PU's being Christian only now - Why?

[Red John]

Just wondering.

I get that personal unions weren't exactly a *thing* outside of Europe for the most part, but is there any gameplay reason?

Dislike it, but it was and still is 99% luck, so whatever.

 

[uishax]

Just wondering.

I get that personal unions weren't exactly a *thing* outside of Europe for the most part, but is there any gameplay reason?

Dislike it, but it was and still is 99% luck, so whatever.

Because its unrealistic? If you ask someone non-westener, I guarentee you they have no idea what a PU is, because it never happened before

 

[Red John]

Because its unrealistic? If you ask someone non-westener, I guarentee you they have no idea what a PU is, because it never happened before

Your realism point would be valid if this was a game which had 'realism' in it's vocabulary.

Or did I miss that day in History class where brave Mehmet led 30,000 men across the Mediterranean to defend Granada against Spanish conquest?

I suppose I also missed that day when the class was learning about when Austria took it's entire navy and led 5,000 men on a brave mission to defeat the Russians in Finland?

 

[Krajzen]

Exactly.

Also, I have a strange feeling that PUs in EU4 already almost always happened in Europe (?) and if they happened outside of it they produced very very strange results (?) so I don't really miss them.

Also, gameplay purpose: AOW introduces inter - religious marriages. Which would make extremely stupid PU scenarios possible, like Mali Empire inherits Japan, or whatever. In Europe, relatively small continent, it seems moderately plausible (+ PUs are mostly unique feature of European history)

 

[Red John]

Also, gameplay purpose: AOW introduces inter - religious marriages. Which would make extremely stupid PU scenarios possible

I suppose that's a valid point.

 

[Golladan]

I suppose that's a valid point.

It's not really a valid point, since that was done BECAUSE of the PU change.

 

[Xeorm]

It's not really a valid point, since that was done BECAUSE of the PU change.

Well, it was a change that was allowed because they made PU's outside of Christendom unavailable.

 

[checro]

It's not really a valid point, since that was done BECAUSE of the PU change.

What was first the chicken or the egg?

Maybe they wanted to buff ROTW diplomacy and give them inter-religious RM and then saw the PU problem...

 

[otaman1]

China and Korea should be able to do PUs. Goryeo was a PU under Shenyang. Also, what would happen to Oirat and the Mongol Khanate?

 

[CommunistCookie]

Your realism point would be valid if this was a game which had 'realism' in it's vocabulary.

Or did I miss that day in History class where brave Mehmet led 30,000 men across the Mediterranean to defend Granada against Spanish conquest?

I suppose I also missed that day when the class was learning about when Austria took it's entire navy and led 5,000 men on a brave mission to defeat the Russians in Finland?

Neither of those examples are overly unrealistic provided they make sense in the geopolitical context generated by the game. The game attempts to (very) roughly model the 'rules' of the time period. Aside from events, the player and AI handle the contingencies.

Disallowing non-Christian PUs makes sense.

 

[Kalderus]

China and Korea should be able to do PUs. Goryeo was a PU under Shenyang. Also, what would happen to Oirat and the Mongol Khanate?

Mongolia is a vassal of Oirat in 1444, not a personal union partner, so nothing would happen.

 

[LastSalian]

As a side note, what a coincidence someone brought up this some days ago, and then PDX made the decision of forbidding PUs for non-Christians.

 

[LastSalian]

Because its unrealistic? If you ask someone non-westener, I guarentee you they have no idea what a PU is, because it never happened before

Yeah, and truce timers and westernization are so realistic.

 

[in heaven]

Yeah, and truce timers and westernization are so realistic.

They are different things. Its hard to make westernization or truce timers realistic, while limiting pu's is not hard.

Tell me, how could you make truce timers realistic without adding codes which slow down game too much?

 

[LastSalian]

They are different things. Its hard to make westernization or truce timers realistic, while limiting pu's is not hard.

Tell me, how could you make truce timers realistic without adding codes which slow down game too much?

Is that a serious question? How could fixed truces or agreed truces slow down the game?

 

[CommunistCookie]

Is that a serious question? How could fixed truces or agreed truces slow down the game?

The specifics of the question he asked are irrelevant. The point is that realism can only go so far with limited resources. Just because Paradox hasn't properly modeled the ascension of soldier's testicles in colder climates doesn't mean they shouldn't implement simple rules like this where they can to enhance realism.

 

[LastSalian]

The specifics of the question he asked are irrelevant. The point is that realism can only go so far with limited resources. Just because Paradox hasn't properly modeled the ascension of soldier's testicles in colder climates doesn't mean they shouldn't implement simple rules like this where they can to enhance realism.

Unrealistic changes to truces and westernization are recently, so you can't say PDX is seeking for realism. That is a completely false premise that has been proved wrong over and over again.

 

[CommunistCookie]

Unrealistic changes to truces and westernization are recently, so you can't say PDX is seeking for realism. That is a completely false premise that has been proved wrong over and over again.

Prioritizing gameplay over realism isn't the same as disregarding realism entirely.


I don't understand how you can argue that Paradox doesn't care about realism in a thread discussing a change they made for (what appears to be) the sole purpose of enhancing realism.

 

[myrsl0ken]

Haters will hate I guess? It's interesting how every single change in AoW brings its own petition or rage topic. I for one salute my new e-crack in all its glory.

 

[Red John]

Haters will hate I guess? It's interesting how every single change in AoW brings its own petition or rage topic. I for one salute my new e-crack in all its glory.

I'm not angry at this particular change, I'm just wondering the logic for it.

The most sensible reply has been that this change was made along side allowing RM's between non-catholic nations.

Neither of those examples are overly unrealistic provided they make sense in the geopolitical context generated by the game. The game attempts to (very) roughly model the 'rules' of the time period. Aside from events, the player and AI handle the contingencies.

Disallowing non-Christian PUs makes sense.

Spanish Siberia.

They never made the change for 'realism', so don't give me any of that.