Sure. How regular is "regular"? I more meant often enough that a player could reasonably see it. Closer to 1 out of 10 then 1 out of 100.
Until they patched it it was literally every game for me.
One prolific example I was always annoyed by is the situation where England would gain permaclaims on Northern France through Hundred Years War related missions, but getting kicked off the continent anyways. This could result in the situation that by the 1600's England > Great Britain would've lost the cores on Normandy, but retained the permaclaims
That should certainly be removed I agree. That said- I don't think there are too many cases in which a nation would claim land and then revoke those claims- as the English abandoned any continental aims after the Hundred Years War. That said- I figure having a PU with France (as should be the outcome of a successful hundred years war) works much better as the reward than the claims do- even if the English got the PU, the integration of France should prove its own hurdle after all.
Let's take these together. Prussia is all about militarism. But what if I want to play different? What if for whatever reason the burghers seize controll over the Teutons/Prussia and form a merchant republic and I want to play like that? A merchant republic Prussia. There is just nothing for that. At that point, you're going to have to ignore a pretty big feature that PDX has been pushing to the playerbase for years now, whilst at the same time. The example of the English/British permaclaims then remind you that you're explicitly having to ignore a feature
In that case I think there should be a mild punishment for you not playing into the historical role- I would compare this to a colonial Kongo campaign. The Kongolese aren't prevented from focusing on colonies, just as Prussia isn't prevented from doing trade-focus. It's just they don't get the same bonuses to colonizing as historical colonizers do, just as Prussia wouldn't have the same bonuses as Venice or the Hansa would. And I think this should be the case- certain nations excelled at certain things than others, and I don't believe this is something that can be easily transferrable. I'm a materialist, so I don't think that say cultures are inherently superior over another or anything, but I do think there's a ton of compound factors that drive these things that an administration can't just push a few buttons to do just as well as.
In any case, you CAN do a merchant Prussia run. I just think it's silly you insister either A. you have to be rewarded for it, B. in the absence of rewards for merchant Prussia, rewards for historical militarist Prussia MUST be entirely removed.
Yes, and I think it would be better if they were combined with more dynamic features, like the decision to form France if you started as a French vassal, or the assumption of the Mandate of Heaven if you start as a Red Turban rebellion, instead of it being the reward for completing 5 arbitrary steps in the mission tree.
Yes, but you ignore my Byzantium example because that CAN'T be dealt with via country formation, as Byzantium exists at the start date- and they shouldn't start with claims all over the former Roman Empire. I'm for your suggestions, what I don't understand is why that must mean any sort of permanent claim rewards from missions have to be removed. Are you arguing we can't do this on a case-by-case basis?
You ignore why I said that. I think the game would be better for it, and I am genuinly trying to argue that point. I dislike the "appeal to popularity" and I much prefer the point to be argued. Plus, if PDX does come with a better feature, why would 85% of the community still continue to support a legacy feature? It just represents the status quo
I'm hearing an awful lot of 'I would likes' not a lot of 'players would enjoy'. Pretty much all the arguments I've heard are for why people on a personal level don't like mission trees, and not how they impact enjoyment of the player base writ-large. Which is why I'm skeptical this is really about making the game better for everyone.
I like mission trees. I like the railroading and the gameyness and the artificiality. Why would I, as someone else who plays Paradox games, be better off for the removal, why am I wrong to like mission trees, and how should my like of mission trees be weighted against your dislike of them when it comes to design philosophy?
No I am not and I'm a bit annoyed that this is not the first time that you make that argument. The same argument can be made about you. Aren't the arguments for missions just "vibes" as well? "They give me goals." "They're flavour." In the end it's about how the players enjoy the game, which nescesarily are more "vibes based" if anything
I'm trying to be as concrete with my points as much as I can, which is why i'm trying to drill down in the arguments and talk about specific examples as much as I can, so we can delve into the merits of this or that system, rather than people repeating their opinions more and more. The more we can talk about specific mission trees, the happier I'll be.
I agree with the part on total simulation and abstraction. It's funny actually, since any simulation must abstract, it's moreso just a choice of what you chose to abstract. Stability is obviously a abstraction, but it's also a abstraction of a easy to understand concept that would otherwise become a hassle to represent through simulation. On the other hand, they try to improve on it, since now it is not a static modifier that is affected by events, but a slider with a baseline which is the part you seek to influence as much in the positive direction. The problem isn't the abstraction. A genuine question even because I can't come up with the awnser: what are mission trees an abstraction from? Because they don't really abstract anything, they're a pure game mechanic.
To me it's pretty obvious. It's the historic narratives that pure 'dynamic simulation' cannot portray. The Hundred Years War should be more than just one of many wars you fight, it should be a climactic event. But a purely dynamic system isn't going to be able to determine which wars are the big important ones and which ones aren't. Hence it's something that should be tied to the narratives of both England and France, as in real life the Hundred Years War is built into their respective national identities to this day.
This may be tied tangentialy to a liberal-conservative thing- liberals have the habit of discounting nationalism as a real force, as liberals tend to be materialists. I'm a liberal myself, but I think this is a chronic mistake that's made- nationalism is a real force that has tremendous impact, it's just also an intangible one you can't quantify (similar to morale in armies). A pure numbers simulation can't simulate nationalism really. By it's nature nationalism isn't something that you can just measure against each-other, who has a higher nationalism score? England or France? Well the answer is that it's not about who has more 'points', their nationhood is expressed in different ways that inform different decision making.
We could go back to the Prussia example, Prussian national identity is heavily tied to its heavy militarization, and going 'merchant Prussia' defeats the entire point of this national identity.
I suppose a question should be asked- what do you think the role of national identity is? Based on prior comments I'm going to assume you want it to be completely malleable, able to be transitioned from one state to another on the whim of the player. I'd argue that's entirely ahistorical, even rulers have had to bow to the national circumstances of their country, they persist even amongst massive regime changes. Again this is why I don't like Crusader Kings as that nationalist element is completely absent.
The sliders aren't the only replacement for national ideas and idea groups. The most direct replacement actually is the advancements, and I like how countries have unique advancements for country specific boosts, but you can still just go whatever way and don't lose out on a amount of boosts. It's a great balance of country specific flavour and generic content to allow for emergent gameplay. My first games will definitely be along the route of picking all country specific boosts, I can admit as much, but a highly aristocratic Dutch game where trade takes a solid backseat is coming.
I'm fine with advances, I just don't think they should serve as a replacement for national ideas. For one on a purely gameplay level, ideas gave every tag a unique (or semi unique) buff that could inform their gameplay and thus starting strategy. And I'm not of the opinion that every tag should start on an even playing field at game start.