Why does negative opinion end personal unions?

[Leivve]

This mechanic seems to only exist to annoy the player. By what possible logic could a ruler have to let free part of their inheritance, just cause the other country didn't like them, without a struggle. Especially when more often then not, the ruling country is MASSIVELY more powerful and could easily enforce the claim. A PU subject declaring war for independence and bringing in powerful allies makes sense; but that's not what happens. They just get freedom, and a disturbing often the truce last longer then the restore the union CB.

 

[gigau]

It's not really the ruler letting go... more the nobles of the junior partner chosing themselves a new king. More or less like the Portuguese did to Spain.

 

[Aquamancer]

It's not really the ruler letting go... more the nobles of the junior partner chosing themselves a new king. More or less like the Portuguese did to Spain.

Or what the Swedes did to Danes, multiple times in fact. Or like how Bohemia chose the elector palatine of the Rhine as their leader over the archduke of Bavaria.

 

[Cuervo0]

It is understandable for peaceful unions but it just doesn't make any sense for forced unions. Junior partners shouldn't be able to break away on ruler death until the truce ends.

 

[gigau]

It is understandable for peaceful unions but it just doesn't make any sense for forced unions. Junior partners shouldn't be able to break away on ruler death until the truce ends.

You do have a point there.

Might be worth making a thread in the Suggestions subforum.

 

[Leivve]

It is understandable for peaceful unions but it just doesn't make any sense for forced unions. Junior partners shouldn't be able to break away on ruler death until the truce ends.

Yeah the truce part in particular is the really BS part of it. You're going to tell me that despite having just crushed the enemy nation with 100 warscore. Shattered their armies, and destroyed their navy, that when my king dies 2 weeks later they're just going to immediately declare independence despite not having any troops? Giving you the option to either truce break, or lose the union entirely, as more often then not the truce is longer then the CB's duration.

 

[makaramus]

just make it end truce instantly and if AI thinks you will brutalize him do not break union

 

[Laurent1944]

A forced personal union is more like a CK2 (or CK3 now) personal claim on a throne, so if your king dies just after, his personal claim dies with him, and if the minor subject does not like you then, it is normal IMHO that they chose another leader. But I agree that in this case, the truce should disappear.

 

[Gratak]

Or what the Swedes did to Danes, multiple times in fact. Or like how Bohemia chose the elector palatine of the Rhine as their leader over the archduke of Bavaria.

Both cases directly led to a war and are pretty well represented by liberty desire with support independence. Imho, negative opinion should just have a higher influence in LD

A forced personal union is more like a CK2 (or CK3 now) personal claim on a throne, so if your king dies just after, his personal claim dies with him, and if the minor subject does not like you then, it is normal IMHO that they chose another leader. But I agree that in this case, the truce should disappear.

Uhm once a claim is pressed, the title will be inherited in CK. Not the best comparison I guess?

More or less like the Portuguese did to Spain.

The nobility revolted. They didn't just totally peacefully elect a new king. And you know what? That is already in the game as well: Pretenders pressing their claim will break the union


Also, the thing is that this negative opinion union breaking is pretty much exclusive to newly forced unions. With the +200 opinion from improve relations and no new AE gained, it's pretty much impossible otherwise. So I really don't see the point of this feature.

 

[Aquamancer]

Both cases directly led to a war and are pretty well represented by liberty desire with support independence. Imho, negative opinion should just have a higher influence in LD

Not really, to my knowledge Sweden's independence wars were either fought alone or with negligible foreign support, while Bohemia essentially wanted to be under the PU of anyone but Austria for the sake of religious freedom.

Also, there's the case of the succession of Christopher III of Denmark, where the Kalmar Union essentially broke down until the kingdoms agreed to the election of the Christian I as the new king.

 

[Gratak]

Not really, to my knowledge Sweden's independence wars were either fought alone or with negligible foreign support

Lübeck or rather the whole Hansa supported Swedens independence and went to war with Denmark for this.

Bohemia essentially wanted to be under the PU of anyone but Austria for the sake of religious freedom.

True. But that is currently simply not possible to model either way in EU4. The best approximation is Palatinate supporting their independence (hoping that Saxony and Brandenburg would as well, which failed badly)

Also, there's the case of the succession of Christopher III of Denmark, where the Kalmar Union essentially broke down until the kingdoms agreed to the election of the Christian I as the new king.

After many wars, yes. Which would be modeled in EU4 by Denmark realizing that they can't control a disloyal Sweden and breaking up the union from their side to avoid the next independence war. Notably, the union did not break on the death of Johann I., at which time Sweden hated the Danes quite a lot.

 

[threetypesofcorn]

In any case, Sweden definetly fought wars over this. Denmark didn't simply let go and negotiate a truce with Sweden.

 

[Question]

A forced personal union is more like a CK2 (or CK3 now) personal claim on a throne, so if your king dies just after, his personal claim dies with him, and if the minor subject does not like you then, it is normal IMHO that they chose another leader. But I agree that in this case, the truce should disappear.

The problem is there is no logical limit to this.

Example :

Bohemia just forced PUed Hungary after a devastating war.

2 weeks later, Bohemia's king dies and Hungary breaks the PU.

So 2 weeks after the war ends, all the Hungarian nobles get together and go "yea lets just ignore the treaty we just signed, who cares lol"

That makes no sense. And if they did decide to ignore the treaty, why would Bohemia still be bound by the truce? The truce only applies if the peace treaty is followed, which Hungary just broke. Bohemia's armies could just turn around and walk back into Hungary to enforce the PU again.

Im really dissapointed by how hard it is to have your PU break off the union. PUs IRL tended to not last for very long, but in eu4 it is nearly impossible to lose your PU. They just remain loyal forever, you would have to try VERY hard to lose a PU on purpose. Seeing as how your PU basically stays at +200 opinion with you after the negative opinion modifiers wear off, and random events will never be able to case more than 200 negative opinion in one go, the only way to lose it would be to get so weak that they decide to declare independence on their own.

In history, what were the most common causes of PUs being broken?

 

[Gratak]

In history, what were the most common causes of PUs being broken?

Sweden: Denmark trying to integrate them
Portugal: Spain trying to integrate them
Bohemia: Religion
Dutch vs Spain: Religion
Lots of others:
- Different laws of inheritance (mostly when the king dies without a clear heir) or simply Gavelkind, none of which is modeled in EU4 (with some exceptions by event, like Naples from Aragon)
- Losing a war against a third party

 

[Sidolowka]

Can we just have pretender rebels rise up in the Junior partner if there's a peace with the senior partner while having negative opinions about each other? The nobles of the realm will be sure to rise up against the senior partner if their king dies, but that doesn't mean they just get to instantly declare independance with the senior partner having no say in it.

 

[sekelsenmat]

In history, what were the most common causes of PUs being broken?

Forced PUs would rebel as soon as the local nobility considered that they had enough military strength to get free.

For Portugal it only took 28 years of war and the support of the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Restoration_War#Timeline

Scotland tried and was crushed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_risings

Bohemia & Poland cannot really be compared since they were elective monarchies... something totally different.

 

[Question]

Hmm well the thing is in EU4, the forced PU modifier wears off quickly so they never rebel or try to break off.

Maybe forced PUs need a hefty liberty desire penalty that slowly decays...

As for religion, how did that cause the PU to break? The senior partner tried to convert the junior partner and they rebelled?

 

[sekelsenmat]

Hmm well the thing is in EU4, the forced PU modifier wears off quickly so they never rebel or try to break off.

Maybe forced PUs need a hefty liberty desire penalty that slowly decays...

It should pretty much never wear off, the Portuguese got free after 60 years a very long time period: "This situation culminated in a revolution organized by the nobility and bourgeoisie, executed on 1 December 1640, sixty years after the crowning of Philip I (Philip II of Spain), the first "dual monarch"."

Integration should probably lead to war always?

As for religion, how did that cause the PU to break? The senior partner tried to convert the junior partner and they rebelled?

Just good old fashioned and brutal religious persecution:

Popery Act 1698 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Section III, expanding on the existing legislation, enacted that if a Catholic priest took Mass, etc., as above; or if any Catholic clergy or layperson ran a school or "take upon themselves the Education or Government or Boarding of Youth"; then they were, on conviction, liable to "perpetuall Imprisonment" at the discretion of the King. Despite its severity, Section III was to some extent a mitigation of the provisions of the Jesuits, etc. Act 1584, which prescribed the death penalty for any priest who failed to leave England within 40 days of being so ordered."

I don't know what the situation was in the Netherlands, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a mirror image of the above (so catholics opressing protestants instead of the inverse in the UK).

 

[Laurent1944]

The issue in EU4 is that separatism wears off, both for province or for PU, while in history it can last for centuries.

Actually, there are few cases of successful PUs in history without sharing same or close cultures and same religion. In most cases the king will favor one of the countries he ruled and the other will break the PU. While in EU4 you can have under the same PU Spain, Austria, Russia and Ethiopia without much issues (outside running out of diplomatic slots).

 

[Laurent1944]

I don't know what the situation was in the Netherlands, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a mirror image of the above (so catholics opressing protestants instead of the inverse in the UK).

Dutch were in big part Protestant and were effectively oppressed by the Catholic Spanish king and his armies, but the latter were never able to apply rules as hard as in England, as they lose control of big parts of the area.
On the other hand, in Spain, being protestant was not an option.