Well if the late King was at odds with his chancellor or his wife etc. by making a will he could bypass them in case that a regent needs to be appointed... Or if he trusts noone he could appoint a regency council with his wife in its head or the local Bishop...
Regencies / acting kings
- Thread starter Xain
- 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.
Well if the late King was at odds with his chancellor or his wife etc. by making a will he could bypass them in case that a regent needs to be appointed... Or if he trusts noone he could appoint a regency council with his wife in its head or the local Bishop...
If a King is at odds with his court, then as the Anarchy proves, nothing he says or desires is going to be listened to after hes dead anyway
But so could the king having a 'preferred heir' which the player can choose and the court not, which is the same thing but in a mechanic that would do other things. Rather than one that only does one.
If we have a mechanic for giving support to one pretender or another in a succession crisis, then the last kings support for one before the fact could easily be remembered. While also representing the court, regencies, councils and all the rest.
rather than having a mechanic that only does wills and nothing else would be a limitation surely
and i did sight the anarchy, and what is it but a nice events to be triggered after all.
If we have a mechanic for giving support to one pretender or another in a succession crisis, then the last kings support for one before the fact could easily be remembered. While also representing the court, regencies, councils and all the rest.
rather than having a mechanic that only does wills and nothing else would be a limitation surely
and i did sight the anarchy, and what is it but a nice events to be triggered after all.
I don't think the will don giorgio was talking about relates to pretenders.
But i do like the will idea. Say a 27 year king is regent, and he gets the illness trait. Over the next couple years it doesnt disappear, and maybe gets worst (apparently traits are suppose to have levels to them? like from 1-5) so a event fires up, where king decides who should become regent in case of his death, and his infant sons coming to the throne. You can then chose:
1) His wife
2) His closest relative, presumably a brother or uncle
3) His chancellor or some other high function officer.
4) Refuse to write will, as he is confident the illness will not get to him.
If he refuses and dies, leaving a young heir the game should calculate what is going to happen depending on the Stability of the kingdom, succession laws of the realm.
For simplicity reasons the character with most diplomacy automatically gets the regency(although the character must be one of the three choices. above)
But i do like the will idea. Say a 27 year king is regent, and he gets the illness trait. Over the next couple years it doesnt disappear, and maybe gets worst (apparently traits are suppose to have levels to them? like from 1-5) so a event fires up, where king decides who should become regent in case of his death, and his infant sons coming to the throne. You can then chose:
1) His wife
2) His closest relative, presumably a brother or uncle
3) His chancellor or some other high function officer.
4) Refuse to write will, as he is confident the illness will not get to him.
If he refuses and dies, leaving a young heir the game should calculate what is going to happen depending on the Stability of the kingdom, succession laws of the realm.
For simplicity reasons the character with most diplomacy automatically gets the regency(although the character must be one of the three choices. above)
what im saying is
Wouldnt the most popular Court member get the regency or something along those lines, the King can boost the popularity of a court member by naming their as his regent. But, it wouldnt be foolproof as if the kings choice doesnt get the majority, then the court will appoint its own regent and the named will be miffed about it, maybe gaining a rivalry with the regent or taking a loyality hit.
and if you had a mechanic for that, then it could also be used for succession crisis and elections and all sorts of other things too.
and you wouldnt have to wait for an event that might not fire for that king [say the king dies suddenly without illness but say, a sword through him]
Wouldnt the most popular Court member get the regency or something along those lines, the King can boost the popularity of a court member by naming their as his regent. But, it wouldnt be foolproof as if the kings choice doesnt get the majority, then the court will appoint its own regent and the named will be miffed about it, maybe gaining a rivalry with the regent or taking a loyality hit.
and if you had a mechanic for that, then it could also be used for succession crisis and elections and all sorts of other things too.
and you wouldnt have to wait for an event that might not fire for that king [say the king dies suddenly without illness but say, a sword through him]
Well if the King is assassinated, killed in battle or dies completely unexpectedly by any means without a will or naming a Regent for his infant son then the player gets a 2 options event... Either appoint a Regency Council in which courtiers with high offices take part or let AI appoint a Regent among courtiers (lets say the one with most intrigue or diplomacy skills or someone has proximity of blood to the late King)
.png){kind=avatar}
From my understanding, the infant son of a despised ruler was often raised by his father's enemies or the strongest and most influential men in the kingdom who were usually at odds with the Crown. So, if the father is deposed or killed, the son will be raised by people who want to make sure that the young, still malleable king, will not make the same mistakes. Of course, with plots and such, the young king once he declares his majority (that is, dismiss his regent, behead his mother's lover, send her to a convent, and get revenge) can have events to set things right. Or maybe he learned from his father's mistakes, and gains intrigue-heavy traits like deceitful and is a cautious man. We see this in Henry V of the HRE, who sided with the Pope, deposed his father, and was a much more temperate man in general, and in much more modern monarchies, in which the monarch works through ministers rather than doing anything himself or herself.
Another thing that would be nice could be that if the King died with no heirs and the nobles get to elect a new King maybe a foreign King/Lord or the Pope act as an arbitrator and ratifies the election...
That's a good one, with historical precedences. It usually did not work out that well for the kingdom involved, if the case of XIII century Scotland is any indication. The arbitrator would tend to name his favorite candidate to the throne, either his own client (who had fiefs in his kingdom), or someone who could be bent to his will. If the old king dies of old age, hopefully an event would fire asking to change the succession laws or to adopt one of the dukes as his heir, maybe one who is a distant cousin or who has the greatest support.
Only the weaker ones, like Louis VII. Women were forbidden on crusade, except laundry women.
Last edited:
... and fabricated. So give your kids what you want them to have before you kick off. Plus I would think that it would be hard to program. Then again, maybe the devs found a way to fine tune gavelkind inheritance, so dividing say Spain into western, middle, and eastern chunks with the respective kingdom titles? It has been stated that everyone should follow their "natural lieges" (I think that was the right term).
Must it just be the court though? I mean shouldn't the most powerful Duke in the realm have a chance to be elected Regent? I don't think Duke X controlling a third of the kingdom just sitting idly by while some random courtier takes the Regency, it would also lead to an interesting situation and the Duke in question should get some significant advantages(Perhaps like personal union in EU 3?)
Last edited:
We don't know yet how regencies work. Historically, it would be a council of the most powerful magnates spiritual and temporal; or a strong queen and a close male relative. A regency was usually a time for the dukes and other power groups (the Church included) to have a free hand; it was also an opportunity to mold the future monarch in their own images.
I d love to see an event where the Queen Dowager tries to push her lover (assuming she has one) to the Regency and then causing the wrath of the rest of the nobility...
Here's another thought for this thread: in the case of child vassals, maybe the liege should become regent by default. This was the case in medieval England, but probably not so much in less centralized states. But as King, you should supervise your young vassal's education and secure a good marriage.
I never say this as a problem but as a rather good way to mirror the problems a child had to keep the realm together in real life ingame.
The issue I think should be with the regent's legitimacy. The child's stats should not come into play until he reaches his majority, though his vassals' opinion of him should have a role, and their desire to change the kingdom's laws and otherwise exploit his inability to rule in his own stead. If anything, they will be fighting over who should be regent and therefore have influence over the young monarch.
As I have already argued, the main problem with regencies isn't realm disintegration, but sleaze and factionalism.