Catch 22- Personal Union and Alliance

[jtfris]

I am playing England in the 1492 Demo. I entered a royal marriage with Wurttenburg. A couple of years later a message popped up telling me that we had entered a personal union with Wurttenburg against our wishes. I decided to declare war against Wurttenburg to get rid of this problem.

"Declare War" is grayed out and when I mouse over it the button tells me that I can not declare war because we are allied.

When I try to break the alliance I get a message telling me that I can not break the alliance because I am a vassal.

This does not leave me much choice as the leader of England.

 

[JoGi]

Same situation as Sweden
Unless you want to cheat your way out of the union perhaps you could try to get you master to dishonor the alliance(perhaps war against Austria?)

 

[durecellrabbit]

I don't think minors in Personal Unions can DoW either.

 

[Troelsdc]

That is one anoying bug. You are supposed to be able to declare war against your master as kinda of revolt, but you can't because you are instantly allied to him.

There isn't a "Quit Union" or "Cancel Vassalisation" button that you could be missing ?

 

[Wetew]

I am playing England in the 1492 Demo. I entered a royal marriage with Wurttenburg. A couple of years later a message popped up telling me that we had entered a personal union with Wurttenburg against our wishes. I decided to declare war against Wurttenburg to get rid of this problem.

"Declare War" is grayed out and when I mouse over it the button tells me that I can not declare war because we are allied.

When I try to break the alliance I get a message telling me that I can not break the alliance because I am a vassal.

This does not leave me much choice as the leader of England.

Did your King die, or did the message only pop up?

That is one anoying bug. You are supposed to be able to declare war against your master as kinda of revolt, but you can't because you are instantly allied to him.

There isn't a "Quit Union" or "Cancel Vassalisation" button that you could be missing ?

I guess it's really unusual that one king revolts against himself. Because that's what you are suggesting.
You have to remember that you are playing as the almighty man behind the king, so your wish isn't the king in that situation but maybe in some other (like placing merchant and sending spies)
Personally I like the PU, it gives the game a little more realism and you have to be able to take stepback if you like to enjoy the benefit of a Royal Marriage.

 

[JaguarUSF]

It's not a bug. It's a penalty for having so many royal marriages. The junior member of a personal union can declare war, just not on their senior partner. When the senior partner ruler dies, the union is over.

 

[unmerged(46195)]

Pardon me asking, but what is a Personal Union? Is that like being a vassal?

 

[unmerged(62045)]

It is an alliance. Except it exists only between the two royal families via a royal marriage. In effect it's a union between the two kings.

 

[Stonewall]

Pardon me asking, but what is a Personal Union? Is that like being a vassal?

Worse. Its a situation similar to the one that Austria and Spain faced prior to Charles' abdication. Both nations are ruled by the same person. He is native to one, but through familial shenanigans, rules both. Since the other country's ruler rules your country as well, you can't declare war on him any more than he could declare war on you.

 

[Finnish Dragon]

That is one anoying bug. You are supposed to be able to declare war against your master as kinda of revolt, but you can't because you are instantly allied to him.

There isn't a "Quit Union" or "Cancel Vassalisation" button that you could be missing ?

IMO, it is quite a logical thing. In EU2, there were many occasions when nations with the same ruler fought each other. That was much more annoying.

The real question is what will happen when the personal union ends. I just played the demo as Brandenburg. I had a personal union with Thüringen. I was the senior partner. My ruler died in a war against Bohemia. I inherited Thüringen when the next ruler was the same in both countries.

I understand that AI countries can´t inherit player countries. It means that you should have royal marriages with many of your neighbors. It will give you a possibility to gain more land peacefully.

 

[minority]

I think there should be and option to cancel unions, but with a massive stab hit to simulate the breakdown of foreign authority.

cheers

 

[Boblof]

since in EU you don't play as the king or the dynasty but rather as the spirit of the nation you should be able to declare war against the senior partner to break it. I mean what if I load up a game as sweden in 1594 and I can't get rid of Sigismund, that papist traitor who moved to poland. Would I then be forced to have a papist king of sweden and be a junior partner in a personal union with the polish-lithuanian commonwealth until he dies rather than just declare war and get rid of him within two years like we did in history?
btw I don't actually mean anything with that "papist" thingy

 

[Krantz]

I really like the Personal Union in EU3, it alwase made me sad in EU2 when I saw a king fighting him self.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

I think there should be and option to cancel unions, but with a massive stab hit to simulate the breakdown of foreign authority.

Is it possible to change government while under a personal union, and would this change the Monarch and break the union?

 

[unmerged(20077)]

Does it still work like EU2 and make AIs dishonour the alliance if they can't see who you declared war on? If so, declare war on Mataram or the Aztecs or someone and then attack Wuttemburg when they dishonour the alliance.

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

I too think that a PU is supposed to represent the same king governing two countries. Another historically example of this is Portugal and Spain after 1580. Thus it makes sense that your foreign policy is highly curtailed when you're the junior member and that you're not able to declare war on yourself. However, given the right conditions, it is perfectly plausible that there could be a revolt in one of the countries that replaces the king and terminates the union. Again, Portugal revolting away from Spain in 1640 is an historical example of this. Don't know if there any any events in the game that cover this possibility.

 

[jtfris]

I too think that a PU is supposed to represent the same king governing two countries. Another historically example of this is Portugal and Spain after 1580. Thus it makes sense that your foreign policy is highly curtailed when you're the junior member and that you're not able to declare war on yourself. However, given the right conditions, it is perfectly plausible that there could be a revolt in one of the countries that replaces the king and terminates the union. Again, Portugal revolting away from Spain in 1640 is an historical example of this. Don't know if there any any events in the game that cover this possibility.

I could see this argument if my king had died, but he had not. A couple of years after the Royal Marraige, the message popped up saying that we had entered a PU. It did not seem to make sense if my king did not abdicate.

 

[unmerged(11600)]

I could see this argument if my king had died, but he had not. A couple of years after the Royal Marraige, the message popped up saying that we had entered a PU. It did not seem to make sense if my king did not abdicate.

The only way for your country to be the junior member of a Personal Union is for your monarch to die. Either he died, or you're the senior partner in this Union.

-Pat

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

I could see this argument if my king had died, but he had not. A couple of years after the Royal Marraige, the message popped up saying that we had entered a PU. It did not seem to make sense if my king did not abdicate.

Sorry, hadn't understood that. I agree that it's strange then. If anything, you should be the senior partner in the PU.

But to be honest I don't really know how PU's work. The two real life examples that readily come to mind are, as I mentioned, Spain and Portugal and also Spain and Austria under Charles V. But the two cases are themselves quite different: the first lasted three monarchs and ended in Portugal rebelling away, while the latter ended with Charles' abdication and the split of territories between the two countries. I have no idea how the game would handle these possibilities, but it'd certainly be interesting if there could be a territorial shuffle at the end of a PU.

 

[Kruz]

What I really dislike is the way PU fails to represent the Kalmar Union (PU between Denmark, Norway and Sweden)
I think there should be two kinds of PUs, the one we have now and a semi-permanent one that can only be broken if the lesser part(s) go to war with the senior part. Don't know if this is relevant to other countries aswell.