You could watch a long-form documentary. Just make sure to pause it after it's finished talking about a battle to throw some dice and rewinding it if you don't get above a certain amount.
- 6
- 3
- 2
-
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.
You say that sarcastically, but now I actually kind of want to see a CYOA game that's in the form of an FMV documentary about historical events that changes depending on the choices you make.
- 1
In hindsight it seems obvious to make a game rule of it. To each their own.
- 13
If that makes it to release, it should help reduce the worst of the EU4 style mission trees since they can't be guaranteed to be used in any given playthrough. By which I mean things like locking government reforms or estate privileges behind some mission. It's also a sign that they view missions as optional extras and not a core gameplay feature.
I wonder what the defaults will be?
- 11
- 2
Personally, I'd like MTs to be in EU5 specifically because of Anbennar. It's a mod that really benefits from this structure. Although, I'd rather want I:R MTs in the game as I've heard they're better and more dynamic.
It's also a nice thing that the game has an option to disable MTs and their rewards (in some capacity), since the amount of flavour content not intrinsically connected to MTs will certainly make most playthroughs not feel "samey" like other PDX games.
- 4
- 1
Personally, I heavily enjoy mission trees. Not because the rewards make me OP, but because I like being given "tips" for how to play. I set long-term goals while following the short-term goals of the mission tree. If dynamic mission trees were added, like others have mentioned, that would make it even better, allowing me to do these historical goals and keep things relatively nice, while I can pursue other goals if I choose. I would just make the rewards really minor or even just flavor, then add dynamic missions (That mission chapters and mission books thing that other person mentioned sounds good), then you can get mission trees that fit well in the more open gameplay that EUV seems to be pursuing.
But feel free to disagree, I've noticed most people disagree with my gaming opinions.
But feel free to disagree, I've noticed most people disagree with my gaming opinions.
- 9
- 1
- 1
I feel like the original missions in EU4 were much better for that. Not a set in stone, VN-type structure but just three random missions to choose from every now and then. Kind of like diets nowadays but including custom missions.
- 5
- 2
- 1
- 1
True, I think ideal mission trees should be either carefully managed “multi-tag” interactive like HOI4 KR family of mods or moderated goal guides.
I’m familiar with most European, Middle-east and East-Asia history. But if I would try start as Majapahit somewhere in Indonesia, I would be completely clueless what should I do at first.
Missions should be filling the “Majapahit” kinda gap. Or something else should be.
But, instead of helping me get to know the shoreline merchant cities, rainforest tribes and medieval Majapahit royalties, EU4 devs decided to make Majapahit mission overpowered with its subjection CB, then added a scripted disaster to balance it in early game. So, more “story” less “sandbox” or “history”
- 4
as long as a mission tree does not give me something "because history" and not to powerful i am fine with it.
for a negative example. while i did ignore the mission tree for spain mostly and had my fun in one of my last games it was just weird to have "PU CB over austria"
because: let me look into the wiki... "Our interests in Italy determine that we must secure our position with the Habsburg dynasty, the main Imperial House of this century."
okay... i mean... i had sardinia...
for a negative example. while i did ignore the mission tree for spain mostly and had my fun in one of my last games it was just weird to have "PU CB over austria"
because: let me look into the wiki... "Our interests in Italy determine that we must secure our position with the Habsburg dynasty, the main Imperial House of this century."
okay... i mean... i had sardinia...
- 2
- 2
- 1
While I do agree mission trees are a curse, I disagree with pretty much everything in the first post in this thread apart from the fact that a being against mission trees are not the same being against missions. That said, I feel everything which can be said about mission trees have been said over the past 7 years though. I'll still address the issues I have with some of the initial arguments though.
For those of us who finds mission trees in EU IV to detract from the gameplay there has now been over 7 years of game development where a very big portion of the development time goes into a game mechanics we find to detract from the game. That in itself a huge issue, and a reapeat would make me very hesitant to even bother playing EU IV. If mission trees were a only a small percentage of the DLC content, chances are I would have bought a lot more of the DLCs.
Mission trees are a curse in EU IV. Being a "map painter" makes them worse. Mission trees makes it more of a map colouring book than a map painter. There are two primary problems with mission trees. The "tree structure" where you have to complete very specific pre defined tasks before getting access to the next one. The other is the rewards.
I never felt a need for EU IV to "create a narrative", nor would I look for that in EU V. My playstyle is almost entirely opportunistic (or reactive if you want), and to me all the fun is in the process of moving towards a goal I set for myself. How I get to that goal should however not be pre-defined by the developers, even in part.
While the rewards are not the only problem with the implementation of mission trees in EU IV, it is absolutely a huge part of the problem. If you removed mission rewards I wouldn't really care about mission trees existing in EU IV apart from a feature I never interacted with would basically be the majority of the content added to the game over the last 7 years by now. Sure, I could just not care about losing out on permanent claims because I conquer one are before another, or not wait before activating military bonuses until will benefit the most from them. If I don't care about those the rewards may as well not be there though.
I'm fairly certain some sort evolution of the Imperator mission system was on the table long before project Caesar was announced. As someone who has pretty much stopped playing EU IV due to not having any interest in playing the post-Rule Britannia versions of the game due to mission trees I would very much welcome a mission system concept similar to the original mission system or the victory point system where I could choose one of multiple missions offered based on my current situation, but with no dependency on having completed specific previous missions.
If that's true you can't have participated in many of the mission tree discussions on these forums over the past 7 years, if any at all. Or you are one of those to choose to write off any argument you disagree with as a non-existing argument. The latter seems fairly common in these discussions.
I struggle to see how that would make the arguments any less true, even if that was the case. You having a different playstyle than other players does not make their issues with the game any less real. Mission rewards are there for a reason. I can guarantee you that mission tree heavy DLCs would sell a lot less if you simply removed the mission rewards. It would however solve the "optimal way to play" and "gamey rewards" issue with EU IV mission trees. If you consider those as not being an issue, why not just remove them? If simply ignoring the rewards has no impact on the gameplay, why are they there in the first place?
For those of us who finds mission trees in EU IV to detract from the gameplay there has now been over 7 years of game development where a very big portion of the development time goes into a game mechanics we find to detract from the game. That in itself a huge issue, and a reapeat would make me very hesitant to even bother playing EU IV. If mission trees were a only a small percentage of the DLC content, chances are I would have bought a lot more of the DLCs.
- 10
- 2
- 2
- 1
1. Opportunity cost. Devs have limited resources, they could instead work on mechanics and dynamic content. There are so many more ways to play a country than there are ways to play a mission tree. So why spend resources on making content that will be played through three times out of a hundred instead of spending resources on dynamic content that could influence fifty playthroughs out of a hundred?
Mission trees also tend to be nation-specific, so development resources are spent on specific playthroughs of specific nations, rather than dynamic content that may apply to various playthroughs of many nations. So it's not an efficient, scalable use of development resources.
With nation-specific mission trees, countries are "missing" content until they get a DLC with content specifically for the country.
2. I would want England to play differently from Hungary organically from having different demographic, political, cultural, international, historical setup, not because they each have a scripted mission tree. However, if, through gameplay, England ends up in a situation similar to Hungary's at the start, then I would want England to experience the similar consequences and have the similar goals and tools and options as Hungary did. But that would not be possible with nation-specific mission trees. I don't want interesting content locked behind single, or a few countries.
3. Game mechanics and balance get designed around the mission trees, so it's not something tacked on that can be ignored. The mission tree paths are naturally tested more than other playthroughs of the same country, so the game tends to get balanced around the mission trees.
4. It's top-down design tendency that's in conflict with bottom-up emergent gameplay. Hypothetically, the mission tree designer might say, "It would be fun for the players to conquer x as y." and so that mission is added, but then the players complain that it's too difficult to conquer x, so the game balance gets tweaked to make that easier. So roleplaying believability, gameplay, balance all can get compromised like that to serve the mission tree narrative. It's backwards compared to the game saying, "Here's your starting situation and here are your tools, see what you can accomplish," which is much more interesting and fun, and to me, the main reason to play Paradox grand strategy games.
As I've described in #1, rigid scripted content exists in the place of dynamic mechanical content. The more of it means the less of the latter. I want less of it and more of the latter. I want gameplay enriched and countries differentiated by things like Societal Values, Control, religion, demographic makeup, resources, development, diplomacy, not scripted mission trees.
- 10
- 7
- 1
- 1
I really like the mission trees in EUIV as a way to add special content to each country. However, they do also make the player pursue certain decisions that they may not otherwise have taken and hence tend to make each play through of a nation more similar. In my England/GB games (95% of all my games, so I play this a lot), after vassalizing Scotland and conquering Ireland, I will almost always declare War on Norway to claim the North Atlantic Islands still belonging to Norway. However, if it was not for missions, I would likely just take the islands and sit back and wait for war score and then take them. However, due to the mission that requires humiliating a rival and getting war reparations from 3 countries, in the vast majority of of cases I land troops on the continent to peace out Denmark's allies and then finally take the Danish capital and other areas until I can get a peace that gives me both the mission and the territory I want. Similarly, I also try to build up three alliances with strong European powers for another mission, in spite of the fact that I will normally ditch some if not all of them as soon as I am done with the mission. I mention these examples to illustrate how the mission tree will often lead the player to do things the same way over and over again, even if it is not really something that fits with the chosen game style, just to unlock the missions (to access later missions). With this in mind, I actually do not think that a traditional mission tree as in EUIV would be a good idea. Instead, why not tie it into the parliament mechanic, where different estates may have a range of different goals they would like to see you work towards in exchange for their support, say 3-5 for each estate represented. Then you can pick which ones you think would be a good idea, and get immediate support from the estate for this parliament, and depending on whether or not you succeed, a buff or penalty for that estate in the next parliament.
Last edited:
- 6
- 3
- 2
- 1
I understand the complaint here, and it's a valid one, but I remember eu4 from before missions and I prefer what we have now tbh. Granted, you mentioned you think this game will be different enough from eu4 such that we won't need guidance. What are your thoughts on dynamic missions such as what imperator Rome had? Obviously stuff within the first 50 years should give some starting narrative, eg Castile should want to make a tributary out of granada, Brandenburg should want to remove the wittelsbachs, France and England should want to finish the hyw. The dynamic missions in imperator were really great design wise, they let me escape the funk of "what now?" as they gave tailored advice.
- 3
- 2
I think the concept of Missions itself is too game-y for what Paradox Tinto is trying to do with EU5. Missions are not very historical after all. Instead, it would be better IMO to use this design space to reintroduce Idea Groups to some degree and call them Ambitions.
- Military Ambitions: Territorial expansion, building a powerful army or navy, achieving military dominance, pursuing military reforms (e.g., Prussia's drive for military professionalism, the Ottoman military modernization)
- Diplomatic Ambitions: Aiming for influence over other states, forming powerful alliances, creating personal unions, becoming the leader of international organizations
- Technological/Innovative Ambitions: Seeking to advance science, technology, or administrative efficiency (e.g., Enlightenment-era Britain)
- Colonial/Exploration Ambitions: Pursuing overseas colonies, discovering new lands, establishing trade empires
- Cultural Ambitions: Promoting a national culture, language, seeking to become a cultural hegemon (e.g., France’s cultural dominance in the 17th–18th centuries)
- Governmental/Administrative Ambitions: Centralizing power, reforming government institutions, achieving greater absolutism or constitutionalism (e.g., France’s move toward absolutism, England’s Glorious Revolution)
- Humanist/Social Ambitions: Promoting tolerance, social reforms, or internal stability,
- Espionage/Intelligence Ambitions: Engaging in covert operations, destabilizing rivals, or gathering intelligence
- 2
- 1
- 1
I think there's an even greater argument that mts are a curse in anbennar lmao.
- 3
- 1
- 1
Because I am a gamer, and in every game I will do what gives me power in order to be competitive. There is a reason why missions give you such strong bonuses, because Paradox wants you to do them. Of course you can simply ignore them, but no player in a competitive environment would do so and miss out on some of those insane bonuses they provide.
- 5