No automatic dissolution of unions on 0 prestige and other suggestions regarding unions

[CharlesTheBald]

I don't think I'm the only one that's getting annoyed by this mechanism where a union automatically dissolves with negative prestige. Not so much for my own sake (if I remember correctly you get a restore union CB and a human player can always fix this when happening) but rather for the sake of the AI.

The AI generally just let the junior partner slip away, so I suggest getting rid of this mechanism entirely and replace it with this instead:

• A system where the junior partner gets increasingly more liberty desire if it got more prestige than the senior partner. The difference in prestige between the two would determine how big this increase in liberty desire will be.
• On monarchs death, if the senior partner got below 0 prestige, an event fires giving the player an option to renegotiate the terms of the union in a new treaty and assert its authority in the junior country for a cost of 100 adm points, 100 dip points and 100 mil points.
  Not going with this option gives the subject a great increase in liberty desire.
• AI countries should more actively seek to support the independence of the subjects of its rivals and those subjects should be more willing to accept this support. Independence, if feasible for the AI, should be a priority for AI countries, just as it is for humans.
• AI countries fighting for their independence should be extremely reluctant to accept anything but independence in a peace offer, if they are the one making gains in warscore. I see sometimes colonies fighting for indepence with something like 25 warscore but still accepts a peace where they remain subjects because of high war exhaustion and manpower issues.

Also, because I feel general strength comparison has too much influence, I suggest some new or changed liberty desire modifiers applicable to all kinds of subjects:

• A distance from borders modifier (not applied to colonies).
• Different culture/different culture group modifier.
• Different religion modifier.

Introducing these modifiers would allow for example the Kalmar Union to last longer, despite Sweden and Denmark being historical rivals, because of geographical and cultural proximity. And a union with England ruling over Scotland would be much easier to maintain than a union with Spain ruling over England. Just like it was and should be.
It would also make colonies wait to later in the game before starting their independence wars.

 

[grommile]

Introducing these modifiers would allow for example the Kalmar Union to last longer, despite Sweden and Denmark being historical rivals, because of geographical and cultural proximity.

On the one hand you appear to be implying you want the Kalmar Union to be more stable.

On the other hand, you're saying outright that you want things which will make the KU more likely to be dissolved, like "AI less willing to accept terms that don't include independence" and "AI rivals of PU leaders more aggressive about supporting independence of the juniors".

 

[CharlesTheBald]

On the one hand you appear to be implying you want the Kalmar Union to be more stable.

On the other hand, you're saying outright that you want things which will make the KU more likely to be dissolved, like "AI less willing to accept terms that don't include independence" and "AI rivals of PU leaders more aggressive about supporting independence of the juniors".

Yes, I realise I appear to contradict myself. But the key thing here is liberty desire. When liberty desire goes up, I want the AI to use the situation to pursue independance just as a human player would do at that same moment, but I don't want Sweden to start with 100 libery desire just because they are somewhat powerful and a historical rival of Denmark.

Do you see the difference here? I want more things to have an effect on liberty desire, and make it less "relative strength" dependent. So, just as I want it to be easy to maintain a England-Scotland union, I want it to be hard to maintain a Spain-England union.

 

[Mattius]

I think countries should be insta-annexed on union. But That's just me.

 

[ShadowCammy]

I think that they should just stop basing it off of prestige.

I see it like this:

Poland has 5 Prestige and Lithuania has whatever prestige
Poland gets a mission that causes them to lose that prestige down to -5
Poland's king then dies and Lithuania all of a sudden says "nah" to the union and leaves for no reason other than these arbitrary numbers being below 0.

What I don't understand is what prestige has to do with the union. I say, if anything, a union should be based more off of Power Projection than anything else. If the junior has more PP than the overlord, they should want to leave, since they'd be seen as more powerful and rebellious compared to their overlord.
I dunno. It's just all stupid to me.

 

[Danfish77]

I think countries should be insta-annexed on union. But That's just me.

So did the leaders of historical unions! But it was not always so; the Hapsburgs come to mind.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

What I don't understand is what prestige has to do with the union. I say, if anything, a union should be based more off of Power Projection than anything else. If the junior has more PP than the overlord, they should want to leave, since they'd be seen as more powerful and rebellious compared to their overlord.
I dunno. It's just all stupid to me.

That's no good, since subjects don't have rivals or use power projection.

 

[ShadowCammy]

That's no good, since subjects don't have rivals or use power projection.

Exactly. It makes them less likely to suddenly break away. What case would cause a junior to leave its master?
how about the PU between Great Britain and Hannover? Britain was prestigious at the time of Queen Victoria's coronation, so how come it would break union?
I'm just proposing the whole system be revamped to make sense.

 

[Mattius]

So did the leaders of historical unions! But it was not always so; the Hapsburgs come to mind.

Maybe if you placed a relative on their throne, you would get a similar situation to the one that exists ingame.

 

[CharlesTheBald]

Exactly. It makes them less likely to suddenly break away. What case would cause a junior to leave its master?
how about the PU between Great Britain and Hannover? Britain was prestigious at the time of Queen Victoria's coronation, so how come it would break union?
I'm just proposing the whole system be revamped to make sense.

The British - Hannoverian union broke because women were excluded from Hannoverian succession.

But since the game lacks a decent portrayal of dynasties, heirs and successions, this situation can't really be represented. Some kind of "CK light" system would be needed first.

So again, the best thing would simply be to remove the auto dissolving unions and instead make the AI persue independence goals more diligently when they have the adeqate amount of liberty desire to do it.

 

[grommile]

Exactly. It makes them less likely to suddenly break away. What case would cause a junior to leave its master?

... You missed the point. As a junior, you have, for all practical purposes, zero PP at all times. Thus, relative PP is not a useful basis for determining PU stability.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

... You missed the point. As a junior, you have, for all practical purposes, zero PP at all times. Thus, relative PP is not a useful basis for determining PU stability.

Exactly. It would be the same as breaking unions on negative prestige, except it is on negative PP.

 

[grommile]

Exactly. It would be the same as breaking unions on negative prestige, except it is on negative PP.

There is no such thing as negative PP. (I think?)

 

[TheDarkMaster]

There is no such thing as negative PP. (I think?)

From what I can tell, there is just no penalty for having it and the game reports negative PP as 0. It still isn't a good system, since you can end up in a position where you don't have valid rivals and thus don't use PP either.