Does anyone bother with dynamic missions?

Seneca · March 13, 2001, 08:17

Aren't they just a pain in the arse, and generally completely impractical? Doesn't my Monarch realise that trying to occupy Flanders as England in 1500 will result in half of Europe kicking seven levels of sh*t out of us?

Imran Siddiqui · March 13, 2001, 16:43

Yeah, dyanamic missions suck. I don't think anyone really plays with them (unless you've done everything and need a REAL big challenge

). I think they are mainly there to keep your VPs down

.

Victor Galis · March 13, 2001, 18:17

wait... I never get assigned any missions as long as I have at least one ongoing at any time. I just take the keep whatever, for the free VP, and the safety of not having to take others in the meantime.

Kyle · March 14, 2001, 01:37

Indeed, I turned them off for my current game. With stuff like "Build a Shipyard in Milan" when I didn't even own it was pretty damn stupid.

Steve Clark · March 14, 2001, 01:50

Actually I like some of the early ones. For example, for Russia in the GC, hold onto Moscow for 20 vps, capture and hold Kazan for 30? vps, arrange a royal marriage for 10 vps, etc. Those are all do-able and get good VPs while your armies are getting clobbered.

Seneca · March 14, 2001, 01:57

My favourite was being told to kick the Portuguese out of North Africa, when I was playing China

There's the small matter of finding it first

C0ckney · March 14, 2001, 03:25

I have found them pretty easy (although I am only playing at normal difficulty level) things like keep calis or vassalise hannover have gotten me many VPs, I look at them as an oppotunity rather than a pain.