• 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.


A pretentious asshole who thinks he knows history
35 Badges
Jun 4, 2015
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
Personal unions are a vital part of christian nations' gameplay. Although the implementation isn't bad, it could be handled much better. Right now PUs seem to just be vassals with a few additional interactions and 40 more years before allowing the integration.
Here are a few things that would, in my opinion, improve the personal unions:
  1. The political unions
    Contrary to popular belief, unions shouldn't be exclusive to monarchies. There are documented cases of both theocracies and republics in political unions. I think that for the sake of argument 3 examples from the EU timeframe will be enough:
    -union between Teutonic and Livonian Orders: the Baltic Orders' union started in 1236 after Brothers' of the Sword defeat at Saule. Although the union was very loose by the game's start it was still extant and should be included in the game.
    -English-Scottish political union: even in times of civil war, England and Scotland managed to hold onto their union. If the government change happened to England in game, the union would most likely break. Cromwell even had an ambition of adding a fellow burgher ruled state into the union - the Netherlands. And if we're talking about the English relations with United Provinces...
    -Dutch-English union: As a result of glorious revolution of 1688, William III of Orange, Stadhouder of the Netherlands, became a king of England. This situation would be impossible in EU4, as the Netherlands are considered a republic and England was a kingdom at that time. Problem could also be resolved by allowing NED to get in unions if they're controlled by the orangists but... why not both?

  2. More control over getting unions
    Everyone had one or two(or fourteen) games where that old, heirless prick on your ally's throne refused to die for a dozen years only for you to see that, instead of union you were promised, they're changing their dynasty. It would be really nice if we could get into agreements with countries we marry about what happens on their succession. To implement such mechanic in a complete way, a dynastic system would be needed, but that's the topic for some other thread.

  3. Permanent "Enforce Union" Casus Belli
    I've said it once before, even made a thread about it, but it's worth repeating. The "enforce union" casus belli disappearing after ten or fifteen years is dumb! Look at England, fighting for over 100 years with France for their throne! Or Polish-Lithuanian Vasas who had tried to get back on the Swedish throne for generations. CB could only be removed in a peace deal or by the claimant deciding to renounce his claims, probably by a new dynastic action in diplomatic interface.

  4. More interactions with the PU
    To make a difference between the union and other subjects more clear, more unique interactions could be added, for example:
    -Release the partner: In case of unwanted or rebellious juniors you could always release them from the union. The former partner would get +100 relations and your relative on its throne not to weaken your dynasty.
    -Seize Land: If you want to manage some land by yourself or to make your PU's integration faster or just want to take some land before you release the junior(see the previous point), you'll be able to take the whole areas from it. You can think of this interaction as of a prosthesis for instances like Spain taking the Netherlands from Austria after their PU broke or Poland taking the whole Ruthenia from Lithuania before they merged into the Commonwealth in 1569. The seized land would require coring and your PU's relations and/or liberty desire would be impacted.
    -Render vassal: The action allows the suzerain to give or take vassals from his PU's control.
    -Change the senior state: If you're a small state and manage to get personal union with, say, France - you're pretty much f*cked. If France declares independence you're almost guaranteed to die, but on the other hand releasing such a tasty blob would be a real bummer. To resolve this problem, you could always flip your senior-junior order - your tag would change to the former junior and the country you've previously played as would become the new junior partner in the union.

  5. Autonomy Stages
    As I've said, PU system doesn't really reflect how it worked in real life. I know, some abstractions need to be made, otherwise personal unions would be too confusing. To make up for this a new autonomy stage system could be created to show different approaches towards ruling in at least two countries at once:
    *Full autonomy - the subject is allowed to pretty much rule by itself. It can wage wars, deny senior's call to arms, have vassals and doesn't have to pay his suzerain anything(no syphoning income) and cannot be integrated via diplomatic action. The malus is, the senior partner cannot answer defensive call to arms until its "subject" reaches -50% warscore.
    *Moderate autonomy - subject can have vassals and wage its own wars but only if its overlord allows it. If the junior doesn't want to fight in a war it will be forced to pay subsidies and give up half of its manpower. Senior can syphon income. Before integration the overlord needs to wait 60 years. Changing autonomy stage to this one gives no liberty desire to the subject.
    *Regular union - pretty much what we've got in the game at the moment. Changing autonomy stage to this one from moderate will increase the subject's LD by 10%.
    *Moderate control - the junior partner needs to pay part of his monthly income to the suzerain. It also gets negative modifiers to development and building cost but gets lower core creation. The suzerain is allowed to take away ships built in its PU's docks at 50% discount and increased liberty desire(unless the junior is in debt).
    Before integration the overlord needs to wait 35 years. Changing autonomy stage to this one from the regular will increase the subject's LD by 15%.
    *Direct control - the junior partner needs to pay a big portion(base >25%) of his monthly income. Maluses to building and development cost stay the same. Core creation modifier is removed. The senior will be able to directly control its junior's armies during wars.
    Before integration the overlord needs to wait 20 years. Changing autonomy stage to this one from the moderate control will increase the subject's LD by 30%, but goes down twice as fast as in previous stages.

    To be fair, I'm not certain what should be needed to change autonomy stage. Perhaps good relation with the junior partner, as well as high prestige and legitimacy? With which stage the junior starts would depend on how much development does it have compared to the overlord. In a unique case of Poland and Lithuania, the event should set the union at the highest autonomy, to represent bizarre relations between the two states.
I'm not sure how autonomy stages I've presented are balanced, they could probably use some tweaking. You can consider what I've written above as my try of defyning the concept, the stages should all be balanced and most likely redesigned would they appear in the game.

Anyway, that's all I have to say, let me know if you like the idea or not.

Oh, and I'm really sorry if there are any inconsistencies or grammatical erros in the post, I'm very tired for some reason. :oops:
Last edited:
  • 8
Upvote 0
I don't know either. I don't have knowledge of any non-christian personal unions(or I just can't think of any atm), but it was possible in earlier versions of EU4 and got removed without much explaination.

No it wasn't remove for no reason at all. It was removed because there hardly any non-christian personal unions in history.

The reason is simply that most monarchies outside of Europe practiced polygamy, which mean there was almost invariably a domestic heir to take throne. Christians didn't practice polygamy, so more often the search for heirs went abroad.
  • 3
The tag changing would also more accurately reflect the polish-lithuanian Union, where the King of Lithuania became the Polish King, yet Poland became the senior partner of the union.
  • 1
I also think personal unions are too rare and too luck based. I at least want something like a covert action that costs 50 of your spy network and has 5% to kill the target country's heir. Then, you could also add in an idea to the espionage group which makes it 5% more likely to succeed so the espionage idea group is more useful.
  • 1
I also think personal unions are too rare and too luck based. I at least want something like a covert action that costs 50 of your spy network and has 5% to kill the target country's heir. Then, you could also add in an idea to the espionage group which makes it 5% more likely to succeed so the espionage idea group is more useful.
Regicide had been implemented for 1.16 but was removed in the current patch after people complained about either having their awesome ruler killed or too big frequency of the event(haven't seen it once personally). Will it reappear is unknown but there's this screenshot from DD about ruler personalities implying that our kings can be assassinated in 1.18.
  • 1
I never understood why only christian nations were allowed to have personal unions.


Non-Christian rulers, even of tiny counties, helped themselves to many wives. And why wouldn't they? They can send men to die, why wouldn't they send women to their bedrooms?

Christianity made it illegal/immoral/impossible for ruler, no matter how powerful, to have more than 1 legitimate wife. Any other women they sleep with only gave birth to bastards, that cannot inherit.

Non-Christian countries allowed for either multiple wives, or had harem/concubines, all of which can give birth to legal heirs. Since each ruler will have 10-20+ sons due to this system, it's really impossible for a ruler to have 0 legitimate sons, and need to go thorough daughter/relatives, which can lead to personal unions with other countries.

The Mongols and Manchus had a long history of marriages between the royal lines, as well as Ming/Korea. Never once did a Korean become a Ming Emperor, or vice versa in history. Everyone just had too many children ... even if somehow all 12 of your sons died, your brother's 10 sons can step in!
  • 4
Which leads me to believe that the new harem system, though currently planned for just the Ottomans, should apply to all non-Christians civilizations (I am excluding Natives and african or islander tribes).

Be they Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Muslim, or a horde, the ruler is going to have a bunch of sons, and they will select one. Chinese imperial sons competed heavily for the favor of their father, since the Emperor could select any son to inherit, not oldest like it is in Europe.
  • 1
  • 1
In fact, all the emperors of the last dynasty(Qing) are NOT the eldest son,except Tong Zhi. He was the only son of Xian Feng. Traditionally,the eldest son succeed to emperor, but it's not really followed. Actually, most emperors appoint their favored son to the successor, not the eldest.

In fact, the reason why there was so much court intrigue in every Chinese dynasty was the concubines trying to get their own son appointed heir.
I also think personal unions are too rare and too luck based. I at least want something like a covert action that costs 50 of your spy network and has 5% to kill the target country's heir. Then, you could also add in an idea to the espionage group which makes it 5% more likely to succeed so the espionage idea group is more useful.

So Espionage should be even more trolly than before? Ill play as a republic in a multiplayer game with my buddy who always loves to play a monarchy - "Whats that? You finally got an above average heir? Sounds like I got at least 15 years to make your life miserable"

It actually sounds hella fun to use this on someone lol