Just... please. There's too much illogic in regent actions/what they allow. It was better before you had to get your regent's approval for everything; I understand what y'all are trying to do, but you've failed.
- 8
- 3
Upvote
0
Please Fix Regencies
- Thread starter Hecaton
- 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.
Then what do you suggest to fix it, if you say you can agree with the intended goal?
I dont give a damn about that, dude. If there is like 5 pluses visble, and there is 4 minus visible, then what the heck base recul-something is still 4 minuses? I demand truth right now! Stop using exploits devs!
- 1
"base reluctance" means that by default, characters prefer to stay in the status quo than to change the situation, so they need a good reason to agree to anything you want. But what's the relation with regencies?
- 2
For example - if your regent really wants to get married (it's his ambition), oftentimes he won't let you, or anyone else, do so, because his base reluctance is too high to allow that to happen. Or even to accept betrothals (that's right, your regent will try to cockblock random betrothals that you'd normally approve, which is something that PEOPLE YOU'RE AT WAR WITH DON'T DO).
And then there's lowering crown authority/weakening the realm - which is something *all* regents do, even if they're your heir, or your mother. Fundamentally, regents seem 'balanced' around what's most punishing for the player, not what's historically accurate or logical. If they can't take the time to program enough regent logic for, say, your heir to be like 'I'm gonna be running this show someday, I shouldn't burn it down' (assassinating you is another matter entirely, and should be left in, obviously), then they should roll back regent logic to before regents need to approve anything. It breaks the game too much, adds needless hurdles to basic functionality (i.e. marriage), and all so they can point to this change and be like 'look, we made an "improvement!"' when it's actually a downgrade.
And then there's lowering crown authority/weakening the realm - which is something *all* regents do, even if they're your heir, or your mother. Fundamentally, regents seem 'balanced' around what's most punishing for the player, not what's historically accurate or logical. If they can't take the time to program enough regent logic for, say, your heir to be like 'I'm gonna be running this show someday, I shouldn't burn it down' (assassinating you is another matter entirely, and should be left in, obviously), then they should roll back regent logic to before regents need to approve anything. It breaks the game too much, adds needless hurdles to basic functionality (i.e. marriage), and all so they can point to this change and be like 'look, we made an "improvement!"' when it's actually a downgrade.
- 4
- 1
If you keep your vassals happy the regent won't lower the crown authority, at least that's my experience.
Just watch out for factions building up and you should be fine. I think the regent is just trying to avoid wars.
- 1
Personally I haven't had to much trouble with regents as long as I kept them happy. The whole "lowering crown authority rant" is another discussion all together, but personally it sort of makes sense and I agree with pzyber. It seems just keeping people happy stops that from occurring. It seems that the reason the regent lowers crown authority most the time is faction based and not just from a whim. In that case, you can't complain about the regent just trying to keep the people happy and the realm stable, i.e. doing his job.
Regents are made of 99% greed if they don't like you. Even if you want to get married, you're regent only cares that he/she gets married. Do remember during a regency you can only "suggest" actions, not actively perform them or would you like Paradox make regency councils how they actually can be: player can't do shit pretty much ever and the regent can declare war if he wants to while you have no control over the army or advisers. Compared to that, I'll take how they are now any day.
- 2
In my experience, I've usually been okay through regencies unless factions crop up. Then I think the reason why crown authority is lowered multiple times comes from a regent automatically accepting decisions from the AI. Like when a faction demands that you lower crown authority. I'm pretty sure the regent just auto-accepts to avoid a war. It's annoying, though I've only had this happen to a larger extent when I've had a really young king/queen with no/little traits plus the bad modifiers for a new regime.
- 2
The regency is supposed to add some spice by restricting the players actions because some NPC courtier is wielding power during your character's minority (or incapacity). I like it even if sometimes your hands are tied from doing "logical" things like giving away land when you are over your demesne limit.
I wish there was more "fun with regencies." Sometimes the regent steals from you or tries to kill you, but thats it I think. The regent never forces you to give in to nobles demands or changes laws, arranges marriages... to suit his own ends. You can also still declare war during the regency (which you cant I believe in EU4). I'd add that limitation too.
I guess you could RP being the regent yourself and create some chaos.
ETA Oh sometimes the regent forces you to accept nobles demands? I've never experienced that. Sweet.
I wish there was more "fun with regencies." Sometimes the regent steals from you or tries to kill you, but thats it I think. The regent never forces you to give in to nobles demands or changes laws, arranges marriages... to suit his own ends. You can also still declare war during the regency (which you cant I believe in EU4). I'd add that limitation too.
I guess you could RP being the regent yourself and create some chaos.
ETA Oh sometimes the regent forces you to accept nobles demands? I've never experienced that. Sweet.
- 2
If you could at least declare the regent's actions illegal and undo them when you come to power, the system might tolerable, but in it's current state the regencies can take a century to repair.
One thing that definitely needs to be changed is the fact that your regent can change crown laws multiple times.
One thing that definitely needs to be changed is the fact that your regent can change crown laws multiple times.
- 2
- 1
One thing they could do if it is faction related is at least give the player the choice over the regent so we can at least know why the crown law is being tampered with. In this case it would break immersion a little, but it is far better than screwing over the player.
- 1
It isn't that illogical... When ruler is unable to reign they're replaced with regent who reigns in their name, while the ruler is only nominal ruler. Your actions are restricted because you're playing as the nominal ruler, not the one who actually has the power.
I don't think you understand how much power regents actually had, history knows many cases where the regent never stepped aside, kept their ruler as hostage and usurped the throne.
Being under regency should suck, as it is now it doesn't even suck as much as it historically did and even when your actions are restricted CK2 is such interesting game that you should't get bored.
While being the regent should be a lot of fun, you should be able to imprison nominal ruler, have ability to stay as regent until very end and make decisions behalf of the nominal ruler.
- 2
This! When you've accomplished everything you want to the game gets dull. It's good to have set backs like "oh no, now I have to work on raising crown authority again." My biggest frustration is when your regent is a thief or or an a-hole and then when you reach the age of majority you can't just throw him in prison (because you don't have proof I guess) without everyone thinking you're a tyrant. But again, thems the breaks. Do it anyway and take the hit or else quietly plot to kill him.
Historically, a child king's mother or closest relative was often named the regent (sometimes maybe the queen mother only held nominal power). If that happened more often that could be a source of interesting events...
>It isn't that illogical... When ruler is unable to reign they're replaced with regent who reigns in their name, while the ruler is only nominal ruler. Your actions are restricted because you're playing as the nominal ruler, not the one who actually has the power.
It's not so much the power levels of regents that are what I'm complaining about as their illogic. In general, regents aren't trying to sabotage the realm they are a part of, though they often were interested in seizing power for themselves. The problem is that, as currently portrayed, they only do the former, never the latter.
It's not so much the power levels of regents that are what I'm complaining about as their illogic. In general, regents aren't trying to sabotage the realm they are a part of, though they often were interested in seizing power for themselves. The problem is that, as currently portrayed, they only do the former, never the latter.
- 1