I fear EU5 will have railroad mission trees right from the start because they sell well and are easy to make.Eu5 will be a fresh start to do over and do better all these features that are a little bit wonky atm.
- 8
I fear EU5 will have railroad mission trees right from the start because they sell well and are easy to make.Eu5 will be a fresh start to do over and do better all these features that are a little bit wonky atm.
I don’t know if I would block off paths, but for some missions I would give different outcomes. For example, Britain has a mission to become the Emperor of the HRE or dismantle it. Give each a significantly different reward. For the mission to go Anglican, have an alternate option of “embrace the counter-reformation” again with different rewards.The new EU4 mission system was a step towards HoI4's national focuses. While it is an improvement over the old system, I would really like to see another aspect of the HoI-style focuses adapted to EU4 - the choices between different paths. I think it was DDRJake who said right after the patch that introduced the new missions that they made a conscious decision not to lock off certain parts of the mission trees, but I think it might be a good idea to rethink that choice.
Right now, most mission trees basically just facilitate and reward conquest, with some more creative missions about development, economy and culture interspersed here and there. There really aren't any tradeoffs or opportunity costs when you can always grab all goodies from your mission tree, and the strategic choice is just about when to complete a given mission, not about if one mission should be pursued over another.
In a strategy game, it would be more interesting to have actual decisions - like for example different and mutually exclusive mission "branches" for Catholic and Anglican England.
As many things in life, the thing here is to reach an equilibrium between sort of free will (player's wishes) and historic determinism (railroading missions). Like... I don't like the Austrian missions messing with Poland, or the English missions messing with France (I'd like to retreat and stay as an island). On one side, you can just avoid those missions; on the other side, avoiding them makes you feel you're not using part of the game/features, and not benefiting from mission rewards. Something like "I paid for the whole game, I'm gonna use the whole game". It's a tricky matter. Nevertheless, I believe the super Paradox team has reached a relatively good success in giving you historically related missions, that are optional after all, and that generally do not railroad you so soo sooo much towards a fatalistic fate.
Yes, you're right there.The key here is the feeling the player gets from doing or not doing missions. You’re missing out on a lot by not doing them. I just feel the game is creating a bit too many railroaded incentives and some of them are just weird. Like the British HRE missions.
I absolutely despised the old mission system. Despised. My favorite example of why I felt this way was the struggle I experienced getting the Purple Phoenix conquest missions to appear in a logical order. Waiting, hoping, and refreshing missions to get something not idiotic was an unnecessary frustration.
That's not even getting to the part where missions could become ignorable after a fairly quick time. Hitting the endlessly repeating cycle of "don't spend ducats", "get prestige/legitimacy", and "conquer nearby garbage province of similar culture or same religion" was a low point of a campaign as you no longer really engage in missions. You either ignored them as they were trash or clicked on one and forgot about it.
Then there was the issue where the old mission system basically hid what missions were available to the player. Now we can see a full tree whereas before one had to go through the wiki or game files.
The current system is definitely better than the former system which was an obscured, disorganized, mess of decent missions and garbage. Well, at least it is in my book.
That's not true. If you knew what you were doing it was perfectly possible to take them in whichever order the game gave you them. Though it was annoying as hell and you needed to know the mission triggers well to not accidentally ruin some of them.if you skipped a mission you were locked out of the subsequent ones.
Not to mention the old haters like the build 90% force limit for both army and navy, which could be death especally for the navy one late game.it could one offer you any mission as you reached a point were did not met any of the requisites for the missions.
Eu5 will be a fresh start to do over and do better all these features that are a little bit wonky atm.
My favourite one by far appeared to be this, which I got at 20 legitimacy:Not to mention the old haters like the build 90% force limit for both army and navy, which could be death especally for the navy one late game.
go_legitimate (i.e. "prove legitimacy")
...
}
success = {
legitimacy = 100 (!!)
}
...
effect = {
add_ruler_modifier (!!) = {
name = "legitimacy_defended"
}
legitimacy_defended = {
diplomatic_reputation = 1
legitimacy = 0.5 (i.e. per year)
}
"Hey Joe, we've heard your legitimacy is trashed. Well, for the future use you'll get it replenished somewhat quicker, provided you've fully repaired it already".
Firstly, I do like dynamic missions far more, it's just that certain stuff was outright weird and ill-designed and I couldn't help showing someAre we totaly going to ignore the DipRep you can get from that mission.
And from several others aswell? One of the strongest modifiers in the game.
Even if you argue that the old system could have used more polish the new one is railroad-city, predictable, static. Missing a single province can screw you.
It disincentivises smart use of reactive Diplomacy because what you need to do is pre-determined.
I guess that depends on how gamey of a mindset you have.which was RNG and mocked the mission reward naming in the first place.
More problematic is the large parts of ROTW where you have only the generic missions and no or very few national ones. On the other hand the generic ones are still better than the old ones except that they might get "exhausted" at one point (I am currently playing as Mali).
I don’t know if I would block off paths, but for some missions I would give different outcomes. For example, Britain has a mission to become the Emperor of the HRE or dismantle it. Give each a significantly different reward. For the mission to go Anglican, have an alternate option of “embrace the counter-reformation” again with different rewards.