Could there be co-rulers in CK3?

[Jaakvi]

One very interesting aspect of medieval politics completely missing from Crusader Kings are co-rulers. In the Middle Ages, it was pretty common for a man to be a co-ruler to his landed wife (jure uxoris), like Louis I of Naples or Philip III of Navarre, or his landed mother (jure matris), like Charles I of Spain. Sometimes a ruler had their heir crowned as a co-ruler, like Hugh Magnus of France or Henry the Young King of England. Additionally, two brothers occasionally ruled together, for example Inge the Younger and Philip of Sweden. There were also regents who could be considered co-rulers to underaged or incapable rulers.
I'm not sure if this would work in CK3's game engine, but it would we be cool if two or more people could hold the same title simultaneously. If one of the co-rulers wanted to declare war or pass a new law, they would need the approval of their co-ruler. There could also be the option to make one of the co-rulers more powerful than the other; for example, ruler number one could make most of the decisions on their own and would only need the consent of ruler number two when making a major decision.
A ruler could try to reduce the power of their co-ruler by seeking the support of their powerful vassals and council members – or by simply murdering the co-ruler. A regent of a child ruler would be expected to give up their co-rulership when the official ruler reaches adulthood, but an ambitious regent could try to retain their position as a ruler through measures like war or imprisoning the official ruler.
In my view, the option of co-rulership would add a lot of depth to the game. Do you think it could be made part of CK3?

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

One very interesting aspect of medieval politics completely missing from Crusader Kings are co-rulers. In the Middle Ages, it was pretty common for a man to be a co-ruler to his landed wife (jure uxoris), like Louis I of Naples or Philip III of Navarre, or his landed mother (jure matris), like Charles I of Spain. Sometimes a ruler had their heir crowned as a co-ruler, like Hugh Magnus of France or Henry the Young King of England. Additionally, two brothers occasionally ruled together, for example Inge the Younger and Philip of Sweden. There were also regents who could be considered co-rulers to underaged or incapable rulers.
I'm not sure if this would work in CK3's game engine, but it would we be cool if two or more people could hold the same title simultaneously. If one of the co-rulers wanted to declare war or pass a new law, they would need the approval of their co-ruler. There could also be the option to make one of the co-rulers more powerful than the other; for example, ruler number one could make most of the decisions on their own and would only need the consent of ruler number two when making a major decision.
A ruler could try to reduce the power of their co-ruler by seeking the support of their powerful vassals and council members – or by simply murdering the co-ruler. A regent of a child ruler would be expected to give up their co-rulership when the official ruler reaches adulthood, but an ambitious regent could try to retain their position as a ruler through measures like war or imprisoning the official ruler.
In my view, the option of co-rulership would add a lot of depth to the game. Do you think it could be made part of CK3?

Probably not, since titles being held by one person is a strong feature of the game, and to have a title held by two people at once would be severely complicated.

It could also cause problems with where to target any events related to the title - and what happens if the two co-rulers decide differently on a matter.

Henry the Young King wasn't functionally a co-king. It was an attempt to designate him clearly and unambigously as the heir, but was functionally entirely titular.


The nearest we're likely to see are the spouse and possibly an "advisor"/"regent" spot on the council.

 

[ShadyGuy_SuspiciousGoal]

I will be honest with you. This option will be extremely annoying to play with, since the co-ruler will be AI and shave off half your power to a dumb bot is not a nice feeling. In multiplayer it may work as co-op. So maybe let it be a multiplayer thing.

Another thing is that we need to determine who has the right to the tittle, in case of brothers ruling together. When I wage a war against them do I get the title for both, or do I replace the co-ruler that I have the claim for? If the later, oh god how annoying would that be! If the former, how will claims be obtained? Through marrying one of the co-ruler sons or daughter? Then it is now clear that many people will hold the claim for the title after a couple of generations making the game a bit easier.

This may be an unexpected side effect, not that there's anything wrong with that. If only one ruler inherit the claim and the other was just an add-on, then okay that may work.

That's my honest opinion, but the idea is interesting nonetheless. Maybe with a bit of polish it may work?

 

[KermitxTheFrog]

You could make it like the new spouse council position where its just a council position with powers that boost the ruler and as added bonus could make whoever held the council position the heir

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

You could make it like the new spouse council position where its just a council position with powers that boost the ruler and as added bonus could make whoever held the council position the heir

That wouldn't reflect the reality of jure uxoris positions or regencies very well though.

Even in cases of actual formal co-rulership the title would often pass to an heir rather than to the survivor.

 

[Cyhort]

I will be honest with you. This option will be extremely annoying to play with, since the co-ruler will be AI and shave off half your power to a dumb bot is not a nice feeling. In multiplayer it may work as co-op. So maybe let it be a multiplayer thing.

Another thing is that we need to determine who has the right to the tittle, in case of brothers ruling together. When I wage a war against them do I get the title for both, or do I replace the co-ruler that I have the claim for? If the later, oh god how annoying would that be! If the former, how will claims be obtained? Through marrying one of the co-ruler sons or daughter? Then it is now clear that many people will hold the claim for the title after a couple of generations making the game a bit easier.

This may be an unexpected side effect, not that there's anything wrong with that. If only one ruler inherit the claim and the other was just an add-on, then okay that may work.

That's my honest opinion, but the idea is interesting nonetheless. Maybe with a bit of polish it may work?

Yeah, I can't see how they could ever make it fun to play if your co-ruler is the AI. Fighting against the game is never a good mechanic, and if they water it down to the point where you can just give your spouse a gift or buy a favor to get them to vote with you (a'la Conclave councilors) then what's the point? It's just another click or two between you and the action you want to take, with no real benefit to the gameplay aside from slightly more historical accuracy.

 

[Battlex]

Yeah, I can't see how they could ever make it fun to play if your co-ruler is the AI. Fighting against the game is never a good mechanic, and if they water it down to the point where you can just give your spouse a gift or buy a favor to get them to vote with you (a'la Conclave councilors) then what's the point? It's just another click or two between you and the action you want to take, with no real benefit to the gameplay aside from slightly more historical accuracy.

Early game you don't have the money to do that, and you can't always buy a favour, but you can just fire and rehire loyalists

 

[KermitxTheFrog]

That wouldn't reflect the reality of jure uxoris positions or regencies very well though.

Even in cases of actual formal co-rulership the title would often pass to an heir rather than to the survivor.

Yea i was more thinking of the byzantines and their Caesar title when i thought of that it wouldnt really make much sense outside of empire though

 

[Battlex]

One very interesting aspect of medieval politics completely missing from Crusader Kings are co-rulers. In the Middle Ages, it was pretty common for a man to be a co-ruler to his landed wife (jure uxoris), like Louis I of Naples or Philip III of Navarre, or his landed mother (jure matris), like Charles I of Spain. Sometimes a ruler had their heir crowned as a co-ruler, like Hugh Magnus of France or Henry the Young King of England. Additionally, two brothers occasionally ruled together, for example Inge the Younger and Philip of Sweden. There were also regents who could be considered co-rulers to underaged or incapable rulers.
I'm not sure if this would work in CK3's game engine, but it would we be cool if two or more people could hold the same title simultaneously. If one of the co-rulers wanted to declare war or pass a new law, they would need the approval of their co-ruler. There could also be the option to make one of the co-rulers more powerful than the other; for example, ruler number one could make most of the decisions on their own and would only need the consent of ruler number two when making a major decision.
A ruler could try to reduce the power of their co-ruler by seeking the support of their powerful vassals and council members – or by simply murdering the co-ruler. A regent of a child ruler would be expected to give up their co-rulership when the official ruler reaches adulthood, but an ambitious regent could try to retain their position as a ruler through measures like war or imprisoning the official ruler.
In my view, the option of co-rulership would add a lot of depth to the game. Do you think it could be made part of CK3?

If regents got full powers so they could declare war, make peace, marry the king off for a peace treaty etc etc that'd be awesome. I'm unsure on whether I want a regent to have power in your kingdom whilst you're away fighting another one or not, as the pop ups did get quite annoying when playing mods with that feature

 

[Ezumiyr]

but it would we be cool if two or more people could hold the same title simultaneously.

The issue is that it's not how co-ruling worked. It wasn't two people holding the same title, it was someone holding it, and someone else (always a close parent).
When the holder of the title died, the co-ruler didn't inherit their titles. When the co-ruler died, well, pretty much nothing happened (except of course all the sadness that naturally comes with it).

I don't think a game like CK3 can handle the level of complexity necessary for distinctive co-rulers to make sense. It reminds me of the discussion about peerage: the relevant things of those systems are deeply rooted in historical circumstances and it would require a lot of work to model them for each kingdom on the map. I'm just not sure if the benefits would be worth it. Currently husbands and wives are treated as "natural" co-rulers, and I believe that's enough.

 

[Battlex]

The issue is that it's not how co-ruling worked. It wasn't two people holding the same title, it was someone holding it, and someone else (always a close parent).
When the holder of the title died, the co-ruler didn't inherit their titles. When the co-ruler died, well, pretty much nothing happened (except of course all the sadness that naturally comes with it).

I don't think a game like CK3 can handle the level of complexity necessary for distinctive co-rulers to make sense. It reminds me of the discussion about peerage: the relevant things of those systems are deeply rooted in historical circumstances and it would require a lot of work to model them for each kingdom on the map. I'm just not sure if the benefits would be worth it. Currently husbands and wives are treated as "natural" co-rulers, and I believe that's enough.

Co rulers meaning your state uses the better of the 2's stats like co-consuls in IR work would be a good first step. Perhaps have Co rulers occupy a seat on the council, not just honourable titles like ck2 had with Co Caesar in byz empire