Bishopric rulers better on average?

[Goobmaster]

Now I could be totally wrong here, but from playing as a lot of bishoprics and monastic orders, I've found in general that their rulers seem to be better than duchies or kingdoms. Never have I gotten an absolute shite ruler as a bishopric, worst I get is around 7 monarch points, never do I get the 0 0 1 scourge rulers that I've gotten so many times as kingdoms. Generally my rulers are above the average 9 monarch points, (scoring around 11). Does anyone else find this to be the case? I seem t never get god rulers, or terrible ones, just consistently good individuals. Thoughts on this? Am I just lucky?

 

[Baron Tanks]

My sample is quite small, just the TO in 1.12(?) for Baltic Crusader, but yeah, I had fantastic rulers throughout. From above average to excellent, never real garbage. Being able to try to kill off crappy heirs with a guaranteed new heir of course helped with this as well

 

[kvk]

I have noticed that too, it's probably just confirmation bias, but I remember my baltic crusader run, as me having great rulers all the time.

 

[Torugu]

I made the same observation, though I attributed it to me being more ready to kill of bad or mediocre rulers (yay for non-stab penalty + guaranteed heir).

 

[Gratak]

In my Riga game I had also nice rulers but still I would disagree. I had a lot of extremely bad heirs and was lucky to be able to kill them off in time...

The nice thing is that you are able to kill off your heirs without getting regencies or becoming lesser PU partner...

 

[Wizzington]

Nope.

 

[Anthedon]

The nice thing is that you are able to kill off your heirs without getting regencies or becoming lesser PU partner...

That's probably what's affecting the perception of rulers here. I remember a lot of pretty trashy Hochmeisters from my recent TO campaign. Getting rid of them has just fewer consequences.

 

[Tazzoz21]

In my Riga game I had also nice rulers but still I would disagree. I had a lot of extremely bad heirs and was lucky to be able to kill them off in time...

The nice thing is that you are able to kill off your heirs without getting regencies or becoming lesser PU partner...

Theocracies are the best in that regard. No regencies. Blissssssss....

 

[Szer]

I think it is because you could choose between 3 (or 4?) rulers each election.
They all will be rolled as usual monarchy ruler, but you would pick the best one.

 

[Gratak]

I think it is because you could choose between 3 (or 4?) rulers each election.
They all will be rolled as usual monarchy ruler, but you would pick the best one.

Nope. You choose, then they roll.

 

[Politic Revolutionnaire]

Nope. You choose, then they roll.

Then you kill the 0 0 0 you got

 

[LikeNothing]

No but it's easier to kill the bad ones since

(1) They are on average older than Monarchs

(2) No regencies

(3) It won't cost Stability when they die

(4) You can use both your leader and heir as generals and try to kill the weaker one of the two

Republics have (1) (2) and (3) but not (4).

 

[Nutcracker]

I like optimising by making generals of either the ruler or heir + engaging combat. Given the shorter reigns of theocracy rulers on average (they start in their 30's), by managing your rulers and heirs this way you can get a slight probability skew that will make your weighted-ruler stat higher when measured over the whole game period.

 

[Dakka]

As said, a combination of confirmation bias and being able to kill bad heirs.

On the other hand, I would assume a knightly order would be far less likely to choose Enrique de Trastamara as their new Hochmeister.