Mission trees are a curse

[Zerodv]

I disagree, I think it'll be the number one thing that turns people away from the game, or the most criticized if the game releases with very anemic trees. But I also expect it to be the first thing addressed in a DLC too.

Did these people not play EU4 before MTs were a thing? Anyway it doesn't matter what these people think, making missions before the game is even ironed out makes no sense

 

[Arizal]

Mission trees became a thing in 1.25, about 5 years after the base game released, and they haven't become the primary part of new updates until 1.32
We've had a fair bunch of patches & DLCs that were quite successful without having a single mission in them.
Instead, they focused on expanding the game's mechanics (institutions, development, estates...) while typically reworking one region at a time and updating its content and flavor

Hopefully, with a much more meatier engine and mechanics, the devs will be able to improve the game for a while without resorting to cheap tricks like MTs or monuments.

However, Tinto IS the same team that, parallel to its development of EUV, was making a bunch of MTs for EUIV, presumably in order to have the money to create EUV. In a way, I can see how some players can find that new game to be a spit in the face, but I don't share the sentiment at all.

My ideal would be that each new mechanic linked to what happened in history had a chance to happen to other countries. It would still be shipped with the flavour text for the country that lived it, though. Earlier in this thread, I gave the example of Burgundian succession. It looks very precise, but it is possible to derive rules to make it into a chain of event that could happen to other countries, depending on their situation in game.

 

[SAmaster]

My brother in Christ, the paragraph you quoted was literally in response to you saying

And I even quoted it. That explicitly means that Austria should be "more engaging". Whatever that means, but based on your other comments I'm interpreting it as unique buffs making them inherently better at diplomacy than all other tags. Which, to be clear, I think has the potential to be very bad, depending on the buffs. Access to extra diplomatic capacity? Probably fine. Free PUs via mission trees and decisions? Not fine.


If control is worth anything, this should basically be the only way to do things for Ohio specifically. The Appalachians are not quite as big as the Rocky Mountains but they are still a major barrier that significantly blocks control spread. And the best part is that it would be controlled by game mechanics and not the divine fiat of mission trees.

I reread my post, I don't see anywhere where I said that Austria should get a monopoly on diplomatic playstyles. I just said their buffs and mission tree allow them to lean into diplomacy in a way that's unique for the game, and that makes them more compelling and interesting to play. So I don't see where the disconnect is, I'm being very clear with my words.

 

[SAmaster]

Hopefully, with a much more meatier engine and mechanics, the devs will be able to improve the game for a while without resorting to cheap tricks like MTs or monuments.

However, Tinto IS the same team that, parallel to its development of EUV, was making a bunch of MTs for EUIV, presumably in order to have the money to create EUV. In a way, I can see how some players can find that new game to be a spit in the face, but I don't share the sentiment at all.

My ideal would be that each new mechanic linked to what happened in history had a chance to happen to other countries. It would still be shipped with the flavour text for the country that lived it, though. Earlier in this thread, I gave the example of Burgundian succession. It looks very precise, but it is possible to derive rules to make it into a chain of event that could happen to other countries, depending on their situation in game.

I just think it's a case-by-case thing is all. Some mechanics it makes sense to open up for several nations, others certain groups, and others only specific tags.

Like say- corruption obviously should be available to everyone. Some sort of 'westernizat/reform' mechanic should be open to everyone. Personal Unions? That's restricted to christian tags since that was unique to how medieval europe did things. The Japanese Shogunate? Yeah, that should be unique to Japan, I don't want to see a 'Belgian Shogunate', and I don't want to hear a counterfactual on this one.

 

[A Pink Duck]

I reread my post, I don't see anywhere where I said that Austria should get a monopoly on diplomatic playstyles. I just said their buffs and mission tree allow them to lean into diplomacy in a way that's unique for the game, and that makes them more compelling and interesting to play. So I don't see where the disconnect is, I'm being very clear with my words.

Yes. Exactly. Only Austria gets to do whatever it is you're thinking of. Austria should apparently be "more compelling" at diplomacy than any other tag. I fundamentally disagree.

What if I want to have a compelling time playing Bavaria diplomatically or Mali or Korea? Sorry, you aren't Austria, so the experience is just going to be worse. Or to use your terminology "less compelling and less interesting to play". Are we playing Overwatch or LoL where the tag's role in the meta is defined by the devs? The Ottomans is the "blobber", Austria is the "diplomat", and Afghanistan is the "defender"? That sounds awful.

 

[JacceDON]

What if I want to have a compelling time playing Bavaria diplomatically or Mali or Korea? Sorry, you aren't Austria, so the experience is just going to be worse.

Didn't you say earlier that you only play the same 4 nations over and over again? Why do you care if Bavaria or Mali or Korea are less proficient in diplomacy?

 

[A Pink Duck]

Didn't you say earlier that you only play the same 4 nations over and over again? Why do you care if Bavaria or Mali or Korea are less proficient in diplomacy?

I don't. But you can trivially replace those with the nation's I do play and the point still stands. I deliberately picked geographically dispersed nations as a way of highlighting how silly it would be that Austria be uniquely competent at diplomacy.

 

[SAmaster]

Yes. Exactly. Only Austria gets to do whatever it is you're thinking of. Austria should apparently be "more compelling" at diplomacy than any other tag. I fundamentally disagree.

What if I want to have a compelling time playing Bavaria diplomatically or Mali or Korea? Sorry, you aren't Austria, so the experience is just going to be worse. Or to use your terminology "less compelling and less interesting to play". Are we playing Overwatch or LoL where the tag's role in the meta is defined by the devs? The Ottomans is the "blobber", Austria is the "diplomat", and Afghanistan is the "defender"? That sounds awful.

I didn't say they 'have to be' just that they are. Whether or not they SHOULD be the best is another issue to discuss. I just argued that they are better at it than most other tags, and that gives them a unique identity- an identity you argue shouldn't be unique but shared with every single tag.

I also don't see why Austria being good at diplomacy means that you can't have fun playing a diplomatic Mali run. Unless you're a sweaty powergamer who can only enjoy a run if it's a maximized efficiency run. Like, explain to me- if Mali had the #2 diplomacy buffs in the game, why would that make your run of that tag unenjoyable? I certainly don't mind that Prussia is maximized for army discipline, when there are plenty of other conquest focused tags in the game. What matters to me is that Prussia has a unique spin on it.

I don't. But you can trivially replace those with the nation's I do play and the point still stands. I deliberately picked geographically dispersed nations as a way of highlighting how silly it would be that Austria be uniquely competent at diplomacy.

So you're arguing for a way to play the game that you'd never engage in anyway.

Doesn't this prove my earlier point that if every tag is entirely mechanically neutral you'll have no incentive to play other kinds of tags? You certainly admitted you aren't interested in playing a wide variety of tags in the first place.

 

[A Pink Duck]

Doesn't this prove my earlier point that if every tag is entirely mechanically neutral you'll have no incentive to play other kinds of tags? You certainly admitted you aren't interested in playing a wide variety of tags in the first place.

Yes. I don't particularly care to play a wide variety of tags. But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in a variety of play styles. That is part of why I dislike locking mechanics behind tags. Because that means that I don't get to experience them.

And actually, a big part of the reason I play Prussia is because of the militarization mechanic. If it were more available to other nations, I would need to play it as much. Maybe I should make a mod or something.

Whether or not they SHOULD be the best is another issue to discuss.

They shouldn't. No one should. PDX games are generally not balanced in the traditional sense of having equal starting situations but they should be balanced in that all tags are playing by the same rules.

What matters to me is that Prussia has a unique spin on it.

For me the uniqueness of a tag should depend primarily on it's starting conditions. Everything that happens afterwards should be left up to the player.

Playing Brandenburg can be very different from playing Portugal for reasons that have nothing to do with mission trees. Portugal will have a way easier time becoming a colonial power for reasons of geography but will have quite a difficult time becoming the emperor of the HRE, something that Brandenburg would be able to do fairly easily.

 

[SAmaster]

Yes. I don't particularly care to play a wide variety of tags. But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in a variety of play styles. That is part of why I dislike locking mechanics behind tags. Because that means that I don't get to experience them.

How does it mean you don't get to experience them? I'd understand if you prefer say, only playing as the Ottomans every single campaign. But you should be doing that because you want to play as the Ottomans, not because, say, you want to experience Tribal Migration mechanics. If you ever did want to play with Tribal Migration mechanics, you can easily swap over.

They shouldn't. No one should. PDX games are generally not balanced in the traditional sense of having equal starting situations but they should be balanced in that all tags are playing by the same rules.

I think it's a case by case basis. You're arguing for ABSOLUTE tag neutrality, but I'm not arguing for the opposite, I'm arguing for a middle ground. I think generally most strategies should be 'viable' (this is different from successful- tall Mongols is viable, but probably won't accomplish much), but there should be some notable deviations to spice things up.

For me the uniqueness of a tag should depend primarily on it's starting conditions. Everything that happens afterwards should be left up to the player.

Playing Brandenburg can be very different from playing Portugal for reasons that have nothing to do with mission trees. Portugal will have a way easier time becoming a colonial power for reasons of geography but will have quite a difficult time becoming the emperor of the HRE, something that Brandenburg would be able to do fairly easily.

We're repeating ourselves here, you already know why I think that relying on ONLY the starting date for content is going to have you pick only the same 4 or 5 tags. Which you do- and it's fine that you do. But your preference for that alone shouldn't be the only factor in PDX game design.