• 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:
Getting this out of the way first, you made the argument that Russia's claims were rivalling GB, balance wise. This is not true, case closed. I'm not arguing for an increase in these claims.



Again, for the most part currently this is incorrect. Sure, some permas given by misions reflect the full extension of a country or its ambitions (see Byz for instance). Some go even beyond, for instance mameluks mission tree gives them claim over Anatolia. However, MOST countries don't get that treatment and get permas that are largely below their max extension, let alone their ambitions thank god. Think about it: would you be happy if france had permas up to moscow because Napoleon? Or if japan had permas on all of China+SE Asia?

Well if you BALANCE around GB missions given permas, that's what you have to do. That's what everyone is saying. GB's tree is off BALANCE because out of all countries (maybe except Otto, idk, but Otto is a special case) GB has missions that are bonkers => it begs for a nerfs back to less permas (for instance, reduction to historical lands or less than max extension lands) OR a massive buff to everyone else to their max extension + ambitions.

Now, you see that this is a CHOICE to be made. There's no reason given those facts to go in either direction. To start that discussion again, re-read what you initially quoted:



And then you can put forward arguments that goes in your way (I'm genuinely interested in them!! : ) ). What's right there below though isn't:

Just to expand upon this point: there is basically zero chance that the second option (giving all the other tags buffs to their mission trees in the form of permanent claims) will happen, because developer time is finite. The "best" case scenario is that the 30 or 40 most played tags will get good mission trees, and all the other tags in the game will be de facto nerfed anyway. The only way I can see that even possibly being an option is if the devs create generic missions that give perma-claims on neighbouring provinces. And the net effect of *that* would be to seriously damage the diplomatic game, as it would be basically impossible to reliably ally any of your neighbours because they would get permanent claims on you and destroy the alliance.

I'm on record as believing that permanent claims should be only given out to formables and ex-empires (i.e. Khmer, Majapahit, Byzantium etc.) anyway. All other claims given out should be 25 years max, and there shouldn't be that many of those. Missions should be about more than just conquering territory - it's not like there isn't enough incentive to do that in the game anyway. Furthermore, claims missions are particularly vulnerable to the linear nature of the mission trees - if you conquer things in the "wrong order" you don't get all the rewards, which is the sort of outcome that should be avoided.

TL;DR Nerf GB's perma-claims into the ground.
 
The Ottomans already colonize near the very end of the game.

As for my plan, I would make it dynamic, perhaps tied to the Personality of the Ruler. For example, that Navigator Trait could, if they reach the technology that unlocks an Idea Group, would always or usually make a ruler take Exploration. Basically, any nation with a coast on the Atlantic or Pacific and enough money, if the timing is right and certain Traits come into play, should have a chance to go colonial. For balance, countries in the Mediterranean Sea would have a lower chance, because getting out of that sea and enough Colonial Distance to reach anything is not very plausible.

Or, perhaps similarly to the Great Conqueror mechanics in CK2, a random series of nations (say, three or four) could be set to obsessively make their way to the coast or, if they have a coast, start colonizing in the same way Spain and Portugal are hard-coded to do so at the game start? That way, it's random AND you have no idea who might make the choice. "Sid Meier's Civilization" did this with their "hidden agendas".

I'm just sick of EVERYTHING being Spain, France, Portugal, England, and me if I so choose.

The problem with this is that Spain and Portugal are, in 1444, destined to the sea. Spain and Portugal have already invested effort in the Canaries, Madeira and the Azores. Portugal has already reached Arguin and sent caravans from Arguin into West Africa to siphon gold from the Sahara trade routes. Portugal is going to be around the African bulge in a few years from game start. They are already on a long-term path that will lead them to the sea barring serious disruptions on the Iberian peninsula.

England and France are the logical followers of the Portugese and Spanish example by simply occupying the Atlantic coast. Scotland and Brittany, if they maintain their independence, are also colonizers along with the Dutch minors if they are economically healthy. The only potential colonizers in left that do not often make a move are Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Morocco.

The Ottomans are possible colonizers in the Indian Ocean though historically unable to project power outside the Persian Gulf and Red Seas. That said, in game it is not uncommon to see Ottoman or Mamluk colonies in the Indian Ocean, Indonesia or Australia.

Ming is destined to its anti-expansionist policy by game start.

The only real change that would make sense is to make the Indian and Indonesians more likely to to colonize and a United Japan. The only real problem is that there is no real incentive for any of these countries to go further East. The center of global commerce is the Indian Ocean.

Edit: Mali is also a possible colonizer if it can manage to stabilize. There is historical precedent and it isn't like they were technologically inept. Its just that Mali was pulled more towards to trade of Niger River and Trans-Sahara trade.
 
Last edited:
I have a collection of made-up mission trees at home that I want to see added, and, while I know that it's not going to happen, my five main mission trees were:
Kilwa - Conquering Madagascar and becoming an Indian Ocean trade powerhouse. Important missions include taking the Cape and establishing footholds in Somaliland, Oman and India.

Ethiopia - Conquering the Horn of Africa, trading with Europe and eventually taking Alexandria and Cairo. Other missions include converting provinces, taking Yemen and securing Madagascar

Japan - New missions include conquering Japan, Korea, Manchukuo and Qingdao. Later on, you'll be able to invade Southeast Asia, Australasia, India and even (after discovering Europe) colonize Alaska and California.

Russia - Russia's mission tree is large but personally, I don't think it's brilliant. Obviously, there are missions for conquering Novgorod, Finland and PLC but they're more fleshed out. For example, there are missions for war with Novgorod but they're about seizing Neva, Karelia and Arkhangelsk separately. Then there are new missions for Russo-Chinese interaction and conquering Hokkaido. New missions also include uniting Caucasia (and keeping down rebels), culture-converting provinces in Central Asia and also taking a route to the Indian Ocean through Afghanistan.

Denmark - Honestly, I think there is a lot that could be done with Denmark, from interaction with the HRE and tackling the Hanseatic League. Missions include uniting the Baltic coastline, conquering the British Isles, and taking the north sea coastline. Another line of the mission tree includes reconquering Greenland, settling Canada and also making investments in the Ivory Coast, India and the Caribbean.
 
I think that a better reward for an Orthodox nation that restores the Pentarchy would be to allow them to install Christians on non-Christian states, like the Revolutionary Republic and Revolutionary Empire can do.

Well, it could be both.You have just reunified the Church to a degree, so being able to rope some of the outlier States into the unified Church would strengthen it, while with its new found strength and "unity" it could now overthrow and reassert itself against its "enemies". So your idea of being able to replace heathen leaders with Christian leaders would be a good idea as benefit for a strengthened Church. However, I do feel that after the Pentarchy fires, that all Christian nations that know of the triggerer of the Pentarchy, will get an event in which they are "invited to the united church"
 
TBH I'd like to see Estates give you their own missions in parallel to the national missions (ie the nobles demand you build x number of new troops, the clergy want you to declare a holy war on a neighboring heathen, the burghers want you to dominate a given trade node, fulfill the mission in a set amount of time to get a reward and/or loyalty), which could also improve the biggest complaint (too focused/not dynamic). I miss having a more organic mission system, as the current system is very inflexible, albeit it gains in terms of immersion and narrative ability.

That and the historical missions should also branch out beyond historical events, ie Italy getting missions to take parts of the Balkans or North Africa or Iberia, Germany getting colonization missions, the Low Countries getting missions to PU England or conquer Westphalia etc.
 
I really don't feel that one system actually is better than the other, at least from playing Venice and Korea. Certainly doesn't feel any less "generic." The old one seemed to be somewhat random but trying to predict what you were already going for or needed, so it did feel a bit natural, needs forward. The new one seems to be based more on long term ambitions that most countries would have, and maybe with a few exceptions (like Britain apparently) it varies little.

First felt more unique each time, but more pointless. Current system feels bland, but makes sense.

To be honest, the whole mission mechanic seems like something making it feel more real, as pressing issues give a boost once solved with the first system or long-term goals start to get achieved in the new one, but it was never a mechanic that seemed particularly engaging for me, just something that is sortof there.
 
I can get why people would defend the old system. In particular it was better for the flex as colonial powers that aren't necessarily historical colonial powers. I found it useful for things like if I wanted to expand as say, Chinook in the New World. Where I'd be getting missions that increased the population of the Colonies I was setting up and increasing their development very regularly (in part probably just because Chinook had nothing in terms of missions in general outside of like "Migrate to Yakima" sort of ones). As well it'd give me goals to constantly work towards where normally there's nothing going on without it. Particularly for said New World nations you're typically just waiting around to Reform Society before you can do anything anyway (like start to build Churchs and Workshops).

I kind of miss that as it was a good boon for things I'd do with these off nations as it were. And some of the generic trees just aren't very good in general. As well, eh. Kinda feeling iffy about temporary bonuses for one time only missions. Advantage to the old system of recurring temporary benefits for repeated missions.

But I guess that's just part of what I'd want to see in terms of the new mission system. Something where either the rewards might be less drastic, but permanent. As well as maybe an ability to fine tune a bit from nations so instead of having all the options all the time, you might have to focus.
 
Could you please change the mission tree of China for Ming empire and Qing empire?
It is so stupid when you chose the mission "colonizing Taiwan" as the beginning of the mission tree.
The rulers of China always regarded the nomads living in the Mongol Plat as their biggest threats before the First Opium War.
There is no an emperor who concentrate more on the sea instead of defence around the Great Wall.(Except the rulers who ruled only the south of China)
 
I would love to see Serbia get some love and actually be a good nation rather than free food for Otto's/Venice
 
I really like the new mission system. But I hope all major powers will get the Great Britain treatment!

I support this. While I'm all for unique missions for smaller nations, but the mission trees for Austria, the Ottomans, and other major European great powers are fairly anemic.

Personally, I think it would be interesting to have unlockable mission groups for nations that become the emperor of the HRE or become Curia Controller, or that are unlocked by joining a trade league, as well as religion-wide missions for the different branches of Islam.
 
I can say the Missions Expanded Mod adds quite a lot to the certain nations that need a bigger mission tree. You guys can work together on the missions to balance them or simply integrating them. Along with Governments expanded :D
 
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

Interesting. I personally like the mission trees best that are a combination of the generic missions with some unique ones added. Countries with all unique missions are often overpowered, and I don't like how extremely the mission trees pull you in certain directions. Mission trees that are too expansive feel out of place in a game where it's all about the freedom of the player.
 
The new mission system is arguably the worst change to a Paradox game since I joined. It reduces the number of strategic choices in the game, it hurts immersion badly, and, worst, it takes what was a sandbox game and makes it into a railroad experience.

It used to be that claims on foreign territory were an expensive resource, Deciding where to claim was a strategic decision - decided whether to take Idea groups that would give you more claims by giving you more diplomats with a strategic decision. With the new mission system all of that strategy is gone. Do the required task that some developer at Paradox decided for you, and you get more permanent claims than you could ever have gotten by diplomats. So you might as well use your diplomats for something else. Following the decisions that the developer at Paradox made for you when they were laying out your tag's mission tree is ALWAYS, by far, the one best strategy. No need to think for yourself, or be creative.

The new mission system is bad for immersion partly because it's not that context-sensitive and will sometimes reward you for doing things that are STUPID, that make no sense in the context of the game you're playing, and partly because some of the missions are for things that never happened in real life, but in post-1.25 EU they will happen every game. For example, if AI England doesn't fail it will always conquer Iceland, even though that never happened in real life. France will always conquer Brittany militarily, even though they did not conquer Brittany militarily IRL, and they will always do so immediately after conquering a particular other place. Etc.

Possibly the most ironic mission is the one where Great Britain conquers Gibraltar. The game replicates none of the RL strategic reasons why Britain conquered Gibraltar and Spain acquiesced. Gibraltar would be most accurately represented, in terms of game mechanics, as a 0-0-0 island possibly connected to the Spanish mainland by a straight, which would make it useful to Britain because strategic location, and useless to Spain, because 0-0-0 province in a sea zone they have ports in anyway. But in-game Gibraltar is just another part of Spanish coast, and it makes no more sense for Britain to take it than for Britain to take any other part of the Spanish mainland. But magical mission system means that an AI Great Britain that's prospering will always take one province on the Spanish mainland.

In my 1.25 Russia game, I was in a position where I had a long-term, stable, profitable alliance with AI Sweden, and except for the abstract mission system there was no reason at all not to continue it. But the mission system meant that the only strategically sensible decision was to stab them in the back, because if I took two worthless provinces from them in Karelia the mission system would give me 50? permanent claims in Lithuania. Why does taking Kola give me claims to dozens of provinces in Lithuania? It made no sense and was completely anti-immersive. It wasn't that the mission to conquer Karelia would have given me any claims to provinces I didn't already have - I'd conquered all of those 50+ game years before. But under this accursed new mission system it doesn't matter if you complete the second mission in a chain, and the third one, and the fourth one, you won't get the rewards for competing any of them until you've completed the first one. Which would work if the mission chains actually made logical sense, but while they sometimes make logical sense they're just as often linked together in a completely arbitrary order.

And part of the reason for that is the bad design of the new mission UI. When patch 1.25 came out I played around with modding that, and while it's possible to give a country as many mission/quest lines as you (the designer) want, there's only room for five of them to show up at the top, which means that if you add more further down the virtual page, the player won't see them unless the player scrolls all the way through the Mission Tree layout. So the mission tree UI means that the mission system works best, game-wise, if it's laid out in such a way that no more than five missions are active at any given time, and it should be predictable that those five missions will be active at around the same stage so that the player will be able to see all the currently active quests if they scroll down in the mission window to one place. Which is not something that would work in a sandbox game, but is works very nicely with a game where both the AI and the player are heavily scripted.

EU has become like a game of WoW in which that instead of hundreds(?) of quest chains you only ever get five, and there's no point in raiding (or any open-world game play that's not part of the chains) because the rewards from those quest chains will be far better than any loot that will ever drop in a raid.

The only improvement needed for the new mission system is to give the player the ability to toggle it off.
 
Last edited:
The new mission system is arguably the worst change to a Paradox game since I joined. It reduces the number of strategic choices in the game, it hurts immersion badly, and, worst, it takes what was a sandbox game and makes it into a railroad experience.

Why I strongly disagree with the overall rating (the old missions where bland and random, the new system is implemented and presented much better), you do make valid points in your critique. The missions are way too focused on conquest, I really hope for more diplomacy & economy focus in the european update, especially for tags like Venice or Hansa. I also believe the conquest chains should be much shorter, as it is forcing and annoying how conquest in unrelated areas is tied in a fixed order. If having this many short trees available from the start would be too unbalanced, just lock them behind other triggers, like overall dev, army/manpower thresholds, income big enough to fuel new expansion, hell let it even be some magic date. Forcing Russia to conquer some random province in Karelia in order to progress with strategic missions in Lithuania, as in your example, is indeed stupid.

GB tree is really overboard, but that's another issue
 
Why I strongly disagree with the overall rating (the old missions where bland and random, the new system is implemented and presented much better), you do make valid points in your critique. The missions are way too focused on conquest, I really hope for more diplomacy & economy focus in the european update, especially for tags like Venice or Hansa. I also believe the conquest chains should be much shorter, as it is forcing and annoying how conquest in unrelated areas is tied in a fixed order. If having this many short trees available from the start would be too unbalanced, just lock them behind other triggers, like overall dev, army/manpower thresholds, income big enough to fuel new expansion, hell let it even be some magic date. Forcing Russia to conquer some random province in Karelia in order to progress with strategic missions in Lithuania, as in your example, is indeed stupid.

GB tree is really overboard, but that's another issue
The main problem is the lack of repetable missions.It's a major lose for me.The missions tree itself are good,the problem is the trees are not dynamic,they are static,once you have completed the missions,you can't recomplete them it.They are completely railroaded.A solution is to make some generic missions infinitely repetable and dynamic mission trees in function of what happens in the game.In other terms,a mix with the advantages of the two systems.
Cordially.