions which help Indian nations achieve the same thing it might be better to have a game which required clever diplomacy, economics and military strategy to survive and prosper in an era of European dominance. Wouldn't that be more interesting than just copy-pasting the same essential gameplay goals everywhere and then trying to make them superficially different?
This would require deeper mechanics which actually tried to present the player with benefits and drawbacks appropriate to the setting which might cause non-European nations to make different choices rather than just doing the exact same nation-building stuff. For starters, the devs could change the institution system which has never worked to produce anything vaguely plausible or actually confront the player with interesting choices.
I think that the EU4 team could learn some valuable lessons from the CK2 team about providing an interesting and varied gameplay experience by using mechanics rather than just directly shoving in more flavour.
 
yup, just like the Dutch minors cannot. It is logical the Netherlands cannot, but the Dutch minors should be able to since the difference between the Dutch and Germans only really formed during and after the 80 years war and the peace of westphalia in 1648. In 1648 the Dutch republic got recognised as an independent country, as in outside the HRE and independent of the Spanish monarch (he was deposed), and as such should not be able to form Germany, but the Dutch minors were very much part of the HRE and their culture was very similar to that of the Rhineland and as such should be able to form Germany (except for Flanders and the Walloon minors). Flanders and the Belgian minors were technically French not HRE, and as such should be able to form France.

Netherlands should not form Germany, but the minors prior to the Netherlands should (I think they can actually), but Austria,... I really don't get why Austria cannot..
 
Netherlands should not form Germany, but the minors prior to the Netherlands should (I think they can actually), but Austria,... I really don't get why Austria cannot..

which is what i said. The Netherlands should not be able to, but the Dutch minors (minus Flanders) should be able to (they are not atm)