• 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:
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 agree. Maybe except Flanders. Yes, Flanders was technically a part of the Kingdom of France (most of it anyway, a small part of it was actually in the HRE [map from wiki] ), but it is still in the German culture group and should be capable of forming Germany, just as the TO is, despite not technically being in the HRE.
Edit: Replaced the map with one that's easier to read.
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..
They cannot. Well, they can, if they culture shift. Austrian, Dutch and Flemish cultures can't form Germany.
 
My guess is the Austro-Prussian War
that happened in 1866.. before that, Austria was part of the concept ´Germany´
 
Just wondering, how many other people would much rather see (more) missions for minor nations rather than expanding those for large nations; which in practice just nerfs anything that's not a major? Especially in MP.
There is also the consideration that expasion for existing trees will be primarily effect late-game, which, let's face it, 80% of EU4 games never reach.

Rather than seeing Sweden/France/Austria expanded, I'd far rather see any unique missions at all for minors that have lots of potential for alt-history roleplays, for instance:

- Brettony
- Cossack gov. (currently worthless)
- Georgia
- Najd
- Natives in Great Plains
- Karabakh/Armenia
- Kurdish minors
- (Zoroastrian) Yazd
 
I wish the return of old random missions system, this old one can coexist with the newer mission tree system, and I think there is no many necessary to remove the older one.

and in my mind, the mission tree system which comes from HOI4 is not very suitable for EU4, though it is cool in many players' thought.
 
Nah. If he was left-handed he'd have taken the picture with his left hand, so you'd be able to see his right hand in the picture. He's clearly right-handed.
 
Just wondering, how many other people would much rather see (more) missions for minor nations rather than expanding those for large nations; which in practice just nerfs anything that's not a major? Especially in MP.
There is also the consideration that expasion for existing trees will be primarily effect late-game, which, let's face it, 80% of EU4 games never reach.

Rather than seeing Sweden/France/Austria expanded, I'd far rather see any unique missions at all for minors that have lots of potential for alt-history roleplays, for instance:

- Brettony
- Cossack gov. (currently worthless)
- Georgia
- Najd
- Natives in Great Plains
- Karabakh/Armenia
- Kurdish minors
- (Zoroastrian) Yazd

I love playing small nations too! But the challenge is what makes them interesting. Also keep in mind that most inexperienced people will only play majors, and mission trees are supposed to help them first and foremost. So it's entirely sensible to have a special treatment for majors in my views.
 
Nah. If he was left-handed he'd have taken the picture with his left hand, so you'd be able to see his right hand in the picture. He's clearly right-handed.
He clearly hired someone left handed to hold the pen while he took the picture with both his hands.
 
Development should also be timescaled as opposed to instant. You can literally pause the game and turn a backwater province into a populated metropolis in a day.

Development has potential but it is rather arcade-like at the moment.

Maybe have a general development level which would be population and it can be broken down into rural, urban, and military. raw materials are attached to rural development while production goods are attached to urban.

There can be a minimum for rural so as to represent food security. You can trade some of these for military for temporary penalties to represent feudal conscription and to encourage mercenary use until the time of standing armies once agricultural technology is sufficiently advanced.

Each estate allows for different development minimums. Nobles would prefer more peasants working the lands while burghers would prefer higher urban development minimum to represent business and trade. Clergy would be balanced but higher penalties to convert into military development.

Alternatively if possible, estates should compete with each other in terms of pie chart % over influence in a province.
I liked your ideas, as I stated in my dev transfer thread I would love to use different mechanics, especially more slowly (TALL). population effects shouldnt be instant.
Also I still think throwing out minority cultures to colonies as idea was great, but as mechanic in current situation, its weird. Its nearly always profitable to do but shouldn't.
 
I dislike that the Mission Tree is so static. I'd probably like it better if it were a mix of static missions and generated random missions or whatever; something that goes better with reacting to "alt history" and what happens during the game, and also that keeps re-playability fresh. Even if it just worked with pre-written missions that maybe aren't always connected in the same way, or with the game drawing from a limited pool for each "tier" of missions or something ...

The way this is now, I don't know. Feels half-hearted. Not as half-hearted as the old system, but not much of an improvement either.
 
- Kurdish minors
Oh boy it would take whole new kind of tribal mechanic to fully represent all Kurdish tribes, so mission tree for Bitlis wouldnt be fun in current situation of middle east.

But cossack government doesnt have missions? It could. I actually would like to see it. But I guess this is also out of scope for this expansion.
 
i stopped playing when 1.25 was released. i liked the mission tree in HOI but i never did so in EUIV.
I thought is was a cheap copy and a "disimprovement".
 
I think the great part about the old mission tree was that it was randomly dynamic, never ran out and everybody got it. The worst part was that there was no overview over the country specific missions and that you could be locked away from them by taking generic missions.

I think one way to bring the good parts of the old system back could be some kind of slot-machine mechanic (embracing the arcade-like features of EU4) where you invest monarch points (could be other resources aswell) and get a random dynamic mission. Now the fun part about this would be that the missions could range from quite trashy (make a claim on province X and get 5 Prestige) to potentially great like subjugation missions on nearby minors (all possibly with small text explaining how the claim came about). Now of course just like real slot machines the great rewards should be rare and it should usually not seem like an optimal way to spend those monarch points. Another way to think of it would be giving your ruler some free reign and see what he comes up with. These missions could have different intersecting pools depending on your government form, religion, culture, etc. You could also get a free mission every 5, 10, 20 or 50 years (whatever fits really).

I know it's a weird idea but I'd really like for some random dynamic missions to come back in some way. It would also greatly improve the situation of those countries that will never get missions of their own.
 
@neondt

I missed some aspect of the old mission system. For example, it was possible to get a mission to earn a bit of prestige for something. I know there are mission that reward prestige but they are too limiting in scope and usually 100 for something. I miss the old missions where you can get some prestige for doing something useful. You can't do that kind of repeatable mission where you can earn prestige with the new mission tree as they are one-time then done deal.

Most of the general tree are also awful limiting and is not useful in some certain situation where you may not necessary want to follow it. I recently tired to play as Taungu I noticed that one of your first target is an OPM Prome to the bottom left of you. The problem is that sometime they can sign an alliance with Ayyuthara which in effective completely block you from going in that direction even if you manage to take all of Pegu state. Or even worse block one of your key progression with a difficult alliance bloc where you don't have any alternative options but to bankruptcy yourself to overcome it.
 
If you're planning to expand Switzerland and Northern Italy, Switzerland would be a good candidate. Diplomatic integration of Sitten, Grischun, Basel, Neuchatel and Geneva, leave HRE... conquest of Ticino and Savoyard lands, possible expansion way into Dark Forest, lake Konstanz, Voralberg or Valtulina, etc


Also, even if you do not pretend to have something similar to HoI4 trees, with excluding options, I'd really like you to consider having different rewards taking into account the way you used to complete the missions. For example, as the mentioned Switzerland. If you conquest Grischun, you can get prestige, but if you ally and raise trust to 100 etc you could get them as vassals without AE for example, in a way to emulate the Swiss Confederacy formation.
Other example would be for example Austria and Hungary or Bohemia PUs. If you force them by war, it's ok you complete your mission, and could get a mil bonus. But if you reach this point via diplomacy, bonuses should be different I think.
 
Wouldn't it make more sense to finish the actual map, before making the missions? Maybe this is why Russia *now fixed*, France, GB *now fixed*, all have gaps in claims that can't be taken out of if you want to follow the tree.

Also, I understand that resources and time are finite. Not everybody will get a massive tree. @neondt How do you guys prioritize who gives what and how much? Is it basically, the bigger you start out as the bigger tree you will receive? It does make sense that would be a priority. And also, with Orissa's tree, they will never be able to even start their tree. Will you guys consider making ones more AI friendly so they might expand? It would be nice to have someone scary other than the Turk and Ming. :)
 
Thanks for the diary! Always cool to get insight into this sort of thing.

As for specific nations’ missions, I’d really like to see more depth for Florence and the Hansa. Also (slightly less of a priority) Brandenburg/the Teutons->Prussia.

Also also, Portuguese ideas. Just a friendly reminder.

<3