Regencies are horrible
- Thread starter tapewormlondon
- 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.
Are regencies really encountered that frequently? I find that they tend to befairly few and between if you avoid making your heir or monarch into military leaders.
Three regencies in a game is either very bad luck or irresponsibility on your part.
Did your make your monarch a military leader while your heir was under 15 years old? If that's the case, then you deserve a regency (no offense).
I often find my heirs are only a few years younger than me, and then they die before my ruler. I get a newborn heir and my ruler dies after ~5 years. After the regency I get a 10 year old heir and the process starts over again.
One time I had a regency for 8 years, followed by a 3 year rule by the king and another 10 years of regency.
It's bad luck, but 3 regencies in a game isn't exactly rare.
One time I had a regency for 8 years, followed by a 3 year rule by the king and another 10 years of regency.
It's bad luck, but 3 regencies in a game isn't exactly rare.
Best practice is to make ruler a general right as/just before heir comes of age, so that when your ruler dies the heir is young enough for his heir to age.
However, events and random luck will screw you regardless sometimes.
I dislike traditional monarchies in this game, much preferring republics or steppe hordes. However, all but one republic in is in Europe, and there are only so many hordes.
Republics are better than they're made out to be on here; other than the luck box PU junk in the Christian world they're the better government IMO. I just wish Tibet could go merchant republic lol.
Maybe as a compromise allow declarations of war. but tie it to a -1 stab hit while under regency. This would allow to simulate the regencies capability to go to war, but also the cost and lack of unity tied to conquest without a legitimate ruler on the throne. This way you could go to war during regency if it was something truly important, but in general you wouldn't be able to spam half a dozen declarations against some helpless OPM's
Take out the fact I got 3 lots in one game, I wish I hadn't made it so personal now. its the mechanic i hate, I could get one for two years and my problem with it would stand.
For those bemoaning me for trying to remove it completely, that is not what i said. I said amend the mechanic. Make it better. Improve it. I dont see why so many people need to jump on anyone who makes a suggestion to ammend a mechinic, to be replied to by way of "L2P Noob" "You just want to paint the map, herpy derpy". Thats not what i said, and thats not what I suggested.
To the others that suggested alliances, warnings etc, read my OP again. I explained why I feel they are not suitable once you are larger, but thank you none the less for engaging in a civil manner.
In regards to the person that somehow read my post to say i wanted to remove coalitions and paint the map, i suggest you look at my post history around coalitions. I like them for the most part.....although the could also be improved . Besides Coalitions have nothing to do with my OP. Nothing whatsoever.
Im not crying, bawling or wailing, nor stamping my feet in a hissy fit. Just wanting to put forward that a mechanic that is clearly lackluster (INMHO) could be improved in some capacity. If you believe it to be good, please do explain why and we can have a civil debate around the topic at hand.
For those bemoaning me for trying to remove it completely, that is not what i said. I said amend the mechanic. Make it better. Improve it. I dont see why so many people need to jump on anyone who makes a suggestion to ammend a mechinic, to be replied to by way of "L2P Noob" "You just want to paint the map, herpy derpy". Thats not what i said, and thats not what I suggested.
To the others that suggested alliances, warnings etc, read my OP again. I explained why I feel they are not suitable once you are larger, but thank you none the less for engaging in a civil manner.
In regards to the person that somehow read my post to say i wanted to remove coalitions and paint the map, i suggest you look at my post history around coalitions. I like them for the most part.....although the could also be improved . Besides Coalitions have nothing to do with my OP. Nothing whatsoever.
Im not crying, bawling or wailing, nor stamping my feet in a hissy fit. Just wanting to put forward that a mechanic that is clearly lackluster (INMHO) could be improved in some capacity. If you believe it to be good, please do explain why and we can have a civil debate around the topic at hand.
hummm... is it really that problematic being unable to declare wars for a short time? i mean, once you're pretty big, it takes you like 10-15 years to core a single province anyway, and when you're small, i doubt you really want to go crazy on wars all time.
To me it represent the fact, that many factions are in place at the court, so no one really has enough power to DoW (hence also why many regencies are so low - 1 1 1 or so)
I'm personally ok with the regencies, even when they hit (i remind a game in EU3 where i was on regency for more than 70 years in a century... *sigh*)... that's just fair to me. you can still do many other stuff: fabricating claims, diplo-vassalization, annexing, colonizing, make alliances (that can help you go to war), etc...
so yeah, regencies are pretty ok, as long as you're not trying to conquer one province per year
To me it represent the fact, that many factions are in place at the court, so no one really has enough power to DoW (hence also why many regencies are so low - 1 1 1 or so)
I'm personally ok with the regencies, even when they hit (i remind a game in EU3 where i was on regency for more than 70 years in a century... *sigh*)... that's just fair to me. you can still do many other stuff: fabricating claims, diplo-vassalization, annexing, colonizing, make alliances (that can help you go to war), etc...
so yeah, regencies are pretty ok, as long as you're not trying to conquer one province per year
2 x "your heir is sick events" and onr random young king death. Nothing to avoid it could have been done.....mores the pity.
Regencies are why I used to switch over to republic as soon as I could in EU3. They have made that almost impossible in EU4, so you just have to tough them out now.
No, its not a "Big Problem" it doesnt break the game, and to be honest im not a massive territorry grabber - I try to avoid coallitions at all costs. But I do keep my mil trad up and so war frequently.
But neither is it a good, fun mechanic. You even yourself say its "ok". In such an otherwise great game, I personally want all aspects to be better than ok.
A stab hit for war, as suggested isn't a bad idea, I think I would like dynamic events around it more though, with some probability of some nasty events happening, so that if you declare a war whilst in a regency you know you are gambling. I might decide to wait for my new king to come of age, but I might decide that, strategically, waiting is too risky. I need to annex that OPM before my competition does, or weaken an enemy, so I decide I must take the risk. Give me choice. Choice is good right?
Yeah this event can even kill your dynasty if you're bad lucky.
I got it as Ottomans and, next thing I knew, my old monarch died without an heir and I was stuck in an interregnum. This was completely unforeseen.
I had to marry a couple of countries to get a new dynasty on the throne a few years later.
I recently got the chance to escape from my Iqta and become a Bureaucratic Despotism and took it, the three stab I lost be damned.
Though to be fair, a lot of that is because military points are still the ones I'm swimming in and I've already finished Offensive, Defensive, and Quality, and I'm about to get another idea group. Now instead of taking an ADM or DIP group that I won't have points to give, or taking one of those "other" military ideas, I can go Plutocratic.
Also, my main dynasty died out (thanks to the "A New Sultan!" event) and got replaced by the Qara Qoyunlu dynasty, and I've already suffered through over a century of low legitimacy and close to thirty years of regency. That, and there's just not a lot of Muslim states left, and those that are either hate my guts or are too low tech to vassalize.
Though to be fair, a lot of that is because military points are still the ones I'm swimming in and I've already finished Offensive, Defensive, and Quality, and I'm about to get another idea group. Now instead of taking an ADM or DIP group that I won't have points to give, or taking one of those "other" military ideas, I can go Plutocratic.
Also, my main dynasty died out (thanks to the "A New Sultan!" event) and got replaced by the Qara Qoyunlu dynasty, and I've already suffered through over a century of low legitimacy and close to thirty years of regency. That, and there's just not a lot of Muslim states left, and those that are either hate my guts or are too low tech to vassalize.
Yes. It's yet another skill equalizing factor in a "strategy" game filled with too many. The monarch point system itself, much less the regency issue, is awful. Your single most precious resource in the game is mostly random...and indeed so is your ability to be able to do anything to utilize personal ability.
There is an enormous difference between being able to expand for 20 years and receiving 4320 monarch points (3/3/3 ruler average, no regency), and being unable to expand and receiving 2880 (1/1/1 ruler average, regencies). There is no "skill", or "strategy" that one can execute in the latter case that they can't execute in the former...and the former is just an average run. You could literally be looking at a 4000+ MP difference and gimped expansion between two nations across less than 10% of the game. All...because random derp?
If you start pushing to 10% of a game played mired in such terrible conditions, it really hurts. I've learned to live with low legitimacy using hordes, because at least there you never get regencies and can fish for good heirs and almost always get them...or just a new ruler vs potentially better pretender if you don't. As a republic, your MP income/month as western is never less than 9, and any time you get a young ruler and re-elect him averages closer to 12+ (with no regency risk, at all).
Every time I see someone call a tactic "gamey", then even semi-consider defending the MP luck of monarchies I cringe. There exists no gamey tactic that gives you 1000's and 1000's of monarch points in a standard monarchy...and the instant a disadvantaged tech group uses the MTTH on "house of peace" to kill heirs, some scrub will call it gamey. Nono, can't have our CHOICES influence our income. That's GAMEY. It MUST be luck. LUCK is strategically sound in a grand strategy game.
The "I don't expand quickly and use the resources available to me, so the design flaws in the game don't impact me so it's fine" argument needs to die a horrible death BTW. There are only a few things that can't be done at war, and most of even those do not require extended peace.
Sigh...can't let players have control over their nation :/.
Woah, I hate them to but there has to be some luck in the game, I will admit to reloading when my 21 year old king died last night and my 1 year old heir was next in line. But you can still war and gain territory in a regency, it just takes much more cunning diplomacy.
It's nice to just say things, but this one is tiresome. You haven't presented a reason that luck is mandatory to accomplish something that could not otherwise be accomplished via competent design choices, and I strongly suspect you won't be able to do it outside of POSSIBLY design/cost constraints
.But cost/design constraints as a defense would ring hollow in the case of the most important resource in a strategy game being viably handled with skill rather than "your progress depends heavily on luck".
It's nice to just say things, but this one is tiresome. You haven't presented a reason that luck is mandatory to accomplish something that could not otherwise be accomplished via competent design choices, and I strongly suspect you won't be able to do it outside of POSSIBLY design/cost constraints
But cost/design constraints as a defense would ring hollow in the case of the most important resource in a strategy game being viably handled with skill rather than "your progress depends heavily on luck".
Okay, how about it is historical, it doesn't actually stop you from going to war and generally, the countries I play, regencies have better stats than my Kings. Also, like others have said, monarchies are pretty powerful, a speed bump in the interest of balance is not a bad thing.
Haha no. How much of real life is luck vs deterministic is debatable, but rulers were specifically trained depending on their country, and regencies declared wars. An attempt at using history selectively to make your point here isn't going to help your case
. If you go down the history route, being unable to declare wars in regency is an instant loss! To lesser extent so are the monarch point random outcomes...there was a lot more to many/most of the actions requiring MP than just how good a ruler was, so using a shaky abstraction that is mostly luck-based is actually ahistorical...just less so than the provably false assertion regarding regencies and wars.Besides, it's really the player making the decision in the first place. No nation in history has ever had 400 years of unified ruling mind with the controller's #1 incentive being to maximize the welfare of the nation rather than their own. Ahistoric outcomes should be expected.
Big nations really only have enforce peace, since nations will cower out otherwise on guarantees/warnings/alliances. That being said, you're ducking.
Irrelevant red herring, having exactly 0 to do with random factors or the OPs problem with regencies, and considering monarch stats are random, the only way you can even be accurate with this statement is if you pick bad leaders, and even then only as long as 1st king + heir last.
Where's that argument in favor of random factors again? Are you trying to claim that the luckbox PU trash offsets regency chance? I suppose it might statistically, but now you're throwing random noise on top of random noise and still haven't even tried to justify the existence of these random factors even in the slightest :/.
Well, I mostly play England and Castille these days and their rulers super blow, at least to begin. When I said you can still war as a regency, you can, it's laughably easy.
There is luck in the game, as in real life, so what's the problem? Regencies are very powerful from a diplo perspective, which can win you the game as a small nation. I don't know, regencies have been only the slightest annoyance to me, but everyone has their own opinion of course.
There is luck in the game, as in real life, so what's the problem? Regencies are very powerful from a diplo perspective, which can win you the game as a small nation. I don't know, regencies have been only the slightest annoyance to me, but everyone has their own opinion of course.