why can't you decide how the PU votes? aren't you (as the ruler of the elector), the one voting?
PU with elector's vote
- Thread starter bradles0
- Start date
-
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.
That point is also valid for why the overlord should have control over the armies as well, as well as everything else.
The point is, a PU would basically be a full annexation the moment you get it after that argumentation.
Which is way too powerful.
And there would have to be the chance to release the country upon your rulers death, which is probably not possible to implement properly without causing a sh*tload of bugs...
The way imperial elections worked the ruler was the only representative possible.
There is. Hover over the PU in the diplomacy screen, it will say "requirements to continue PU". If those are not met on ruler death the PU ends. It's usally just ensuring that the PU has a positive opinion of you, but sometimes it requires positive prestige instead. It wouldn't be hard to mod more requirements though. (Like LD < 50%, has fewer territories, has less developement, etc.)
That's how it works CK2 you know, full annexation the second you form the PU. That game does model the appropriate succession laws though, so you can easily lose the title again when you die.
The "competent cousin" event suggests that you give the rulership of the territory to a subordinate member of your dynasty, (which you can also do in CK2, and your cousin's behavior actually models how EU4's PUs work very nicely) who then runs the country as a seperate(ish) entity, but even if Joe your cousin is Defacto ruler, you should still be DeJure ruler for most things. like electorate votes (you aren't), declaring wars and peace (you are), developing buildings and land (you are), etc. So you not being the one voting doesn't fit mechanically with how the rest of it works.
Because you don't play as the ruler in EU. I think a better way to look at your role is as the unseen bureaucracy, the power behind the throne. You can get a new dynasty but the bureaucracy remains eternal unless that bureaucracy is displaced by annexation.
That's an absurd justification because you do control your own vote. Which can lead to surreal situations where an elector in PU over another elector can vote differently with each of technically his own votes.
Just because that systems is in CK2 and works there as intended is no argument for a mechanic change in EU4.
In EU4 it is still way to powerful. In EU4 you don't have a proper dynasty mechanic (what is OK imo), so you would have no control over who gets which title etc.
If Castille instant inherits both Aragon and Naples for free they would be ridiculous powerful. If Poland instant inherits Lithuania it would be way to powerful.
If Austria gets a random PU over England it would be way to powerful... I can go on, but i think i made my point.
If you want to have that mechanic, play ck2. There the system is WAD, tested and balanced.
Nah, CK2's system isn't very balanced - it does not keep track of qhich titles came from where.
If, say France conquers a part of Italy and then England inherits France, then if the titles split again Italian lands will stay with England, only de-jure France will split.
Which isn't how it should really work.
I think that EU4 is way better at handling PUs overall.
Nah. The junior member has its own legislation, budget and governance, just the same head of state. But the thing with electorates is, they're purely personal titles - it is the ruler voting, not the country. The personal union should therefore logically give full control over the subject's vote.
EU4 never claims that you play the ruler like in CK2. Therefore there is no logically argumentation.
Even if you play the ruler, and thus should have control over PU subjects vote, then you should either have rule over the "legislation, budget and governance" too, or neither have it with your own country in the first place lol.
Either way, it's a game. No perfect simulation. And i still think, and i think the devs think the same way, this would be waaaaaay to imba / powerful / random. period
It should be like in real life with Palatinate and Bavaria - when they got united the votes were merged into one. Meanwhile if you have a PU over an elector while you are not obe, you should control the vote.
Except you get to decide the ruler's vote, so that argument falls flat. If the same ruler has two votes, why can you decide one but not the other?
No. Not every monarchy was absolute. It is perfectly plausible for the same monarch two hold two titles in a personal union, one where they can control all the affairs of the country in the highest mode of absolutism, and another where they are bound by tight constitutional checks. For a historical example, you can see how little power the Austrian archdukes wielded over the HRE which they ruled over in a sort-of personal union compared to how strongly they ruled their native turfs.
You are basically asking to implement a title and character based system as in CK2. You bring arguments about mechanics absolutely not represented in the game.
You also control the movement of every general and admiral you have assigned, so how does that work out if you are the ruler? Do they have a conference call the whole time where the ruler says "Now move to that province, general 1! General 2, stop moving now! Now move again!" etc.? Or is the ruler a schizophrenic multi-entity being who is every general, admiral, ruler etc. at once?
If you suppose a concept, think through the consequences first before you claim that it is WAD.
To be fair, we are getting more and more of that. The very next DLC will introduce culture and religion for characters.
What you play in EU4 is not clearly defined. Some events adress you the player as the ruler (e.g. stating that your child died), others don't. As a side note the general/admiral argument is silly as you have the same thing in CK2 and there it's very clear that you play the monarch. Just because you do does not mean you cannot control more than your character. In Dragon Age you play a specific character but can control manuually the entire party. Examples abound in video games.
That's what i want to say. Fair point with the generals, though.
Still, the point is that the supposed system would entail a slew of changes required to simulate that whole stuff. And nobody would be happy to lose huge territory at once just because your ruler died. There are no Inheritance rules, which would be required.
And, falling under PU when ruler dies would result in instant game-over. That's never a good solutions in games IMO.