What about "Force Abdication" in peace treaty?

[swm]

Not players can't force the AI to make their (the player) kings abdicated. In addition, if your a monarchy you do this, you lose -25 legitimacy (you are after all undermining your own form of government), and if you have a royal marriage and do this, you lose even more. Put in a requirement that monarch need 80 or more legitimacy to use this option, and is can't be abused. This should also give a -100 option penalty with with all allied and/or neighboring monarchies.

Or they could just patch the exploit getting to 100% and surrendering.
Or they could fix the game balance so that getting a random bad ruler doesn't put your nation behind in everything (seriously Paradox, dice roll difficulty is not fun).

I'd also suggest that while Force-Abdicate should be allowed to result in PUs, it should have the same AE as enforcing a PU (which, as I recall, on a nation like France will give you a coalition of basically all of Europe).

 

[Achanei]

oooh i love this idea. should be in the game. (also losing the HYW w/ abdicate monarch sounds like a nice alternative to blasting finances and stab and WE and abuse AI stupidity to get an unstable PU)

 

[DVF]

I think this is a good idea, but I'd restrict it to only being an option when there is a valid heir for succession, or the target is a non-monarchy. Forcing a PU in this way feels too gamey to me.

Now, THIS is a great suggestion!

 

[T.Bluffer]

what about force royal marriage too?

 

[Bragi]

To OP: totally awesome, +1

Mind there are ruler types as "militaristic", which can be an annoyance due to their behavier. I can see a lot of fun in forcing young 20year old baboontaily King of Agressionia to finally SHUT THE F* UP instead of worry another 40+ years because he is the most annoying neighbour and constantly causes you trouble and crosses your diplomatic plans.

 

[Aries666]

Hi guys. I had an idea but i dunno how to create the code for it so i just hope paradox will add it in future patches.

What about "Force Abdication" in peace treaty?
History is full of kings who abdicate once losing wars, so why not in EUIV?

Speaking in game terms, you can force to abdicate a king without a heir for change dinasty or for many other reason.

What the community think about this?

Far too abusable. Got a 0/0/0, delibarately throw a war against an OPM, force them to accept abdication of your monarch when you 100% them, get a superior monarch.

 

[Freudia]

Far too abusable. Got a 0/0/0, delibarately throw a war against an OPM, force them to accept abdication of your monarch when you 100% them, get a superior monarch.

Wouldn't be that big a deal if 0/0/0 monarchs weren't outright crippling, considering that results in less everything, even things that the monarch historically had no business in.

 

[Muhadevaa]

Christina wasnt forced to give up her thronem she did it by herself to go and serve the pope

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Far too abusable. Got a 0/0/0, delibarately throw a war against an OPM, force them to accept abdication of your monarch when you 100% them, get a superior monarch.

Again, simply make it so that you can't force tribute on a defeated nation, and that an AI nation never accepts this action if the heir is better then the current ruler.

In countries that have fully random rulers without heirs, they refuse if the current ruler has above average stats. In republics, they only accept this for rulers that have above base stats (who've been re-elected).

 

[Arizal]

I like it!

 

[VampireBoot]

Again, simply make it so that you can't force tribute on a defeated nation, and that an AI nation never accepts this action if the heir is better then the current ruler.

In countries that have fully random rulers without heirs, they refuse if the current ruler has above average stats. In republics, they only accept this for rulers that have above base stats (who've been re-elected).

Still leads to laughable levels of collusion in multiplayer.

 

[Sunspawn]

Still leads to laughable levels of collusion in multiplayer.

And? Multiplayer should never be a consideration. EU4 is a SP game first and foremost - most people do not touch MP.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

And? Multiplayer should never be a consideration. EU4 is a SP game first and foremost - most people do not touch MP.

That isn't the dev's mentality when designing the game.

You could add other penalties to having your ruler overthrown, such as legitimacy and stability loss. Heck, forcing an abdication might also require that the ruler have at least a certain number of stats too. So a 0/0/0 can never be forced to abdicate. The ruler has to have at least 9 stats before they can be overthrown.

 

[lordmichael95]

Still leads to laughable levels of collusion in multiplayer.

Not if there are house rules against it.

You could add other penalties to having your ruler overthrown, such as legitimacy and stability loss. Heck, forcing an abdication might also require that the ruler have at least a certain number of stats too. So a 0/0/0 can never be forced to abdicate. The ruler has to have at least 9 stats before they can be overthrown.

That would be far too arbitrary. Again, just make so a war winner (i.e 90+% warscore) can't sign a peace that's harmful to their own country.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Why is offering tribute even something that you can force another nation to accept at 100% warscore even a thing in this game?

Why can't you do the things that you'd be offering as tribute willingly? It's one nonsense workaround to handle a garbage restriction. The issue here isn't that players can lose a war on purpose, the issue is that there's any incentive to do so. When you run afoul of nonsense restrictions and bad game mechanics, people start dipping into the absurd to work around those things.

Even this:

Ah, yes, the brutal humiliating defeat of Castile during the famous Spanish-Navarran War of 1451, where poor Enrique de Trastamara was "forced" to abdicate his thrown in favor of his sister Isabela de Loliwonthegame.

Came to mind instantly for me also. However, why did it come to mind? Because the game hamstrings you (and after the starting rulers die, it does so at random) or rewards you on critical resources in a way where the player has limited-to-no agency, a way that is not only ahistorical but has a directly bad impact on gameplay irrespective of historical consideration. If you could train your kings, train heirs, abdicate at a major legitimacy penalty, change religions when you're not Christian with big unrest, or make other simple choices then the player incentive to do these "why is this even a thing" type maneuvers would evaporate.

 

[branimir1999]

To avoid exploiting with You-can't-say-no-if-I-totally-beat-you, just have your own abdication at 101% warscore if the warscore isn't at -70% for you, and if it is, then the warscore is lowered at like, 75% with two stability hits instead of one.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

To avoid exploiting with You-can't-say-no-if-I-totally-beat-you, just have your own abdication at 101% warscore if the warscore isn't at -70% for you, and if it is, then the warscore is lowered at like, 75% with two stability hits instead of one.

Exploiting what, exactly? The frames of mind here have become so narrow.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Came to mind instantly for me also. However, why did it come to mind? Because the game hamstrings you (and after the starting rulers die, it does so at random) or rewards you on critical resources in a way where the player has limited-to-no agency, a way that is not only ahistorical but has a directly bad impact on gameplay irrespective of historical consideration. If you could train your kings, train heirs, abdicate at a major legitimacy penalty, change religions when you're not Christian with big unrest, or make other simple choices then the player incentive to do these "why is this even a thing" type maneuvers would evaporate.

If you really don't like the game giving you random rulers, then play as a republic. Then you don't have to worry about that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you really don't like the game giving you random rulers, then play as a republic. Then you don't have to worry about that.

"If you don't like the game giving you random rulers, pick from between less than 10% of all starts, with exactly 1 option outside of Europe. Alternatively, wait until you've completed 2 idea groups when the most impactful timeframe of good or bad luck has passed, then still rely on luck to get a situation that allows you to finally switch to a less luck-dependent government."

Yeah, no sell. They even stealth-removed noble rebels forcing you into a republic, though they were fine telling us when they started doing that in 1.6.

And what else was removed from player agency? Rev counter-rev, no now you must sit on 19 provinces or less and HOPE you get a weak heir/no heir in a reasonable timeframe (never mind the 1000's of monarch points potentially gained or lost to that point in random distributions), because random is good design, even when players want less of it.

What about revolutionaries? Only if you're lucky enough to get them, and they make no passing effort at actually enforcing their demands, preferring to siege in random directions including away from your capitol and you can't accept those either.

 

[Sachko]

Great idea !