I don't have a problem with Monarch Points in theory; kingdoms and empires were only as effective as those in charge of them, after all. The problem in EU4 is that the player has no control over who rules their kingdom when a monarchy is in place, when historically this was not the case. In theory yes, the line of kings and queens was hereditary and thus largely set in stone, but that didn't stop those who coveted the throne from trying to come up with clever ways to get around genetics. Assassination of the ruler, civil war for the throne, pretenders with fabricated claims upon thrones, claims of the ruler being insane, ruler is / is claimed to be a heretic or heathen, and even peaceful transfers of the throne all have a precedent in history. I'm not saying that monarchies should have the versatility of republics; the entire point of republics is that the best man for the job is elected. And yes, sometimes you should have a king or queen who is completed ill-suited for running your empire, as the hereditary line regardless of skill is a flaw of the monarchy system. The key is to give the player some way to mitigate or fix the issue of having a bad ruler. While a more robust diplomacy and intrigue system would allow us to hopefully do all of the examples I listed before, that would require a large amount of coding and design before implemented. So thus, the fix to this issue should utilize mechanics that are already in-game while giving the player control over their destiny.
We already have the ability to change governments. However, right now such a massive change upon a country usually has little effect upon how a country and its rulers operate. Thus, an easy way to make government forms matter as well as help control the effectiveness of the ruler is to assign each government special rules. Historically and in practice a country under a constitutional monarchy was much different than one with a despotic monarchy, but the mechanics of the game don't reflect this very well. Therefore, why not improve governments and help to mitigate the monarch problem with one fix?
(I'll preface this by saying that while I'm knowledgeable about history, I'm by no means an expert. If I say something that is incorrect, feel free to correct me.)
Lets me illustrate an example with feudal monarchies. Feudal monarchies involved the lord giving land to his vassals, who in turn promised military support to the lord. In addition, the lord could come to his vassals for guidance on any matter of importance by convening a council. So here we have a system of government where a ruler relies heavily upon his vassals for both power and guidance. This could be represented in the game like so:
So while you may have a 6/6/6 king, the system of government hinders him from exercising full control over his kingdom as the government explicitly gives his vassals the exclusive right to run certain aspects of the country. Thus, while your 6/6/6 king may now be less effective, advisor costs are lowered as your vassals are obligated to provide you with guidance. So feudal monarchies are great for poor and average rulers as the diffuse power structure allows you to compensate with better advisors, but this diffuse power structure would hinder the very best kings and queens. Now changing one's government form is something you have to constantly consider instead of doing once and then never again.
A few other potential examples of governments:
In order to make this solution work, legitimacy couldn't 'reset' upon ruler death (though it could still drop to a lower legitimacy if a weak claimant ruler inherits the throne). This way, changing governments is powerful, but if you do it too often you'll never see your legitimacy above 50 again. In addition, your monarch's actual MP value is always displayed regardless of the effective value due to the government form (so you know what you're missing out on).
As I said before, the main issue with MP is that such a fundamental aspect of the system is completely beyond the player's control. With a solution like this though, you could tailor the government to your current monarch in order to have some control over your MP income. No monarch should have complete control over their MP income as that is what republics do, but they should still be able to exercise some control in order to make the game more interesting.
We already have the ability to change governments. However, right now such a massive change upon a country usually has little effect upon how a country and its rulers operate. Thus, an easy way to make government forms matter as well as help control the effectiveness of the ruler is to assign each government special rules. Historically and in practice a country under a constitutional monarchy was much different than one with a despotic monarchy, but the mechanics of the game don't reflect this very well. Therefore, why not improve governments and help to mitigate the monarch problem with one fix?
(I'll preface this by saying that while I'm knowledgeable about history, I'm by no means an expert. If I say something that is incorrect, feel free to correct me.)
Lets me illustrate an example with feudal monarchies. Feudal monarchies involved the lord giving land to his vassals, who in turn promised military support to the lord. In addition, the lord could come to his vassals for guidance on any matter of importance by convening a council. So here we have a system of government where a ruler relies heavily upon his vassals for both power and guidance. This could be represented in the game like so:
So while you may have a 6/6/6 king, the system of government hinders him from exercising full control over his kingdom as the government explicitly gives his vassals the exclusive right to run certain aspects of the country. Thus, while your 6/6/6 king may now be less effective, advisor costs are lowered as your vassals are obligated to provide you with guidance. So feudal monarchies are great for poor and average rulers as the diffuse power structure allows you to compensate with better advisors, but this diffuse power structure would hinder the very best kings and queens. Now changing one's government form is something you have to constantly consider instead of doing once and then never again.
A few other potential examples of governments:
This form of government has no direct effect upon your monarch point income. The nation is strictly as effective as the ruler is.
Your government is a sprawling bureaucracy, and thus while administrative tasks are much easier the paperwork surrounding other tasks is intolerable.
The king or queen is the supreme ruler of the realm, and other people have a difficult time influencing policy. This government form increases your base supply of MP income, but makes it cost prohibitive to try to hire a multitude of skilled advisors.
This one might take some explaining. In addition to the listed effect, you would also have an election for prime minister every 4 years (like a republic). The candidates would be 3/1/1 instead of 4/1/1 though, and candidates could not run for reelection. You would have no republican tradition, and would continue to function as a monarchy with legitimacy in every other way. Thus, your total MP income would be Base Income + Half of King (Rounded down) + Prime Minister. This would lead to a more stable income of MP over the long term while also allowing you to tweak your MP income as the need arises.
Enlightened despotism focused on the ruler ruling through social contract rather than divine right, and he / she was expected to improve the lives of the people throughout his / her rule. This is reflected by the fact that the MP cost for buildings has been removed, so it heavily encourages you to invest in your infrastructure. However, with such massive infrastructure expansions the bureaucracy has a hard time keeping its deadlines and thus build times are massively increased. (Also done so that the lack of MP cost doesn't make it too easy to build every building in every province instantly.)
In order to make this solution work, legitimacy couldn't 'reset' upon ruler death (though it could still drop to a lower legitimacy if a weak claimant ruler inherits the throne). This way, changing governments is powerful, but if you do it too often you'll never see your legitimacy above 50 again. In addition, your monarch's actual MP value is always displayed regardless of the effective value due to the government form (so you know what you're missing out on).
As I said before, the main issue with MP is that such a fundamental aspect of the system is completely beyond the player's control. With a solution like this though, you could tailor the government to your current monarch in order to have some control over your MP income. No monarch should have complete control over their MP income as that is what republics do, but they should still be able to exercise some control in order to make the game more interesting.
Last edited:
