Missions are so toxic to good gameplay

[st360]

After a long time I decided to play a country with a big mission tree (Ethiopia). Now, if this was an "non updated" county, I would know exactly what I wanted and what to do. I want to rebel convert to Jewish and conquer around.

BUT, because I know I'm playing an updated nation, first I "have" to do homework. I need to go on Youtube and watch Ethiopia playtroughs from 2021 to see if you get a free event to turn Jewish, making my rebel collapsing silly. Turns out no, I don't get any free events to switch religion, like Bohemia or Persia.

Then I have to search for and read the old dev diary just so that I don't fall into any obvious "opportunity traps". Will I get any free alliances with Portugal or the Ottomans, will I get some overpowered event that might change my playstyle long term, like Gotland getting to choose to become a pirate republic or something? I don't want to spend 3000 diplo points rushing exploration only to find out I get a colonist and auto exploration for free like Russia or Inca.

At this point I'm a bit out of the mood, but I still open EU 4 and start as Ethiopia. Now I first have to read all the missions in advance, because if I don't, ill spend years on making claims I would had gotten for free and hundreds of diplo and admin points as a noneuropean nation I could had saved If I conquered provinces after I get permaclaims for them.

A lot of missions don't even tell me what Ill get; the reward is a mysterious "You will trigger Event X as a reward". Apparently If I spend 10 years of my income building a navy I don't want at all, I can "Trigger country event “The Journey over the Nile” in 30 days". Is that goint to give me an extra missionary I really really need or 10 prestige is anybodies guess. Since I'm stubborn, I minimize the game and open the wiki to see what my reward actually does. Turns out the reward “The Journey over the Nile” triggers "Contact with the Christians!" event in 50 days. At this point I just give up.

Finally I actually start playing as Ethiopia. An OPM randomly allied 3 huge powers and I need that OPM to finish a mission to give me 10 permaclaims on a totally exposed rival. YES I get it! I don't ABSOLUTELY NEED to get those permaclaims to conquer my rival, I can make 1 claim for a CB and annex him for 200 diplo points and a higher coring cost. But its Fing despiriting and iritating as hell to be between "easily grow 4 times in size in 20 years and have enough MPs to spawn renaissance" and "grow less and be starved for MPs and eventually be unprepared for the Ottomans because you did a 15 mission sausage 1 mission out of order".

Finally I somehow brute force my way trough a 18k versus 40k war, exhausting all my manpower for one 3/2/3 dev province. I core it, get free permaclaims, check the next mission and realize I need to conquer 3 provinces to get claims on 50% of my neighbors. But the 3 provinces are in a nation I JUST FULLY OCCUPIED and peaced out for 100% warscore on stupid crap like breaking alliances and retracting claims for a bit of prestige. So now I need to sit on my ass and wait 15 years to restart this janky mission conquest path.


I get that missions are not going away for one reason or another, but can the developers in the future PLEASE do them with some more good gameplay in mind other than just with "what sounds cool". Scotland has a mission to conquer TWO provinces from England which has twice its army size. Then after the war you get a mission and claims to conquer two more provinces. Who in the world will use those missions?

Starting an EU4 nation used to be all about strategy. Who is rivals with whom, what is the weakest alliance, can you get an excuse CB to declare war on that key nation? Now its much more about "How to snake trough the mission tree as fast as I can".

Finally, YES I do know that "you can just ignore missions if you don't like them". When there was a bug to develop Tibet to 80/80/80 dev provinces people could had ignored that too, but they complained anyway. When American natives had equal tech to Europeans and conquered all of America, people could had just ignored that too, but they complained. A lot of missions are objectively structured badly, and a lot of buffs and new mechanics are way too hidden and opaque.

My minimal suggestions:

1) EU 4 has a "starting window" where you can read up on the country you start to play with. At least put the most unique / important information there. "If you follow your trade missions you will get a mercenary company from Portugal", "you get PUs on this, this and this country", "Eventually you will be able to choose to become a holy order or a horde", things like that.

2) Make missions more flexible. Instead of claims missions which have to be done in the exact order, give admin points as a reward. All these huge claims are pretty overpowered anyway. Religious ideas used to be the strongest in the game because of the Holy War CB. Now they are unnecessary outside world conquests because "newly updated" nations get perma claims on everything they could possibly want to conquer.

Update:

Well, apparently Ethiopia's BS mechanics won. Despite owning half of Africa by 1500 I'm quitting the game. My autonomy is trough the roof and after 20 minutes of googling and doing mission gymnastics I have no idea what "Biblical Sabbath Reform is". Its not in the priest estate list (which I had to revoke a privilege and tank loyalty JUST TO SEE) and I cant find the damn thing on Google. Because there is no question that THE ACTUAL GAME would NOT have that information even though its impossible to play without it.

Please don't respond by telling me under what terribly designed rock "Biblical Sabbath Reform" is hiding in. I deleted the save and I no longer care about this worse than a bugged mod experience.

 

[Blindbohemian]

Yes. Mission trees are the single worst addition ever made to EUIV.

 

[Cuke]

first I "have" to do homework.

You don't. At most - the only homework you have to do is to read the mission tree in question.

An OPM randomly allied 3 huge powers and I need that OPM to finish a mission to give me 10 permaclaims on a totally exposed rival. YES I get it! I don't ABSOLUTELY NEED to get those permaclaims to conquer my rival,

Actually, this is bloody brilliant. For once, RNG gave you a meaningfully tough mission to complete. You're not getting permaclaims handed over to you on a plate, no sir. You have to work hard to get them, instead of steamrolling an OPM without any effort.

 

[Vulkandrache]

You're not getting permaclaims handed over to you on a plate, no sir.

The fact that RNG can be such a huge swing is a problem all on its own.
Sometimes some missions have insane rewards for a trivial task
and other times a mission (maybe even the same again) has a trivia reward for an insane task.

I dont even think that Ethiopia is that bad in the grand scheme mostly because they are in their own corner
doing their own thing. By tht time you are meeting other relevant nations you are almost done with your missions.
The mentioned Scotland is way worse in terms of design. Which is especialy hilarious because the Irish minors have
have a way better Missions for conquering England than Scotland themselves.

You don't. At most - the only homework you have to do is to read the mission tree in question.

No. The newest Missions have a brief explanation for the Event they trigger.
98% of Missions dont have that (yet).
If you want any sort of efficiency you are going to have the Wiki open on the side.

 

[st360]

You don't. At most - the only homework you have to do is to read the mission tree in question.

Ok. Tell me how to switch Ethiopia's units to the super powerful western ones by reading me the mission tree. Give me a screenshot or the quote from the mission text.

Actually, this is bloody brilliant. For once, RNG gave you a meaningfully tough mission to complete. You're not getting permaclaims handed over to you on a plate, no sir. You have to work hard to get them, instead of steamrolling an OPM without any effort.

No, its not "brilliant" its random bad design randomly hitting something you apparently "like".

EU 4 should have clear starting rules and difficulties. Want to play a hard game? Pick Albania. Want an easy one? Pick Castile.

Permaclaims *are* handed to you on a plate, yes sir. Them being handed to you on a badly made wobbly plate that falls down *unintendedly* isn't brilliant game design.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

Ok. Tell me how to switch Ethiopia's units to the super powerful western ones by reading me the mission tree. Give me a screenshot or the quote from the mission text.

You are welcome

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

The earlier mission trees are not so bad. The HRE regional/elector ones that came out with Emperor I find perfectly reasonable in terms of work/reward ratio and they never get in the way of what I want to do. I have played 5 games as Swabia and am planning a sixth. The later mission trees, however, are a victim of power creep, being very bloated in comparison and giving basically free rewards, or rewards for doing something really simple. Gotland is a good (or bad) example. Half a thousand ducats for improving relations with Austria...

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

After a long time I decided to play a country with a big mission tree (Ethiopia). Now, if this was an "non updated" county, I would know exactly what I wanted and what to do. I want to rebel convert to Jewish and conquer around.

BUT, because I know I'm playing an updated nation, first I "have" to do homework. I need to go on Youtube and watch Ethiopia playtroughs from 2021 to see if you get a free event to turn Jewish, making my rebel collapsing silly. Turns out no, I don't get any free events to switch religion, like Bohemia or Persia.

Then I have to search for and read the old dev diary just so that I don't fall into any obvious "opportunity traps". Will I get any free alliances with Portugal or the Ottomans, will I get some overpowered event that might change my playstyle long term, like Gotland getting to choose to become a pirate republic or something? I don't want to spend 3000 diplo points rushing exploration only to find out I get a colonist and auto exploration for free like Russia or Inca.

As cuke has pointed out you really don't need to do that unless you want to play optimally. I don't know any missions that are somehow completely blocked if you don't do them in a specific order or they are blocked completly. You might not be able to rush through them as fast as someone doing a 4 h research but what exactly is the problem here? Are you playing in some kind of competition? Are you afraid a run might fail? Yeah thats annyoing but why shouldn't that be a possibility?
Also there have been guides and step by step playthroughs before mission trees. Just look at byzantium.

What does the gotland event have to do with mission trees?

Finally I somehow brute force my way trough a 18k versus 40k war, exhausting all my manpower for one 3/2/3 dev province. I core it, get free permaclaims, check the next mission and realize I need to conquer 3 provinces to get claims on 50% of my neighbors. But the 3 provinces are in a nation I JUST FULLY OCCUPIED and peaced out for 100% warscore on stupid crap like breaking alliances and retracting claims for a bit of prestige. So now I need to sit on my ass and wait 15 years to restart this janky mission conquest path.

Why did you only take one province? Also what exactly is the problem with that? On the one hand rushing through missions trees is bad and on the other having to wait 15 years is someone the end of the world.

 

[Vulkandrache]

Why did you only take one province?

Fight an entire, fairly big (for the state of the game,) war and take a single province
or pay Dip for a bunch of provinces that you get claims on right after the war.
You get to decide which of these is less bad!

On the one hand rushing through missions trees is bad and on the other having to wait 15 years is someone the end of the world.

The missions are static. They expect you to do one specific thing at a time.
The political map is dynamic. It opens and closes into opportunities.
Unless the stars align you get to do one or the other. Not both.

 

[st360]

View attachment 1014339
You are welcome

??? Excuse me, what is this? I didn't ask you to find me the mission to switch my units. You couldn't figure out I knew it existed when I used it as an example?

I asked you to SHOW ME WHERE THE MISSION SAYS IT CHANGES MY UNITS INTO WESTERN TYPES.

So?

To you and the people liking your comment... I'm still waiting... Where is the text that tells me when I start an Ethiopia game that I can get western units if I do X?

 

[st360]

As cuke has pointed out you really don't need to do that unless you want to play optimally.

So why do people complain that certain religions are overpowered and others too weak? You can just pick a weak religion unless you want to play optimally. Why where Streltsy units buffed last patch, people could had just kept playing them not optimally.

"Ignore it / mod it" isn't a real argument. This thread isn't even saying missions shouldn't exist or be smaller. The complaint is that its a bad gameplay feature, and nobody designs new features expecting them to be bad and some of the players to just ignore it.

I don't know any missions that are somehow completely blocked if you don't do them in a specific order or they are blocked completly.

Its not about the missions being blocked, its about the rewards being blocked. Monarch points can still be very valuable, especially for non Europeans who have to deal with lagging institutions. Ignoring a 10 permaclaim mission at the start can mean hundreds of monarch points wasted over a situation *which* *wasn't* *intended*. You cant look at the "free stuff from day 1" mission bonanza and tell me the developers carefully crafted it because they intended it to be ignored or severely delayed.

You might not be able to rush through them as fast as someone doing a 4 h research but what exactly is the problem here? Are you playing in some kind of competition?

Yes. I'm competing against the Ottomans which as an AI are weighted to prefer rivaling the player and which will declare war in 100 years with 150k armies of 4 shock generals while I'm sitting at 40k and 2 military techs behind.

I'm also in the competition against reaching the year 1821, when the game forcefully shuts down.

Are you afraid a run might fail? Yeah thats annyoing but why shouldn't that be a possibility?

It should be a possibility due to a players lack of skill and rare luck around the edges, not Scotland having missions telling you to conquer England in 7 wars 2 provinces at a time.

Also there have been guides and step by step playthroughs before mission trees. Just look at byzantium.

Except a guide for Byzantium is: "Defeat the Ottomans using X, then you're free, do what you want". And that was the hardest most "guide needed" nation. Guides for "updated" nations are scattered between year old dev diaries, 15 minutes of reading huge mission trees and mysterious rewards like "completing this mission will trigger the event "The restoration of Abughannah".

What does the gotland event have to do with mission trees?

Its part of the "mission tree philosophy" where overpowered railroaded rewards are given on arbitrary grounds. Why does Gotland get a free event to become an ahistorical pirate republic, but if I want to be a pirate as Sardinia I have to switch cultures, change tags, reform governments?

Why did you only take one province? Also what exactly is the problem with that? On the one hand rushing through missions trees is bad and on the other having to wait 15 years is someone the end of the world.

The inconsistency and arbitrariness is bad. I could maybe accept it if EU 4 was a more "random" game, but this is the same game where Granada has a mission "rival Morocco OR ally them". This shows that the developers clearly want missions to be straightforward, especially starting ones, and my critique is that isn't so because some of them are poorly designed and they are just too elaborate and overwhelming.

 

[Blindbohemian]

View attachment 1014339
You are welcome

Did you read the request?

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

Fight an entire, fairly big (for the state of the game,) war and take a single province
or pay Dip for a bunch of provinces that you get claims on right after the war.
You get to decide which of these is less bad!

So where is the missionm tree responsible for this exactly? Because you would have the exact same problem if you had no claims from a previous mission. If you expend that many resources to fight a superior enemy early on and the only benefit is one province because you don't want to spend diplo points thats simply a bad investment by the player. It has nothing to do with the mission.

You could have made more claims yourself (which you would have needed to do anyway without the mission tree).

You could have paid the diplo points to take more stuff.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

Ok. Tell me how to switch Ethiopia's units to the super powerful western ones by reading me the mission tree. Give me a screenshot or the quote from the mission text.

??? Excuse me, what is this? I didn't ask you to find me the mission to switch my units. You couldn't figure out I knew it existed when I used it as an example?

I asked you to SHOW ME WHERE THE MISSION SAYS IT CHANGES MY UNITS INTO WESTERN TYPES.

So?

To you and the people liking your comment... I'm still waiting... Where is the text that tells me when I start an Ethiopia game that I can get western units if I do X?

The missions leads to an event called modernization of the army. You could check this yourself in the game. Given how you did all those research you are probably aware of it. Its the only mission in the tree with such an event. You wanted to know the requirements to modernize the army. The mission pretty clearly states the requirements for completing the mission.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

The missions are static. They expect you to do one specific thing at a time.
The political map is dynamic. It opens and closes into opportunities.
Unless the stars align you get to do one or the other. Not both.

Kind of fair point. I like the multiderxtional trees in the newer updates which have multiple conditions (e.g. having an ally hold the netherlands in the angevin tree isntead of yourself).

But again there is nothing stopping you from taking advantage of a situation elsewehere. The mission doesn't state expand into Province X first. I never expand into one direction alone mission tree or not so why is the mission forcing me to stop that?

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

It should be a possibility due to a players lack of skill and rare luck around the edges, not Scotland having missions telling you to conquer England in 7 wars 2 provinces at a time.

The game has always been an RNG fest.

This also seems to be one of the weakest rewards and you are ironically advocating on buffing it despite arguing against strong rewards on other places.

"The inconsistency and arbitrariness is bad. I could maybe accept it if EU 4 was a more "random" game, but this is the same game where Granada has a mission "rival Morocco OR ally them". This shows that the developers clearly want missions to be straightforward, especially starting ones, and my critique is that isn't so because some of them are poorly designed and they are just too elaborate and overwhelming.

Again the game is an RNG fest since its inception. Also here you have a roughly opposite solutions to complete the mission and somehow that is restrictive? Morocco is a natural expansion route if you are Granada. Historically Morocco was involved in Spain for hundreds of years.

"Ignore it / mod it" isn't a real argument. This thread isn't even saying missions shouldn't exist or be smaller. The complaint is that its a bad gameplay feature, and nobody designs new features expecting them to be bad and some of the players to just ignore it.

Where did I say ignore it? I said you might have to wait to complete the mission as I am not aware of a situation where you can block yourself from completing a mission completely.

Yes. I'm competing against the Ottomans which as an AI are weighted to prefer rivaling the player and which will declare war in 100 years with 150k armies of 4 shock generals while I'm sitting at 40k and 2 military techs behind.

I'm also in the competition against reaching the year 1821, when the game forcefully shuts down.

Both are still the case without mission trees. So why is the mission tree responsible again?

 

[Lazy Sorcerer]

As cuke has pointed out you really don't need to do that unless you want to play optimally.

Because having a mission tree makes any attempt at forming your own grand strategy feel arbitrary, when I can easily just opt out of it by following a mission tree. Mission trees move the game down to the regular strategic and operational level - it's no longer about What, just about How. And if I try to just ignore them, it still makes my decisions feel arbitrary, since I am under no obligation to actually solve those grand-strategic problems - freebies Mission Trees give are so strong that it's better to pursue a suboptimal grand strategy to get those sweet permaclaims and modifiers. The game would be better without them.

Example: Portugal's mission to conquer Hormuz. Without mission trees, if you want territory in that area you need to look at the situation there, whether Timurids are are strong or whether they fell apart, etc. then decide if taking something there is worth it rn and if so, what? With a mission tree, you are simply going for province 2999, the only question is how do you do that.

 

[Cuke]

Because having a mission tree makes any attempt at forming your own grand strategy feel arbitrary, when I can easily just opt out of it by following a mission tree.

And that's the good thing about mission trees. Instead of expanding arbitrarily without mission trees you have something to follow this time. Or, in terms of the initial complaint, with a mission tree you have some homework planning to do before starting the game.

 

[Lazy Sorcerer]

And that's the good thing about mission trees. Instead of expanding arbitrarily without mission trees you have something to follow this time. Or, in terms of the initial complaint, with a mission tree you have some homework planning to do before starting the game.

Ok, when we have devolved into and-that's-good-thing-ing it's clear we just don't want to play the same game. It's sad that EU4 has changed from one game to another that appeals to you more than me, but such is life. I'll just have to vote with my vallet by not buying new EU4 DLCs and shouting online in hope I can move the needle back to me with EU5.

 

[Lazy Sorcerer]

Also there have been guides and step by step playthroughs before mission trees. Just look at byzantium.

The difference is that OOG guides don't give you in-game bonuses.