Regencies are horrible

[TheMeInTeam]

There is luck in the game, as in real life, so what's the problem?

The problem is that you have yet again failed to present a single thing luck accomplishes in a strategy game that can't otherwise be accomplished by better design, and in fact never even tried. The problem is that you insist on (selectively) using reality in your arguments to support an unrealistic game element in an unrealistic game. The problem is that you have now twice repeated the same canned junk that is used on literally every strategy forum everywhere when a poster can't come up with an actual justification for his position.

Regencies are very powerful from a diplo perspective, which can win you the game as a small nation.

This doesn't make sense.

Granted, if I'm playing OP Castille or England and can colonize, I'd rather get a regency than their trash rulers too (though constantly playing two of the game's strongest starting positions isn't exactly the best thing for varied/strategically deep gameplay). While you *can* get into wars as a regency, you can *not* consistently take over as war leader or pick your targets. Your flexibility is massively gimped, and the attempt to use "realism" there falls flat; regencies did declare war in history.

The best argument for them is the "make monarchies weaker" argument, but with the changes to PU mechanics I would rather have a republic outright, expressly because you're guaranteed against utter junk and having progression slowed down/blocked...not to mention the hidden benefit of using low RT to farm mercantilism.

 

[Viperswhip]

Well, no, I generally play England and Castille, but only because I find small nations boring, and a bit more is left to chance, but not vastly more so. It's easier than Republic, I started a game as Gelre last night, 2 regencies before 1500 and am allied to France, Austria, Denmark and have an RM with Castille. I am actually in the same dynasty now as Austria, a decent shot of inheriting their throne at some point. That's not something you can do with a Republic, and it's harder to get all those alliance without RMs.

I know you can win as a one province Republic, but it's much more difficult. During the regency time I was at war with Burgundy but couldn't get enough warscore to seize a province (you know you can make a separate peace right?), I was only 2 provinces at that time with Cleves as a vassal.

I am not going to convince you that they are an almost necessary annoyance, but I will still get to sleep tonight. What design would you suggest for slowing down monarchies instead?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am not going to convince you that they are an almost necessary annoyance, but I will still get to sleep tonight. What design would you suggest for slowing down monarchies instead?

A combination of re-working PUs (there is no comparable land grab for this luck-dependent and almost entirely Europe limited feature. It can allow 400%+ war score instantly and with pathetically less time/investment and is the only real reason monarchies are superior to republics) and forcing you to invest to influence monarch stats, or perhaps weighting the stats of an heir based on the actions of the rulership during his youth + investment mechanic. There's a lot you could do in theory, even within the constraints of the game mechanics.

There are some actual strong republics btw. Novgorod in human hands can beat Musocvy without too much issue, and Venice can join the empire + has good size to it. There's always the mighty Ambrosian republic too, and Tibet .

(you know you can make a separate peace right?

Only with the war leader, unless you take over war leader.

I am not going to convince you that they are an almost necessary annoyance

Apparently you won't even try, but that's fine I suppose...certainly nothing unusual sadly.

 

[solidprice]

Its ok but I do wish you could use cb's caused by other people (embargo,insult,ect...)

Its ok if you cant use a conquest cb but if im Russia, and ming's diplomat come to my couch,rubs his muddy shoes all over it, then tells me to buy another one, I should be able to wail on his legs! :laugh:

 

[Viperswhip]

A combination of re-working PUs (there is no comparable land grab for this luck-dependent and almost entirely Europe limited feature. It can allow 400%+ war score instantly and with pathetically less time/investment and is the only real reason monarchies are superior to republics) and forcing you to invest to influence monarch stats, or perhaps weighting the stats of an heir based on the actions of the rulership during his youth + investment mechanic. There's a lot you could do in theory, even within the constraints of the game mechanics.

There are some actual strong republics btw. Novgorod in human hands can beat Musocvy without too much issue, and Venice can join the empire + has good size to it. There's always the mighty Ambrosian republic too, and Tibet .



Only with the war leader, unless you take over war leader.



Apparently you won't even try, but that's fine I suppose...certainly nothing unusual sadly.

Well, heh, I am at work, not prepared for a debate and I don't know enough about game mechanics. Of course a Repub that size in human hands can do anything. PUs are not why Monarchies are powerful, just a bonus.

 

[zedyue]

IMO Regencies should behave more like real life, ie the council can still declare war, but since you have a child on the throne (or nobody on the throne) you're a prime target for personal union CB on anyone you share dynasty with / royal marriage with.
Also like +3 RR, regency specific negative events (regency takes control, incompetent regency reduces stability, etc) , and a relations penalty maybe. Operating under a regency should be harder sure, but the no-war thing is pretty much just dumb.

The issue truly revealed by this though is that there's nothing to do while at peace except build buildings and increase relations.

 

[Viperswhip]

So instead of a calm can't go to war, which allows you to build claims, relations, armies, navies, trade and whatever, you'd like a host of event pop ups that tank your country? That's much better.

 

[Alpinia]

So instead of a calm can't go to war, which allows you to build claims, relations, armies, navies, trade and whatever, you'd like a host of event pop ups that tank your country? That's much better.

Yes, it is.

 

[zedyue]

It wouldn't have to destroy your country like a tribal succession crisis, but it should increase internal problems somewhat and give neighbors free CB's on you.

 

[Viperswhip]

It wouldn't have to destroy your country like a tribal succession crisis, but it should increase internal problems somewhat and give neighbors free CB's on you.

Well, if the OP disliked regencies before, I am sure he would love this instead.

 

[tapewormlondon]

Well, if the OP disliked regencies before, I am sure he would love this instead.

I dont think we are suggesting a blanket malus just for having a regency.....because well there is enough of that with the crap monarch point stats and low Legit. What I believe is being suggested is the option to go to war, but with maluses attached to that option.

Choice. Choice to choose one benefit against a negative.....weighing up which is better. A strategy even.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It wouldn't have to destroy your country like a tribal succession crisis, but it should increase internal problems somewhat and give neighbors free CB's on you.

Tribal crises are only problematic if you're not used to horde mechanics. Horde is the best government other than native council, and the best old-world government hands-down. PI clearly agreed, since they nerfed away the ability to westernize with it.