Please don’t have Mission Trees/Focus Trees in the game. They reduce player agency and are detached from internal game systems.

[Sir Boots]

One thing I dislike about EUIV was the introduction of “mission trees” shortly after Hearts of Iron IV’s “focus tree” feature. Mission trees feel like an unnecessary and detached game mechanic designed to provide an artificial way to bypass game systems for certain nations and provide direction to players. This had the consequence of creating “right” and “wrong” ways to play various countries. It also feels very arcadey, ex “click this button to core all the land in this state” or “click this button to get an instant CB.” I am afraid that if mission trees or an equivalent are added to EU5 Project Caesar, the temptation of using them will reduce emergent gameplay mechanics and provide a cop-out to artificially force certain outcomes rather than improving on the simulation and gameplay mechanics to naturally introduce those same outcomes over time.

 

[Aliquam]

Absolutely.

 

[MfgLuckbot]

I think they learned their lesson from all the negative feedback. If they do something similar it will propably be more in the Vic3 journal entry style, wich fill the same role of adding flavor to countries but offering more than one way to resolve them and usually don't bypass the game mechanics and instead alter them.

I'm personally not opposed to these, as long they are done in a way that represents and actual unique situation a country found itself in, and doesn't force you to solve it the historical way

 

[Nerexa]

I like mission trees.
I don't like them giving out strictly positive rewards, but instead handing out opportunities.
(E.g. Teutons joining HRE but with restrictions. Is it good? Is it bad? It is certainly an opportunity.)

 

[alexkowal123]

One thing I dislike about EUIV was the introduction of “mission trees” shortly after Hearts of Iron IV’s “focus tree” feature. Mission trees feel like an unnecessary and detached game mechanic designed to provide an artificial way to bypass game systems for certain nations and provide direction to players. This had the consequence of creating “right” and “wrong” ways to play various countries. It also feels very arcadey, ex “click this button to core all the land in this state” or “click this button to get an instant CB.” I am afraid that if mission trees or an equivalent are added to EU5 Project Caesar, the temptation of using them will reduce emergent gameplay mechanics and provide a cop-out to artificially force certain outcomes rather than improving on the simulation and gameplay mechanics to naturally introduce those same outcomes over time.

I think for new players or people who aren't going to play a country more than once they're good, also can be quite interesting, but I agree with you for the most part. In retrospect @eva88688 had a point

 

[Sir Boots]

I think they learned their lesson from all the negative feedback. If they do something similar it will propably be more in the Vic3 journal entry style, wich fill the same role of adding flavor to countries but offering more than one way to resolve them and usually don't bypass the game mechanics and instead alter them.

I'm personally not opposed to these, as long they are done in a way that represents and actual unique situation a country found itself in, and doesn't force you to solve it the historical way

I certainly hope so! Regarding the Vic 3 journal entries, I’m not sure EU5 Project Caesar even needs them. I believe a lot of systems, if they are in-depth as Johan says they are, will remove the need for an additional top-level mechanic like this, but will instead be built into the game’s foundation itself. Vic 3 requires them as the game lacks a lot of internal depth in its political systems that make portraying the balance of power within countries very difficult without a journal entry.

When Vic 3’s French-themed DLC, Voice of the People came out, Paradox was heavily criticized by fans for their simplistic “click this button and Napoleon III becomes Emperor” mechanic for post-Napoleonic France. It’s this sort of “one-click instant gratification” game design that I’m opposed to. They later went back and edited the journal entry to require a certain amount of support that would vary based on event pop-ups and your reactions to them, but even this was a band-aid to make up for a lack of deeper political mechanics. For example, it simply added extra steps based on what choice you decide “ex: click this to increase Napoleon’s support by X percentage points” in order to “click this button to install Napoleon III.” I’m hoping that EU5 Project Caesar will have something more in-depth and built into the game’s simulation based on population, wealth, government, and other systems yet to be described.

 

[William the Merry]

I think they learned their lesson from all the negative feedback. If they do something similar it will propably be more in the Vic3 journal entry style, wich fill the same role of adding flavor to countries but offering more than one way to resolve them and usually don't bypass the game mechanics and instead alter them.

I'm personally not opposed to these, as long they are done in a way that represents and actual unique situation a country found itself in, and doesn't force you to solve it the historical way

If they learned their lesson then why does the latest eu4 dev diary have oman with a long mission tree and tributtons?

 

[Nerexa]

If they learned their lesson then why does the latest eu4 dev diary have oman with a long mission tree and tributtons?

Because EU4 started using mission trees for fixing suboptimal fundamental mechanics or the lack thereof. So even if they acknowledge their problematic nature, they can't really help it, without re-doing the base mechanics, which is exactly what Project Ceasar is (hopefully) doing.

 

[Borgratz]

If they learned their lesson then why does the latest eu4 dev diary have oman with a long mission tree and tributtons?

Because you don't completely overhaul your working dlc design shortly before you end development on it. You take the lessons you learned from that game and take it to the next game, so that you can create a design from the ground up that doesn't rely on you building mission trees for each DLCs.

Wether or not the trees are an actual mistake is a different question. They do seem to sell pretty well.

 

[Sir Boots]

If they learned their lesson then why does the latest eu4 dev diary have oman with a long mission tree and tributtons?

I believe it is simply too late in the development process of EU4 to change design philosophies. That’s why I am hoping EU5 Project Caesar will rectify this matter.

 

[William the Merry]

I believe it is simply too late in the development process of EU4 to change design philosophies. That’s why I am hoping EU5 Project Caesar will rectify this matter.

Domination brought back tributtons after a long absence, it also set a precedent for just how long mission trees could be and how all mechanics like estate privlieges were ultimately dependant on it

 

[Eruth]

One thing I dislike about EUIV was the introduction of “mission trees” shortly after Hearts of Iron IV’s “focus tree” feature. Mission trees feel like an unnecessary and detached game mechanic designed to provide an artificial way to bypass game systems for certain nations and provide direction to players. This had the consequence of creating “right” and “wrong” ways to play various countries. It also feels very arcadey, ex “click this button to core all the land in this state” or “click this button to get an instant CB.” I am afraid that if mission trees or an equivalent are added to EU5 Project Caesar, the temptation of using them will reduce emergent gameplay mechanics and provide a cop-out to artificially force certain outcomes rather than improving on the simulation and gameplay mechanics to naturally introduce those same outcomes over time.

Johan has explicitly ruled out Eu4 style mission trees, but heavily implied some other style of mission tree (perhaps more similar to IR) would be included.

 

[LAF1994]

One thing I dislike about EUIV was the introduction of “mission trees” shortly after Hearts of Iron IV’s “focus tree” feature. Mission trees feel like an unnecessary and detached game mechanic designed to provide an artificial way to bypass game systems for certain nations and provide direction to players. This had the consequence of creating “right” and “wrong” ways to play various countries. It also feels very arcadey, ex “click this button to core all the land in this state” or “click this button to get an instant CB.” I am afraid that if mission trees or an equivalent are added to EU5 Project Caesar, the temptation of using them will reduce emergent gameplay mechanics and provide a cop-out to artificially force certain outcomes rather than improving on the simulation and gameplay mechanics to naturally introduce those same outcomes over time.

Focus trees make a certain degree of sense in HoI4 because the narrative is more constrained and has a limited time-frame. They fit poorly with EU4's longer, more sandox system.

 

[RaptorCommander]

Mission trees do provide value that i would not like lost. Guide for new players and more experienced players especially the more modern ones with various options that allow standard mechanics to be bent. E.g. Tuteons in HRE. Agreed that a rework is needed but we should not lose some of there value

 

[ASGeek2012]

EU4 mission trees are nice for flavor, but they ultimately become Win More buttons.

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

I feel the way they are done in IR is cool. Yes they are still railroady giving you claims but its not a big deal because of the way the game plays. In fact there are many times where i completely forget about them and the game plays the same. The bonuses are very small so its nothing game changing.

Also one mission tree blocks the other so if you pick the development tree you can keep expanding doing your thing but you will do It without the missions claims, which as I said, it doesnt make a huge different so thats why i forget to use the missions so many times. Jut they do make for good flavour without being overpowered.

The military rewards are almost non existent, and there are very few rewards that are massive economic modifiers. They usually involve higherr rate of pops conversion, giving you pops, giving you building capacity in a city and things like that. These are things that feel nice to gain but that dont really overpower you, you still have to work to improve, you still need to build your cities, build your trade, your production, etc.

Also, you are thinking with the EU4 mindset which is a mana fest. In IR Rome when you get claims for a mission and you complete the mission, the newly conquered land is usually worthless. Lots of angry pops, rebelions, very little to no income. You need to invest a lot of work and money in the newly conquered territory until it starts paying off. Most of your increased revenue will come from improving your economy in your homeland.


So "winning" a province through missions feels good bc your country looks bigger on the map but its not like in EU4 where you core it all and in a year its giving you full profits. I am quite convinced that thanks to the pop system EU5 will work similarly and new provinces will take a long time to assimilate, rebuild etc until they start giving money. Also I a sure that the rewards will be more akin to IR, as I mentioned, and they will give small bonuses like movemebt of pops or pop attractions or building capacity or higher conversion rate and things like that, but nothing like in EU4 with massive bonuses etc to railroad your country. The good thing about no more mana and having pops is that the game system allows for simulating real situations that lead to real outcomes, so they dont need to force them like in EU5 with ridiculous bonuses and things like that that "shape" your nation. I am sure the bonuses will be small rewards that simply slightly help you should you decide to pursue X course of actions but you will still need to put the work and time.

 

[Mojo2703]

They should use the Imperator system of missions. Not instant ones or even set ones to a large degree. Like if you have a new world colony you get the colonize the Americas mission tree added. Oh you are in the hre? Here is the hre mission path. The only change I would make is allow for you to change mission trees/access all at a time so you don't need to hard focus on something to risk not going back to it for a cooldown like in imperator. And they obviously should have some nation specific ones that you can access over time.

 

[Pls fix HRE]

I dont care about missions as long as their rewards are so unnoticable that I can safely ignore them. EU4s missions problem aside from being terrible and boring to complete is that they are so overpowered that the most optimal play for every modern mission tree is to just rush every reward you can as fast as you can. Have a really great opportunity to expand into the caucasus and cut the Ottomans off from expanding elsewhere? The hell you dont, completing this mission will give you infinitely more benefits then doing anything strategic fun and creative, so be a good little robot and do what the devs told you to on this check list called a mission tree.

 

[Sapa Inca]

Projec Caesar probably will have Imperator Rome style of mission trees.

 

[Map painter]

Mission trees did not flexible enough in EU4, but that doesn’t mean they should not exist in game, I just want mission trees become more flexible. For example, the missions shold be divided into several groups connect with diffrent regions, cultures, religions and government types, then players can always have right missions to get bonus, even if they didn't follow the historical way. Players should be allowed to decide whether AI follow the historical missions before the game start, just like what they can do in HOI4.