Well, that makes little sense, because Incapable decreases health significantly.
- 1
No regencies?
- Thread starter Chairman Noob
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
This is nothing but jumping to conclusions. All we know is that the UI is different.
- 5
- 1
The event implies that the regent has you confined "for your own safety", so it is not unreasonable to apply a health penalty comparable to being locked up, but I agree that the -3 from incapable is a bit harsh. Having successfully declared you insane should make the regent take care to keep you alive afterwards to avoid dealing with a succession.
- 1
- 1
As regencies are a pretty "major" mechanic I doubt they'll return with a DLC. Hopefully at least children and prisoners get some powerful penalties to tax income, levies, opinion and/or vassal limit to make imprisonment matter and let weak underage successors realistically destabilize a realm.
I understand many players disliked regencies in CK2, but why weren't they put behind a game rule as before? They might even have been switched off by default to avoid annoying the casual players Paradox is hoping to attract, but it would have been nice to be able to turn them back on for a more immersive experience.
I understand many players disliked regencies in CK2, but why weren't they put behind a game rule as before? They might even have been switched off by default to avoid annoying the casual players Paradox is hoping to attract, but it would have been nice to be able to turn them back on for a more immersive experience.
- 4
- 3
- 1
Its not just a simple matter of turning regencies on/off.
If they enable regencies without making any events to make them interesting nor mechanics for interaction, then it won't be very immersive for either the big brain veteran players nor those filthy casuals people on this forum are always talking about.
If they make events that are worth engaging with and mechanics that gives the player things to do, then regencies will no longer be an annoyance.
If they enable regencies without making any events to make them interesting nor mechanics for interaction, then it won't be very immersive for either the big brain veteran players nor those filthy casuals people on this forum are always talking about.
If they make events that are worth engaging with and mechanics that gives the player things to do, then regencies will no longer be an annoyance.
- 9
- 1
- 1
Regencies absolutely need to come back for the sake of weak claims, and be more fleshed out for human regents of AI players. Even just a decision to steal money every once in a while would be nice.
- 2
- 2
Other PDX titles are allowed to have "fast-forward-periods" of low interaction-level and nothing special to engage with. In EU it´s quite common to have long periods of coring land and waiting to lose AE before engaging in new warfare. Why is this not allowed to exist in CK? Honestly, playing a 2 year king I sometimes feel I have for too much to do! Would like the regent to do alot more than they did in CK2.
There could be some unique plots for kids to unlock as growing up(some is unlocked with age, some with skill, some with traits and some with a combination.). CK3 will come with other plots than just intrigueplots. Here could be space for plots like
"Prove capable", "Undermine regent", "Step out of parents/regents shadow" beside more intrigue-based "Kill tutor/guardian/regent/parent", "Treathen/blackmail tutor/regent to resign". Some of them might not even require regency but instead be enabled even for courtier children.
There could be some unique plots for kids to unlock as growing up(some is unlocked with age, some with skill, some with traits and some with a combination.). CK3 will come with other plots than just intrigueplots. Here could be space for plots like
"Prove capable", "Undermine regent", "Step out of parents/regents shadow" beside more intrigue-based "Kill tutor/guardian/regent/parent", "Treathen/blackmail tutor/regent to resign". Some of them might not even require regency but instead be enabled even for courtier children.
- 5
- 1
It happened to me not two days ago as queen mother of the theme of Cephalonia. When my son finally came of age, he tried to revoke my county and I got captured in the resulting war. I was then on house arrest until my death at age 60-something 15 or so years later.
And do you know why that was fun? Because I felt exactly like Eleanor the fair of IRL history!!! Maybe if I had gotten the event that makes them like their guardian he wouldn’t have tried to revoke. But I decided to make his guardian a highly skilled councilor, to my detriment. Super fun. Bring them back, if they’re not already there!
- 5
- 1
- 1
I like the second part, but I definitely would not be a fan of sitting back and letting the AI do everything for 14 years if I'm that 2 year old king you use as an example. I want to do as much as I normally would. I don't mind if I have penalties or difficulties or whatever related to being under a regent, but I want to have control of my game rather than having the AI control everything. It usually doesn't do a great job and it's not particularly enjoyable. More events related to being under a regent are great and you can adjust what can be done as long as you have those additional events to make up for it, but just taking all power out of your hands and essentially leaving you just as a figurehead until you are either of age or else prove your worth just doesn't sound fun to me.
- 4
I hope regencies come back. They need to be a unique mechanic though and expanded upon compared to CK2. Hopefully, we get them in a DLC that expands the council/vassals a little bit.
- 7
- 1
I honestly don't understand why some people are so fond of the worst features of CK2, to the point that they want it in CK3. It must be the feel of "losing" something, no matter how bad that thing is.
From a gameplay perspective, regencies weren't interesting, and it's a fact that is hard to deny. Regencies meant losing things randomly. It wasn't a big deal and could spice things up - but if you rely on randomly making the player lose stuff, you're doing bad design.
Of course there's always a possibility of reintroducing regencies as a more interesting mechanic. But it's like having boats as separate units: it was removed/changed because it was an obvious design flaw. If you regret it, it's probably just nostalgia. Or maybe you just have terrible taste.
From a gameplay perspective, regencies weren't interesting, and it's a fact that is hard to deny. Regencies meant losing things randomly. It wasn't a big deal and could spice things up - but if you rely on randomly making the player lose stuff, you're doing bad design.
Of course there's always a possibility of reintroducing regencies as a more interesting mechanic. But it's like having boats as separate units: it was removed/changed because it was an obvious design flaw. If you regret it, it's probably just nostalgia. Or maybe you just have terrible taste.
- 13
- 6
- 1
Removing boats because you don't like the current design and think you could make the same goal work better is okay. But removing boats means we're one step further away from naval combat, which is something people really looked forward to in ck3 due to its new engine
- 4
- 2
Leaving too many decisions to an AI regent will make the game unplayable for some.
When i got into a regency I typically acted as though I were playing the regent (I usually did my best to avoid a minor inheriting anyway...). Sometimes I would give him land and money or give him a princess to marry, and generally tried to act according to his interests and personality. When my king came to power I would go about reversing those things if I felt like it. But I think that was only fun for me because I wanted it. If I hadn't any control over the situation I would've been annoyed as hell.
After all, the regent still has to deal with the king's own family, after all the regent has to deal with a council that is potentially full of loyalists to the king, after all the regent has to deal with a court and kingdom that expects him to defend the king's interests. Using a regency to enrich oneself is corruption, and even the people of that time would see that.
So on the one hand regents should probably attempt to launder some money or draw up land grants to themselves and their friends, and force the kingdom into wars they want to wage... but on the other hand regents should largely do as the king would normally do, do as everyone around them expects them to do. CK2 basically accomplished this.
The game still has to be fun, and part of the fun is being able to actually play it.
When i got into a regency I typically acted as though I were playing the regent (I usually did my best to avoid a minor inheriting anyway...). Sometimes I would give him land and money or give him a princess to marry, and generally tried to act according to his interests and personality. When my king came to power I would go about reversing those things if I felt like it. But I think that was only fun for me because I wanted it. If I hadn't any control over the situation I would've been annoyed as hell.
After all, the regent still has to deal with the king's own family, after all the regent has to deal with a council that is potentially full of loyalists to the king, after all the regent has to deal with a court and kingdom that expects him to defend the king's interests. Using a regency to enrich oneself is corruption, and even the people of that time would see that.
So on the one hand regents should probably attempt to launder some money or draw up land grants to themselves and their friends, and force the kingdom into wars they want to wage... but on the other hand regents should largely do as the king would normally do, do as everyone around them expects them to do. CK2 basically accomplished this.
The game still has to be fun, and part of the fun is being able to actually play it.
- 1
And yet naval combat is something that even in CK2 they were saying was something they weren't happy with finding a way to fit it in - and it was mooted around early on as something we wouldn't get.
Looking forward to something that's strongly suggested to be absent is peculiar.
And it *doesn't* mean we're one step further away from naval combat. It means that they've got a free hand in making it *work* rather than trying to stick it onto the side of the transport mechanics (one of the biggest barriers to adding it to CK2).
But there's a thread for all things naval, and this isn't it.
- 5
It is a real bummer to me that regencies aren't in at launch, although I totally agree their implementation in CK2 is exceedingly lackluster. I'm willing to wait for it if it means there will be interesting, complicated interactions with your regent, but I really think there should be *something* to indicate that a three year old isn't running the country.
- 7
Having no disadvantage to playing as a child gives players a strong incentive to get the ruler killed as soon as they have a single heir to get out of gavelkind, unless your current stats are really good. Considering the livestream, the devs are doing France a favor by imprisoning and killing the king with bad stats so his baby son can inherit. In most cases paying ransom or even staying alive will be a mistake and a trade-off between RP and an efficient playing style. That doesn't make sense.
- 2
- 1
Where do you get the idea there's no disadvantage? Children and incapable rulers are vulnerable to claims, and with the low attribute scores and no lifestyle perks, a child ruler is in a very vulnerable position.
- 6