Personal Unions - No Fun and All Luck Based

[pkderek]

What I was thinking was more along the lines of:

On monarch death, a noble from the local nobility rises to the throne, and the country that shares dynasty can use the establish PU casus belli.

Unlike how the game currently handles the definition shares dynasty, which means having the same name, I would have handled it differently in my ideal scenario. On the date of birth, the heir shares dynasty with the RMed country with the highest prestige (Well, ideally you could only RM one country or have a proper dynasty tree but that's another story for another day). This would also make the illegitimate child event quite useful too!

In situations where a local noble assumes the throne and breaks the PU, the former PU holders gets the Restoration of Union CB to re-establish the PU.
As for your idea, I don't get it. There should be no reason you are limited to a single royal marriage. Even in the proper dynasty building game CK2, you can marry your dynasty off to as many lineages as you want.

 

[Casadoom]

In situations where a local noble assumes the throne and breaks the PU, the former PU holders gets the Restoration of Union CB to re-establish the PU.

That happens when you are already under a PU and you try to break it without your previous allies to support you. I'm arguing that the noble should rise and THEN the other country can try to establish a union on an offensive war with the other country and its allies.

As for your idea, I don't get it. There should be no reason you are limited to a single royal marriage. Even in the proper dynasty building game CK2, you can marry your dynasty off to as many lineages as you want.

You can marry as many people as you want but that is only if you actually have heirs. How is my ruler able to have four or more royal marriages when he doesn't even have a heir? If the royal marriages are for his relatives (as some people argue) then the relative would be next in line not some random guy from the country with the highest prestige.

In the current system it feels like you have an entire harem of princesses.

 

[panionios]

It is a big problem when a major nation comes under a PU of a smaller one. I've seen France, Spain and Russia doing f**k all throughout the game because of a PU with some minor (i.e. Savoy). And this seriously affects game balance.

I think that, as was historically true, when the ruler of a small nation also becomes King of a much larger one, he/she should "move" to that larger one with the larger one becoming the lead-nation in the PU.

 

[yahiko]

I think that, as was historically true, when the ruler of a small nation also becomes King of a much larger one, he/she should "move" to that larger one with the larger one becoming the lead-nation in the PU.

Yes, a good example of this statement could be Henri IV who was first King of Navarre, then, King of France (and Navarre).

 

[Jaol]

Yes, a good example of this statement could be Henri IV who was first King of Navarre, then, King of France (and Navarre).

Also James of Scotland, then England. And that wasn't nearly as lopsided as Navarre vs. France.

For player-controlled PUs, I understand keeping the system as is. But for AI, controlled ones, the junior and senior should just switch in cases where the junior is significantly more powerful. Doesn't Pdox already do this in the history files? I mean, if you go to a late start date, the UK is leading a PU with Hannover, right? Even though, had that happened in-game, Hannover would be the senior.

 

[amunkelw]

Really PU monarchs should have the ability to assume the reigns of the partner country, possibly even switching between them, perhaps along with the ability to chose which tag to keep on integration, or perhaps it should force the higher basetax tag.

 

[dstarsboy]

Considering you get to lead their armies, you get taxes, and you can build up buildings you are far more powerful for integrating in every way.

If they're large, then when you factor in that you wipe the top building of each type (other than forts) in all their provinces, and that your monarch point surplus does not double even though your number of provinces might nearly do so, it's not that clear-cut.

What he said... and there's a point in the game where money doesn't matter anymore and once you hit that point you're actually weaker if you integrate. Your land force limits/manpower/etc are not multiplied directly. If you have 70k manpower/ 50 force limit and your PU has 70k manpower/ 50 force limit, then you integrate... you are suddenly at 100k manpower/ 70 force limit.... that means fielding a weaker army than you would if you had kept your PU. Not to mention that the AI loves rolling troops at 150% force limit anyways... Not to mention that if they're a colonial power then they'll colonize (at least Africa/Asia) for you.

The main reasons you should integrate is
1) if they're a small country
2) if you need the money
3) if you need the relation slot
4) near the end of the game and you don't need the help anymore

 

[Reezy]

I believe the only thing that needs to be changed about PU's is some kind of mechanic which makes the newly formed union a massive target if one Great Power PU's another Great Power.

Countries don't simply hand over the throne because the ruler run out of heirs, their nobles fight with each other for the throne instead of giving the throne to a foreigner to someone who the royal family had once married. If it can be even called marriage when the Royal Marriage option with 50 countries is available without even having a heir.

These are the two things about PUs that bug me. Implementing both of these things would make PUs more historical as well as more interesting gameplay mechanics. You should have to fight the country to even get your PU with it if it's a large nation. Like England had to do to attempt to get with France. And large partnering should cause huge AE penalties and coalitions for the surrounding nations, as happened when Spain claimed France...basically everyone should get mad when you try to union France.

But then on the flip side you have the relatively peaceful personal unions of Austria. So I'm not quite sure how the game mechanics can reconcile that. Diplo rep being a factor?

 

[Casadoom]

But then on the flip side you have the relatively peaceful personal unions of Austria. So I'm not quite sure how the game mechanics can reconcile that. Diplo rep being a factor?

A combinations of diplomatic reputation, same culture group (extra bonus for same culture), legitimacy, prestige, trust, distance between borders and most importantly years of being Allied/Married.

For the Alliance/Marriage duration, the counter should not reset when the Alliance/Marriage breaks but should simply freeze until another Alliance/Marriage is formed.

 

[vranasm]

What he said... and there's a point in the game where money doesn't matter anymore and once you hit that point you're actually weaker if you integrate. Your land force limits/manpower/etc are not multiplied directly. If you have 70k manpower/ 50 force limit and your PU has 70k manpower/ 50 force limit, then you integrate... you are suddenly at 100k manpower/ 70 force limit.... that means fielding a weaker army than you would if you had kept your PU. Not to mention that the AI loves rolling troops at 150% force limit anyways... Not to mention that if they're a colonial power then they'll colonize (at least Africa/Asia) for you.

The main reasons you should integrate is
1) if they're a small country
2) if you need the money
3) if you need the relation slot
4) near the end of the game and you don't need the help anymore

I would add that there is always chance that the PU will break even if you put a lot of effort to hold onto it.

 

[vranasm]

But then on the flip side you have the relatively peaceful personal unions of Austria. So I'm not quite sure how the game mechanics can reconcile that. Diplo rep being a factor?

eh if you really think that Austria-Bohemia PU was some buddy buddy relationship... I have lost words...
and don't forget the pressure to change Austria to Austria-Hungary "federation" in the 18th century...

We call the era from 1618 to 1918 in our history as "Doba temna" - dark age prolly in english... we had nothing in common with Germany based Austria, we were forced to talk with other language etc etc... not to talk about czech nobles being stripped off huge possessions at the start of 30-years war.

There was constant persecution of czech nation... there was no big rebellions though (aside from the Hussite era), that one I would give you. We kinda are a bit "weird" nation considering fighting against rulers/external enemies.

 

[Beagá]

Personal unions should be a matter of luck in large because they WERE matters of luck. And they should be rare because they were rare (and integration even more so. Only Commonwealth is a really relevant example of integration)

Honestly, go claim a throne and fight a war to get those if you want tons of PUs, expecting to get like 5 PUs from pure luck (that is, only from monarch death) is BS.

On the other hand a more transparent dinasty system is a must for the game (so we can know who has more claim, Family trees etc).

 

[raw]

Unions must be more likely to break free.

 

[Morgan Wight]

Honestly, go claim a throne and fight a war to get those if you want tons of PUs, expecting to get like 5 PUs from pure luck (that is, only from monarch death) is BS.

Fighting the war isn't really the problem - I would gladly do this if I ever picked up shared dynasties.

The issue is that some nations' dynasties seem to be hard-coded to proliferate among certain other nations completely independent of any sort of player agency such as RM farming. For instance, Austria always gets shared dynasties with Bohemia and Hungary, even without RMing or taking missions. Meanwhile, I've logged 100s of hours with Byzantium, and have literally never seen a shared dynasty appear once. It's fine if dynasties such as the Hapsburg and Trastamaras are more favored to spread, as I do enjoy the history and asymmetry in EUIV, but the disparity is too stark. Making claims and fighting PU wars is fun(!) and more starting positions ought to have the opportunity to participate in at least one over the course of a game.

 

[unmerged(65679)]

I like PU's but yes so far they are a great mechanic that was kind of slapped onto the table like a half dead tuna. Its great but it hasn't been prepared and it should be.......especially considering Pdox has had PU's for a LONG time now. Surprised they never fleshed them out properly.

Another posted mentioned that Great Nations only malus each other but the mechanic of "great nations" isn't at all present and he/she was right. Great Nations should pay attention to other great nations. If France or whomever is getting nuts powerful via PU or otherwise it should be noticed among other great nations and make them more likely to coalition against France or anybody else. Right now that doesn't happen at all.

PU's and fighting for them (how rarely that occurs) or coalitions in general should have goals and there should be a mechanism to jump in on a side depending on if you meet certain criteria to pick a side. What criteria that is I'm not entirely sure. But coalitions in particular were a great step forward for PDox but what the game is missing which ties into PU's is there is absolutely no "overarching" mechanic where nations DO notice the actions of others.

That mechanic only works in your near territory currently with AE or boarder tension. But a nation removed say half a continent away doens't at all care or notice that you might be swallowing the entire continent. There is no system that makes nations take note of the actions of other great powers or a diplo system (in civ it was apostolic palace and then UN sort of...) that allows great powers to vote on things for/against each other.

 

[zodium]

PUs are perfect black swan events now that succession wars became both optional and much more common, and now that the subject will actually rebel. There is exactly nothing wrong with them.

 

[Yxklyx]

So has this issue been addressed in the latest version of the game? I have another frenzy of PUs in my current game. Among them, Portugal inherits Spain and now Austria PUs Portugal, etc...

 

[grommile]

The issue is that some nations' dynasties seem to be hard-coded to proliferate among certain other nations completely independent of any sort of player agency such as RM farming. For instance, Austria always gets shared dynasties with Bohemia and Hungary, even without RMing or taking missions.

Hungary has a regency for an underage Habsburg at game start; if the game diverges from history by Ladislaus the Posthumous not dying of leukaemia in the 1450s, then they're likely to stay Habsburg. Bohemia has an interregnum which can be resolved in a number of ways, including the historical one (Jiří z Poděbrad) or the installation of a Habsburg.

Also, of course, any Germanic-culture-group monarchy (and there are an awful lot of them) that suffers succession failure in the mode "A (nationality) noble rises to the throne" can potentially get "von Habsburg" selected as the random dynasty of the nobleman elevated to the throne.

 

[Taear]

I think they're trying to make up for the fact that in EU3 a PU was almost impossible to maintain. When EU4 came out I played as Denmark and was very paranoid about keeping Sweden/Norway in the PU, since it was practically impossible in EU3. Now they've gone too far and PUs never seem to break.

It seems crazy to me that I can be the PLC with a personal union with Scandinavia and ALSO HRE and everyone is fine and dandy with that.