How do you set objectives?

[vaalen]

The notes to the new patch state that you should close the nation display and select a region when selecting an objective, but they do not explain how you select an objective.

I have not been able to figure it out.

Being able to set dynamic objectives is a great feature of the new patch, and I would really like to know how to do it.

[AndrewGardner]

Sorry, that change just makes it easier to find your objectives on the map when you click on them in the Objectives tab in the Nation Panel. The internal details of how objectives are assigned has also changed in this update, but it is still out of your hands.

[vaalen]

Sorry, that change just makes it easier to find your objectives on the map when you click on them in the Objectives tab in the Nation Panel. The internal details of how objectives are assigned has also changed in this update, but it is still out of your hands.

Thanks for the clear explanation. It now makes sense. I was a bit surprised to load my previous game and see that I had only four objectives, rather than the previous twenty, of which I had eighteen. But it seems that the AI players also had something similar happen, as far as I can tell.

[Raoeoiku]

The objectives system and diplomacy in general seems to be in need of some changes. In a multiplayer game as Dacia the objectives seem as though they are actively set to destabilize or flat out topple your nation. With 10 neighbouring independent territories every objective given for a while now seems to be several regions away and most recently always under the control of an opposing player (human or AI) which I'm on neutral terms with, while there are plenty of neighbouring independent and apparently enemy regions that are ignored.

The worst part is that while negotiating to relinquish an objective could be seen as a bargaining tool in some diplomatic circumstances, there still seems to be a massive oversight in that this appears to be the only way to reset the objectives. So in multiplayer matches, opposing human players will just flat out refuse to let you relinquish in order to slow down your development and legacy gains. This coupled with nonsensical and completely ahistorical alliances amongst other players playing nations that are historically bitter rivals results in some fairly ludicrous situations. Also, direct messaging to other human players is sorely missed.

In what context does it make any sense that the only way to reset your objective regions is to hope your potential rival will be generous enough to allow you to get some new objectives?

[Cfant]

Also the objectives are sometimes...strange. My British-Nort gaul empire has got a new objective - in south italy. about 30 regions away of my borders...

[Pocus]

It has never be the purpose of this diplomatic deal (relinquish objective) to be a tool to phase out unwanted objectives to get easier ones. I understand this is how people use it in MP, but the intent was only to allow a reduction in tension between 2 nations that don't want to go to war against each other.
Providing a tool to reset objectives (they do, but only passage of time does that) would be too abusable. The aim of an objective is to be hard to reach and get a reward if you do. So no resetting and no objectives too easy to take.

Some might feel easy to capture though, that's mostly the ones provided by an historical list. The game tries to walk 2 paths here, one is to provide historical objectives, one is to provide difficult to reach objectives. Sometime it does feel odd ...

Now, 30 regions away, that's strange. Perhaps Rome is your only opponent?

[Cfant]

At the moment, yes. Doesn't matter, I just was unsure if this is wanted

[honvedseg]

....
Some might feel easy to capture though, that's mostly the ones provided by an historical list. The game tries to walk 2 paths here, one is to provide historical objectives, one is to provide difficult to reach objectives. Sometime it does feel odd ...

Now, 30 regions away, that's strange. Perhaps Rome is your only opponent?

After the game runs through its historical list (which appears to be exactly the same every time you play that nation), it begins to choose "difficult" objectives. Indeed, sometimes it does feel odd, or else intentionally near-impossible.

Playing the Etruscans, with no territories yet outside of Italy and Cisalpine Gaul, I had THREE objectives in the British Isles simultaneously at one point (and just about as far apart as they could be on those islands). My troops would have been in no shape to fight if I had tried a naval excursion at that insane distance. The 4th objective at the time was roughly in the middle of Europe, and would have required going through at least 4 other countries no matter which direction (land or sea) I approached from. None of those have been something I would want or could reasonably defend, even if I could take them.

Playing Rome, I had secured most of Italy proper, and got simultaneous objectives in Carthage, Macedonia, and 2 other fairly major powers, any one of which might have been possible to pull off in 20 turns or less, but not two or more of such conflicts simultaneously at that stage of the game.

So far in my campaigns, the system for choosing objectives seems amazingly bad, unless it's intended to target the most difficult provinces on the map.

[Pico2014]

For me the objective-system is working well. Its not designed to be easy achievable progress token machine. Objectives should be difficult to get, so that you really have to think about if its worth to start a risky military campaign. One major core-element in this game (afaik) is that you as a leader are not in full control of everything around you. Take trade or the building system. Same with objectives. There are other political parties or opponents which set those, sometimes irrational, goals to achieve. It fits quite well.

The only problem i see with this unpredictable, random system is competitive multiplayer. But it should be clear that the game is not designed for this purpose.

[honvedseg]

For me, once it finishes the list of pre-selected objectives, I pretty much ignore the objectives unless it accidentally hands me something achievable. In all but one or two cases, there was no practical way to accomplish them without overextending into territory I could not reasonably expect to take, or hold if I did manage. There's a difference between "difficult" and "suicidal", and a progress token isn't worth wrecking my empire for. If I have to declare 4 wars and cross 4 or more hostile provinces just to get to the objective, fight battles along the way, take time to repair or replace losses, and then deal with the consequences of 4 wars after taking the objective, it's not going to happen. I can get plenty of tokens through Culture/Decadence by NOT doing the missions.

The idea is sound, but the implementation leaves a lot of room for improvement.

[Pocus]

If you can give me the (backup) turn before a non sensical objective, I can take a look.

[Raoeoiku]

Yeah, I realized how it worked after the fact. A core series of easily attainable objectives followed by only extremely awkward ones. They aren't impossible, they're just far enough away and require starting enough wars that they're rarely worth going for unless they line up with your other plans, which will unfortunately not often be the case.