-
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.
Ethiopia is literally the most likely country in EU 4 to become Jewish, and the missions where advertised as being designed specifically to take Jewish Ethiopia into account.
You have the only 2 Jewish provinces in the game. I rebel converted.
- 2
I don't even get how this is an argument. You only need to "do research" if you want to do extreme minmaxing, so you're upset that there exists content to minmax? You can completely ignore the missions if you want, you're just upset that their very existence means you aren't playing "optimally". This is something you should address with a mod or something. Most people love the fact that different countries play differently. I ignore missions all the time, usually when a mission gives me claims on an area I don't want. What is the issue? You can do whatever you want if you don't impose a bizarre requirement on yourself to play 100% perfectly and optimally at all times.
They are literally optional. Not up for debate. Shift+right click to disable the completed mission notification.
Last edited:
- 12
- 3
You can't end Majapahit disaster without mission. And if I remember correctly, you can't with Mali also.
- 3
Those are two very specific exceptions to a rule, for nations that were practically failed states in 1444. Also not true if you disable Origins or Leviathan.
- 2
So is taking any idea groups, technology, coring, declaring war, diplomacy, selecting a nation in the first place...
Yes, they are optional in a very literal sense, but missions are by design not optional to the extent you seem to suggest. Because it is intended that the player does complete the missions. That is why there is a notification to tell you so (which is not disabled by default), why you get rewards for the missions, and why there are positive auditory and visual effects when you are able to click to complete a mission. You can ignore them but all the above suggest you are not intended to do so.
'Ignoring' missions means you do not receive the rewards you could otherwise get. I would see this more as not getting an advantage rather than being disadvantaged, but it depends on how you look at it. I do not particularly care about 'optimum' gameplay, but I do think for some of the more recent trees you can miss out on substantial bonuses for not following the missions. If I don't do the Swabian missions I miss out on a few claims and potentially the chance to integrate a few small allies for free. But if I were to ignore missions as Gotland or the Teutons or whomever I miss out on a lot of free money, special government reforms, events and so on. You miss out on things which make playing the country a more unique and flavourful experience as well, which is potentially an issue, as you are not getting the 'full' experience of the country just for not following a certain path, which could be seen as punishing people for treating the game as a sandbox rather than in a more linear fashion.
Of course, this does not stop you doing what ever you want, but arguing the missions are just totally optional is ignoring everything which suggests they aren't intended to be. Why would there be effort made to encourage the player to complete missions otherwise? What I would consider purely optional in terms of gameplay is something like a unit pack, which confers no advantage or disadvantage. Or even more optional, coloured wastelands: no effect on any gameplay, totally up to you, developers do not intend for you to use it or not use it, no incentive to enable/disable it.
Last edited:
- 11
That's not the point, unlike stated they are not literally optionnal. And I could add Levonic order's one to deal with locked selected Estates privilege.
- 1
I think a lot of the issues people have with missions could be fixed by making them dynamic, or failing that, fixing the work:reward ratio on some of them to be more in line with the earlier, more moderate trees, which would ensure no one had an OP tree compared to anyone else and there were no silly rewards like free money. But this will probably never happen so...
I'm not that bothered about it because I prefer the earlier trees, but I can also see why people who might like bigger trees are still irate about the trees that other countries are getting now - the trees are not distributed equally from country to country. I keep on coming back to Gotland, since I think they demonstrate the issue best, but you have three extensive separate trees with rewards like 500 free-ish ducats, for a nation that was essentially a declining regional trade port. If such a relatively insignificant country gets that, why shouldn't more significant countries such as Bavaria or Scotland get it too? Why shouldn't I get an equally magnanimous tree for restoring Swabia and avenging Conradin? Especially since trees are now being used as a vehicle for flavour.
Last edited:
- 1
They do intend you to use coloured wastelands. It's on by default, despite being an antifeature.
- 2
Hmm... Maybe it is so new players don't get them confused with uncolonised provinces?
But the point still stands that you are not rewarded in any way for their use or lack of, unlike missions.
I think the issue with mission trees is they can get a bit linear and repetitive over time. I propose a new system of mission... let's say "pools". Instead of starting a nation in 1444 and going through the first missions in a tree, the game chooses from a pool of potential missions, and you then pick a mission from those choices to pursue. Since there's a general theme of 3s, you could have, say, "administrative", "diplomatic, and "military" missions. The game picks one from each category, and you choose one of those three to be your currently active mission.
You could have a mix of generic missions available to all nations, and specific ones for major tags, with weightings based on your current situations helping to determine which ones are available.
To avoid being locked into a mission you no longer can or want to complete, you could cancel your currently active one, but you'd probably want to put a cool-down on so people don't just cycle through until they get a specific mission.
This is definitely a good idea.
You could have a mix of generic missions available to all nations, and specific ones for major tags, with weightings based on your current situations helping to determine which ones are available.
To avoid being locked into a mission you no longer can or want to complete, you could cancel your currently active one, but you'd probably want to put a cool-down on so people don't just cycle through until they get a specific mission.
This is definitely a good idea.
I had a similar idea for national ideas. Rather than a fixed set of 7 there could be a pool of ~21 for each country (7 of each adm/dip/mil catagory) and each time you got 3 normal ideas you could select one. However, it might be a struggle to find good flavour ideas for smaller countries...
- 1
Maybe you were not playing at that time but what you are proposing is not new but literally the system we had before mission trees were created in 1.24 rule Britannia.
- 5
I agree with everything you say here, which is why I think missions are good. Everything here is a great argument in favor of missions. What would you be doing in Gotland without mission trees? Without mission trees most nations would not have the "full experience". Especially if the people who hate ideas and unique reforms and what have you get their way as well. It'd just be the same playthrough every game with a marginally different location and power base. That's what Imperator 1.0 is for.
I disagree, the old system is more like the estate agendas we have right now. Do you feel particularly fulfilled by that system?
- 11
- 1
Well, chess has the same barebone rule since centuries and people are still playing this not updated game. This is the whole point of many recent threads on this forum: EU4 is still a strategy game anymore?
What you are saying is exactly what some of us are explaining: EU4 is less and less strategic. You forgot that long time ago, the game was more dynamic with more different outcomes along the course of the years (in game) with regional power and alliance web. Each time you had to think how to go through somehow new setup. Today, there is fantasy, powercreep and the same 7 big blobs by region after 150 years in.
I won the game quicker and quicker with all of this. We never saw so much successful BBB ou THOT or WC OF done by playerbase.
And no, old mission system is not close to estate agenda for major countries who had specific missions that are now in their MT, like conquering Naples with France, etc...
- 2
- 1
- 1
No matter how obvious is the joke you still have to mark it on the internet.
Funny thing, you can understand the joke two was: the person either talks about old mission system or Estate Agendas. I think Estate Agendas are more interesting than missions cause they're dynamic, but both of these approaches hide too much from the player. I remember old mission system had missions for Italian Wars and capturing a port in India, but I'm pretty sure I only saw 1% of possible missions, as even if you fulfill very specific conditions the random roll can just not show the mission to you.
In the case of England I think the 2 trees are grossly overpowered to the point of absurdity but I like the idea that early on you get an opportunity to switch up your game goals with appropriate missions, maybe if they expanded on that with 2-3 generic or specific options it would add more replayability and box you in less to a specific path. Maybe a thought for EU5 it sounds like it would require a lot of work, probably too much.
Surely this whole issue could be solved if PDX added an option to play with or without mission trees. This is a sandbox game and should give an option to play it the way you want it. I personally like mission trees.
- 1