The game is starting to feel more like "use the mission tree"

[Terixis]

The mission tree trap for devs is a very real problem, and they're basically HOI4 focus trees at this point. But the real problem isn't that mission trees exist, it's that not every notable tag or group of regional minors has a full mission tree.

 

[YellowPress]

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.

If aq was in the current dlc it would get +50 force limit for 80 years until it gets ALL of persia

 

[brifbates]

The mission tree trap for devs is a very real problem, and they're basically HOI4 focus trees at this point. But the real problem isn't that mission trees exist, it's that not every notable tag or group of regional minors has a full mission tree.

And that the various trees are in no way, shape, or form reasonably balanced...

 

[adin85]

In short New Mission tree gives second life of many countries. It is Historical or Ambition way of playing. Each country had ambition but they could not realize them. Game lack historical events and disasters. It should be much more.

 

[tk6]

Playing as OPM Gotland or an OPM with no missions is not even the same game anymore. Free money, free allies, changing governments for free, personal unions for free, multiple permanent modifiers, unlocking mechanics...

Missions are becoming so important that its less about choosing a nation and playing with unified game rules and more about reading nations mission trees in advance on EU 4 wiki and maneuvering trough them.

Like, I'm all for missions, but I thought it was wildly too much when you could just get claims for free as Russia. Now having a good (new and stuffed) mission tree for a country is more important than anything else.

I agree. Love the mission trees but now i see how they impact the game. It's not good gameplay-wise. The game "forces" you to follow the mission tree. If you don't do it, you waste monarch points and fall behind. Nobody wants that.

Instead, the game should provide the freedom to play as you like (without feeling that you are falling behind).

I hope the developers learned from the mistakes of EU 4 and Europa Universalis 5 is designed differently. Copy-pasting EU 4 with better graphics and modern code won't cut it.

 

[Olaf Trygvasson]

Sorry teutonic mongol horde is historically accurate just read this one polish report about the teutons

Which gets into the real issue with many mission trees, as they are implemented- they create absolutely cancerous alt history that is completely absurd

 

[Banedon Runestar]

Which gets into the real issue with many mission trees, as they are implemented- they create absolutely cancerous alt history that is completely absurd

This is a game with achievements for conquering the world, wiping out every faith but your own, rebuilding or resurrecting various empires that died, and having multiple permutations of “Natives defeat Colonizers”, things that never happened in history.

And you’re worried about mission trees creating and encouraging “cancerous alt-history”?





If you want a historical simulator, you’re playing the wrong game.

 

[EarlKonrad]

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.

The game is, in fact, in dire need of iteration, fine tuning and rebalance. That said, it might be for the better that the Devs aren't trying to iterate them as we've seen the mess they make when they try to with how they broke combat for two patches.

 

[EarlKonrad]

The mission tree trap for devs is a very real problem, and they're basically HOI4 focus trees at this point. But the real problem isn't that mission trees exist, it's that not every notable tag or group of regional minors has a full mission tree.

Bingo. Players have been complaining for years at this point that such and such nation feels worse to play now because they don't have a mission and use the generic one (which country doesn't matter). Their mere existence push players away from playing nations that have none or generic missions and into nations that do, meaning that most of the tags in the world become even less relevant they already are as less players play less known tags and focus only on those that have missions.

Which gets into the real issue with many mission trees, as they are implemented- they create absolutely cancerous alt history that is completely absurd

To me they feel more and more like mods one would find on the Steam Workshop. You get loads of PUs, alt history territory, formables, multiple buffs saying your nations is the best ever, etc. To be honest, modern missions (post-Emperor) are silly.

 

[Banedon Runestar]

If aq was in the current dlc it would get +50 force limit for 80 years until it gets ALL of persia

Have you actually tried that achievement, or are you just being flip?

The AQ mission tree is fairly small and basic, but it already gives you a wonderful gift that makes the achievement easier but it’s not required. It’s not a Force Limit boost, that would be of no help at all. Your limiters are manpower, aggressive expansion, various (usually separatist) rebels, admin mana, and most of all TIME. You have less than 40 years to kill QQ, and having more troops that your economy can’t support, and you can’t replace, won’t help.

The way to succeed (without taking AQ kamikaze) requires you to change how you might normally play, and use or learn game mechanics around AE and coalition management.

 

[YellowPress]

Have you actually tried that achievement, or are you just being flip?

The AQ mission tree is fairly small and basic, but it already gives you a wonderful gift that makes the achievement easier but it’s not required. It’s not a Force Limit boost, that would be of no help at all. Your limiters are manpower, aggressive expansion, various (usually separatist) rebels, admin mana, and most of all TIME. You have less than 40 years to kill QQ, and having more troops that your economy can’t support, and you can’t replace, won’t help.

The way to succeed (without taking AQ kamikaze) requires you to change how you might normally play, and use or learn game mechanics around AE and coalition management.

Have you read the gotland dev diary?

 

[st360]

This is a game with achievements for conquering the world, wiping out every faith but your own, rebuilding or resurrecting various empires that died, and having multiple permutations of “Natives defeat Colonizers”, things that never happened in history.

And you’re worried about mission trees creating and encouraging “cancerous alt-history”?





If you want a historical simulator, you’re playing the wrong game.

So why cant we have tanks and elven kingdoms in EU 4? You could not play as them if you don't like it. Are you anti fun?

 

[Banedon Runestar]

So why cant we have tanks and elven kingdoms in EU 4? You could not play as them if you don't like it. Are you anti fun?

No one here is stopping you from playing Abennar.

 

[Olaf Trygvasson]

This is a game with achievements for conquering the world, wiping out every faith but your own, rebuilding or resurrecting various empires that died, and having multiple permutations of “Natives defeat Colonizers”, things that never happened in history.

And you’re worried about mission trees creating and encouraging “cancerous alt-history”?





If you want a historical simulator, you’re playing the wrong game.

No, I strongly dislike all of those things you mentioned as well. What I want is for mechanics that try to recreate the changes that the world went through from the 15th to early 19th century. And I’ve had many ideas about that. Mission trees (and national ideas) can be implemented in a way that helps to recreate historical trends and events, but they’ve been increasingly used to create absurdities (cough Prussian Space Marines)

 

[ArtFart]

Why? Without ahistorical mission trees, only historical winners would get an interesting mission tree, which would decimatre the countries that are intesting to play.

You raise a great point. I do see the issue with just having historical trees. So maybe there should be a mix, but not to the point of a OPM having New World colonisation missions and PU CB's on France and Austria. While some of those trees can be fun, EG Castile's very powerful tree and the new Teuton tree, they should be rare to see, and most should have fairly modest rewards.

 

[YellowPress]

This is a game with achievements for conquering the world, wiping out every faith but your own, rebuilding or resurrecting various empires that died, and having multiple permutations of “Natives defeat Colonizers”, things that never happened in history.

And you’re worried about mission trees creating and encouraging “cancerous alt-history”?





If you want a historical simulator, you’re playing the wrong game.

Game in hands of player will always be better than ai, so defeating coloniser achievements are fine, especially back when westernisation was hard

 

[Blindbohemian]

Why? Without ahistorical mission trees, only historical winners would get an interesting mission tree, which would decimatre the countries that are intesting to play.

You’re not wrong, but this is an argument against predetermined inflexible mission trees at all: the old dynamic missions system was infinitely better for generating objectives and small rewards that mostly made sense for both historical and ahistorical countries.

 

[YellowPress]

You’re not wrong, but this is an argument against predetermined inflexible mission trees at all: the old dynamic missions system was infinitely better for generating objectives and small rewards that mostly made sense for both historical and ahistorical countries.

Diet missions achieve similar things just not as powerful

 

[EarlKonrad]

So why cant we have tanks and elven kingdoms in EU 4? You could not play as them if you don't like it. Are you anti fun?

We already have lasers, dinosaurs and self-replicating robots, and yet you ask for more?! Kids this day. Never satisfied with what they have

You’re not wrong, but this is an argument against predetermined inflexible mission trees at all: the old dynamic missions system was infinitely better for generating objectives and small rewards that mostly made sense for both historical and ahistorical countries.

The old mission system was a vast, vast improvement over EU3's mission system, and yet it was extremely basic and limited. Its newest iteration, Diets, improve in all aspects and benefits from having TAG specific missions decoupled from it.

 

[Banedon Runestar]

No, I strongly dislike all of those things you mentioned as well. What I want is for mechanics that try to recreate the changes that the world went through from the 15th to early 19th century. And I’ve had many ideas about that. Mission trees (and national ideas) can be implemented in a way that helps to recreate historical trends and events, but they’ve been increasingly used to create absurdities (cough Prussian Space Marines)

On one hand, I agree with you. Mission trees and National Ideas that encourage players (and the AI) to play towards history while providing small but noticeable gains would likely make for a nice game. But as some others have pointed out, that just means true mission trees will only exist for the historical victors, everyone else just gets a slate of generic missions. If the player has only limited ability to change historical outcomes, the player is no longer playing a sandbox, but a simulation.

And as much as I agree that having a Prussian Hindu Horde is both game and immersion breaking, I do like having the ability to adjust historical outcomes, or even successfully fight against the historical tides.