The EUIV system of vassals and unions needs an improvement. In recent threads on this forum, people have complained about the lack of internal mechanics; stuff do to when not out conquering. I think an improvement of the vassal and union mechanics would create such stuff.
I want to use the personal union between Denmark, Sweden and Norway as an example of how tame, lame and mundane the current system works in comparison to how it could. First, I'll summarize the events that occurred after the reigning monarch of Denmark died and then I'll describe how this situation works in EUIV (or rather: doesn't work) and how it could function better. I want to apologize in advance for the wall of text that describes the historical background, but keep reading if you please!
What happened when the monarch of the union died in 1448
At game start, Denmark is the leaders of the union and their monarch is Christopher. When Christopher died unexpectedly in 1448, the union stood without an obvious heir and all three kingdoms entered into a period of interregnum; a few months later, and for unclear reasons, a nobleman named Karl Knutsson was elected King of Sweden by the countries nobility. This was not, however, because the Swedish nobility wanted to be rid of its Danish overlord (things didn't work like that in those days: the nobility in both countries WANTED the union to continue). Within the Danish nobility, many crown contenders were considered and the debate raged for some time until the news of Karl Knutsson's ascendency to the Swedish throne - then, the Danish nobles elected Christian I of Oldenburg.
As it now stood, there were two Kings who both laid claim to be the true leader of the union - who would prevail? It seems that the winner would be he that could win the blessing of the Norwegian nobility and thus the contest began: bribes, threats and minor skirmishes were the order of the day but in the end Christian of Denmark was elected King of Norway by the Norwegian Privy Council. Karl Knutsson wasn't ready to surrender and made a failed attempt at taking Gotland, but in the end both monarchs sat down and talked their shit out in what became known as the Halmstad Meeting in 1450.
In the Halmstad Meeting (which was later ratified by both parts) it was decided that peace would reign within the three kingdoms and that both Karl and Christian would aid the other in times of conflict. Furthermore, when either one of them died, a delegation of nobles from both countries would decide on whether they could elect the remaining king; if they couldn't agree, a regent would be appointed in the interregnum and when the last king died a new monarch would be elected for all three kingdoms. In other words: even though there were two kings, the union still somewhat existed; the current situation was temporary.
How this would work in EUIV
In EUIV, when the Danish monarch dies the union can break if the prestige of Denmark is negative or (I think) if relations between Denmark and the other countries is negative. If it continues, that's it: nothing else happens. If the breaks, the countries that break loose get a new monarch (with a shitload of negative legitimacy) and Denmark get's the CB Restore Union, but that's it. In a majority of the games I play, Denmark tends to integrate both countries very soon - and as a player it's ridiculously easy.
How this could work in EUIV
First of all, I think EUIV needs a better system for managing what happens when a monarch dies: in the Nordic countries, hereditary monarchy didn't occur for another 100 years (and even then, it was fragile at best). When a monarch dies in these countries, an interregnum period should occur: perhaps giving a negative legitimacy and prestige modifier. Events will pop-up that lead up to the election of a new monarch. Lesser partners in the union should get the option to elect their own monarch and then attempt to sway the other union members to accept his or her claim to their thrones, both with war and diplomacy (here, the MP are an untouched jewel).
Another option should be to attempt to call a general meeting between the nobility of the respective kingdoms and in unison elect a new monarch (which was what was agreed in the original Kalmar Union document) which could for example grant some sort of bonus. Other ideas are: an ambitious nobleman attempts to claim the throne and the players has the decision to either accept the claim or fight it. During this period, with two monarchs, the union should still exist but in another form: wars between the countries is possible but it comes at a higher price than usual (more stability hits) as does external wars, since the internal situation is shaky.
What about the period after the monarch has been elected? Well, there's a lot to draw on from history here as well: an example, something that continuously happened throughout the Kalmar Union period, was that the Danish monarch would appoint non-Swedish nobleman to positions within the Swedish administrations. This angered the Swedish nobility and was a source of conflict that did lead to both pretenders and other forms of rebellion. Another example follows on what happened after Karl Knutsson was forced into exile (which is an event in itself): when this happened, the nobility elected Sten Sture to the position of Regent to rule during the deliberations with the Danish monarch on his election to the Swedish throne. In game terms, having a regent could give a negative modifier and the option to elect either the Danish monarch, a local noble or continue the situation with a Regent (which is what happened for years to come). Perhaps having a Regent could give some sort of bonus, I'm undecided.
So, what do you guys think? Discuss!
I want to use the personal union between Denmark, Sweden and Norway as an example of how tame, lame and mundane the current system works in comparison to how it could. First, I'll summarize the events that occurred after the reigning monarch of Denmark died and then I'll describe how this situation works in EUIV (or rather: doesn't work) and how it could function better. I want to apologize in advance for the wall of text that describes the historical background, but keep reading if you please!
What happened when the monarch of the union died in 1448
At game start, Denmark is the leaders of the union and their monarch is Christopher. When Christopher died unexpectedly in 1448, the union stood without an obvious heir and all three kingdoms entered into a period of interregnum; a few months later, and for unclear reasons, a nobleman named Karl Knutsson was elected King of Sweden by the countries nobility. This was not, however, because the Swedish nobility wanted to be rid of its Danish overlord (things didn't work like that in those days: the nobility in both countries WANTED the union to continue). Within the Danish nobility, many crown contenders were considered and the debate raged for some time until the news of Karl Knutsson's ascendency to the Swedish throne - then, the Danish nobles elected Christian I of Oldenburg.
As it now stood, there were two Kings who both laid claim to be the true leader of the union - who would prevail? It seems that the winner would be he that could win the blessing of the Norwegian nobility and thus the contest began: bribes, threats and minor skirmishes were the order of the day but in the end Christian of Denmark was elected King of Norway by the Norwegian Privy Council. Karl Knutsson wasn't ready to surrender and made a failed attempt at taking Gotland, but in the end both monarchs sat down and talked their shit out in what became known as the Halmstad Meeting in 1450.
In the Halmstad Meeting (which was later ratified by both parts) it was decided that peace would reign within the three kingdoms and that both Karl and Christian would aid the other in times of conflict. Furthermore, when either one of them died, a delegation of nobles from both countries would decide on whether they could elect the remaining king; if they couldn't agree, a regent would be appointed in the interregnum and when the last king died a new monarch would be elected for all three kingdoms. In other words: even though there were two kings, the union still somewhat existed; the current situation was temporary.
How this would work in EUIV
In EUIV, when the Danish monarch dies the union can break if the prestige of Denmark is negative or (I think) if relations between Denmark and the other countries is negative. If it continues, that's it: nothing else happens. If the breaks, the countries that break loose get a new monarch (with a shitload of negative legitimacy) and Denmark get's the CB Restore Union, but that's it. In a majority of the games I play, Denmark tends to integrate both countries very soon - and as a player it's ridiculously easy.
How this could work in EUIV
First of all, I think EUIV needs a better system for managing what happens when a monarch dies: in the Nordic countries, hereditary monarchy didn't occur for another 100 years (and even then, it was fragile at best). When a monarch dies in these countries, an interregnum period should occur: perhaps giving a negative legitimacy and prestige modifier. Events will pop-up that lead up to the election of a new monarch. Lesser partners in the union should get the option to elect their own monarch and then attempt to sway the other union members to accept his or her claim to their thrones, both with war and diplomacy (here, the MP are an untouched jewel).
Another option should be to attempt to call a general meeting between the nobility of the respective kingdoms and in unison elect a new monarch (which was what was agreed in the original Kalmar Union document) which could for example grant some sort of bonus. Other ideas are: an ambitious nobleman attempts to claim the throne and the players has the decision to either accept the claim or fight it. During this period, with two monarchs, the union should still exist but in another form: wars between the countries is possible but it comes at a higher price than usual (more stability hits) as does external wars, since the internal situation is shaky.
What about the period after the monarch has been elected? Well, there's a lot to draw on from history here as well: an example, something that continuously happened throughout the Kalmar Union period, was that the Danish monarch would appoint non-Swedish nobleman to positions within the Swedish administrations. This angered the Swedish nobility and was a source of conflict that did lead to both pretenders and other forms of rebellion. Another example follows on what happened after Karl Knutsson was forced into exile (which is an event in itself): when this happened, the nobility elected Sten Sture to the position of Regent to rule during the deliberations with the Danish monarch on his election to the Swedish throne. In game terms, having a regent could give a negative modifier and the option to elect either the Danish monarch, a local noble or continue the situation with a Regent (which is what happened for years to come). Perhaps having a Regent could give some sort of bonus, I'm undecided.
So, what do you guys think? Discuss!