I appreciate the enthusiasm of the developers, but I believe they are going way over the top with missions. I'm fully aware that EU 4 is at the end of its lifespan, but that doesnt mean its okay to ignore game balance, or just good game practices.
I generaly like the concept of missions in EU 4, and would like to talk about how we could improve new mission creation going forward:
Problem 1: Missions are way too overpowered.
The new missions are starting to feel extremely overpowered and unbalanced. Gotland basically has a starting mission to get 500 gold for free, right away as an OPM. As someone who plays OPMs, this feels more like a cheat code than a feature. A similar thing with the weak nation of Norway; as a PU subject, you immediately get an option to raise your liberty desire for free and ally all of Denmark's rivals.
In the "normal" game, starting as an OPM surrounded by large nations or being a small PU subject would be a huge challenge to overcome. Now every underdog nation is artificially trough missions basically at 80% strength of its big neighbors, because if you're weak, you get a "here is free stuff not to be weak" mission.
Paradoxically, I could actually support this in a few historical examples, like that aquala qlunyu tribe (or however its called) that went on to form Persia, or Albania resisting the Ottomans for longer, or the Manchu conquering China.
Solution 1) Going forward, tone down mission rewards SIGNIFICANTLY.
A lot of rewards could be reduced by 80% and still be fine. No more free allies, guaranteed independence, free gold, mana point showers, buffs everywhere. Playing on easy mode with cheats is not fun, or at least if it is, you can do it by selecting easy mode and typing in "cash 999999".
My subjective belief is that most people respond well to missions because of the flavor and something to do and work for. FIVE PRESTIGE AS A MISSION REWARD IS PERFECTLY OK. Especially if the mission is trivially easy AND naturally something most players would do anyway, AND leads to better rewards later in the mission path.
Are Sweden players really going to stay as a subject under Denmark just because the mission reward for winning independence is 5 prestige and not +10% morale, +200 admin points and a free space station? Missions in part fill a narrative and role playing role, not everything needs to be +500 ducats.
Solution 2) There is no reason why missions couldn't be a challenge:
I think its pretty safe to say that most EU 4 players will bend over backward to get something like a permanent 5% discipline as a mission reward. So why do the missions leading up to it need to be +100 admin points, +10% trade etc? If the next mission in the tree is really good, make a few missions before it give NEGATIVE modifiers.
You want to complete "reform the army" for +5% discipline until the end of the game? Well, "army reforms" weren't just magical free candy showers. Rulers had to anger nobles, increase taxes, and actually REFORM that army. So have those 3 things give -20 noble loyalty, -10% taxes +2 revolt risk for 10 years, and -20% manpower for 5 years.
I guarantee you from everything I saw in my 10 years of EU 4 community that 90% of players will still complete that mission tree for the +5% discipline. The majority will rush it as fast as if the lower mission rewards where positive, and a minority will complete it after they grew a bit.
Solution 3) "I already won the game" mission rewards should at least TRY to be fun, rather than "here is +500% more of something, we don't really care, you broke the game by now anyway".
Yes, realistically, if you formed Germany you pretty much won. So why not have a mission "the last coalition of Europe" which gives every non allied nation in Europe a coalition against you that you have to win a war against to complete?
If the player has "already won the game by now", shouldn't the instinct be to offer them an additional challenge, rather than give them gifts?
Solution 4) Consider adding cosmetic rewards, especially at the end of "You already won the game so it doesn't matter" mission trees.
You formed Germany? Well, if you can declare war on far away China and win it, you get an event to change your countries colors to Prussian blue. Not everybody would be incentivized to play another 50 years to do this, but a lot of players would, and its just a single extra mission.
Problem 2: Missions are becoming arcane and clunky
It used to be you would open the EU 4 map, see a country you like, and play it. Maybe if you're ambitious, you would ask "what country has cool national ideas?" Now, there is no way to tell what you're getting into when you pick a nation, unless you're first willing to read its development diary on the forums.
With missions offering so many permanent modifiers and even MECHANICS, its becoming impossible to tell what exactly you're picking when you click on "Poland" versus "Mazovia" versus Lithuania. Will I get better Commonwealth missions if I form it as Lithuania versus Poland? If I pick Mazovia, will I get anything for my troubles for forming Poland, or should I just start as Poland and save myself 50 years?
Some countries can become pirates for free for little reason. Why cant Ragusa become free pirates? After all they have historical arguments for it. Are there other free pirate nation countries? Will I get a "switch to pirate" event if I play Scotland's missions, or no? If I pick Scotland, will I get some mission that rewards me a free foothold in the Americas, or would I need to waste a entire idea slot on exploration ideas?
Gotland can move its capital to the new world, even though the developers went out of their way to lock it for other European countries. Why is a French player powerless to prevent colonial nations from forming, but as Gotland I just get to rule that land directly?
Why can Prussia, the definition of "a western world country" become a horde, but my OPM in the Caucasus Mountains cant?
Could Switzerland get a mission to become a horde? Please? Well, why not? Maybe they embraced being pillaging mercenaries. And why cant Spain get to switch to theocracy for free, they liked the Pope and I want to be holy.
Why can Norway remove the GIANT 40% penalty to develop in mountains but Tibet cant?
Why is it easier for the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire to become a nomadic horde than it is for a Ukrainian tribe living on the steppes?
Solution 1) Missions which radically change your gameplay should be standardized and easy to know when selecting a new country to play as.
Firstly, they should be regional missions. If one British nation can become pirates, probably all of them should. If one eastern European nation can become a holy horde, probably all of them should.
Secondly, they probably shouldn't be missions at all. Ideally, there should be a new UI window with 10-15 new decisions and their requirements. You want to change your capital to the new world as a country in Europe? Well, you need to have the pirate government form and under 10 provinces.
You want to become a horde? Well, you need to be either tribal and bordering a horde, or an eastern country with A, B, and C requirement.
Want to become a pirate? Capital on island, under 10 provinces, etc etc you get the drill.
I would like to also point out that EU 4 tends to get easier every year, and that switching from a European kingdom to horde should probably cost way more than "-2 stability". Radical government and culture changes are way too easy in my opinion, but Ill leave it at that.
Solution 2) Hell, if its that radical of a government change, why not make it a national idea.
Gotlands 3rd national idea: An event pops up to change your capital to the Caribbean and you become a pirate. If you choose No, you get +5% trade efficiency so the idea slot isn't wasted. Who would complain against this?
Solution 3) The "you get to join the HRE for free missions should go.
Want a invitation from the emperor to join the HRE? Well, honestly we already have a "join the empire" mechanic, and you could always add a war casus belli to join for larger nations like Poland. Free empire invites from missions overlaps with the "mission rewards are too generous" problem.
Solution 4: Try to avoid missions which radically change the logic of the base game, especially if they are not "you won the game" missions.
I'm not changing my mind on this. There is absolutely, positively, ZERO reason why Sweden and Norway should have a special "I can raise my liberty desire to 100% whenever I want because I'm a special snowflake" mechanic. If anything, every subject OUTSIDE of Europe should have this, and Europe should be the only region where you CANT do that.
The problem here is, again: YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE GETTING YOURSELF INTO WHEN PICKING A NEW COUNTRY ON THE MAP TO PLAY AS. Players shouldn't be required to either read every single dev diary or go blind into a new country that can either be impossibly hard or pretty easy depending on its missions.
If I pick Trebizond, I want to know that I'm in for a hellish time with the Ottomans, not that my starting mission will be "insult the Ottomans +200 relations with Muscovy and Mamluks", next mission "build army to force limit, you get a event where you can pick a defensive war against the Ottomans and pull in Muscovy and the Mamluks".
If you picked an OPM christian next to the Ottomans, you should have an idea of how its going to play out without needing to read the EU 4 missions wiki.
A good rule of thumb here is "If the mission is too toxic for the AI to rush it, it probably shouldn't be a mission" No player would want to start as Denmark and having its subjects at 100% liberty desire allying all its rivals in year 1. The same goes for neighbors joining the HRE, getting 500 gold as OPMs, spamming special units, etc. The "we programed the AI to never take it" is often a pretty telling statement. Especially when its for options players will take 99% of the time, on day 1.
As a closing statement, I would like to thank anybody who read all of this, and encourage people on the forums to critique/give their own view of the matter.
Respectfully, I do feel like the developers have their hands tied on implementing radical new game mechanics and are getting increasingly comfortable with pouring their creative energy on missions, with not enough regards to constraint and keeping a balanced, healthy game.
To summarize, its perfectly fine to have missions give extremely small rewards, and radical changes in a countries mechanics shouldn't be hidden in mission trees.
I generaly like the concept of missions in EU 4, and would like to talk about how we could improve new mission creation going forward:
Problem 1: Missions are way too overpowered.
The new missions are starting to feel extremely overpowered and unbalanced. Gotland basically has a starting mission to get 500 gold for free, right away as an OPM. As someone who plays OPMs, this feels more like a cheat code than a feature. A similar thing with the weak nation of Norway; as a PU subject, you immediately get an option to raise your liberty desire for free and ally all of Denmark's rivals.
In the "normal" game, starting as an OPM surrounded by large nations or being a small PU subject would be a huge challenge to overcome. Now every underdog nation is artificially trough missions basically at 80% strength of its big neighbors, because if you're weak, you get a "here is free stuff not to be weak" mission.
Paradoxically, I could actually support this in a few historical examples, like that aquala qlunyu tribe (or however its called) that went on to form Persia, or Albania resisting the Ottomans for longer, or the Manchu conquering China.
Solution 1) Going forward, tone down mission rewards SIGNIFICANTLY.
A lot of rewards could be reduced by 80% and still be fine. No more free allies, guaranteed independence, free gold, mana point showers, buffs everywhere. Playing on easy mode with cheats is not fun, or at least if it is, you can do it by selecting easy mode and typing in "cash 999999".
My subjective belief is that most people respond well to missions because of the flavor and something to do and work for. FIVE PRESTIGE AS A MISSION REWARD IS PERFECTLY OK. Especially if the mission is trivially easy AND naturally something most players would do anyway, AND leads to better rewards later in the mission path.
Are Sweden players really going to stay as a subject under Denmark just because the mission reward for winning independence is 5 prestige and not +10% morale, +200 admin points and a free space station? Missions in part fill a narrative and role playing role, not everything needs to be +500 ducats.
Solution 2) There is no reason why missions couldn't be a challenge:
I think its pretty safe to say that most EU 4 players will bend over backward to get something like a permanent 5% discipline as a mission reward. So why do the missions leading up to it need to be +100 admin points, +10% trade etc? If the next mission in the tree is really good, make a few missions before it give NEGATIVE modifiers.
You want to complete "reform the army" for +5% discipline until the end of the game? Well, "army reforms" weren't just magical free candy showers. Rulers had to anger nobles, increase taxes, and actually REFORM that army. So have those 3 things give -20 noble loyalty, -10% taxes +2 revolt risk for 10 years, and -20% manpower for 5 years.
I guarantee you from everything I saw in my 10 years of EU 4 community that 90% of players will still complete that mission tree for the +5% discipline. The majority will rush it as fast as if the lower mission rewards where positive, and a minority will complete it after they grew a bit.
Solution 3) "I already won the game" mission rewards should at least TRY to be fun, rather than "here is +500% more of something, we don't really care, you broke the game by now anyway".
Yes, realistically, if you formed Germany you pretty much won. So why not have a mission "the last coalition of Europe" which gives every non allied nation in Europe a coalition against you that you have to win a war against to complete?
If the player has "already won the game by now", shouldn't the instinct be to offer them an additional challenge, rather than give them gifts?
Solution 4) Consider adding cosmetic rewards, especially at the end of "You already won the game so it doesn't matter" mission trees.
You formed Germany? Well, if you can declare war on far away China and win it, you get an event to change your countries colors to Prussian blue. Not everybody would be incentivized to play another 50 years to do this, but a lot of players would, and its just a single extra mission.
Problem 2: Missions are becoming arcane and clunky
It used to be you would open the EU 4 map, see a country you like, and play it. Maybe if you're ambitious, you would ask "what country has cool national ideas?" Now, there is no way to tell what you're getting into when you pick a nation, unless you're first willing to read its development diary on the forums.
With missions offering so many permanent modifiers and even MECHANICS, its becoming impossible to tell what exactly you're picking when you click on "Poland" versus "Mazovia" versus Lithuania. Will I get better Commonwealth missions if I form it as Lithuania versus Poland? If I pick Mazovia, will I get anything for my troubles for forming Poland, or should I just start as Poland and save myself 50 years?
Some countries can become pirates for free for little reason. Why cant Ragusa become free pirates? After all they have historical arguments for it. Are there other free pirate nation countries? Will I get a "switch to pirate" event if I play Scotland's missions, or no? If I pick Scotland, will I get some mission that rewards me a free foothold in the Americas, or would I need to waste a entire idea slot on exploration ideas?
Gotland can move its capital to the new world, even though the developers went out of their way to lock it for other European countries. Why is a French player powerless to prevent colonial nations from forming, but as Gotland I just get to rule that land directly?
Why can Prussia, the definition of "a western world country" become a horde, but my OPM in the Caucasus Mountains cant?
Could Switzerland get a mission to become a horde? Please? Well, why not? Maybe they embraced being pillaging mercenaries. And why cant Spain get to switch to theocracy for free, they liked the Pope and I want to be holy.
Why can Norway remove the GIANT 40% penalty to develop in mountains but Tibet cant?
Why is it easier for the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire to become a nomadic horde than it is for a Ukrainian tribe living on the steppes?
Solution 1) Missions which radically change your gameplay should be standardized and easy to know when selecting a new country to play as.
Firstly, they should be regional missions. If one British nation can become pirates, probably all of them should. If one eastern European nation can become a holy horde, probably all of them should.
Secondly, they probably shouldn't be missions at all. Ideally, there should be a new UI window with 10-15 new decisions and their requirements. You want to change your capital to the new world as a country in Europe? Well, you need to have the pirate government form and under 10 provinces.
You want to become a horde? Well, you need to be either tribal and bordering a horde, or an eastern country with A, B, and C requirement.
Want to become a pirate? Capital on island, under 10 provinces, etc etc you get the drill.
I would like to also point out that EU 4 tends to get easier every year, and that switching from a European kingdom to horde should probably cost way more than "-2 stability". Radical government and culture changes are way too easy in my opinion, but Ill leave it at that.
Solution 2) Hell, if its that radical of a government change, why not make it a national idea.
Gotlands 3rd national idea: An event pops up to change your capital to the Caribbean and you become a pirate. If you choose No, you get +5% trade efficiency so the idea slot isn't wasted. Who would complain against this?
Solution 3) The "you get to join the HRE for free missions should go.
Want a invitation from the emperor to join the HRE? Well, honestly we already have a "join the empire" mechanic, and you could always add a war casus belli to join for larger nations like Poland. Free empire invites from missions overlaps with the "mission rewards are too generous" problem.
Solution 4: Try to avoid missions which radically change the logic of the base game, especially if they are not "you won the game" missions.
I'm not changing my mind on this. There is absolutely, positively, ZERO reason why Sweden and Norway should have a special "I can raise my liberty desire to 100% whenever I want because I'm a special snowflake" mechanic. If anything, every subject OUTSIDE of Europe should have this, and Europe should be the only region where you CANT do that.
The problem here is, again: YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE GETTING YOURSELF INTO WHEN PICKING A NEW COUNTRY ON THE MAP TO PLAY AS. Players shouldn't be required to either read every single dev diary or go blind into a new country that can either be impossibly hard or pretty easy depending on its missions.
If I pick Trebizond, I want to know that I'm in for a hellish time with the Ottomans, not that my starting mission will be "insult the Ottomans +200 relations with Muscovy and Mamluks", next mission "build army to force limit, you get a event where you can pick a defensive war against the Ottomans and pull in Muscovy and the Mamluks".
If you picked an OPM christian next to the Ottomans, you should have an idea of how its going to play out without needing to read the EU 4 missions wiki.
A good rule of thumb here is "If the mission is too toxic for the AI to rush it, it probably shouldn't be a mission" No player would want to start as Denmark and having its subjects at 100% liberty desire allying all its rivals in year 1. The same goes for neighbors joining the HRE, getting 500 gold as OPMs, spamming special units, etc. The "we programed the AI to never take it" is often a pretty telling statement. Especially when its for options players will take 99% of the time, on day 1.
As a closing statement, I would like to thank anybody who read all of this, and encourage people on the forums to critique/give their own view of the matter.
Respectfully, I do feel like the developers have their hands tied on implementing radical new game mechanics and are getting increasingly comfortable with pouring their creative energy on missions, with not enough regards to constraint and keeping a balanced, healthy game.
To summarize, its perfectly fine to have missions give extremely small rewards, and radical changes in a countries mechanics shouldn't be hidden in mission trees.
Last edited:
- 11
- 7
- 6
- 1
