No regencies?

[Chairman Noob]

In the livestream we've seen several child rulers, the king of France being imprisoned and the king of Leon going on a pilgrimage, in both cases there's no indication of a regent visible. Does that mean there is no regency mechanic at all and an underage or absent/imprisoned ruler can just continue ruling like normal?

 

[Jazka]

Sadly seems the case. Hopefully they'll fix it asap.

 

[Olden Weiss]

I hope not. It could be that regents are simply under the hood now. As in, if you're not playing the nation, you don't see the regent out front. Losing regencies would be unfortunate.

 

[Frost1800]

I hope not. It could be that regents are simply under the hood now. As in, if you're not playing the nation, you don't see the regent out front. Losing regencies would be unfortunate.

However, we didn't see any indication of regency when the player character, King of Leon, went on a pilgrimage. It seems that most likely the regency is gone.

 

[Tuo]

Perhaps they left regency mechanics out for now to later develop them with more depth than they had in CK2 - in CK2, regencies were more an annoyance than anything, and you didn't really have ways to meaningfully interact with them (not to mention how a low-martial regent could dismantle half your army in a week-long regency). The only time I remember being actually interested in a regent was when a super rare event chain fired where the regent kept my ruler in regency into adulthood, claiming her incapable.

 

[Fabiondo]

they will add them back in no time, I'm sure

 

[Videogames]

they will add them back in no time, I'm sure

it might be a DLC that adds them back in - perhaps a CK3 version of conclave that adds more depth to the council and internal dynamics. and I wouldn't mind that - as others have said, the regency system in CK2 could have benefited from more depth and interesting interactions.

 

[Tweakee]

Regencies are complicated, because by nature they kinda suck.

Taking control away from the player is annoying and boring.

It's possible that they abstracted regencies in a different way, like through reduced stats, limited powers, or other effects not quite as intrusive as, "Set the game to max speed and take a break".

The most interesting real-world regencies were ones that led to permanent leadership changes... but in CK, that's a Game Over that the player has little control over. That's terrible gameplay.

What's left are regencies that didn't do much of impact. That's pretty boring and also bad gameplay.

So I'd be fine with a less intrusive form of regency.

 

[Froggie]

In the livestream we've seen several child rulers, the king of France being imprisoned and the king of Leon going on a pilgrimage, in both cases there's no indication of a regent visible. Does that mean there is no regency mechanic at all and an underage or absent/imprisoned ruler can just continue ruling like normal?

I've not watched the stream yet, but seriously? Regencies are out?!
Come one Paradox... this shouldn't be a dumbed down CK2

 

[Knotz]

First boats now this, guess it's fine as long as we get rid of the 'boring' parts of the game. ~grumpy old man grumble~

 

[Atalvyr]

CK2 regencies were not without their problems, like illogical swapping of regents with little rhyme or reason. I could understand if powerful forces at court would scheme to take over a regency, but in CK2 you often had one unlanded courtier replacing another, with no clear indication as to why.

That said, it is still sad they are not in CK3, as it offered a good penalty to loosing your ruler before you had a grown heir. It also offered a tangible benefit to succession types that tended to result in older heirs.

 

[Lordy's]

Regencies are complicated, because by nature they kinda suck.

Taking control away from the player is annoying and boring.

It's possible that they abstracted regencies in a different way, like through reduced stats, limited powers, or other effects not quite as intrusive as, "Set the game to max speed and take a break".

The most interesting real-world regencies were ones that led to permanent leadership changes... but in CK, that's a Game Over that the player has little control over. That's terrible gameplay.

What's left are regencies that didn't do much of impact. That's pretty boring and also bad gameplay.

So I'd be fine with a less intrusive form of regency.

But you have to take into account the other side of regencies as well - the player can become regent of his ai liege.
Apart from that I think regencies are okay in that perspective when they don't necessarily restrict you. So you should still be able to declare wars, it's just that you don't directly declare them but ask your regent to do so. AI regents should decide if they accept based on their opinion of you and their traits (peaceful ones will decline, warmongers probably accept) and possibly their opinion of the target.
As you can choose your designated regent, with careful planning it should not restrict you too much.
But of course your regent may die and then you get a random courtier in CK2. That should change (to some powerful vassal). Also, you as a child you need to have the option to plot against your regent and replace them (your plot power should then mostly depend on the power of the one you want to become regent). And maybe the "murder regent" event from CK2 could be an active decision that you can take if you have certain traits. Beware the consequences though...
And at a certain age there could also be a plot to end the regency prematurely. Say you're a genius kid then it might be easy to convince everyone that you are smart enough. Or in a pagan society, you might duel your regent (not to death) and if you win you're deemed strong enough.

Still, all these interactions should probably require to be at least a few years old. But a worst case of say 5 years on speed 5 seem to be acceptable.

So, yes regencies could be implemented in a very boring way - but do that when they can also be fun and interesting?

 

[Chlodio]

regencies were more an annoyance than anything, and you didn't really have ways to meaningfully interact with them

That's kinda the point, when you re playing as a child you don't have the legal authority to do anything.

not to mention how a low-martial regent could dismantle half your army in a week-long regency

Not sure what you are talking about, regents had no control over armies.

The only time I remember being actually interested in a regent was when a super rare event chain fired where the regent kept my ruler in regency into adulthood, claiming her incapable.

I'm fairly certain that isn't part of the vanilla, but a mod.

 

[Xain]

No regencies, uninteresting baronies, and no ships.
Still very hyped by the game, but this is pretty sad...

 

[Atalvyr]

That's kinda the point, when you re playing as a child you don't have the legal authority to do anything.

Which would be fine if you actually had any events involving your regent. Usually all you would get was "regent has been replaced due to things beyond your understanding". The other, more interesting regency events were quite rare and made regencies mostly a matter of fast-forwarding until you could do play the game again.

Not sure what you are talking about, regents had no control over armies.

Regents use their martial in place of yours for calculating realm martial. As realm martial determines the maximum size of levies, getting a low martial regent would cut the levies of a high martial ruler in half while in a regency. When the ruler then returned, after say a week in solitary meditation, the levy max would return to the higher value but would then need to replenish since apparently all those levies were scattered to the winds by the regent.

I'm fairly certain that isn't part of the vanilla, but a mod.

Nope, it is part of vanilla. The events were kind of rare though, so you almost never saw the interesting ones. Here is a link to all the regency events; https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Regency_events

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Nope, it is part of vanilla. The events were kind of rare though, so you almost never saw the interesting ones. Here is a link to all the regency events; https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Regency_events

A lot of interesting events, most of hem I have never encountered sadly enough.

 

[Chlodio]

Nope, it is part of vanilla. The events were kind of rare though, so you almost never saw the interesting ones. Here is a link to all the regency events; https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Regency_events

I only see events to declare the child insane, not incapable? Lunatic doesn't require a regent.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Mhmm, this is both annoying and genuinely unexpected.

 

[Tuo]

I only see events to declare the child insane, not incapable? Lunatic doesn't require a regent.

Incapable to rule, due to the alleged insanity, and therefore requiring a regent. It's been a long time since I had the event, but I believe the game handled it by giving the character the incapable trait, which was removed when my character was rescued by a loyal vassal.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Incapable to rule, due to the alleged insanity, and therefore requiring a regent. It's been a long time since I had the event, but I believe the game handled it by giving the character the incapable trait, which was removed when my character was rescued by a loyal vassal.

Where are the conditions for a regent to be required in CK II, or are they hardcoded? I think being a lunatic could be made one, actually.