Being at war makes you immune to PUs

[China is OP]

Why is this a thing? Every time I have RM a nation with a 40 year old+ heirless ruler the AI uses gamey tactics to wiggle themselves out of the situation. Without fail the AI will get itself into a war with an OPM or some country in Africa or Asia to block the PU. The senior partner should inherit all wars or maybe force a white peace in a war if the attacking war leader becomes a junior partner.

 

[schondetta]

I assume for balance reasons. PUing and expanding at the same times sounds absurd

 

[Holland989]

The PU mechanics combined with war are a bit dodgy in general. In a recent game, I was at war with both Poland and Lithuania before the event fired. The event fired during the war and Lithuania got PU'ed, but it kicked them out of the war for some reason.

 

[Dominion]

The PU mechanics combined with war are a bit dodgy in general. In a recent game, I was at war with both Poland and Lithuania before the event fired. The event fired during the war and Lithuania got PU'ed, but it kicked them out of the war for some reason.

lel, I reported that as a bug a while ago. Same thing happens with the Iberian wedding if you have Aragon by your side.

 

[Ironside121]

The AI probably doesn't do it intentionally, you're just getting unlucky.

What I think should happen is if a PU is going to happen, and that nation is in a war then instead of a noble or family member ruling the country whose monarch just died- they get a claim on the throne.

"It was rightfully mine, you denied my claim so I'll take it by force" kinda thing. It would stop the exploit of going to war because you could end up in multiple wars- making it a risky move.

A likely reason you can't get PU'd while at war is because it could probably break wars in some ways and is too much hassle to deal with.

 

[Incompetent]

A likely reason you can't get PU'd while at war is because it could probably break wars in some ways and is too much hassle to deal with.

Basically this. Becoming a subject while at war causes your new overlord to take over your diplomatic role in the war (including war leader, as the case may be). It wouldn't actually break the game, and you see it happen for instance when countries get force-vassalized while fighting another war. But it seems the devs decided it was not OK for additional powers to suddenly enter a war just because somebody's king died.

Succession wars while the PU junior is already at war probably would cause some mechanics drama, though. (Even with this scenario ruled out, succession wars are one of the more eccentric kinds of war in EU4, diplomatically speaking.) The rare 'instant inheritance' would also be likely to cause problems.

I assume for balance reasons. PUing and expanding at the same times sounds absurd

Nope. The current PU mechanics actually protect warmongering countries rather than holding them back. If you're at war, you won't fall under a PU but you can still gain a PU over somebody else.

 

[atwix]

it does make sense.

only event based PU et white peace'd, which doesn't make sense, but that is there for gameplay/balance reasons.

if a nation is at war, the enemy warleader wouldn't just "let go" of its target prize, and overlord wouldn't want to get involved if he got a PU in an enemy war.

Look at it this way: if a nation is heirless and at war, the nation asks the biggest RM partner/nobles to send a new king to carry on the fight or to lead while at war.

dunno how quite to explain it, but trust me, the rule is a good thing. Imagine player not being able to dodge falling in a PU

 

[macd21]

It’s also to avoid RNG ragequit moments. Imagine you’re in a war with some OPM when their ruler dies and he ends up in a PU with your main ally, France. If France inherits the war, you’re suddenly going up against the BBB that you spent decades building up trust with. Alternatively if the war just ends then you’ve spend spent manpower, treasure and time on a war goal only to see it snatched away from you.

Inheriting a new vassal’s war is different, as it’s a choice you can make (and you can choose alternatives - take provinces or money).

 

[Mrkew]

It’s also to avoid RNG ragequit moments. Imagine you’re in a war with some OPM when their ruler dies and he ends up in a PU with your main ally, France. If France inherits the war, you’re suddenly going up against the BBB that you spent decades building up trust with. Alternatively if the war just ends then you’ve spend spent manpower, treasure and time on a war goal only to see it snatched away from you.

Inheriting a new vassal’s war is different, as it’s a choice you can make (and you can choose alternatives - take provinces or money).

Simple fix would be asking the new senior partner whether he accepts the union, like a succession war popup kind of thing.

 

[macd21]

Simple fix would be asking the new senior partner whether he accepts the union, like a succession war popup kind of thing.

True, though I think that would be tricky to balance. Should France forego a PU over Castile to save their alliance with Portugal? Or a PU over Tuscany for their alliance with Milan? What about the progress of the war - do they want to jump into a 90% losing war with Portugal?

No matter how hard they tried to balance it, they’d get some weird results. I don’t think the ability to get a PU in war time is important enough to work it out. If they were going to put that much effort into it, I’d prefer they revamp the entire PU system instead.