Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

On how missions should have been implemented.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis III 46143 EU3 - After Action Reports (AAR)
wraitii

wraitii

French Moddection
38 Badges
Jul 27, 2008
846
4
  • Cities in Motion
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
Missions. It seems like there is a lot of hate towards them. And while most of it could be streamlined further if triggers were slightly changed (I and many other people tried similar things, with more or less success), it's problematic. Now, I think it's a good idea, but badly implemented, and I'm opening this thread here not so much as a complaint toward the current mission system (I highly doubt a 6th expansion and changing this would be too much work for a simple patch), but rather as a "how this could be implemented properly in EUIV", whenever it comes out. Here's my opinion (it's a long opinion, you be warned :p ):

See, missions are introduced as "God wants us to", or "the nobility wants us to". That's the idea. It is fairly normal that your court, your people, your clergy expects things from you/your country. That's the point of missions, right now, but the way it works seems wrong to me.
We shouldn't be getting one mission at a time... We should just have a screen where we could see "what the nobility wants", "what the clergy prays for", "what our people expects" and whatever driving force there may be behind the throne. And if we fulfilled the goals, the stability of the country, its legitimacy, its economy, etc. would improve, much like when you achieve a mission right now.

Now, on the other hands, I think such a system should overall only give you "internal" bonus, ie no cores on other lands, no or limited prestige boosts (after all, in a conquest, you already gain prestige ;) ), or infamy reduction...

The thing here, is that they could want several stuffs, that may even be contradictory (the nobility might expect us to take Rome for the prestige, while the clergy wants us to secede lands we took from the Pope in an earlier war, for example). We do not "have" to complete it... But if we don't, we might lose stability/... because we would have upset a part of the country.

Now, why would this be better than the current system: first of all: it gives the player more choices (he can choose to focus on a particular need of the country, or a particular class...), allows for more roleplay, and this overall is good.
Second of all, it would allow for more diversity in the missions(the peasants, the nobility, the clergy have different needs and this would allow much more diversity in the missions :"build X" would be viable missions.), and diversity is fun.
Third of all, the rewards in existing missions are sometimes weirdly good (+2 stability??) or weirdly bad (+5% army tradition when I just build 99 regiments??)... This system would allow rewards to be more logical (the peasants being pleased->less WE). It could also be scaled(I'm hoping for scaling in modifiers in EUIV).
4th point: I think this would give missions a logical reason to exist. Right now, it feels like the game pushes me to do something, often for reasons not really clear (well, rarely for logical reasons at least :D ). And I'm having trouble seeing the link between the mission and the reward. But if you "pretend" it's what some people in your country wants, well then there is a logical reason for gaining bonuses when these goals are fulfilled (again, internal bonus. Gaining cores is nice, but weird :) )
Last point: missions could be changed without player input. The fact you could have several missions at once, and the fact that they could change automatically, would completely stop annoying missions like "create a huge navy" to be annoying. It would just be one in several missions that you may or may not complete.

So, here's my idea, thanks to those who read it all :p . Any opinions on this?

edit after some posts: it seems many people are responding to my idea of "no more missions giving cores" negatively because of the historical and practical problems it introduces. I responded to that a bit later in the thread.
 
Last edited:
This was a very well written explanation of your ideas, I enjoyed reading it.

I believe your proposed system would be far superior to that which we now have.

As it is, I mostly ignore the missions unless one occasionally happens to align with my goals (read: rarely).

Having a selection from which to choose would certainly help make me feel like I was in control of my nation's direction.

Cheers
 
Moved to main EU3 forum upon OP's request :)
 
No cores on other lands? Not sure I agree with that at all. Besides that seems to go against the grain for missions like forming a country which are some of the best in the game.
 
Adding cores could still be a logical reward in the new mission system. Diplomatic recognition is only part of what a core represents; far more importantly, it represents that the people of a province view you as their rightful ruler, and as such will be much less likely to engage in revolts or avoid paying taxes. Though cores wouldn't make sense for many conquest missions, missions such as religious or cultural liberation could certainly grant cores.
 
@mudcrabmerchant: True... But that would actually be better simulated by a complete rehaul of the coring system (something that also should be part of EUIV, though again not necessarily as much in detail as in MM). I think we'd need two kind of cores: one for the people, and one more for "claims". And a more realistic way of coring... If you took same-culture provinces from a heathen country after years of oppression, you can reasonably imagine they'd be much more willing to accept your ownership.
 
Last edited:
More than one mission at a time -from various classes in society- is really a good idea (a more detailed approach to society and its classes are obligatory in this case. Maybe a system resembling CK?). But I think some historical expansion missions giving cores and whatnot are also essential.
 
I think you have a good idea going but I still think some missions for certain countries (i.e. HRE nations) should give cores in other countries or it would simply be too hard to play them without doing the "leave HRE, become emperor" thing I just discovered.

Also muscowy would be another example of a country that needs those missions that give cores.
 
Again, I really think some other system that don't require missions to give core could be implemented (such as same-culture/same-religion province accepting you much faster... Or some sort of "claim" system where you could claim land and it would in turn help you gain cores faster. As for the HRE, events and such a "claim" system would also probably work at simulating the politics of the era quite correctly, while not getting too micromanagingly hellish.

@Forodway: never played CK, but I don't think it's really obligatory... You could just split missions in 4 types of missions, and that'd be it. Though, it is an option to have a slightly more detailed population system, there is another thread going on for that.
 
Say, another good thing would be making the options dependent on the sliders. In a country with full plutocracy, the nobility would not have relevance - it wouldn't make much sense to add a "the nobility wants X" when you don't have nobility in your country.
 
wraitii said:
Well, they could want "move back towards aristocracy" :p . That's one of the things the system I thought of would allow.
Click to expand...
One could even the influence of some modifiers to the mix.
Imagine, aristocracy could get the military missions, defensive (build fort, vassalise small buffer state, alliance, royal marriage etc.) or offensive (attack rival, force PU, vassalise X, create army, create navy - depending on the sliders). A plutocrat nation could want trade missions (colonies, etc. if mercantilistic, open markets, or monopolise foreign CoT if free trade).
Narrowmindeness could give "the clergy wants", for example, convert province X and relations with the pope if defensive, convert country Y to the true faith or DoW infidel if offensive.
 
wraitii said:
@mudcrabmerchant: True... But that would actually be better simulated by a complete rehaul of the coring system (something that also should be part of EUIV, though again not necessarily as much in detail as in MM). I think we'd need two kind of cores: one for the people, and one more for "claims". And a more realistic way of coring... If you took same-culture provinces from a heathen country after years of oppression, you can reasonably imagine they'd be much more willing to accept your ownership.
Click to expand...

I've actually thought about this before. It's annoying how purely political stuff like boundary disputes can turn Muslim Berbers into faithful subjects seeking reunification with Catholic Spain.

@ANO1453, even in republics, especially during the game's time period, a few wealthy individuals held most of the power. Perhaps nobility isn't the best word, as it specifically implies hereditary aristocrats, but a faction representing a state's rich and powerful few is valid everywhere. However, the aristocracy/plutocracy slider could still be used to determine what exactly these individuals want.
 
The multiple missions is a great idea, it'd be brilliant if you could only complete 1 of the 3-4 at the expense of the others, so missions don't just turn you into a powerhouse if you get a lucky streak of them, as every reward comes with a penalty. I'm just thinking maybe you get the missions with relevant rewards: e.g.

Conquer province 'x' = gain core, prestige.
Accumulate money = gain 'x' ducats, lose 'x' inflation.
Convert province 'x' = gain Papal relations, gain missionary.

BUT you can only do one, doing so causes the others to fail, with consequence: e.g.

Conquer province 'x' = revolts in owned same culture provinces, lose prestige.
Accumulate money = gain inflation, negative tax modifier.
Convert 'x' = lose convert chance for 'y' years, lose Papal relations.

That way you choose what you want, but choose wisely, go for your large cores empire, but you'll be excommunicated, revolts everywhere and inflation rising etc.

With 5-6 missions for each demographic (e.g. Clergy, Nobility, Peasantry) you have so many combinations your unlikely to get repeats. Though I have no idea how easy or viable it is to implement. Though any expansion on missions would be welcome.
 
@Kolmy: I think I'll get that a lot... Could someone sum up how MMtG intends to deal with this?
@Stratgyfan101: Not sure what you meant there... Are you saying this would make the whole thing overpowered?
@01spearingw: well I certainly saw something along those lines happening, though not as drastic... It's just that completing certain missions would automatically invalid others.
 
wraitii said:
@Kolmy:mad:Stratgyfan101: Not sure what you meant there... Are you saying this would make the whole thing overpowered?
Click to expand...

No, I was saying the current system is overpowered. The player/AI has unlimited power to complete their missions. In some cases this allows for Expansion via Vassalization at negative infamy. So nations think your less of a bad guy because you vassalized someone.
 
I don't think the completion of a mission should cancel the others by default, however, there has to be a way to get rid of silly ones.

So I say we should be able to cancel them, and the result would not be prestige loss. Instead, a slider move away from the group issuing the mission - with all its adverse effects (i.e. stab hit and revolt). Similarly, completing would give moves towards the group - with positive effects (probably).

This way we could go all the way towards the group (I mean reach +-5 slider position) while cancelling can only take to +-3 (upon reaching it, they don't give any more missions, and any are auto-cancelled but without any effects).

And then the groups themselves:
  • Clergy: Narrowminded
  • Nobility: Aristocracy, Serfdom (Land)
  • Citizenry: Plutocracy, Free subjects
  • Peasantry: Free subjects

Perhaps there might be other groups (or other interests of these groups) to affect the Centralisation, Land-Naval, Mercantilism-Free trade, Offensive-Defensive and Quality-Quantity sliders.

Also, to avoid overusing mission cancellation to achieve slider movements, the time to keep between cancelled missions should be increased to 10 years. Which would stay only for each group by itself (i.e. you can cancel all missions on day 2, but cannot cancel clergy missions more frequently just because you completed Nobility missions).



Related to this is my idea about reworking the stability system: each class should have its own RR, not just one RR for the entire province. This would make it possible to satisfy -for example- the nobility through high Aristocracy and Serfdom, while risking peasant uprisings. Or vice versa.
And this should come with a reflection in geographical terms: for example, the Spanish Netherlands has an awesome citizen population, and obviously they would be the main support for any state there (Flanders), with a corresponding Free subjects slider.
However, France rarely has any citizenry, but lots of peasants and nobility, which obviously translates into Serfdom and Aristocracy sliders.
While Northern Italy supports a Plutocracy slider.
So, I would like to show, geographical location should have an effect on what the 'ideal sliders' are. Also, offer a few non-compatible strategies on forming your society: France is the best example again, you can go full Serfdom Narrowminded Aristocracy... or Free Subjects Innovative Plutocracy, á la Revolutionary France.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back