Two Nations at Once

[unmerged(20077)]

This won't happen - I think it will be too hard to implement, but I'd love to see countries in union like Poland and Lithuania or Austria and Hungary stay separate countries but both be playable at the same time, instead of one immediately inheriting the other.

 

[unmerged(43658)]

well there is 'personal union' type of goverment. i guess this should be it.

 

[crusaderknight]

This won't happen - I think it will be too hard to implement, but I'd love to see countries in union like Poland and Lithuania or Austria and Hungary stay separate countries but both be playable at the same time, instead of one immediately inheriting the other.

Don't forget Modena-Ferrara. BTW, I hope Ferrara actually gets included in EU III, without my having to create it.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

well there is 'personal union' type of goverment. i guess this should be it.

I think that's more to prevent wars and maybe also be able to share manpower or stuff, not actually be able to rule two nations.

 

[Lord Martin]

I think that's more to prevent wars and maybe also be able to share manpower or stuff, not actually be able to rule two nations.

Manpower would not be so good, but maybe military controll.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Manpower would not be so good, but maybe military controll.

That is i think what they wouldn't allow as imo it would be too much exploit (since inevitably PU generally don't last) and all the efforts will be primarly for your country, not the others. Extra manpower, Military Access, not being able to declare war on each other, bonuses to reasearch, are all okay. Being able to directly control the country would be going too far.

Then again i could be wrong, but i don't think so.

 

[Enravota]

That is i think what they wouldn't allow as imo it would be too much exploit (since inevitably PU generally don't last) and all the efforts will be primarly for your country, not the others. Extra manpower, Military Access, not being able to declare war on each other, bonuses to reasearch, are all okay. Being able to directly control the country would be going too far.

Then again i could be wrong, but i don't think so.

Well, isn't the idea of personal unions to exploit the other country to develop yours And i do not think it would be such a great exploit to have direct control, as the player would like to keep the PU as long as posible, thus keeping control over the other country (and improving it as it is almost integral part of his realm). Would be nice to inherit a state if you had it in PU for quite a while.

 

[EUnderhill]

Why not go all the way and allow the player to control all countries - the ultimate solitaire mode. It would be an awesome way to test favorite strategies for different countries out against each other.

 

[unmerged(15764)]

Why not go all the way and allow the player to control all countries - the ultimate solitaire mode. It would be an awesome way to test favorite strategies for different countries out against each other.

hahhahahahahaha :rofl: you have a sick mind mate

 

[EUnderhill]

hahhahahahahaha :rofl: you have a sick mind mate

In boardgaming it is called the "schizophrenic method".

 

[unmerged(20077)]

That is i think what they wouldn't allow as imo it would be too much exploit (since inevitably PU generally don't last) and all the efforts will be primarly for your country, not the others. Extra manpower, Military Access, not being able to declare war on each other, bonuses to reasearch, are all okay. Being able to directly control the country would be going too far.

Then again i could be wrong, but i don't think so.

I don't see how it would be more of an exploit to allow the Polish player to switch screens and run Lithuania than it would be to let the Polish player suddenly make Lithuania part of Poland...

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Because hopefully it would solve that problem and you could only play Poland, as a Poland player, and in a PU with Lithunia you'd reap benifits, but not be able to control them directly, like you could if you intherited them.

No, if like you say, there is no fundimental differance, why both then with a PU?

 

[Enravota]

Because hopefully it would solve that problem and you could only play Poland, as a Poland player, and in a PU with Lithunia you'd reap benifits, but not be able to control them directly, like you could if you intherited them.

No, if like you say, there is no fundimental differance, why both then with a PU?

Well, the difference between direct inheritance and PU direct control, would be that inheriting land makes it integral part of your realm not to be takenfrom you except in war or by events (and only a few provs at a time), while a country in PU with you should be shakable by war, events and hopefully diplomatic actions of other players. Also loosing a PU should be a much greatter blow than loosing inherited land, as you lose the whole land, army and income by the second state. The difference would be more or less semantic though in a good game environment it would spice the game up IMHO.

Still i think military control and some other "access rights" on the country you are in PU with. At best, if you cannot control your second title, you should be able to set up some kind of policy for it to handle.