Unpopular opinion - The current mission tree system has fundamental flaws and shouldnt be carried over to EU V

[grandadmiralbob]

I just hate missions that push me into bad play.

Like Scotland's "declare war on England for 2 provinces, then get a claim for 2 more provinces for a second war". So I'm supposed to fight a country twice my size in 3-4 wars for 2 provinces every time?

Or, as Andalusia I'm supposed to wait for a heir with 100 legitimacy before I get claims on half a continent? Well, I guess ill just wait 70 years for that to randomly happen, its not like I'm in a rush to expand as a 3 province nation bordering Spain.

4 provinces, so you're a powerhouse.

 

[grommile]

I am sure there is allways "conquer this" or "vassalize this" mission allways, atleast most of the time

Mostly it was "build manufactory somewhere you probably don't actually want one" or "colonize this".

With the occasional side order of "recover legitimacy" if you'd had a Weak heir inherit recently.

 

[Roxas15]

Imperator romes mission trees are BY FAR superior. They are more situational, not only all about warfare and just more fun.

 

[_Bachus_]

Don't forget we still have old system in the game in form of diet. And it's random. Would switching those diet missions for an actual mission trees make the game better? Don't see that right now.

 

[Big Bad France]

I don't like the mission trees granting restoration of union CBs because fundamentally, that just isn't how a personal union works. The only one that makes much sense to me is England having a way outside of the Surrender of Maine event to get a PU over France, and even that one is kind of pushing it, imo, because England does have the Surrender of Maine event. It was more fun to me when the Austria player could still regularly get PUs over Bohemia and Hungary through proper timing and knowledge of the system, rather than having a button to push to get the CB regardless of circumstance. Otherwise, mission trees are mostly fine to me. They are more than a little unbalanced, but balance isn't all that necessary in a game like this.

 

[bokorthedust]

Don't forget we still have old system in the game in form of diet. And it's random. Would switching those diet missions for an actual mission trees make the game better? Don't see that right now.

Calling the diet has its downsides though, in the form of the 5% influence the estates get for 20 years, while the also 5% loyalty ticks down in like 2 years. Spamming the diet builds up their influence and leaves you with your pants down if you need/want to revoke a granted privilege.

 

[Josar]

I feel like we already have both systems now, with the estate system providing more random missions that are better tailored to the current conditions of the nation you are playing ( the mission that gives you a subjugation CB on a nation is particularly good). I do hope Europa 5 carries over the estate missions.

 

[Vohen]

I feel like we already have both systems now, with the estate system providing more random missions that are better tailored to the current conditions of the nation you are playing ( the mission that gives you a subjugation CB on a nation is particularly good). I do hope Europa 5 carries over the estate missions.

The diet is the full realization of the old mission system, for all there is to criticize PDX, I think it was a very inspired move to reintegrate an old mechanic into the game the way they did.

Imperator romes mission trees are BY FAR superior. They are more situational, not only all about warfare and just more fun.

Yeah, Imperator's missions are what I see as the closest to an ideal implementation here.
Highly dynamic and situational, based on current geographic situation.
I wish it leaned more on the political and diplomatic side though, where you could have characters and nations being the target of a tree, creating rivalries, tension, and perhaps even civil wars.

Calling the diet has its downsides though, in the form of the 5% influence the estates get for 20 years, while the also 5% loyalty ticks down in like 2 years. Spamming the diet builds up their influence and leaves you with your pants down if you need/want to revoke a granted privilege.

That is a very good thing in my book.
Missions being completely detached from the rest of the game feels very cheap (and is one of the main points of this thread), while being integrated with estates gives a very clear sense of cause and purpose for the mechanic.
Giving influence is a downside, but it's not bad mechanically at all, it makes the decision to get a mission more impactful and interesting, not everything has to be bonuses on top of bonuses on top of even more bonuses.

 

[Aeschyli]

You are saying its not forcing you to do same path but its actually forcing. I'd feel stupid if I dont follow the mission tree because there is TONS of bonuses and because of these bonuses i dont want to play the game anymore. I dont feel i achieve something. I feel its given.

 

[Word_Smith]

Imperator romes mission trees are BY FAR superior. They are more situational, not only all about warfare and just more fun.

I would tentatively disagree with this. Imperator Rome's non-warfare missions were a real pain, at least when I last played the game a year ago.

For example, you might have a mission to build infrastructure in a region. Part of those missions include building cities in specific provinces. However half the time I, or the AI, had already built up a city or two in another province. You can only have so many cities in a given territory due to food supply concerns; so my options are to delete some of the cities I'd already built because they don't fulfill the arbitrary mission conditions (i.e. you MUST build a city in Neapolis), or abandon the mission tree entirely.

 

[Vohen]

I would tentatively disagree with this. Imperator Rome's non-warfare missions were a real pain, at least when I last played the game a year ago.

For example, you might have a mission to build infrastructure in a region. Part of those missions include building cities in specific provinces. However half the time I, or the AI, had already built up a city or two in another province. You can only have so many cities in a given territory due to food supply concerns; so my options are to delete some of the cities I'd already built because they don't fulfill the arbitrary mission conditions (i.e. you MUST build a city in Neapolis), or abandon the mission tree entirely.

Fair point.
There are quite a few scripting issues in those trees, and in some cases triggers even seem to refer to how the game worked pre-2.0, which isn't helpful.
But that's as far as it goes, it's on the script level, the mission mechanic itself is very solid.

 

[grandadmiralbob]

One of the problems that I have with the MT, is the AI probably won't ever complete them all, and humans are always better at prioritizing them. Orissa's first mission to have 5 loyal vassals will probably never been completed by them and rob them of the free claims and bonuses to help guide them.

 

[Kanem Bornu]

Mostly it was "build manufactory somewhere you probably don't actually want one" or "colonize this".

With the occasional side order of "recover legitimacy" if you'd had a Weak heir inherit recently.

I am pretty sure I always got "recover manpower" which was always good for a laugh. I am definitely not recovering to 80% manpower before declaring war.

 

[pthooie]

I don't think you even need to keep the tree aspect. A dynamic generation system should be fine. If you're a large nation near a small one you're not friendly with, it should generate subjugation CB missions with temporary diplomatic bonus rewards. If you're a Christian monarchy with high stability who hasn't been generating a lot of AE and neighbor another slightly smaller Christian monarchy, there should be a small chance of a "restore union" CB mission (which would be a reward in its own right). If you control a center of trade in your home node but have low relative trade power, generate a mission to increase your trade power in your home node with trade bonuses as a reward. If you're close to conquering your home region, generate a mission to finish conquering it that unlocks permanent claims on another nearby region. It shouldn't be that complicated to do, really, and should make every nation a lot more interesting.

This is pretty much how I think the mission system should work. I don't mind some scripted missions that are based on historical conditions that existed at the start of the game (for example, I think it makes sense for Byzantium to have missions to recover its old territory), but beyond that, all missions should be dynamically generated. Missions that are based on things that happened after the start of the game (e.g. colonization) definitely should not be country-specific.

 

[Me_]

It would seem like liking the mission trees is the real "unpopular opinion".

 

[iClipse]

Well, I like mission trees.

I guess what I like about them is them giving bonuses for completing specific things. Are they overpowered sometimes? Sure. But considering this is a single player game, I like feeling strong and building up my country. I also like the creativity it let's you have ingame with it, although it's often shenanigans. Want to form Spain as Castile while having Oirat main culture? -> Bam, double mission tree.

While they are often rigid, I do feel they usually follow the spirit of said nation. At least I haven't encountered a mission tree that only let's you do conquest and war on land, while its national ideas are naval focused. Navarra being the oultier perhaps.
You could argue that they don't let you be 'free' in doing what you want. On the other hand, there are so many mission trees ingame now, that it's easy to pick just another nation with a mission tree more suited to what you want to be doing.

Now, that doesn't mean they can't be improved upon.

I also really dislike the previous system. Not sure what people liked about it. It was easy to forget. Low impact. Unintuitive. Whereas with the current system you can basically plan your entire run on the 11th of november, based on your mission tree that you can actually see.

 

[Destaloss]

I also really dislike the previous system. Not sure what people liked about it. It was easy to forget. Low impact. Unintuitive. Whereas with the current system you can basically plan your entire run on the 11th of november, based on your mission tree that you can actually see.

I mean, yes, it can be nice to be able to plan your walk through the mission tree and stacking certain modifiers,
but on the other hand I get frustrated if random things, especially weird AI behavior is stopping things for a while.

Whereas if I didn't had the button on my mind, I could click to improve significantly, I wouldn't be so upset about it
and just re-adjust my expansion plans and go an alternative road, that is not written down in the game and only exists in my mind.

 

[Roxas15]

I would tentatively disagree with this. Imperator Rome's non-warfare missions were a real pain, at least when I last played the game a year ago.

For example, you might have a mission to build infrastructure in a region. Part of those missions include building cities in specific provinces. However half the time I, or the AI, had already built up a city or two in another province. You can only have so many cities in a given territory due to food supply concerns; so my options are to delete some of the cities I'd already built because they don't fulfill the arbitrary mission conditions (i.e. you MUST build a city in Neapolis), or abandon the mission tree entirely.

This is a thing one could easily fix. The idea behind imperators mission tree is the thing that matters and it is way more fun and really immersive. It fires event chains where it tells you stories and let you choose to be part of a conspirancy to overthrow the government and install a republic for example. And the trees to improve your nations infrastructure are way more entertaining instead of just waiting for the next war like in EU4 while doing nothing at all. EU4 has nothing like that. Just one click gratification missions.

 

[Ttrgw]

From a role-playing point of view, I'd like to be able to choose whether to rule the waves or Europe when playing as England.
Well, maybe role-playing perspective is not necessary for a game to enjoy world conquest.

 

[fr-rein]

Zaporozhye and Cossacks state don't have missions in 2021. They are not even done properly in Europe.