No regencies?

[DreadLindwyrm]

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.

There are *massive* disadvantages to playing as a child.

Having "new ruler" penalties, almost no intrigue score, and no established friends, you're a prime target to be assassinated, either by an outsider, or by someone trying to shift the throne to their dynasty from inside.

Plus you're in a position now where you can't get another heir for possibly 16 years or so. If people start trimming your dynasty down to size that's really vulnerable.

 

[Atalvyr]

Yes, the 0-11-8-9-3 French king with some lifestyle perks unlocked is obviously worse than a *checks livestream* 3-1-5-4-4 child with no perks.

 

[Knotz]

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.

This post is so disproportionately bitchy I don't know whether to be tickled or offended, so I think I'll just split the difference and respond in kind.

At this stage it's obvious that some people are either so invested in Paradox as a company (possibly literally going by the response to anything less than glistering plaudits) or this game as a concept that they're willing to let demonstrable cases where improvement or porting of a system from CK2 would have been preferable to the the thing's total absence slide. Boats* were one of these cases, regencies are another. The only other possibility I can imagine to the above two mindsets is that a wide subset of people really are just that parochial in perspective that the idea of someone having any reason to like something they didn't must be attributed either to nostalgia or 'terrible taste'. I actually find that harder to credit than a hopefully temporary repose into The Hype, but maybe that's just my childlike optimism.

What do children, those with severe developmental problems, the very old and those with a head injury have in common? An inability to make decisions without deferring to the guidance of an external authority (we'll leave the obvious analogy largely unspoken). This is one of those cases where something both happened historically and is extremely sensible, so I actually find on the side of the history buffs this time who knew.

It doesn't matter that it was boring to find yourself with the misfortune of a 16 year regency every once in a while because the alternative is to imagine a 2 year old doing all the requisite admin, scheming, warmongering, diplomacy and murder that an adult could. Or alternatively, and somehow even less credibly, to have an abstracted regent that is just so beneficent to seamlessly advance your character's interest, without any hint of personal ambition or incompetence, that they might as well not exist (oh wait).

If regencies really are not in then being underaged, in a coma, giving birth or imprisoned mean nothing. CK2 had interesting and quintessentially CK events tied to regencies (your ambitious and scheming regent having you declared incapable, your regent trying to kill you, you murdering your regent on a wooden horse, the queen mother trying to wrest political power from the regent) CK3 would have been a better game for having elaborated on that and is objectively poorer for having abandoned it.

* #justice4boats

 

[Tuo]

I'd like to point out no one commenting here has seen a child, an incapable ruler, or an imprisoned ruler as the player character yet. No one commenting here knows what options may or may not be blocked in those conditions. For all we know, regents could be in, just not as visible to the outside - for instance, taking the place of the spouse councilor - you don't see the councilors of a character when looking at the character menu, so it's too early to assume a regent would be shown the same way they were displayed in CK2. In fact, in CK2, seeing the regent of another character was completely unnecessary, as you had no reason to directly interact with another character's regent, ever.

Wild assumptions get you nowhere.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

If regencies really are not in then being underaged, in a coma, giving birth or imprisoned mean nothing. CK2 had interesting and quintessentially CK events tied to regencies (your ambitious and scheming regent having you declared incapable,

A real pain to deal with, and giving a trait that in and of itself gives you negative stats for no good reason

your regent trying to kill you,

Not interesting, and something you can barely interact with if you're a child or otherwise encumbered with poor stats

you murdering your regent on a wooden horse,

Uninteresting and happens far, far too often for a supposedly responsible and alert adult to die from it.

the queen mother trying to wrest political power from the regent)

Uninteresting and non-interactive from the players point of view - and apparently not handled by plots.

CK3 would have been a better game for having elaborated on that and is objectively poorer for having abandoned it.

As with previous threads on regencies, mere elaboration on the old scheme wouldn't be of any use.
It needs to be built up from scratch in a way that is potentially interactive from both sides (as regent *and* ward), and so as to allow for a sliding scale of regency such that a heavily pregnant woman or a 15 year old monarch can still make the majority of the decisions, whilst a newborn baby or an incapable, insane, infirm drooling wreck have essentially no power at all.

CK2 regencies weren't really fit for purpose and were mostly just a trial to sit through, and little to no benefit even if you could maneuver yourself into position to act as regent for the king.

 

[Knotz]

A real pain to deal with, and giving a trait that in and of itself gives you negative stats for no good reason

Not interesting, and something you can barely interact with if you're a child or otherwise encumbered with poor stats

Uninteresting and happens far, far too often for a supposedly responsible and alert adult to die from it.

Uninteresting and non-interactive from the players point of view - and apparently not handled by plots.

Not a single one of these is uninteresting from an RP-perspective, each one gives the character you're playing a perspective or a motivation they wouldn't have otherwise had. Given that the vast majority of how you get to know your character is via events I don't see how these are worse than the bulk of events that make up the story part of the game, they're better than some (like randomly getting/losing a trait) because there are clear causes and players involved.

It needs to be built up from scratch in a way that is potentially interactive from both sides (as regent *and* ward), and so as to allow for a sliding scale of regency such that a heavily pregnant woman or a 15 year old monarch can still make the majority of the decisions, whilst a newborn baby or an incapable, insane, infirm drooling wreck have essentially no power at all.

Yeah sure, do that instead. But there is an obvious inbetween where you port your imperfect implementation and improve it later down the line that doesn't require you to spend the same amount of dev resources now but still does not simply remove the mechanic entirely.

 

[Ursus Mursus]

Not a single one of these is uninteresting from an RP-perspective, each one gives the character you're playing a perspective or a motivation they wouldn't have otherwise had. Given that the vast majority of how you get to know your character is via events I don't see how these are worse than the bulk of events that make up the story part of the game, they're better than some (like randomly getting/losing a trait) because there are clear causes and players involved.

One time my regent killed 3 underage rulers one by one, and ~20 yers of game was really boring. 5th speed, waiting and few event buttons. Great regency gameplay!

 

[yezhanquan]

I think the current batch of PDS games are already this: placeholder mechanics until a DLC release. Hell, one big reason why I haven't tried HOI IV is that the SU hasn't received its own DLC update whereas almost every other power has received theirs.

 

[Tuo]

Yeah sure, do that instead. But there is an obvious inbetween where you port your imperfect implementation and improve it later down the line that doesn't require you to spend the same amount of dev resources now but still does not simply remove the mechanic entirely.

If the imperfect implementation is more a frustration than a feature, what's the gain in keeping it in the build? It's not like the devs have to scrub the code off their computers if it's not in the game build, and sometimes it's better to start off clean with goals in mind, with no prior infrastructure limits in the way.

 

[Fabiondo]

As with previous threads on regencies, mere elaboration on the old scheme wouldn't be of any use.
It needs to be built up from scratch in a way that is potentially interactive from both sides (as regent *and* ward), and so as to allow for a sliding scale of regency such that a heavily pregnant woman or a 15 year old monarch can still make the majority of the decisions, whilst a newborn baby or an incapable, insane, infirm drooling wreck have essentially no power at all.

This is it. Gradual concession of power between the regent to the ruler as he or she ages or it's extricated from their predicament.

Playing as a 3-year-old should really just be events playing with friends and learning from your guardian.

 

[Tryvenyal]

Tell me, why must the player be able to interact all the time? You cannot interact with other charachters dealings when not in regency unless they intreract with you. THat´s the only thing that changes when in a regencey - your charachter cannot interact as they are not capable of interacting as an adult.

Own regencies are boring, I agree. Expensive, I agree(all the powerfull vassals you have to by favours and opinion from).

AI/enemy regencies are a great opportunity. The target will likely not respond to anything you do to them. You can press your weak claim. Wouldn't you want the game to be equally challenging to you as it is for AI while in regency?

There are alot of things that can be improved with regencies over how it works in CK2. But I would say it´s very hard to make it both fun an challenging and if I have to choose, I choose challening.

 

[Tuo]

Tell me, why must the player be able to interact all the time? You cannot interact with other charachters dealings when not in regency unless they intreract with you. THat´s the only thing that changes when in a regencey - your charachter cannot interact as they are not capable of interacting as an adult.

Own regencies are boring, I agree. Expensive, I agree(all the powerfull vassals you have to by favours and opinion from).

AI/enemy regencies are a great opportunity. The target will likely not respond to anything you do to them. You can press your weak claim. Wouldn't you want the game to be equally challenging to you as it is for AI while in regency?

There are alot of things that can be improved with regencies over how it works in CK2. But I would say it´s very hard to make it both fun an challenging and if I have to choose, I choose challening.

Regardless of whether or not regents are in, it's more than fair to assume that children and incapable rulers are already vulnerable to weak claims, as the tooltip for the religion gender doctrines state that in male dominated religion, women can only press claims on children, incapable rulers, and other women - meaning that claim vulnerability is there, with or without a regent. The other vulnerabilities of child rulers have already been mentioned before as well - with or without a regent, those vulnerabilities are real and can be seen in the known mechanics. Denying them by linking them intrinsically to whether or not regents are in the game is either disingenuous or ignorant.

 

[Knotz]

If the imperfect implementation is more a frustration than a feature, what's the gain in keeping it in the build? It's not like the devs have to scrub the code off their computers if it's not in the game build, and sometimes it's better to start off clean with goals in mind, with no prior infrastructure limits in the way.

I can't assess unactualized potential future implementations I can only work off what is not there now. And what is not there now (mind you, I realize it isn't confirmed that there aren't regencies and if there are all of this is moot) introduces incongruities that outweigh the frustration the imperfect mechanic had, to me at the very least.

But I also never saw regencies as being more of a frustration than a feature in the first place. An occasionally frustrating feature maybe but it was sensibly frustrating. It is obviously frustrating to not be able to make your own decisions, it should be, that is the entire point of being in a regency.

 

[Tschobo]

I miss regencies in CK3. More than the boat system which was in my mind garbage in CK2 and I would never defend it. The issue is that it had many annoying downsides in CK2 and it depended on the skills of your regent how the realm will go. It just really needs an overhaul that makes it less tedious and benefits both playing as a regent or as the one who is under the wing of the regent.

But in the end it really depends on which status happened. An incapbable ruler, mental wreck, imprisoned ruler or a 3 year old child wouldn't have much to say in a regency and would have more events around their status (like growing up, playing with friends, learning from guardians if a child, or trying to break free and cope with being a prisoner as an imprisoned). Also with things like pilgrimages, pregnancies or meditations the regent won't have to scheme against you without the probability of being thoroughly punished afterwards. Also in these situations events around it would be more interesting than dealing with regents. I still say regents should be in, but then it should be fun and not tedious. And all the issues with child rulers and comatose people being desposed by claimants can still happen without regents.

 

[Alenarae118]

Guys, seriously, we don't know if it is in or not, just because it doesn't seem to be in, doesn't mean it is not in. so stop complaining until we see proof on either side.

For all we know, it is in a different menu, and isn't displayed on the character menu.

 

[grzegorz444]

Regencies are complicated, because by nature they kinda suck.

Taking control away from the player is annoying and boring.

Problem is(CK2) in fact regency only brakes and disturbs HP but in other hand gives no real influence to the regent, it only honorary tittle in fact. In game it should be some manual control of realem. Some mods can improve this for exampleregent in AGOT can appoint kingsguard can grant lands in some circumstances.
Wasted potential