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
- 4
- 1
-
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.
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.
- 1
- 1
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.
- 1
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.
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.
- 8
- 2
- 2
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?
- 3
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.
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.
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.
- 5
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
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.
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.
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.
- 5
- 1
Here are my thoughts.
I actually believe Austria shouldn't be diplomatically overpowered. Just because Austria was a diplomatic powerhouse in OTL, doesn't mean that it should just stumble upon having a PU over half of Europe in EU4. It makes playing Austria -- and this applies to every major country -- extremely unfun. I actively avoid playing major tags nowadays, simply because whenever I do, I've already 'won' the game before the year 1500. Or a little after. Austria's mission tree just gives you free PUs and subjugate CBs all over Europe from the very start. It's blatant powercreep.
'Fun' is subjective, I know, but I'd argue most people would agree with me when I say that achieving things yourself is more fun than when everything is handed to you. Austria in OTL achieved its position, their dominance followed decades of careful politicking. They certainly didn't just 'stumble' upon world domination. And yet, you can't have that as a player. You don't get to feel as if you achieved something as a player because you're constantly given crutches. I find playing minors with no or antiquated content more enjoyable nowadays simply because everything I achieve, I achieve myself, using the game's mechanics.
Austria shouldn't be good at diplomacy, it should have the opportunity to be.
- 7
- 1
That sounds more a problem that you like the grind, than because of specialization in any thing.
Anyway- my problem is that if I'm only playing to reward myself, I'm gonna tap out pretty early, because whatever goal I set for myself is going to be achieved around 1500 also. Mission trees for me not only provide me with something to want to accomplish every 50 years or so, but a tangible reward for doing so. Not to denigrate peoples playstyles for doing this, but the 'set your own goals' mentality sounds as absurd to me as 'turn the video-game off, and just imagine a compelling campaign'. I mean, yeah I could do that, but it rather defeats the point of the video-game.
And in any-case- I still don't see how this mandates that the entire mission tree mechanic from being removed. If you DON'T want to play Austria diplomatically THEN DON'T. The mission trees inclusion doesn't make alternate playstyles more difficult for its inclusion. It simply provides bonuses for a specific playstyle.
I have to ask you a similar question- what's your preferred playstyle? You mention you prefer minors and antiquated content, that's fine, but what motivates you to pick a tag? Do you find yourself playing the same strategy over and over again? Do you find yourself motivated to play the same tag in multiple different strategies? Do you find yourself looking at the map for a new region to play in?
Cause based off of the other guy, I'm lead to suspect the people who don't want mission trees only play the same 4 or 5 tags based solely on their starting position.
- 6
It's not the 'grind' that I like, it's being challenged while achieving my goals. I'm not a masochist, which is also why I don't do 'silly-challenging' runs. (sort the eu4 achievements by most rare for what I mean by 'silly-challenging')
But that's the issue, that the powercreep is so abhorrent that you achieve less-than-world-conquest goals by roughly 1500. What countries in OTL took centuries to achieve, you achieve in ~56 years. That is a problem. Having more buttons to click thereafter -- if that's what you're entertained by then be my guest -- is merely a bandaid solution. I don't get how you arrive on the 'just imagine the campaign' though, but I could say something similar, more accurately, about you. If you play for the missions alone, why not just open the wiki and read them one by one? As for me, I do 'just imagine a compelling campaign', right before I open the game and play it out with whatever twists and turns the game throws at me; which is why I hope you understand why I'm upset when it doesn't, and the game proceeds exactly how I had planned.
Besides, my post wasn't about setting your goals or having them set for you, but about how the game plays out.
You completely misunderstood me. It's not playing Austria diplomatically that I have an issue with, it's the ease with which you do so. I want to play as a diplomatic Austria, but 'play', as I understand it, is an active verb. I want to carry out the events which led to Austria dominating Europe in OTL, not have it 'happen' to me.
I feel like this is a complete deviation from my post and the issues I brought up but I'll indulge.
I pick tags based on whether I'm interested in their history, or whether they're fit for a general goal I'm interested in, or just for the 'vibes'. I am motivated by the extrinsic first and foremost and the intrinsic second. The devs could create a Chinese HRE, accuracy be damned, with the exact same effects that it has on one's playthrough as the actual HRE, and I wouldn't play it more than once or twice. Now, I have a generally broad interest in European history (I'm from there after all), so really, any nation within Europe is game. I know how history went and I can either recreate it or consciously deviate from it. The more I know about a region or tag, the more interest I have in (re)playing it. Which is why I've replayed my home tag about a hundred times. Brabantia maior esse debet!
So yes, I do often play the same tags in multiple different ways since I often have different goals and different moods.
So, I usually play within Europe and am primarily driven by my own interests. The goals I set are perhaps not always 'probable', or even 'realistic', but there's a difference, I'd say, between creating a mediterranean thalassocracy as the Papal States, and conquering the entire continent. The latter I find to be devoid of any and all creativity. Sadly, due to the issues raised in previous paragraphs, I am excluded from enjoying certain tags. There's no fun to be had when the only challenging goal one can set is the continental conquest, or worse, a world conquest. Thus, my preference for minor tags increased as the years went on, which, along with my general interest in its history, led to me nestling in the HRE for my 'go-to' playthroughs. The increased AE and the Unlawful Territory mechanic, as well as being surrounded by other minors tags, is the cherry on top for me. I find it quite fun to slowly expand, grabbing whatever opportunities the game mechanics throw at me and a somewhat self-imposed rule I often have is to avoid Unlawful Territory by only ever vassalizing or inheriting other tags. Of course, I do usually ramp up as the game goes on.
I don't 'go' looking for a new tag to play. If for whatever reason I am suddenly interested in an Afghanistan playthrough, I'll play Afghanistan. Likewise for any other tag.
- 3
Mission Trees in EU4 are in the same spirit as combat - too much effort for too little reward.
A lot of Commonwealth development missions come to mind. Pour 100s of mana points into developing dozens of provinces and get a minor temporary buff in return. As I've said about combat, either keep the missions difficult and make the rewards worth the effort or make them easier if you just want to give out temporary bonuses.
A lot of Commonwealth development missions come to mind. Pour 100s of mana points into developing dozens of provinces and get a minor temporary buff in return. As I've said about combat, either keep the missions difficult and make the rewards worth the effort or make them easier if you just want to give out temporary bonuses.
Fair, basically what I was still getting at though.
Yeah, but I think that comes from the fact that it's a video-game- the average EUIV powergamer is gonna have a better head for long-term strategy than your average early-modern ruler. This comes from factors that are represented in Crusader Kings- where dynastic power was prized over state power, but that's a system I want kept in Crusader Kings anyway. In theory EUV's approach to manpower and the economy should better replicate why wars were more staggered out and more careful a decision and help ameliorate this problem. In any case, it' snot down solely to missions, hence they shouldn't be removed outright.
I wasn't saying you specifically were saying 'imagine your own campaign' it's just been what I feel like people in the thread generally have been getting at- that all player motivation should come from the player, and not from unique tag-specific content. Why do I not want to open the wiki and research the history before each campaign? Because I want to play the video-game. That's what I'm getting at with the 'imagine your own campaign' mentality. I also don't want to be the only one that involved in the video-game that is trying to aim for replicating any kind of history. And even if I was- what do I do if the game doesn't support that? Like say, what do I do if say I want to replicate the Japanese invasion of Korae from the Korean side, only the Japanese AI decides never to invade? What will have reading the wiki on that have helped me?
There's a broader question here that I think is informing a lot of this debate that I feel should be addressed (not necessarily by you, but the thread more largely), how weighted should historical outcome be vs. ahistorical outcomes? I'm not an absolutist on the historical outcomes side- since that'd obviously not work, but I do think we should aim for like a 75% within the realm of history zone. But a lot of people who hate mission trees seem to be demanding the freedom to go complete ahistorical in all scenarios, which to me defeats the point of the game trying to so closely mirror a 1337 start date in the first place. Again I draw a comparison with Civilization, which allows alt-history in its totality with completely random maps and which nations start where.
Can you explain further? Cause I'm not seeing the distinction.
I admit it is, but I feel it's important information. Anyway your motivations sound largely similar to my own- figuring out which areas would be interesting to play in, for their unique history and culture. Though you seem to prefer unorthodox campaign goals.
I think your issue is more one I have with EUIV as well- that there are only a couple of really supported playstyles. The most supported playstyle is a conquest heavy one, playing wide. There's only a few cases where game mechanics are built to discourage that- certain historical dynamics (included in certain mission trees) between certain nations (like say Spain and the HRE, the Papacy generally). A few nations are built around playing tall (the Netherlands), or colonialism (Portugal), the main issue is these lack as much mechanical ease or depth that combat does. Playing Tall and Colonial has gotten some expanded features, but it mostly serves as a complementary type of strategy than a central focus kind of one. Honestly my main issue with mission trees is they don't properly support a Decentralized strategy (having lots of vassals). This was somewhat amended by the ability as overlord to look at vassal mission trees to help them achieve them, but in most cases it's hard as the Overlord to help them achieve them (like anything to do with estates) and in most cases the rewards aren't something you can even indirectly enjoy as an overlord (like say permanent buffs to the vassal, added development to their land or unique land modifiers, etc.). Of course I just say that mission trees should be adjusted for those strategies in mind.
In any case though, I don't see Mission Trees in and of themselves making alternate playstyles unviable. I'd blame this just on the game more largely, and even ideally as people in this thread want to do with removing mission trees, I don't see how that would make say, playing other diplomatic playstyles more viable. I'd only see additional game mechanics helping that.