This may well have been suggested before, but I'm far too lazy to search for it. I apologise.
Having seen Sweden so meekly surrender (even after an independence war) to annexation, it seems to me there must be an alterior solution. Indeed, as a Scot, I like to start the game in 1603 when James has taken control (actually I wait until 1604 when the war with Spain has ended).
It occurs to me that vassals and especially PU's should have some additional features:
1. Like CK2, one should be able to determine ones own 'preferred' title. Should you gain a PU over a larger nation, you should be able to switch your throne to the larger nation. In certain cases (i.e. historical cases) this should result in a switch in Idea group. In others, it should merely serve to placate the larger group. Of course it will reduce legitimacy, and cause rebellion in the junior partner.
2. The allegience of the estates does not neccesarily coalesce with that of the state; i.e estate should have their own independent leader. In the case of the Clergy, the choices are obvious...perhaps the burghers prefer a local trade league...etc... Thus in the situation of Sweden (I probably understand it less than I presume to), despite the Danish Wittelsbach king (Bavarian), the nobility of Sweden preffered independence (eventually), and thus it is the nobility which instigates the independence war.
3. Annexation should be tied to, and directly cause, liberty desire. Increasing towards the date of annexation, the inferior nation should begin to uprise. Of course this should be tied to relative size etc. A nation which is comfortably bigger should be able to absorb a OPM relatively easily. However, in the situation of Austria absorbing Hungary, a protracted war should ensue.
One of my major gripes, is that liberty desire almost always declines. I have also started games as 'Great Britain' at 1618, when Brandenburg/Prussia are unified under a PLC vassalship, and there is no intent from either Brandenburg, or indeed Portugal for independence. In reality this should increase, at least in the case of Brandenburg. Indeed, if one starts the game around 1650, Brandeburg's liberty desire starts around 80%.
There's a serious dichotomy between where the game naturally leads, and where history did. Before anyone complains that 'EU4 is not a representation of history'....well it is... It starts as a representation of history, and at whatever point you start at, they've done their best represent history. Even nations under vassalship, or a personal union didn't roll over and accept their fate. Getting a PU should only be the first stage in the battle imo...!
This only represents my ideas to help the game represent history better, perhaps you all will discuss this without the usual internet reaction force!?! I hope so anyway!
Thanks.
Having seen Sweden so meekly surrender (even after an independence war) to annexation, it seems to me there must be an alterior solution. Indeed, as a Scot, I like to start the game in 1603 when James has taken control (actually I wait until 1604 when the war with Spain has ended).
It occurs to me that vassals and especially PU's should have some additional features:
1. Like CK2, one should be able to determine ones own 'preferred' title. Should you gain a PU over a larger nation, you should be able to switch your throne to the larger nation. In certain cases (i.e. historical cases) this should result in a switch in Idea group. In others, it should merely serve to placate the larger group. Of course it will reduce legitimacy, and cause rebellion in the junior partner.
2. The allegience of the estates does not neccesarily coalesce with that of the state; i.e estate should have their own independent leader. In the case of the Clergy, the choices are obvious...perhaps the burghers prefer a local trade league...etc... Thus in the situation of Sweden (I probably understand it less than I presume to), despite the Danish Wittelsbach king (Bavarian), the nobility of Sweden preffered independence (eventually), and thus it is the nobility which instigates the independence war.
3. Annexation should be tied to, and directly cause, liberty desire. Increasing towards the date of annexation, the inferior nation should begin to uprise. Of course this should be tied to relative size etc. A nation which is comfortably bigger should be able to absorb a OPM relatively easily. However, in the situation of Austria absorbing Hungary, a protracted war should ensue.
One of my major gripes, is that liberty desire almost always declines. I have also started games as 'Great Britain' at 1618, when Brandenburg/Prussia are unified under a PLC vassalship, and there is no intent from either Brandenburg, or indeed Portugal for independence. In reality this should increase, at least in the case of Brandenburg. Indeed, if one starts the game around 1650, Brandeburg's liberty desire starts around 80%.
There's a serious dichotomy between where the game naturally leads, and where history did. Before anyone complains that 'EU4 is not a representation of history'....well it is... It starts as a representation of history, and at whatever point you start at, they've done their best represent history. Even nations under vassalship, or a personal union didn't roll over and accept their fate. Getting a PU should only be the first stage in the battle imo...!
This only represents my ideas to help the game represent history better, perhaps you all will discuss this without the usual internet reaction force!?! I hope so anyway!
Thanks.
. I will pay more attention to the weather in Canada in my next game and see if it helps.
