Missions are improved, but still leave you with a set of three impossible ones often

[TheDarkMaster]

I'm playing as Ethiopia, my current three offered missions are:
-Protect against the Mamlukes (have 34 troops, my forcelimit is 21)
-Remove a nation from the map! (I have a 10 year truce with them)
-Achieve Religious Unity (I'm just over 50% religious unity and at my current conversion rate it will take me 50 years to convert all those provinces.)

Conclusion, rewards and new missions are much more favorable than they were before. The game still has no idea how to give you missions you can actually finish in the next 5-10 years.

It does like to give me the 'rival of my rival' mission a lot, which I seem to be finishing every five years or so. It seems to be the only mission in my current pool I can finish, at least of what it gives me.

EDIT:
Paradox reply: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...ssible-ones-often.862364/page-2#post-19471280

 

[Stormfox]

Agreed. Very often none of them is feasible or even possible. Missions would be a perfect way to induce some extra admin points through minor rewards for relatively easy to accomplish things. At the very least, though, the game should not give you completely impossible and/or ridiculous mission. Why does it want me to get to 100 with nations I cannot acchieve 100 with without gifting them ridiculous amounts of gold, for example.

If you play a colonizing nation, it usually works out pretty well since colonization and enemy of your enemy missions tend to be available, but even then, usually 2 out of three slots are permanently "blocked" by something like "crush the ottoman naval supremacy" (i.e. build 90 galleys while your force limit is about 70...)

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Agreed. Very often none of them is feasible or even possible. Missions would be a perfect way to induce some extra admin points through minor rewards for relatively easy to accomplish things. At the very least, though, the game should not give you completely impossible and/or ridiculous mission. Why does it want me to get to 100 with nations I cannot acchieve 100 with without gifting them ridiculous amounts of gold, for example.

If you play a colonizing nation, it usually works out pretty well since colonization and enemy of your enemy missions tend to be available, but even then, usually 2 out of three slots are permanently "blocked" by something like "crush the ottoman naval supremacy" (i.e. build 90 galleys while your force limit is about 70...)

You can clear a mission from your log by taking it and then cancelling it, which will guarantee that mission won't appear in a year when new missions become available. This doesn't do you much good if it just cycles between missions you can't possibly complete.

 

[ElCidtheConquer]

The Improve Relations One though is pitiful. +1 Diplo Rep for one year???

 

[Naresh]

The Improve Relations One though is pitiful. +1 Diplo Rep for one year???

I'd still class that as a good mission. It's strong enough that the +1 can seal an alliance, with the +50 relations from the actual alliance letting you keep it after the year expires. Or annexing slightly faster.

Much rather have +1 dip rep for a year than +5 prestige.

Pre 1.12 I found myself only taking missions if it gave me a big bonus, like claims, mercantilism etc. I'd never touch the "become papal controller" or "let manpower recover" because the rewards were just not that great.

They still might not be *amazing* but definitely better.

 

[Castille4tehwin]

I think the choice should be larger. It seems to me like the easiest way to solve having no good choices.

 

[Stormfox]

You can clear a mission from your log by taking it and then cancelling it, which will guarantee that mission won't appear in a year when new missions become available. This doesn't do you much good if it just cycles between missions you can't possibly complete.

I know that, and that is exactly what happens. Two or three missions block your list permanently. Of course you can get rid of them for a split second, but they usually just cycle around.

 

[s1234567890m]

Missions would be a nice place to have the equivalent of the retire advisors option.

 

[Subbak]

It often gives me only one or two, or even zero missions now... How come ?

 

[Castille4tehwin]

One thing I really hate is when generic missions stop you from picking national missions. As England I'd much rather take "Vassalise Scotland" than "Improve Relations with Papal States".

 

[Subbak]

One thing I really hate is when generic missions stop you from picking national missions. As England I'd much rather take "Vassalise Scotland" than "Improve Relations with Papal States".

I never even got the "restore union on France". Are there conditions for it? I picked the WiH event that gave me Margaret of Anjou as a replacement ruler for Henri 0/0/0, so maybe I can't have it if my dynasty is not Lancaster?

 

[Castille4tehwin]

I never even got the "restore union on France". Are there conditions for it? I picked the WiH event that gave me Margaret of Anjou as a replacement ruler for Henri 0/0/0, so maybe I can't have it if my dynasty is not Lancaster?

I never got the mission whether or not I chose that event.

 

[DicRoNero]

I never even got the "restore union on France". Are there conditions for it? I picked the WiH event that gave me Margaret of Anjou as a replacement ruler for Henri 0/0/0, so maybe I can't have it if my dynasty is not Lancaster?

I'm fairly sure you've got to be strong enough to actually try restoring it. I remember I instantly got this mission after messing with the console and integrating some tags.

 

[Xiahou Mao]

I never even got the "restore union on France". Are there conditions for it? I picked the WiH event that gave me Margaret of Anjou as a replacement ruler for Henri 0/0/0, so maybe I can't have it if my dynasty is not Lancaster?

You need to have more provinces than France for that mission to appear. This means it won't appear right off the bat, you'll need to expand a bit first (or reduce France in size).

Reducing France in size is probably the wisest thing to do, because otherwise you'll get a coalition you'll be nowhere near able to handle by forcing the Union.

 

[smikis]

Half of new rewards are actually worse than previous one. For example those missions to create and army/navy, or have a bigger army than xxx, all of them rewards you with lower recruiting cost and lower upkeep or recruiting time, 2 bonuses you cannot use once you get to your limit and since they last 5-10 years even if you somehow manage to loose your army second time in that short span of time, chances are you wont be able to take benefit of previously fulfilled mission, not to mention you will be out of manpower....

How about manpower replenishment speed, you know because you used manpower and even logically now you have fancy big army and all the peasants are inspired and line up to join.

 

[Mikalos]

hey, Reclaim the asia minor coast is a good ol goal for 1444 byzantium

 

[Stormfox]

It often gives me only one or two, or even zero missions now... How come ?

This seems to happen a lot when you have few neighbours. My current Inca game has that problem - during the long, boring period of saving up enough points to finally develop ideas so I can start colonizing eastward to meet europeans, I have only one known nation on my radar, which is my vassal. For the past 30 years, I had exactly one mission: improve our prestige, which btw is one of the really, really stupid ones - you usually cannot complete it ever unless you are a major colonial power.

I also agree with smikis above that many of the rewards are largely inconsequential or even counterintuitive like the naval one.

@Mikalos, that reminded me of having to attack an indian minor nation in my castille game. That mission keeped popping up, no matter how often I banished it.

 

[Kaleth]

Half of new rewards are actually worse than previous one. For example those missions to create and army/navy, or have a bigger army than xxx, all of them rewards you with lower recruiting cost and lower upkeep or recruiting time, 2 bonuses you cannot use once you get to your limit and since they last 5-10 years even if you somehow manage to loose your army second time in that short span of time, chances are you wont be able to take benefit of previously fulfilled mission, not to mention you will be out of manpower....

Unless i am misremembering, doesn't lower recruitment cost also affect maintenance? or is that only affected by the recruitment cost at time of production?

 

[BrokenSky]

Half of new rewards are actually worse than previous one. For example those missions to create and army/navy, or have a bigger army than xxx, all of them rewards you with lower recruiting cost and lower upkeep or recruiting time, 2 bonuses you cannot use once you get to your limit and since they last 5-10 years even if you somehow manage to loose your army second time in that short span of time, chances are you wont be able to take benefit of previously fulfilled mission, not to mention you will be out of manpower....

How about manpower replenishment speed, you know because you used manpower and even logically now you have fancy big army and all the peasants are inspired and line up to join.

I'm not sure that this is true for most missions, but the missions to create a bigger army or navy giving increase recruitment speed after you've finished recruiting does seem off... It' be better if it gave that while he mission was active (like some missions give claims) and gave a different reward (army navy tradition like before probably..)

 

[paspa]

You can get a mission to vassalize a Free City, which can not even be done