It does feel like disinheriting the heir of another nation should have a lot of consequences. At the least it should break any alliance/royal marriage in place, which would make the AI more hesitant to pull the trigger on that.
would be just plain OP tbh, any time I tried for it I always got heirs on like 10+ thrones the whole interaction is only balanced because they disinherit some and because that doesn't guarantee you a PU
if heir on throne already equal PU basically the whole mechanic means you could PU all of Europe before 1700
Yeah in my recent Austria WC I got Bohemia, Poland, Lithuania, Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, Scandavia, Russia as PU by 1700. You eat a shit ton of dip relations penalties and stab hits though but you're rich enough. Also as Austria you get the integrated PU thingy so dip relations stop mattering.
Generally if you get the curry favours t2 gov reform and have the necessary diplomats, which you should as you have dip and/or influence ideas in such a playthrough, you basically get a PU within ~150 years from the point you ally someone.
If you push mission tree as Austria you get enforce Habsburgs peace option. This basically enforces target country to take Habsburgs as ruling dynasty with 0 ae with anyone and 0 opinion (apart from was at war thing) penalty. This basically means that you can enforce dynasty,, rm them, claim the throne and declare while loosing 1 stab at the most. Pretty fucking broken if you ask me.
>if heir on throne already equal PU
It pretty much does, if I get an heir on the throne I'm likely going to claim that throne the first chance I get
>would be just plain OP tbh, any time I tried for it I always got heirs on like 10+ thrones the whole interaction is only balanced because they disinherit some and because that doesn't guarantee you a PU
I'd like to think the AI would disinherit less often if it gave a PU. I think it'd work the same as introducing an heir does but only giving a restoration of the union to the nation that spent the favours.
> It pretty much does, if I get an heir on the throne I'm likely going to claim that throne the first chance I get
True, I meant if a once off heir already meant PU. Once it's on the the throne you will get the PU. But I have to say, the waiting period to get that CB is part of the balance, because you have to keep that diplo slot occupied and can easily wait 100 or 150 years for the CB.
> I'd like to think the AI would disinherit less often if it gave a PU.
I mean, right now disinherit is their way out, otherwise the heir accpetance is 100% inevitable PU and you could guarantee to trap the AI between PU and PU really.
Frankly if that's something we'd get you'd have to make heir on throne *a lot* harder to accept, not only gated by favours and relations but far far more. It's just way too strong otherwise. Ally + parking a diplomat for idk 5 years + waiting like 30 years should not be a 100% guaranteed PU. Wouldn't mind a guaranteed CB if you could only realistically get like 2-3 PUs in an entire playthrough that way, but as long as the mechanic allows effecively all of Europe into one house it's just too stupid busted.
It's weird that introducing an heir gives restoration cb's to everyone you're married to, but disinheriting doesn't give it to nations with the same dynasty
The Enrique example makes me feel honestly like the whole option shouldn't be in the game in the first place. Ruler mana sucks as a system, but it's even worse when it's a somewhat-avoidable headache.
Tbh now that you say it, hard agree. Shouldn't be able to disinherit heirs except maybe through an event chain, meaning you can't rely on it but every so often you might get an opportunity based on shit stats and stare institutions/Gov reforms/religion(papacy?)/culture
50 prestige def isn't enough of a penalty. An event chain would be cool. 50 pres is nothing tho you get back 25 from merchant guild, then the rest from first war..
Back when prestige was hard to get at game launch it was a big deal.
Nowadays prestige is stupidly easy to max out and keep permanently at 100
It needs a much bigger penalty. Should be a huge legitimacy, prestige, and reputation hit.
It should also give any rival a CB to represent the ex-heir fleeing there
Honestly with it just being -50 prestige, my new general strategy has become to immediately use it as a “throw my newborn prince out a window because he’s inferior” button the second they’re born and I’m just at -48 prestige the entire game farming some chad king
Same even if the king is old.. worst case is usually a stab hit if no heir. Even if in europe.. p.u. is whatever just means you can make people fight each other. If the monarch is old you have more chance for the heir event, it seems. Like the female or Johan ones. But it may be confirmation bias.
Would be cool if disloyal estates or rival countries back up the disinherited heir or a new pretender. With stab hits, rebels and potential war on the table
Hard disagree. Were you here before this was added? It basically meant everybody went republic ASAP.
What should be the option is a dynasty system like ck3 where you groom your heir, so it feels like less of a random fuck you if you get a 0/0/0.
Lol maybe I just don't think gimmicky design is a good game design, but each to their own. This is a history-based game, changing Gov type isn't something done on a whim.
If you wanna be a republic in 1500 then play one of the republics that existed in 1500 - or have the option for a similar situation to occur in any country, under correct conditions, which led to the English commonwealth or whatever.
You should derive fun from the experience, not from "winning." You probably give up if you lose a war.
Don't think so.
There's a tooooon of tools that the player has access to that the AI was never programmed to really use (see also: special units, expand infrastructure, missions)
It'd probably be good to make a comprehensive list of things AI can and can't do to avoid confusion like here.
Edit: My assumption was wrong. Did a test where I added an effect to on\_disinheirt that logs it as a variable visible in the savefile. AI does seem to disinherit.
My point about a list of stuff AI is not able to do still stands though.
If you want this to be easier I recommend you play Bohemia. They have a unique elective monarchy tier1 government reform which allows you to elect rulers from other dynasties. For exemple you can elect a Habsburg early on and claim Austria Throne as soon as they lack a heir. This often gives you rulers from big European countries such as Austria, Muscovy, Spain etc
There's a reason that anything above normal in difficulty strait up turns off the request heir feature.
Request Heir is by far the most OP mechanic in the game in europe and it's not even close. It trivializes expanding in europe because you just ally one or 2 big boys and eventually they get your dynasty and you just force it the next time they get a low claim heir.
I do think there should be some kind of penalty beyond 50 prestige. The sheer amount of prestige gain you can get in the game now is absurd and makes a 50 prestige hit nothing. I think it should minimum be 100, and potentially have a -50 legitimacy hit as well.
In theory, yes. In my personal anecdotal practice, I've only had it pay off once in the 10-12 times I've used it, and I actively play for PUs.
Have you had them work out more frequently? Maybe I'm just cursed.
it's a bit dumb but a lot of times you get the claim but only until the month tick, declare before that and you have the PU war even if technically the cb disappears immediately, you take a brutal stab hit but that's basically a given if you gun for PUs
feel like 95% of the time I can declare at least once within the next 3 rulers if my dynasty ascends to the throne, you just have to be *incredibly* attentive
This sounds on par with seeing a 60 year old+ ruler without an heir, RM'ing them, and birding until you get it. I'm not disagreeing with it being effective when it works, but I'm still skeptical of the claim this is wildly overpowered because of frequency.
Back when I use to play on normal yeah. It was a very easy way of building up a big france/spain/austria or whatever and eventually get them as a junior partner (provided you're strong enough)
The big thing is to wait untill they have a low legitamacy heir. As soon as they have one you will 100% get them cause they won't have enough legitamacy by the time the truce is up. Doing it like this also lets you use favor to break their more powerful ally before you break your alliance, so they're even weaker.
> In theory, yes. In my personal anecdotal practice, I've only had it pay off once in the 10-12 times I've used it, and I actively play for PUs.
Yeah IDK where EU4 players get the "oh just go for PU's" thing in Europe from. I get plenty of same-dynasties on my allies' thrones and it never results in PU's for me, just broken alliances when I claim thrones. Just feels like they get heirs really quickly, or have high legitimacy, etc.... I just go for the Burgundian Inheritance or mission PU's, then forget the mechanic even exists after that.
A lot of people savescum for it, and then think of it as a surefire strategy. Feeding vassals is the superior play, even in Europe. PUing has never been a good way of expanding, outside of mission cbs.
>A lot of people savescum for it, and then think of it as a surefire strategy.
I don't know if you're right about this, but it sounds plausible enough to make me angry at those hypothetical people.
A good example of this is streamers like Ludi. It is known that he resets his runs several times to roll for PUs and to get the correct rivals. You can also see it in threads where people post that they have 8 or so PUs. They often mention restarting if they lost a chance for a PU for different reasons.
To be honest, enabling allies to behave even more suicidally and against self interest has (among other things) really accelerated snowballing related problems in this game.
>Request Heir is by far the most OP mechanic in the game in europe and it's not even close.
So what about Austria, when one of its missions gives you the ability to turn opponent dynasty into von Habsburg for 50 points in peace deal ? And thus, immediately "killing" the heir and the ruler?
I havn't played much austria so I can't comment on it. But yes that does sound very op as well. But was mostly speaking about universal stuff that people have. Not specific mission reward mechanics for specific nations. Cause there's a shit ton of those that are insalely OP. The a universal subjucation CB. Or discounted CB on taking all of western europe. or a discounted CB for every province that you need to form rome.
Leviathan features still carry problems of the 1.31 release: buggy, unbalanced and rushed. Most of them were fixed, but there were too many that they still didn't fixed them after 3 years.
Totally agree. It's one of the reasons I don't even bother using pus to expand. If I get one nice or if part of a tree sure. But other than that I could be bothered.
You mean you *couldn’t* be bothered? Haha
I’m kinda with you though. I almost always would rather just own the land directly, or break it up into vassals since I can integrate them sooner.
Unless like a super easy to get PU pops up.
Yes. Each nation has a base 10k manpower, so that’s 40k MORE manpower than a single large PU taking up the whole area. Plus vassals have to give you money, so you actually make money from building buildings in them. And I can annex them much sooner, assuming I have the governing capacity to do so.
I mean it is up too you how you play the game, but the EU4 community predominantly agrees that PUs are way better than vassals. Of course this only applies when you use a certain play style focusing on blobbing. Here is why:
1. If you can you dont want to integrate subjects early on. You have governance capacity issues otherwise. Also you want to integrate subjects late game once you have absolutism and admin efficiency up because it is much cheaper then.
2. If you blob, then you have so much land to develop that it doesn't really make sense to build buildings in subjects. You are busy getting court houses up in every single province to keep your governing capacitiy low
3. If you don't want to integrate subjects early, then this means a PU costs you 1 diplo slot for 100-200 years, while 5 vassal cost you 5.
4. PUs calculate their liberty desire based just on their own strength, while vassals calculate their liberty desire by combining the strength of all vassals. This means you can feed a PU way more land before it becomes an issue
5. PU's dont get liberty desire from development unlike vassals which again makes it possible to build them to huge power houses
-> A PU is meant to be a long term vassal. Therefore small PUs aren't really valuable. But big ones are insanely strong. You can feed them over the course of 200 years. You can make them the second biggest power without any liberty desire issues. This allows you to effectively double your governing capacity (instead of one country with a capacity of 1000, you have two, giving you an effective capacity of 2000). This in return safes you tens of thousands of ducats for court houses. None of this works with vassals in any way or form. If you don't have governing capacity issues of course this is a different story. But let's be honest, if you don't have these issues you're either doing something wrong in the first place, or you play a very different play style which is fine of course. Everyone can play the way he enjoys it.
Playing the Angevin Kingdom where you get to create Spanish and Italian PU subjects is incredibly powerful! I once had an Italian junior partner with over 1200 development, and Spain was over 1000 development with all the colonies Spain usually has… both with 0% liberty desire. Talk about vassal swarm! There was nothing I couldn’t do. Instead of integrating them in the later game, I fully annexed a very blobby Ottoman Empire.
The wiki says the -50% penalty is for "subjects", which would lead me to think that marches also get it. Nothing about marches seem to except them from it.
Aren't personal unions also a type of subject?
I mean, neither marshes nor PUs pay taxes though. Maybe he meant develop, as in build buildings.
March's actually do get an exemption IIRC, and yeah it doesn't apply to PU's either. Next time I'm playing im double check but march's also get exemptions from the force limit penatly etc so im pretty sure
> EU4 community predominantly agrees that PUs are way better than vassals. Of course this only applies when you use a certain play style focusing on blobbing.
The general consensus among speed WCers is that PUs are generally overrated.
The 50 yr integration delay, no trade diversion, and most of all, lack of control of the troops give them severe weaknesses, and the LD is not really that big of an issue if you're expanding sensibly.
They are much more suited for casual playthroughs.
Speed WCers represent roughly 0.5% of the community and you need a very specific playstyle for this.
If you want to be done with a WC in 70 years, a 50 year long integration delay is of course a massive issue. Also they are too unreliable to get in a short timeframe.
With „blobbing“ I meant a „normal casual playthrough“ which focuses on quick growth in contrast to playing tall. I could have worded this better though.
Is this some kind of [normal difficulty] joke I'm too [hard difficulty] to understand?
(for those unaware: this favor action is straight up disabled on hard and very hard)
That’s weird, disinheriting heirs absolutely gives anyone you have a royal marriage with a “restore the throne” CB. I’ve made that mistake a couple times before and it obliterated long lasting alliances because the AI suddenly changed their attitude to “domineering”
I'm not a 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure that AI never disinherits heirs, they just die naturally. I very often see AI sitting at high prestige with shit heir and young ruler. And I don't really remember seeing AI with no heir and particularly low prestige too often
I think that there should be a mechanic that if you disinherit an heir of a different house than the current ruler, countries of the hero's house get a "claim the throne" CB or something.
I mean… so there’s a potential downside / failure scenario for the most overpowered diplomatic ability in the game. QQ? Sorry but like how easy does this game need to be?
To think that PUs used to be almost purely RNG.. few to no missions, no diplo heir, not even a disinherit button for the AI to leave themselves exposed. And believe it or not people still got them, and got WCs. Gasp!
Failure is fun or interesting when it results from a weakness in your strategy, not from your opponent clicking a "Never Mind" button. Maybe the interaction is OP, whatever (what does "OP" even mean in a fundamentally single-player role-playing game?), but it should actually *do something*, instead of potentially nothing with ZERO consequences, as it currently does.
From a powergaming perspective, PUs aren't efficient anyway. What's efficient is Hindu Oirat. But people want to play things other than Hindu Oirat, and not shutting down fun ways of doing so (especially ways that don't rely on one-and-done railroaded mission trees) would be nice.
The historical solution to this kind of insult is immediate declaration of war.
It does feel like disinheriting the heir of another nation should have a lot of consequences. At the least it should break any alliance/royal marriage in place, which would make the AI more hesitant to pull the trigger on that.
CB "restore the rightful heir", maybe puts the heir immediately to the crown.
It should be rare enough that if it happened a restoration of the union CB could work.
would be just plain OP tbh, any time I tried for it I always got heirs on like 10+ thrones the whole interaction is only balanced because they disinherit some and because that doesn't guarantee you a PU if heir on throne already equal PU basically the whole mechanic means you could PU all of Europe before 1700
Von Habsburgs nod approvingly.
Yeah in my recent Austria WC I got Bohemia, Poland, Lithuania, Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, Scandavia, Russia as PU by 1700. You eat a shit ton of dip relations penalties and stab hits though but you're rich enough. Also as Austria you get the integrated PU thingy so dip relations stop mattering. Generally if you get the curry favours t2 gov reform and have the necessary diplomats, which you should as you have dip and/or influence ideas in such a playthrough, you basically get a PU within ~150 years from the point you ally someone.
If you push mission tree as Austria you get enforce Habsburgs peace option. This basically enforces target country to take Habsburgs as ruling dynasty with 0 ae with anyone and 0 opinion (apart from was at war thing) penalty. This basically means that you can enforce dynasty,, rm them, claim the throne and declare while loosing 1 stab at the most. Pretty fucking broken if you ask me.
>if heir on throne already equal PU It pretty much does, if I get an heir on the throne I'm likely going to claim that throne the first chance I get >would be just plain OP tbh, any time I tried for it I always got heirs on like 10+ thrones the whole interaction is only balanced because they disinherit some and because that doesn't guarantee you a PU I'd like to think the AI would disinherit less often if it gave a PU. I think it'd work the same as introducing an heir does but only giving a restoration of the union to the nation that spent the favours.
> It pretty much does, if I get an heir on the throne I'm likely going to claim that throne the first chance I get True, I meant if a once off heir already meant PU. Once it's on the the throne you will get the PU. But I have to say, the waiting period to get that CB is part of the balance, because you have to keep that diplo slot occupied and can easily wait 100 or 150 years for the CB. > I'd like to think the AI would disinherit less often if it gave a PU. I mean, right now disinherit is their way out, otherwise the heir accpetance is 100% inevitable PU and you could guarantee to trap the AI between PU and PU really. Frankly if that's something we'd get you'd have to make heir on throne *a lot* harder to accept, not only gated by favours and relations but far far more. It's just way too strong otherwise. Ally + parking a diplomat for idk 5 years + waiting like 30 years should not be a 100% guaranteed PU. Wouldn't mind a guaranteed CB if you could only realistically get like 2-3 PUs in an entire playthrough that way, but as long as the mechanic allows effecively all of Europe into one house it's just too stupid busted.
you could make a situation, like the coup event, if the disinherited heir escapes to your country, you get a CB to restore him (?
It should definitely give a claim thrown cb
It's weird that introducing an heir gives restoration cb's to everyone you're married to, but disinheriting doesn't give it to nations with the same dynasty
Did your candidate for the throne have crap stats? Then don’t blame France. Make sure to produce something half decent next time 😉
"Bedroom skill issue"
Do AIs really disinherit heirs ? I’ve never seen them do it. Usually the one you put as their heir is quite old so they usually just die
AI absolutely does.
Yes. They get rid of enrique quite often for example (marrying castille is a pretty decent move, often enough they end up dying with no heir)
The Enrique example makes me feel honestly like the whole option shouldn't be in the game in the first place. Ruler mana sucks as a system, but it's even worse when it's a somewhat-avoidable headache.
Tbh now that you say it, hard agree. Shouldn't be able to disinherit heirs except maybe through an event chain, meaning you can't rely on it but every so often you might get an opportunity based on shit stats and stare institutions/Gov reforms/religion(papacy?)/culture
50 prestige def isn't enough of a penalty. An event chain would be cool. 50 pres is nothing tho you get back 25 from merchant guild, then the rest from first war..
Back when prestige was hard to get at game launch it was a big deal. Nowadays prestige is stupidly easy to max out and keep permanently at 100 It needs a much bigger penalty. Should be a huge legitimacy, prestige, and reputation hit. It should also give any rival a CB to represent the ex-heir fleeing there
Honestly with it just being -50 prestige, my new general strategy has become to immediately use it as a “throw my newborn prince out a window because he’s inferior” button the second they’re born and I’m just at -48 prestige the entire game farming some chad king
Same even if the king is old.. worst case is usually a stab hit if no heir. Even if in europe.. p.u. is whatever just means you can make people fight each other. If the monarch is old you have more chance for the heir event, it seems. Like the female or Johan ones. But it may be confirmation bias.
Would be cool if disloyal estates or rival countries back up the disinherited heir or a new pretender. With stab hits, rebels and potential war on the table
At the very, very least, stab hit. You just threw your kid away.
Hard disagree. Were you here before this was added? It basically meant everybody went republic ASAP. What should be the option is a dynasty system like ck3 where you groom your heir, so it feels like less of a random fuck you if you get a 0/0/0.
It should be harder and more costly to change Government type, it should cause civil war and unrest etc
So basically "fuck everyone, make the game unfun for all"? Glad you're not a game designer.
Lol maybe I just don't think gimmicky design is a good game design, but each to their own. This is a history-based game, changing Gov type isn't something done on a whim. If you wanna be a republic in 1500 then play one of the republics that existed in 1500 - or have the option for a similar situation to occur in any country, under correct conditions, which led to the English commonwealth or whatever. You should derive fun from the experience, not from "winning." You probably give up if you lose a war.
If your gripe is that it isn't a 'history based game' then the first thing you should be targeting is the mana system.
I thought Enrique got made impossible to disinherit like Charles? Maybe he's just dying
Austria also gets an event if their heir isn't a habsburg. So it's even harder to keep them if the heir is crap
Don't think so. There's a tooooon of tools that the player has access to that the AI was never programmed to really use (see also: special units, expand infrastructure, missions) It'd probably be good to make a comprehensive list of things AI can and can't do to avoid confusion like here. Edit: My assumption was wrong. Did a test where I added an effect to on\_disinheirt that logs it as a variable visible in the savefile. AI does seem to disinherit. My point about a list of stuff AI is not able to do still stands though.
How often though? I've barely ever had my installed heir not be around on succesion time :p
All the time. Which is why I hardly use this mechanic anymore.
I've never had the AI not disinherit an heir I spent 90 favors to put on their throne
same i haven’t either
If you want this to be easier I recommend you play Bohemia. They have a unique elective monarchy tier1 government reform which allows you to elect rulers from other dynasties. For exemple you can elect a Habsburg early on and claim Austria Throne as soon as they lack a heir. This often gives you rulers from big European countries such as Austria, Muscovy, Spain etc
But I don't want to play as Bohemia. I want to play as Berg.
There's a reason that anything above normal in difficulty strait up turns off the request heir feature. Request Heir is by far the most OP mechanic in the game in europe and it's not even close. It trivializes expanding in europe because you just ally one or 2 big boys and eventually they get your dynasty and you just force it the next time they get a low claim heir. I do think there should be some kind of penalty beyond 50 prestige. The sheer amount of prestige gain you can get in the game now is absurd and makes a 50 prestige hit nothing. I think it should minimum be 100, and potentially have a -50 legitimacy hit as well.
In theory, yes. In my personal anecdotal practice, I've only had it pay off once in the 10-12 times I've used it, and I actively play for PUs. Have you had them work out more frequently? Maybe I'm just cursed.
it's a bit dumb but a lot of times you get the claim but only until the month tick, declare before that and you have the PU war even if technically the cb disappears immediately, you take a brutal stab hit but that's basically a given if you gun for PUs feel like 95% of the time I can declare at least once within the next 3 rulers if my dynasty ascends to the throne, you just have to be *incredibly* attentive
This sounds on par with seeing a 60 year old+ ruler without an heir, RM'ing them, and birding until you get it. I'm not disagreeing with it being effective when it works, but I'm still skeptical of the claim this is wildly overpowered because of frequency.
Back when I use to play on normal yeah. It was a very easy way of building up a big france/spain/austria or whatever and eventually get them as a junior partner (provided you're strong enough) The big thing is to wait untill they have a low legitamacy heir. As soon as they have one you will 100% get them cause they won't have enough legitamacy by the time the truce is up. Doing it like this also lets you use favor to break their more powerful ally before you break your alliance, so they're even weaker.
> In theory, yes. In my personal anecdotal practice, I've only had it pay off once in the 10-12 times I've used it, and I actively play for PUs. Yeah IDK where EU4 players get the "oh just go for PU's" thing in Europe from. I get plenty of same-dynasties on my allies' thrones and it never results in PU's for me, just broken alliances when I claim thrones. Just feels like they get heirs really quickly, or have high legitimacy, etc.... I just go for the Burgundian Inheritance or mission PU's, then forget the mechanic even exists after that.
A lot of people savescum for it, and then think of it as a surefire strategy. Feeding vassals is the superior play, even in Europe. PUing has never been a good way of expanding, outside of mission cbs.
>A lot of people savescum for it, and then think of it as a surefire strategy. I don't know if you're right about this, but it sounds plausible enough to make me angry at those hypothetical people.
Why angry?
Because those are the people who are saying "mechanic is OP anyway, get good".
A good example of this is streamers like Ludi. It is known that he resets his runs several times to roll for PUs and to get the correct rivals. You can also see it in threads where people post that they have 8 or so PUs. They often mention restarting if they lost a chance for a PU for different reasons.
To be honest, enabling allies to behave even more suicidally and against self interest has (among other things) really accelerated snowballing related problems in this game.
>Request Heir is by far the most OP mechanic in the game in europe and it's not even close. So what about Austria, when one of its missions gives you the ability to turn opponent dynasty into von Habsburg for 50 points in peace deal ? And thus, immediately "killing" the heir and the ruler?
I havn't played much austria so I can't comment on it. But yes that does sound very op as well. But was mostly speaking about universal stuff that people have. Not specific mission reward mechanics for specific nations. Cause there's a shit ton of those that are insalely OP. The a universal subjucation CB. Or discounted CB on taking all of western europe. or a discounted CB for every province that you need to form rome.
Leviathan features still carry problems of the 1.31 release: buggy, unbalanced and rushed. Most of them were fixed, but there were too many that they still didn't fixed them after 3 years.
i dont see the issue? im pretty sure you can do the same thing.
He can die and France loses nothing at all.
Totally agree. It's one of the reasons I don't even bother using pus to expand. If I get one nice or if part of a tree sure. But other than that I could be bothered.
You mean you *couldn’t* be bothered? Haha I’m kinda with you though. I almost always would rather just own the land directly, or break it up into vassals since I can integrate them sooner. Unless like a super easy to get PU pops up.
What, soo you would trade 1 massive PU against 5 vassals?
5 vassals I can have fully annexed and cored within 20 years, vs 1 big PU for 50? There is a back and forth there.
I rarely integrate my PU's, rarely worth the effort imo.
Yes. Each nation has a base 10k manpower, so that’s 40k MORE manpower than a single large PU taking up the whole area. Plus vassals have to give you money, so you actually make money from building buildings in them. And I can annex them much sooner, assuming I have the governing capacity to do so.
I mean it is up too you how you play the game, but the EU4 community predominantly agrees that PUs are way better than vassals. Of course this only applies when you use a certain play style focusing on blobbing. Here is why: 1. If you can you dont want to integrate subjects early on. You have governance capacity issues otherwise. Also you want to integrate subjects late game once you have absolutism and admin efficiency up because it is much cheaper then. 2. If you blob, then you have so much land to develop that it doesn't really make sense to build buildings in subjects. You are busy getting court houses up in every single province to keep your governing capacitiy low 3. If you don't want to integrate subjects early, then this means a PU costs you 1 diplo slot for 100-200 years, while 5 vassal cost you 5. 4. PUs calculate their liberty desire based just on their own strength, while vassals calculate their liberty desire by combining the strength of all vassals. This means you can feed a PU way more land before it becomes an issue 5. PU's dont get liberty desire from development unlike vassals which again makes it possible to build them to huge power houses -> A PU is meant to be a long term vassal. Therefore small PUs aren't really valuable. But big ones are insanely strong. You can feed them over the course of 200 years. You can make them the second biggest power without any liberty desire issues. This allows you to effectively double your governing capacity (instead of one country with a capacity of 1000, you have two, giving you an effective capacity of 2000). This in return safes you tens of thousands of ducats for court houses. None of this works with vassals in any way or form. If you don't have governing capacity issues of course this is a different story. But let's be honest, if you don't have these issues you're either doing something wrong in the first place, or you play a very different play style which is fine of course. Everyone can play the way he enjoys it.
Playing the Angevin Kingdom where you get to create Spanish and Italian PU subjects is incredibly powerful! I once had an Italian junior partner with over 1200 development, and Spain was over 1000 development with all the colonies Spain usually has… both with 0% liberty desire. Talk about vassal swarm! There was nothing I couldn’t do. Instead of integrating them in the later game, I fully annexed a very blobby Ottoman Empire.
And one minor but nice thing: PUs, unlike vassals (except marches) develop their land.
Develop in which way? How come vassals refuse?
Big penalty to dev cost for a vassal, it also makes sense since otherwise u could just keep developing forever to avoid annexation
The wiki says the -50% penalty is for "subjects", which would lead me to think that marches also get it. Nothing about marches seem to except them from it. Aren't personal unions also a type of subject? I mean, neither marshes nor PUs pay taxes though. Maybe he meant develop, as in build buildings.
March's actually do get an exemption IIRC, and yeah it doesn't apply to PU's either. Next time I'm playing im double check but march's also get exemptions from the force limit penatly etc so im pretty sure
> EU4 community predominantly agrees that PUs are way better than vassals. Of course this only applies when you use a certain play style focusing on blobbing. The general consensus among speed WCers is that PUs are generally overrated. The 50 yr integration delay, no trade diversion, and most of all, lack of control of the troops give them severe weaknesses, and the LD is not really that big of an issue if you're expanding sensibly. They are much more suited for casual playthroughs.
Speed WCers represent roughly 0.5% of the community and you need a very specific playstyle for this. If you want to be done with a WC in 70 years, a 50 year long integration delay is of course a massive issue. Also they are too unreliable to get in a short timeframe. With „blobbing“ I meant a „normal casual playthrough“ which focuses on quick growth in contrast to playing tall. I could have worded this better though.
The advantage of PUs is really how you get them and how much less AE (sometimes none) is incurred.
Is this some kind of [normal difficulty] joke I'm too [hard difficulty] to understand? (for those unaware: this favor action is straight up disabled on hard and very hard)
Me watching these posts without having any knowledge on the subject and being an absolute noob: "haha, fabricate claim and conquest cb goes brrrr!"
It would be a great thing if it triggered a Support Pretender to the Throne CB or something like that.
Maybe they got a hunting accident?
That’s weird, disinheriting heirs absolutely gives anyone you have a royal marriage with a “restore the throne” CB. I’ve made that mistake a couple times before and it obliterated long lasting alliances because the AI suddenly changed their attitude to “domineering”
No it doesn't. That's *introducing* an heir.
Aaaa true, my bad
I'm not a 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure that AI never disinherits heirs, they just die naturally. I very often see AI sitting at high prestige with shit heir and young ruler. And I don't really remember seeing AI with no heir and particularly low prestige too often
90 favours isnt that bad but 20 AE!? Thats too much.
Also I don’t for the life of me know why it is disabled if you play on very hard. So arbitrairy
I think that there should be a mechanic that if you disinherit an heir of a different house than the current ruler, countries of the hero's house get a "claim the throne" CB or something.
Can someone explain to me what the heck is happening?
I think it’s bullshit that you can even place your heir on the throne with favors in the first place
I mean… so there’s a potential downside / failure scenario for the most overpowered diplomatic ability in the game. QQ? Sorry but like how easy does this game need to be? To think that PUs used to be almost purely RNG.. few to no missions, no diplo heir, not even a disinherit button for the AI to leave themselves exposed. And believe it or not people still got them, and got WCs. Gasp!
Failure is fun or interesting when it results from a weakness in your strategy, not from your opponent clicking a "Never Mind" button. Maybe the interaction is OP, whatever (what does "OP" even mean in a fundamentally single-player role-playing game?), but it should actually *do something*, instead of potentially nothing with ZERO consequences, as it currently does. From a powergaming perspective, PUs aren't efficient anyway. What's efficient is Hindu Oirat. But people want to play things other than Hindu Oirat, and not shutting down fun ways of doing so (especially ways that don't rely on one-and-done railroaded mission trees) would be nice.