As we all know, you cannot set your rulers to lead armies in 2.0. As we also all know, this has caused a bit of a reaction on the forums. The rationale behind the decision was to prevent one “super-character” from obtaining too much power base in a country, and give the player a harder time choosing generals for their strongest armies and make sure it wasn’t always 100% loyal.
I’ve been doing some thinking on how to address this, and settled on what I think would be a fairly robust mechanic for Regencies. The goal is to keep the power base mechanics in play, avoid the monarch gaining too much power through keeping the army loyal, but also to have a mechanic that doesn’t punish the player for having Kings do what Kings did – lead armies – arbitrarily.
Character events which would normally increase the popularity of the Ruler would, during the regency, fall to the Regent, so if he makes some splendidly popular decisions while the King is away, you better hope you’re winning more battles than you’re losing in order to keep ahead. In addition, Regency-specific events will fire to give it a little bit of RNG as well. Perhaps the good friend and good regent receives a genuinely erroneous report from a battle, believing his King to be dead, making him more likely to want to seize power?
Unless it doesn’t. Abolishing the Regency does not happen automatically when the ruler returns to the capital province. This is partially to avoid the regency ending and being restarted many times if the ruler has to skirmish a lot in the borderlands of the capital, but mostly because it’s more interesting if the regent can say no.
So instead, when the monarch has returned to the capital province, or is no longer leading an army in the field (hey, stackwipes happen to the best of us), he can request the Regent step down. This then prompts a reaction from the Regent – he can (and probably, usually will!) step down. But on occasion, based on his loyalty, your legitimacy, popularity etc., he will instead opt to ask “why should I?”
If the regent refuses to stand down, this would then trigger a series of events where the Regent and Monarch both make the nobles of the realm pick their sides. This event chain could end with the Regent begrudgingly stepping down for concessions, being hauled off the throne in chains, or civil war.
Including the post of a regent also allow us to implement things like minority regents usurping power, court politics where powerful family heads could demand being made regent, regencies during illnesses of the ruler, and many other things which would come together and create a more colourful, vibrant political landscape for us to dominate.
I’ve been doing some thinking on how to address this, and settled on what I think would be a fairly robust mechanic for Regencies. The goal is to keep the power base mechanics in play, avoid the monarch gaining too much power through keeping the army loyal, but also to have a mechanic that doesn’t punish the player for having Kings do what Kings did – lead armies – arbitrarily.
Who is the Regent:
Key to the proposal is the Regent. The Regent is a designated post in the government, like the Steward or what have you, and steps in to govern the capital region whenever the monarch is unable to do so. Ideally, you would want your Regent to be someone with good stats, as their stats will be your monarch stats while he is out fighting wars, or indisposed for less glorious reasons, like dysentery. But of course, you also want them to be loyal, and sometimes a loyal imbecile is better than a skilled traitor. For purposes of Scorned Families, the Regent will also be considered employed, as it is a very prestigious thing to be the right-hand man.When does the Monarch rule?
The Monarch rules when he is at home. This means that even if he is in command of his Royal Army, so long as that army remains within the bounds of the capital region, he is considered to be at home. When you command your army to leave the Capital Region, you are prompted with a message along the lines of “This will result in a Regency: Exemplius Regentus will govern the capital”, and confirm to start movement, avoiding accidental regencies due to pathing.What happens during a Regency.
As outlined above, the Regent’s stats take over as your monarch stats when the Regency is in effect. However, power is addictive, and if the Regency goes on for a while, a Regent might start having second thoughts about who should really be in charge. The Regent therefore gets a ticking loyalty decrease. This decrease would be adjusted by relations to the ruler (friend, rival, neutral), relations to rivals of the ruler, legitimacy, stability, war exhaustion, the regent’s popularity and the monarch’s popularity. A friend ruling on behalf of a legitimate ruler during stable times should not lead to much trouble, after all.Character events which would normally increase the popularity of the Ruler would, during the regency, fall to the Regent, so if he makes some splendidly popular decisions while the King is away, you better hope you’re winning more battles than you’re losing in order to keep ahead. In addition, Regency-specific events will fire to give it a little bit of RNG as well. Perhaps the good friend and good regent receives a genuinely erroneous report from a battle, believing his King to be dead, making him more likely to want to seize power?
Return of the King?
When the ruler returns from campaign, the regency ends!Unless it doesn’t. Abolishing the Regency does not happen automatically when the ruler returns to the capital province. This is partially to avoid the regency ending and being restarted many times if the ruler has to skirmish a lot in the borderlands of the capital, but mostly because it’s more interesting if the regent can say no.
So instead, when the monarch has returned to the capital province, or is no longer leading an army in the field (hey, stackwipes happen to the best of us), he can request the Regent step down. This then prompts a reaction from the Regent – he can (and probably, usually will!) step down. But on occasion, based on his loyalty, your legitimacy, popularity etc., he will instead opt to ask “why should I?”
If the regent refuses to stand down, this would then trigger a series of events where the Regent and Monarch both make the nobles of the realm pick their sides. This event chain could end with the Regent begrudgingly stepping down for concessions, being hauled off the throne in chains, or civil war.
Conclusion
So, this is something I think would satisfy a lot of camps: It allows our monarchs to once again be where they should be; at the place of honour, at the right of their Phalanx. It gives us an interesting post that could be crucial in the politics of a realm frequently at war. It maintains the designers’ vision of not letting one character consolidate all the power.Including the post of a regent also allow us to implement things like minority regents usurping power, court politics where powerful family heads could demand being made regent, regencies during illnesses of the ruler, and many other things which would come together and create a more colourful, vibrant political landscape for us to dominate.
- 8
- 6
- 1
