Mission trees are a curse

[exalter]

... 'Colonization of the New World' which would reward colonizing in North America and the Carribean, helping develop locations like Boston and New York...

You don't necessarily need a mission to have things like this develop on their own. Terrain modifiers appear to be quite strong, so you would naturally be drawn towards these areas. You develop them because they are good natural harbors and are already desirable by their nature.

 

[ingenieux]

I'm all for mission trees if one take out the tree part.

For instance, why would you get, in Toulon, only as France and after accomplishing 4 other missions :

• −10% Local ship cost
• +10% Local ship repair
• −10% Local shipbuilding time

by building a drydock there ?

Why would'n Austria recognise the importance of the place as well and establish a naval base ?
In EU4 that mission should be a decision linked to owning the province and building a drydock there, and should not be linked to a tag in a mission tree.

In EU5 it will be linked to the province being a better harbour than many other places, making it a goal for italian, french or even german player to control.

 

[JacceDON]

You don't necessarily need a mission to have things like this develop on their own. Terrain modifiers appear to be quite strong, so you would naturally be drawn towards these areas. You develop them because they are good natural harbors and are already desirable by their nature.

This is just... so out of touch with reality. World history didn't follow the logical road of most apparent benefit and least resistance, so stop trying to claim that systems that work like that will give rise to even slightly historical outcomes.

 

[SAmaster]

We can agree on the idea that countries should make you feel like they have had a previous history. There is another thread about this.

But there is a difference between accurately showing the situation countries were in in 1337 and extrapolating their future.

Having the 100 years war be ongoing in 1337 is fine. Having a specific situation in which the Byzantine empire is heavily indebted and stricken by inflation in 1337 is perfect. What isn't is planning the war of the Roses, the Partition of Poland, the rise of Prussia or the Mughal ascent centuries in advance.

As I said earlier, it is fine to plan for ways to make events resembling those happen, and to, in the event that those happen to the right countries, have historical flavour in the form of texts and historical characters, but those events were very contingent. As an example, had France not bought Corsica from Genoa, Napoleon couldn't have become french emperor.

I can understand what you want. Years ago, I asked for a slider of historicity for EU. I eventually realized that history was a lot more contingent than I initially thought. Thus, in a game made of thousand of ticks, each of them susceptible of derailing history (and often doing it), I don't see how beneficial it is to insist that history should happen as it did.

But that's setting your position at an extreme. Of course you don't want a graphic novel about the history of the world. On my side, I don't want the game to feature bland countries either. But I want their difference to come from their (past) history, and the ability to change their makeup with time. This is hampered by TAG-based mechanics such as mission trees.

Imagine as France you started with a privilege to the nobles which says the nobles have more castles and thus that grants you a bonus to cavalry (completely made up, I didn't look at the actual unique bonuses countries get and don't care about them). What would prevent Flanders to get a similar privilege, coming with its advantages and drawbacks? Only, they wouldn't start with it, so they would need to make big changes to their country before having access to it. This would have its own opportunity cost. (I'm steering far away from the topic of MTs, here, though, sorry).

If it's 'impossible' to extrapolate what England will be doing in the 1500's then they shouldn't have the game run that long. In the absence of not doing that, they should weight it so that those historical events are likely to happen. Given they seem to want to include the American Revolution, then it seems the Dev's are already going in that direction.

Let me pose a question to you- what seperates a game like EUIV from Civilization to you? To me Civilization exists as the freeform sandbox game, where the gameplay is COMPLETELY dynamic, with only a handful of broad goals to loosely strive for, with completely randomized maps and to some extent rulesets.

To me Civilization isn't simulating history. It simulates certain historical trends, but at the end of the day it's an arcade game. And that's fine, that's not inherently wrong and I like Civ, it's just a different philosophy. But Europa Universalis is naturally a very different game- it has to the best of its ability a simulated snapshot of history at the start date, and with each playable nation made to reflect the unique history of that area to the best of the devs abilities. Wheras Civilization isn't really trying to simulate history, Europe Universalis clearly is. And in history, there were nations that did more things than others, that were more powerful than others. And I think this should be reflected- I wouldn't want to play a game of Europa Universalis where say the Renaissance movement never happened. Or say the Gunpowder Revolution never happened.

When you argue that history could go off the rails, and certain events might not ever happen, you could make the same argument for other entrenched gameplay mechanics, such as the way warfare evolves through unit types, or the institutions that spawn, even the Age mechanics and how they emphasize certain kinds of gameplay over others.

Is the sticking point that you see EU as an alt-history simulator first and foremost? And that emphasis on real-world history detracts from that? I think alt-history has it's place, but the devs are naturally going to be very limited with how they can implement REAL alt-history scenarios since so much of it is impossible to predict. A true 'alt-history simulator' is impossible to really do, or if they do it's going to be incredibly generic. Hence why I think the simulation of real-world history remains vitally important.

In a way, you are right, but in another, it wouldn't really be a penalty, because if we apply my other suggestions, they would simply have other missions.

Not really- If I can snipe missions from other cultures and religions by integrating them, I will get more missions than the nations that don't do that.

You don't necessarily need a mission to have things like this develop on their own. Terrain modifiers appear to be quite strong, so you would naturally be drawn towards these areas. You develop them because they are good natural harbors and are already desirable by their nature.

I think you misunderstand that I don't think that Boston and New York would remain strategically important locations. What I'm saying is that their importance should not come solely from geographic determinism. Which is funny, because I myself am a geographic determinist. They should be important because of the cultures that made them and the events that happened there. For instance Boston being the 'City on the Hill' of the Puritans, or how New York for a period was one of the major pirate hubs for the Carribean, or how it was the temporary capital of the USA. You can't really slap down like a modifier on the tile that goes 'future home of the USA' on it now can you?

I suspect the response should be that the importance of cities should be fully 'dynamic' and that my desire to see real history simulated is wrong-minded somehow.

 

[JacceDON]

In EU4 that mission should be a decision linked to owning the province and building a drydock there, and should not be linked to a tag. ia a mission tree.

In EU5 it will be linked to the province being a better harbour than many other places, making it a goal for italian, french or even german player to control.

That is the definition of blandness.

 

[SAmaster]

I'm all for mission trees if one take out the tree part.

For instance, why would you get, in Toulon, only as France and after accomplishing 4 other missions :

• −10% Local ship cost
• +10% Local ship repair
• −10% Local shipbuilding time

by building a drydock there ?

Why would'n Austria recognise the importance of the place as well and establish a naval base ?
In EU4 that mission should be a decision linked to owning the province and building a drydock there, and should not be linked to a tag. ia a mission tree.

In EU5 it will be linked to the province being a better harbour than many other places, making it a goal for italian, french or even german player to control.

When I've suggested modular trees, I've figured that certain important cities get like a small mission tree to them- say Paris has unique french content, but if someone conquers it they get a small 'stewardship of Paris' event that reflects the importance of the city, and your occupation of it.

 

[IngvarBS]

I fear that this game will merge the worst aspects of vic 3 (no flavor) and imperator (generic mission/every nation plays the same). And they are doing that for no reason. The mission tree was a popular mechanic that revived the game (just look at anbennar mod, its mostly missions). If the mission trees in EU4 have problems (modifier stacking or wacky AH paths), those problems could be tackled without giving up the mechanic.

I doubt the current way flavor is delivered (situations and events) will replace the what EU4 MT did. People will play the games and see things like Spain never forming, the PLC never forming, the ottomans never being a menace. When thoses things happened in EU4 it was an oddity, but when it happens every single time, people will lose interesting (like they did in vic3 AND imperator). Also, when the sandbox formula gets stale, what will carry the game will be flavor.


Johan made the analogy that he feels like the system in EU5 is like a car and the previous system is like a horse cart. The thing is that we never saw the car running (no tinto talks) and he expects us to buy the car.

 

[JacceDON]

Johan made the analogy that he feels like the system in EU5 is like a car and the previous system is like a horse cart. The thing is that we never saw the car running (no tinto talks) and he expects us to buy the car.

This. Johan is no car salesman in the age of horse carriages, he is a salesman of experimental medicaments in an age of established and reliable treatments. Maybe the new experimental drugs are panacea for every disease, maybe it's just snake oil.

 

[Asheviere]

Am I going senile or was the 'Are Missions important to you?' Poll removed from the Europa Universalis channel?

 

[A Pink Duck]

it's 'impossible' to extrapolate what England will be doing in the 1500's then they shouldn't have the game run that long. In the absence of not doing that, they should weight it so that those historical events are likely to happen. Given they seem to want to include the American Revolution, then it seems the Dev's are already going in that direction.

The solution is more start dates, not more railroading. That way you can start in whatever time you want and experience those historical events.

Is the sticking point that you see EU as an alt-history simulator first and foremost? And that emphasis on real-world history detracts from that?

Yes. Almost the entire reason I play these games is to generate alternate history. And since I want the ai to react to the world around it, of necessity the ai will likely be doing alt history things as well. It's not about the devs generating scenarios but about creating reasonable and interconnected mechanics that allow plausible things to happen.

Most of the time the western European nations (Spain, Portugal, France, England) will be the primary colonizers because they are closest to the new world and so it's easier. But if France makes it to New York first and England colonizes Quebec who cares? If Poland or Florence sometimes manage to start a few colonies? Those are the fun differences between playthroughs that helps keep things fresh. Railroading things so that only historical outcomes happen sounds mind numbingly tedious.

And in history, there were nations that did more things than others, that were more powerful than others.

But we only know this after the fact. In 1337 there was no guarantee that the Ottomans would be so dominant. The concept of a global Spanish empire would be laughable. And more. It was not written in stone that any of these nations would be successful. It was a mixture of luck and skill that resulted in the world's winners and losers. The point of a GSG (for me) it's to change who those were.

This. Johan is no car salesman in the age of horse carriages, he is a salesman of experimental medicaments in an age of established and reliable treatments. Maybe the new experimental drugs are panacea for every disease, maybe it's just snake oil.

But mission trees are actual poison so I'll take my chances with snake oil, thanks.

 

[Palfouri]

It's drawing on Britain had geo-strategic reasons to want to monopolize control of North America, and they did so in real life. This should be born out with something that acknolwedges they both wanted this and accomplished it, and it shouldn't be the same as say hypothetically them monopolizing south-america with a generic tree that doesn't at all acknowledge the real British Colonial history.

But what is the difference between the "historical" North American tree and a "generic" South American tree aside from flavor text you'll probably read once or twice and then never again? Is there's really that big a difference between a mission tree telling you to control New York, Roanoke, and Quebec and, say, Cartagena, Mexico City, and Acapulco?

Let me put it to you this way- I'm an American, I've learned about the colonial period, the French and Indian Wars, and the Revolutionary War. I understand that gameplay can go off the rails, but I still want the gameplay to be shepereded towards that real-world colonial history (and given Paradox had discussed dedicated American Revolution content I imagine Paradox does too). I don't want something as monumentous as the American Revolution to be handled by say generic revolution events that can happen to any colony that rebels againt its overlord. I think there should be a degree of crossover to be sure, where it makes sense, but I don't want the open sandbox of 'Mamlukean Australia' as someone has actually advocated for in his thread. I want the game to at least be nudged towards a historical outcome, otherwise I may as well be playing a game of Civ, which is a completely dynamic sandbox that is only vaguely history themed.

As other people have said the AI is rarely guided by them, so even if you try to create a "curated experience" as another poster said, it's basically just you, the player, doing it and trying to superimpose IRL history (plus whatever alt-history blobbing missions Paradox decides to shove into the mission tree) onto a world that barely looks anything like IRL because the AI IS playing in the sandbox. Even with mission trees, how often do you see an actual American Revolutionary War? Or even France and Britain being the ones fighting over North American and not some other combination of Spain/Portugal/Holland/Dithmarschen? Would you say Paradox needs to do more to force the AI into historical outcomes as well? If that's the case it's going beyond having mission trees.

I feel like there's a large contingent of people who wish Paradox had continued the Vicky 1 style of gameplay where the game is basically a visual novel where all the "flavor" breaks if you don't just let the events tell you what to do.

 

[Arizal]

First thing, I want to tell you I appreciate the honesty and thoughtfulness of this conversation. Your questions deserve good answers.

Let me pose a question to you- what seperates a game like EUIV from Civilization to you? To me Civilization exists as the freeform sandbox game, where the gameplay is COMPLETELY dynamic, with only a handful of broad goals to loosely strive for, with completely randomized maps and to some extent rulesets.

I like Civ

The funny thing is, I absolutely hate Civilization, precisely because it is a so-called history sandbox. Outside of the map, which is completely random, every country has an immortal ruler and fixed bonuses I despise for how caricatural they are.

What first drew me to EU(1) was the map, and the feeling that you direct an actual country, in a period of history. I don't think that, in order to have that feeling, you need to have specific bonuses for each country. On the contrary, NIs and monuments make the game closer to Civ than to my ideal of what it could be. MTs and DHE sure don't have an equivalent in Civ, so I can see how you consider them as something that makes the games distinctive, but to me they aren't integral to EU experience. What is is the interlocking mechanics that allow you to feel like a ruler from past times, and...

You don't feel like a ruler from the past when there is a God who instructs you that you should do XYZ in order to receive A reward from the Heavens. You don't feel like you are in charge of your country's destiny when your country is stuck with unexplainable advantages or maluses you can't get rid of, or when by some magical decree there is only one place you can build a building which will give you ridiculous advantages (I'm talking about monuments). You also don't feel like you have agency when you know in advance that your country will fall in a civil war at a certain moment in the future simply by another decree of providence (DHE).

And in history, there were nations that did more things than others, that were more powerful than others. And I think this should be reflected- I wouldn't want to play a game of Europa Universalis where say the Renaissance movement never happened. Or say the Gunpowder Revolution never happened.

I understand that very broad movements of history are presented in those games as given. That's why I don't object that much that the reformation will happen, even though strictly speaking it wasn't a given. But I'd like those things to be reduced to a minimum.

A thing I dislike with the argument that some polities were stronger is that, to me, it links with the idea that some people would have been stronger than others, which is a way to say their very people had more capability than others. It's not what you mean, but saying Prussia deserves its space marines because for a short time in history a militaristic culture developped there is like a way to say Prussians were "superior" to, say Lunenburgians. But no, had Lunenburg grow to encompass central Germany and then been devastated during the 30 years war, we might today talk about the Lunenburgian space marines. Nothing was preordained, and this is the feeling I want to have when I play this game.

Is the sticking point that you see EU as an alt-history simulator first and foremost? And that emphasis on real-world history detracts from that? I think alt-history has it's place, but the devs are naturally going to be very limited with how they can implement REAL alt-history scenarios since so much of it is impossible to predict. A true 'alt-history simulator' is impossible to really do, or if they do it's going to be incredibly generic. Hence why I think the simulation of real-world history remains vitally important.

Emphasis on real world history should stop in 1337, because in 1337, nobody knew what would happen. Andronikos II didn't know he would die in 4 years, and that a brutal civil war would deplete his country. Philip VI didn't know his country had been thrust in a more than 100 years war. And so on and so on.

To have the feel that you are reliving history, you need uncertainty.

That being said, this doesn't preclude historical flavour. It's just not supposed to come from modifiers and unique mechanics.

 

[JacceDON]

Am I going senile or was the 'Are Missions important to you?' Poll removed from the Europa Universalis channel?

It has indeed been removed - perhaps they had hoped for a different result?

 

[A Pink Duck]

It has indeed been removed - perhaps they had hoped for a different result?

Or they realized that the question wasn't very good. I hate them but I would consider them important since that's basically the only content EU4 has had over the last however many years.

 

[WARenie]

When I start a new game in 14th or 15th century and the game shows me an opportunity to obtain some effect with description "in the year of 1700 count I Do Not Exist In This Timeline implemented a set of military reforms" or "Well, there was a personal union in 1600 so it must happen for you too if you fulfill this set of arbitrary conditions" my immersion is immediately ruined. History is deeply chaotic, IRL outcomes in a lot of cases were basically miracles, so when you highlight an IRL path (or any sequence of future events and developments) with in-game content in any way or encourage it to happen or provide arbitrary bonuses related to it, you are deeply insulting the actual historical timeline by making it a trivial, normal and expected occurrence instead of something which should unwrap maybe once in many thousands games or even never at all. Historical notes belong to the in-game encyclopedia and description of start dates or starting nations, not to internal workings of a reasonable historical gsg. The best you can do to revere history in such a game is to work on precision of the starting situation and represent effects of things which had happened before the game starts.

 

[SAmaster]

The solution is more start dates, not more railroading. That way you can start in whatever time you want and experience those historical events.

You can do both, but I sympathize with the devs saying the work to update start dates wasn't worth the effort. Ideally I think EUV should have a 1444 start date.

Yes. Almost the entire reason I play these games is to generate alternate history. And since I want the ai to react to the world around it, of necessity the ai will likely be doing alt history things as well. It's not about the devs generating scenarios but about creating reasonable and interconnected mechanics that allow plausible things to happen.

Okay, I can respect that you approach the games differently than me. Can you appreciate that I approach the game differently from you? How about this, do you think something like a 'historical focusses off' like HOI4 has would help settle this? I don't know if it's as simple for a game like EUV to 'turn off historical weights' but I think there would be positives for both sides to have that be a toggle. Closest EUIV had was the 'lucky nations' toggle.

But we only know this after the fact. In 1337 there was no guarantee that the Ottomans would be so dominant. The concept of a global Spanish empire would be laughable. And more. It was not written in stone that any of these nations would be successful. It was a mixture of luck and skill that resulted in the world's winners and losers. The point of a GSG (for me) it's to change who those were.

Yes. But to give equal weight and content to Navarre or Saruhan is absurd to me. Now- I think there's room for like 'converging alt-history'- like say Navarre can form spain and get their missions, Saruhan could form Rum and get a lot of the Ottoman content. But I think the idea of MANDATING all content be neutral is gong to result in a really boring game.

But what is the difference between the "historical" North American tree and a "generic" South American tree aside from flavor text you'll probably read once or twice and then never again? Is there's really that big a difference between a mission tree telling you to control New York, Roanoke, and Quebec and, say, Cartagena, Mexico City, and Acapulco?

As other people have said the AI is rarely guided by them, so even if you try to create a "curated experience" as another poster said, it's basically just you, the player, doing it and trying to superimpose IRL history (plus whatever alt-history blobbing missions Paradox decides to shove into the mission tree) onto a world that barely looks anything like IRL because the AI IS playing in the sandbox. Even with mission trees, how often do you see an actual American Revolutionary War? Or even France and Britain being the ones fighting over North American and not some other combination of Spain/Portugal/Holland/Dithmarschen? Would you say Paradox needs to do more to force the AI into historical outcomes as well? If that's the case it's going beyond having mission trees.

I feel like there's a large contingent of people who wish Paradox had continued the Vicky 1 style of gameplay where the game is basically a visual novel where all the "flavor" breaks if you don't just let the events tell you what to do.

It can uniquely empower the British Empire, in a way that differentiates it from the Spanish, French, and Portugese Empires. Which is what I want- that playing as those countries feels different. And likewise that I'm incentivized to play in different areas- if there's no downsides to say England Colonizing Brazil (in terms of the oppurtunity cost of not colonizing the historic colonized area) then colonizing Brazil as Portugal will feel very similar if not the same.

I haven't played Victorai so I can't tell you, I can tell you I've heard about how generic and bland people find it to play because there is so little unique content per tag.

You don't feel like a ruler from the past when there is a God who instructs you that you should do XYZ in order to receive A reward from the Heavens. You don't feel like you are in charge of your country's destiny when your country is stuck with unexplainable advantages or maluses you can't get rid of, or when by some magical decree there is only one place you can build a building which will give you ridiculous advantages (I'm talking about monuments). You also don't feel like you have agency when you know in advance that your country will fall in a civil war at a certain moment in the future simply by another decree of providence (DHE).

This might be where the disconnect is- I don't really give two figs about the leaders. Not to say they aren't important, but I really don't like the emphasis on Dynastic politics in Crusader Kings. I care about the nation- and the focus on the dynasty means (as is historical to be fair) the good of the nation suffers for the good of the ruler. To put it this way- we could look at how Cixi in China strangled all westernization reforms. She did this to preserve her own autocratic rule on the country, while the country floundered and was colonized and became a global laughingstock. If I'm to play as the ruler, I'd be playing from the perspective of someone who is preserving their own power-base, not as someone who is trying to build the nation up.

Hence I prefer Europa Universalis where who the ruler is doesn't make or break the game. The nation can persist in the face of bad leadership, regimes can change but the nation persists. Perhaps that's why I don't mind these 'immaterial' rewards, there are many things that nations benefit from that ARE immaterial. I listed nationalism itself as one, the glory and prestige of certain monuments are another- I love monuments because they mean that certain provinces have a lot more strategic importance, and to certain tags. The Vatican is of immense importance to Christians, but will provide no benefit to the Chinese for instance. Therefore the Vatican shows it's immense importance to the Christian world, while that is lost on the rest of the world- just as the Forbidden Palace has immense importance for the Chinese cultural sphere. It's immaterial sure. That doesn't mean it's not real. Like- if Terrorists were to seize the Statue of Liberty- the United States won't suddenly lose like its immigration and liberty buff. That's obvious. Does that mean that the Liberty Island isn't strategically important for the United States? That the US wouldn't be losing out for having a bunch of Terrorists squatting on it? And in terms of EUIV gameplay I mean just squatting on the island like a rebel stack.

A thing I dislike with the argument that some polities were stronger is that, to me, it links with the idea that some people would have been stronger than others, which is a way to say their very people had more capability than others. It's not what you mean, but saying Prussia deserves its space marines because for a short time in history a militaristic culture developped there is like a way to say Prussians were "superior" to, say Lunenburgians. But no, had Lunenburg grow to encompass central Germany and then been devastated during the 30 years war, we might today talk about the Lunenburgian space marines. Nothing was preordained, and this is the feeling I want to have when I play this game.

See I'm sympathetic to this- I don't think that one culture is inherently better than the other. At the end of the day I'm a materialist. But just as I said that people often discount the forces of nationalism because it's immaterial, the same is true of culture. Here's an example- polynesian culture is intrinsically tied to the sea, because they live on a ton of small islands. This caused them to develop unique traditions that made them excellent explorers. Now, if you took all the Polynesians and dumped them into the Mongolian Steppe would those same strengths persist? No, of course they'd adapt. Does that mean if a bunch of Mongols conquered the islands under a colonial regime that they'd get all the same bonuses as the Polynesians would in that region? No that's also pretty silly to imagine.

Fact of the matter is, history did have winners and losers. To ignore this fact is silly. Now like I said, I am a geograpthic deteminist, so I do think this was 'written in the stars' to a degree, and while I don't discount say the ability or freedom of a player to take a north-american tribe and do a 'Sunset Invasion', the idea that because the Devs can't predict and give a fully dedicated mission tree for that, that we must then remove stuff that reflects the historical achievements of certain nations, well it's just baffling, you see why I think that's baffling right? I don't sound like a crazy person when i say that right?

Emphasis on real world history should stop in 1337, because in 1337, nobody knew what would happen. Andronikos II didn't know he would die in 4 years, and that a brutal civil war would deplete his country. Philip VI didn't know his country had been thrust in a more than 100 years war. And so on and so on.

To have the feel that you are reliving history, you need uncertainty.

That being said, this doesn't preclude historical flavour. It's just not supposed to come from modifiers and unique mechanics.

And your argument is there's no middle ground that can be achieved here? Our options are 'all' or 'nothing'?

 

[A Pink Duck]

I haven't played Victorai so I can't tell you, I can tell you I've heard about how generic and bland people find it to play because there is so little unique content per tag.

I have (although I wish I hadn't). My view is that all nations feel the same because you are doing the same things in all of them. Substantially the only thing you do in the game is add buildings to your construction queue and occasionally try to pass a law. In that situation, of course every nation is basically interchangeable. This feeling is increased since different laws (the primary differentiator between nations) have little to no impact on your gameplay. A liberal republic plays the same as a totalitarian police state. The only difference is which modifiers you get. Mission trees or powerful buffs won't fix this fundamental flaw in the game.

Yes. But to give equal weight and content to Navarre or Saruhan is absurd to me. Now- I think there's room for like 'converging alt-history'- like say Navarre can form spain and get their missions, Saruhan could form Rum and get a lot of the Ottoman content. But I think the idea of MANDATING all content be neutral is gong to result in a really boring game.

Certainly Navarre probably isn't going to get a lot of uniqueness love. And that's fine. inherited uniqueness when forming a nation is a perfectly reasonable solution.

I started playing EU4 prior to mission trees so I don't necessarily agree that neutral content is boring. Fundamentally, I don't want my choice of nation to be dictated by "who has the best buffs". Why pick Ulm over some other OPM? Maybe I just like their map color or their location is more interesting.

 

[Duchy-2]

This is just... so out of touch with reality. World history didn't follow the logical road of most apparent benefit and least resistance, so stop trying to claim that systems that work like that will give rise to even slightly historical outcomes.

No one would disagree with this, but we're talking about natural harbours here.

 

[SAmaster]

I have (although I wish I hadn't). My view is that all nations feel the same because you are doing the same things in all of them. Substantially the only thing you do in the game is add buildings to your construction queue and occasionally try to pass a law. In that situation, of course every nation is basically interchangeable. This feeling is increased since different laws (the primary differentiator between nations) have little to no impact on your gameplay. A liberal republic plays the same as a totalitarian police state. The only difference is which modifiers you get. Mission trees or powerful buffs won't fix this fundamental flaw in the game.

Right, and while I imagine more in-depth religion mechanics, government mechanics, IO's/Disasters/Situations will help, is there a reason you want to call it quits there in terms of unique mechanics?

I started playing EU4 prior to mission trees so I don't necessarily agree that neutral content is boring.

So did I. That's why I said that it felt very samey.

Fundamentally, I don't want my choice of nation to be dictated by "who has the best buffs". Why pick Ulm over some other OPM? Maybe I just like their map color or their location is more interesting.

Weren't you the one who said you should play smaller nations for the challenge?

To me it's not a competition about who has the 'most' content (though that's a factor), it's 'will an Ulm run play differently than a Spain run' like you said, in Vic 3 does a totalitarian dictatorship play different than a liberal democracy? Ulm would probably be built around playing tall, and playing in the HRE, but if there's a complete lack of mission trees to complement this, then the better path to power is going to just be blobbing out reflexively.

 

[Dewit]

Why do want to make EU5 into EU4 so hard?
Its good if EU5 is different, if you like playing EU4, awesome, keep playing it, nobody will take it away from you.