Really? Is this non-christian only?
I've been playing christian lately and there is a big fat -1,000 malus for wrong religious group.
AOW - Royal Marriages between different religions!
- Thread starter Krajzen
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Really? Is this non-christian only?
I've been playing christian lately and there is a big fat -1,000 malus for wrong religious group.
Trebizond had two RMs with AQ Qoyunlu and one with the Qara Qoyunlu at right around the start of the game period - through these, the Safavid Shahs of Persia were distantly related to the various European royal houses. Serbia had one with the Ottomans as well. Basically, Orthodox - Muslim royal marriages, while not common, were certainly not unheard of...
why the change? Did Johan see my screenshot of MING going under Korea as minor PU partner?
It removes the use of a royal marriage completely when playing non christian country. It diminishes it to a +25 opinion bonus and to a protection vs war (-1 stab hit for declaring on rm partner).
Anyways, I don't get it.
It also incites lots of other questions.
I'll give a few already.
If you got dynasty spread to England or Sweden as catholic for example, can you still force PU after they go protestant?
Can succession wars still happen if you don't have same dynasty as your RM partner, thanks to setting powerful rival?
Does your dynasty spread like before still?
If so, can you inherit countries still that aren't catholic?
If a minor PU subject from catholics converts to Protestant, can you still integrate them? What happens?
I can easily give 20 more questions.
Gonna have to rewrite my royal marriage guide completely...
edit: Misread what WIZ said, didn't think of the fact that protestant etc are also christian religions.
Last edited:
..... I feel so silly now.
o Sorry for the fuss.Glad i got my screenshot of Ming going under Korea, looks like it will be relic screenshot soon.
Still, what would the advantage be for ROTW countries to do a RM? Just the opinion and stab hit when declaring war upon another?
I love this, in my games the Ottomans always seem to get pus on a bunch of tribes, so I'm happy about this update
So the expanded RMs and PUs are mutually exclusive? Is this final?
Not angry of course, just curious
I never ever used a Personal Union in EU4 (Used to spam it like crazy in EU3)
So personally, I have nothing against this change...buuut, from a balance point of view, is this a good change?
So personally, I have nothing against this change...buuut, from a balance point of view, is this a good change?
Technically, it isn't 100% luck (though one would only know this if reading atwix's guide in detail). However, it is still predominantly luck, you can just weight the dice a bit.
The more I think about it, the more I just hate the PU mechanic more so than that this is Europe-only. 700% war score by chance and if it's not an offensive PU war, 0 reaction from anybody in terms of expansion is really shaky. Removing this option from ROTW hurts, but if I think about it allowing diplovassal between Eastern, Islamic, and Hindu faiths would be a relative buff simply because PUs are so erratic. If you can do that (and it's not just RM for relations), then I will say this is actually a ROTW buff, though it *heavily* weights going influence/diplomatic ideas ---> diploannex in ROTW, especially as Hindu which can run Ganesha too.
An example: In theory independant Mongolia could get PU over Ming, Hindustan, Japan etc... Always sounded bit weird that a horde could get such nations as PU subject.
Another example: Ottomans getting PU over Timurids is game over if you are in the region usually.
In Europe you (usually) have other greater powers to ally and you can try to break PU of France over Castille etc.
In Asia this is a LOT harder, with all the mixed religions.
In the case of Muslim religion, PU happened almost never anyways, and i maybe seen 2 succesion war ever in Asia.
So maybe it isn't such bad change after all.
Another example: Ottomans getting PU over Timurids is game over if you are in the region usually.
In Europe you (usually) have other greater powers to ally and you can try to break PU of France over Castille etc.
In Asia this is a LOT harder, with all the mixed religions.
In the case of Muslim religion, PU happened almost never anyways, and i maybe seen 2 succesion war ever in Asia.
So maybe it isn't such bad change after all.
At the very least, PUs should give a hefty chunk of AE (as bad as that mechanic is, consistency across the board is at least somewhat of an improvement). It's ridiculous to think that nations would be more worried about a Milan that had annexed Modena than one that had control over France...
At least one of the Sultans of Al-Andalus married a Navarran princess, although this isn't in the time frame. However, these were both rare and inconsequential, and perhaps more importantly, they were almost always conducted between powerful Muslim countries and small Muslim countries that bordered on being tributaries or vassals.
But I'm in favor of this; it's not obviously a ROTW nerf since being able to diplovassalize other religions vs having PU is a pretty fair trade (the former is much better for large countries, the latter is much better for small countries, but when we worry about ROTW we're usually more concerned about Russia steamrolling Ming than Spain defeating Brunei), but it makes the game more historical; its almost impossible to think of a personal union that occured outside of Europe. For reference, wikipedia lists only a single example, and it is not really an obvious case: the King of Korea was granted a title of nobility by the Mongol Yuan dynasty, and spent some of his time in the Mongol court, but the title he got was not an independent rulership and Korea was already a Mongol vassal, so its somewhat dubious whether it led o a meaningful change in his status.
Dont like it but I hope for mod to be put out that will allow free marriages between anyone and everyone.
it used to do that, it was like 1 ae per base tax in patch umm.. 1.6? They seem to have changed it to almost 0 in 1.7.3 now. You can force PU France for ... 20 ae or so.
So I doubt they will change it back, unless the lessened AE from force PU war is bug. But i never got that denied or confirmed.
Oh I wasn't talking about forcing PUs, I was talking about getting them randomly. Obviously, there should be the chance to turn them down to avoid the AE, but even a peaceful PU should have everyone near you reacting in a hostile manner.
Its true you can get random PU. Like you would get inheritance from someone that wills it so. Its just the way it works. Why turn it down?
turn them down to avoid AE? I'm not sure what you are on about here.
Some comments:
Its true a 700% nation can go in PU with a lot smaller nation, but its just the way the game of thrones was played in Europe back then. If a country was heirless, ruled by weak ruler or in regency, then other countries were quick to claim their throne based on family ties and marriages.
Ingame, The AI *never* claims throne, and *never* does force PU war, so it could be even worse. You could get force PU war randomly. And going to war wouldn't help to avoid it. I bet a lot of players wouldn't know what hit them.. Hence why they disabled it. Be glad the AI doesn't play game of thrones as a player can.
Only rivals cared about another nation installing a king on another throne, hence ingame succession wars. I don't get why neighbours should be penalized for you obtaining a big subject nation in peace. Even with a succesion war, you got it in peace. Someone just contests it. Countries just abided to it, since it was.. the law and the way it worked.
The mechanic ingame was unbalanced enough giving 1 AE per base tax, making force PU wars bad idea. Giving it no AE is more historical, as an heirless nation was under threat of war constantly and the rulers were alost forced to accept marriage proposals to avoid wars. It took skill to manoeuver, but noone that wadn't tied to one side or another complained if someone waged war to force his claim, especially if the ruler was weak or the ruler still a child, for "stability" reasons. Ingame, its lot easier. You can avoid falling in PU easily.
I like the way it is now really, you can expand diplomatically. I like it better then the "hey you seem to like me a lot, want to be my vassal?" diplo expansion. It actually makes conquering greater nations a flat out bad idea, if you can use them as ally and potential PU target.
They could make AI far, far more relentless if AI greater powers would do it on players and the forums would be in uproar if so.
Does it need an ingame change? Maybe. But dear god, its complicated enough already rule wise.
Last edited: