-
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.
Given how many of the mission trees tend to revolve around the idea of forming a particular nation and/or forming its 'natural' borders, what if EU (lets be honest, this would have to be in 5) had some form of CK2/3's concept of 'de jure' territory. Seperate from cores and claims, but a gentle nudge for smaller nations that want to form into larger nations (like Brandenburg -> Prussia -> Germany) and then for larger nations to fill out their borders. It could even be an age-related feature, where the de jure mechanic gradually grows weaker as the idea of historical titles transforms into the modern conception of the post-Westphalian nation-state.
Just an idea, somewhat tangental to the current discussion.
Just an idea, somewhat tangental to the current discussion.
- 11
If you accidentally quoted the wrong paragraph, I can give this a pass because I might have seemed too harsh on EU 4, in light of bringing up HOI.
If you meant hyperbole about HOI 4, then no. There are too many objective examples.
Focus trees have numerous broken interactions that can end ironman achievement runs on the spot (generally by resulting in inane consequences that make getting the achievement more time consuming than starting over). I can think of few mechanical models/mechanics that are more damaging to Pdox games I've played. You can get civil wars w/o warning, have the Democratic USA declare war on the allies, have one nation join multiple factions mid-war, have nations steal puppets/land from other nations without fighting and without the nation losing land being able to say "no", and watch UK kick off WW3. On "historical focuses"...god help you if you picked something else or thought a mod like Keiserreich would improve this aspect of the game. One mod team can (mostly) handle that, but nobody else working on HOI 4 has managed it that I've seen. These interactions, and more, are not a matter of opinion. They happen in HOI 4, and depending on what you're trying to do they happen fairly often.
Focuses themselves are also just some of the broken aspects of HOI 4 gameplay, but they are the ones relevant to mission trees. Don't need to get into multiple advisers doing nothing or basic controls lying to you about what will happen in detail here. The reason I bring up HOI focus trees is because they are a sound example of exactly what not to do in EU 4.
We have seen a taste of things mission tree and special events can do in EU 4. It's nowhere near as bad as HOI, but the more you use MT to bypass otherwise established gameplay rules/model, the more you risk HOI 4 consequences, and HOI 4 consequences are a dumpster fire. I guess in this sense its good that the MTs in Anbennar are often so convoluted, because it means the AI more or less can't blunder into them.
- 18
- 3
- 1
- 1
- 1
This is sad but true. I am pretty sure with next patch they will update missions of Ottomans, Byzantium, Mamluks, Persia, Aq Qoyunlu (which should be able to beat Qara) and they will add missions to Turkish beyliks, especially Karaman (rightful heir to Rum), and Qara Qoyunlu there. They will probably add/update missions to all Arabia, Persia, Caucasia etc as well.
But imagine playing in these regions right now, game feels generic.
They should definitely add all (at least important like Karaman, Aq Qoyunlu, Qara Qoyunlu, Georgia, Circassia, Ajam, Rassids, Najd etc) nations mission trees at some point. I didn't include Tatars as they at least have all round mission tree for every one of them that can be fixed with minor touch.
But imagine playing in these regions right now, game feels generic.
They should definitely add all (at least important like Karaman, Aq Qoyunlu, Qara Qoyunlu, Georgia, Circassia, Ajam, Rassids, Najd etc) nations mission trees at some point. I didn't include Tatars as they at least have all round mission tree for every one of them that can be fixed with minor touch.
- 2
I agree and disagree. I think the missions should be important but I think they should be more focused on internal development and less on permanent claims and personal unions on everything.
Mission trees are cancer and I hope they never make an appearance in any other game ever.
- 19
- 11
That’s nice, but they’re also the primary component of ongoing development when the vast majority of the game’s mechanics are in dire need of iteration and evolution—and not even necessarily the kind of revolutionary change that EUIV’s age and stage of life have apparently ruled out.
In the past, EUIV was designed to be played as a game—you got personal unions by playing within the rules of the game, for example. Increasingly things like personal unions, money to win wars and support for independence come from playing the mission tree such that the game plays itself. And the game isn’t getting better for it.
Ceterum, mission trees delenda est.
Last edited:
- 12
- 3
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
I think EU4 needs to take a page out of Imperator's use of missions. They're generic enough to apply widely, but are rewarding and flexible enough. They made Imperator a game worth playing tbh.
- 8
- 2
I think mission trees are fine. They help guide the player so that they don't feel lost or can help simulate the ambitions a nation wanted to achieve.
The real problem is power creep: newer mission trees are just objectively better with their enormous amounts of permanent modifiers, but even the temporary ones are getting stronger.
I think mission rewards should only be temporary and the last mission in every tree should be the permanent modifier (a "here's your reward for fulfilling the historical ambitions of this nation" type of thing). And these should be removed the moment there is a tag switch with very few exceptions (e.g. Prussia forming Germany shouldn't take away the Prussian modifier).
The real problem is power creep: newer mission trees are just objectively better with their enormous amounts of permanent modifiers, but even the temporary ones are getting stronger.
I think mission rewards should only be temporary and the last mission in every tree should be the permanent modifier (a "here's your reward for fulfilling the historical ambitions of this nation" type of thing). And these should be removed the moment there is a tag switch with very few exceptions (e.g. Prussia forming Germany shouldn't take away the Prussian modifier).
- 11
I think mission trees are a better way to give flavour to a nation than tag specific events. How are you supposed to know that Sweden get a really strong army thanks to their events? At least now you can see that thanks to their mission tree.
And permanent claims help the AI to expand to their historical borders.
Though I agree that some mission tree go overboard.
And permanent claims help the AI to expand to their historical borders.
Though I agree that some mission tree go overboard.
- 6
- 1
I think mission trees are great. They enable historical roleplaying, they give goals to a playthrough, and ideally, they give you specific modifiers for activities other than conquest rather than just a series of claims. They work great in HoI4 and they work great in EU4. If people consider countries without missions trees less fun to play, that's a good reason to add more of them, rather than less.
I understand that some like the sandbox nature of the game and want to fully dynamically lead their countries, but in my experience, whenver the game does that (and there are more dynamic Paradox games like Imperator or CK3) it just ends up with map painting. Some like that, I don't.
I understand that some like the sandbox nature of the game and want to fully dynamically lead their countries, but in my experience, whenver the game does that (and there are more dynamic Paradox games like Imperator or CK3) it just ends up with map painting. Some like that, I don't.
- 7
- 5
I disagree, there’s a bit more going on in the de jure system. For example, it strongly influences subject relationships in CK2.
- 2
Only a few nations, other nations don't get permanent claims to reach their historic borders while some get claims well beyond anything they could actually hope to have gotten in the real world (and they add more of those with every patch)...
- 5
Do you want me to list all the ways in which cores act like ck2 de jure ?
Sorry teutonic mongol horde is historically accurate just read this one polish report about the teutons
- 10
- 2
You could build a system where nations can spend resources to improve the quality of their army, but doing so has disadvantageous consequences and opportunity costs which increase the more you focus on army quality. That would allow Sweden to have a really strong army by building an army that is significantly stronger than its competitors, and would have the advantage of allowing any nation to do the same if they're willing and able to pay the costs required (ie, less railroading).
- 10
- 2
AQ *can* beat QQ.
There’s even an achievement for doing it within the first 50 years of game start. I have it.
It requires a bunch of unlikely events to happen in series (so lots of restarts if one doesn’t work out) but it’s possible.
- 1