Regencies need to be able to dec wars

[TheMeInTeam]

I didn't mean that. What I'm saying is that westernization hinders your expansion and thus it makes sense to utilize this slow-paced period with most efficiency, by also accomplishing another goal such as government switch.

While I understand what you're saying, 1.8 westernization doesn't hamper expansion as much as earlier patches. More importantly, for MOST nations that want to westernize, taking exploration will shave off decades via colony sniping that you just can't do with the TI in the way. That's not really an issue to Ottoman, Eastern, Muslim, or Horde (they can generally conquer for their border, with varying degrees of difficulty), though. However, all of these need time to fall behind in the first place, and hordes are stuck going economic if they want to use the decision to go republic, since they want an idea group that lets them leave horde government at all...but hordes want to blob hard ASAP and are geared to do that.

Sure, if you're Russia you can tank DIP tech and spam vassals (pressing horde CBs or some such) and westernize + switch government (assuming you're not playing Novgorod outright of course), and in that case you're losing out on utility slightly less, same with nations like Morocco, but in most cases the desire to westernize runs against a desire to be a republic now (in 1.7 when noble rebels made you a noble republic, that wasn't true at all of course).

But let's say you just open religious instead and tear Asia up with that. In the first 80-100 years, you have a pretty darned good chance of proc rev rebels anyway, then just let them win. This is only slightly less reliable than going 2 full idea groups and waiting on ruler situation, from a time perspective.

 

[PirateAE]

Thanks for all the thoughts etc, Literally i sat at speed 5 and did little except keep a hostile Burgundy PU happy as the integration inched its way along, and improved relations with vassels and allies.... nothing much else :/

Edit to add: And with the first league war ending where it did, no one in Europe declared war as basically everyone was out of Manpower, somehow i wasn't(lowest i got was about 60%) but wasn't able to do jack for 13 game years.

 

[solidprice]

You should be able to use some CB'S while regency.

Here is Castile for a example:

You have the first king live long time.spain is the DOTCF Get iberian wedding. Yay.
you make the 0/0/0 a general and he dies shortly before your old king dies with a 1 year old heir. You completed exploration.
You are now in regency.

What would the Castilian or any Nobility would be comfortable with?

My guess for CB'S the late 14th ' Castilian nobility would be:
1. Reconquest/restore union
in case BBB took some land from them, aragon or Naples gets uppity, or going for granada late. What Nobel wouldn't want their damn land back? :angry:

2. colonial conquest/overseas expansion:
Usually for most nations you're not gonna keep the land, it's going to your trade company/colonial nation.
It's understanding to not wanna fight a European war with no king. but to beat up some "primitives", get free slave labor,send the Jesuit priest to make happy with the pope man, and Moar land and gold?
It's hard to say no to easy money. :wub:
Besides, it's outta site, outta mind for the peasants. They will actually love new land to call home!^.^

In short, any overseas war should be fair game imo.

My 2 cents. Maybe a few more CB'S like nationalisms and imperialism to encourage dip leveling instead of using it as a dump stat so I can take more land or spam culture convert. Not to mention it's late game,who wants to wait late game?

 

[bbqftw]

if heir system wasn't so non-transparent to manage, I could get behind no wars during regency.

 

[Hakuromatsu]

In essence the concept is stupid. Wars were actually fought even during regencies, damn, they were fought all the time. If the king wasn't of age, decisions were made FOR him by his regents. You'll find no instance in history whatsoever where a war was not waged on the grounds that King X was only 12 years old

One of the problems is that EUIV has an inconsistent perspective. Are you playing the king? An advisor to the king? Someone else close to the king? Some invisible hand guiding the path of your nation? The collective public consciousness of your nation's people? The inability of regencies to DOW suggests that you are playing the king himself, but that's contradicted so many times in other areas of the game.

 

[Jomini]

I haven't had much time to play EUIV of late, but I will put in a plug for getting rid of this ahistorical game breaking garbage. The last MP game I tried saw me snag a unit upgrade 5 years ahead of schedule, burn off all my gold cranking out troops in preparation for a major thrashing ... and then getting a twelve year 1/2/0 regency council as I'm waiting for morale to top back up. Sure the king dying just before the war starts should have consequences, but not more than, oh every decision I made in the last hour of gameplay. Watching a major opportunity die to a single die roll is utter garbage.


In general, monarchs are vastly overpowered for both history and gameplay. One of the single biggest trends of the period was the importance of the monarchy fading (such that outright insane rulers could field successful armies and beat countries with far superior titular heads). Gameplay wise, I could understand monarchy being a crapshoot ... if Pdox wasn't determined to nuke every other option into oblivion. For instance, why on earth are we requiring two idea groups and a province cap instead of oh say just taking aristocratic and staying under a province cap? Why are hordes perpetually knee capped when they were some of the most successful states of the era?

 

[zodium]

I haven't had much time to play EUIV of late, but I will put in a plug for getting rid of this ahistorical game breaking garbage. The last MP game I tried saw me snag a unit upgrade 5 years ahead of schedule, burn off all my gold cranking out troops in preparation for a major thrashing ... and then getting a twelve year 1/2/0 regency council as I'm waiting for morale to top back up. Sure the king dying just before the war starts should have consequences, but not more than, oh every decision I made in the last hour of gameplay. Watching a major opportunity die to a single die roll is utter garbage.


In general, monarchs are vastly overpowered for both history and gameplay. One of the single biggest trends of the period was the importance of the monarchy fading (such that outright insane rulers could field successful armies and beat countries with far superior titular heads). Gameplay wise, I could understand monarchy being a crapshoot ... if Pdox wasn't determined to nuke every other option into oblivion. For instance, why on earth are we requiring two idea groups and a province cap instead of oh say just taking aristocratic and staying under a province cap? Why are hordes perpetually knee capped when they were some of the most successful states of the era?

I remember how I used to read your posts and go "What an insightful synthesis of valid historical and gameplay concerns."

 

[Ultrix Prime]

Whether it's declare wars, or do something else, the thing about RC's is that they make the game boring. This is a big reason why I like playing religious governments - no RCs.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Whether it's declare wars, or do something else, the thing about RC's is that they make the game boring. This is a big reason why I like playing religious governments - no RCs.

If only they didn't make it so theocracies have no -LA built into their government . The only theocratic government I find tolerable in 1.8 is the Papacy which does at least have -.1 in addition to TTF (which is higher due to unique NI).

At -.1 per month, an annexed vassal would need 750 months of peace to completely lose LA with a theocracy...or around 62 years of peace, with the only other alternative being to manually lower it and tank the rebels. Admittedly, the +2 TTF makes that somewhat more attractive as an option, but after the despotic monarchy timeframe it feels increasingly weak.

 

[zodium]

If only they didn't make it so theocracies have no -LA built into their government . The only theocratic government I find tolerable in 1.8 is the Papacy which does at least have -.1 in addition to TTF (which is higher due to unique NI).

At -.1 per month, an annexed vassal would need 750 months of peace to completely lose LA with a theocracy...or around 62 years of peace, with the only other alternative being to manually lower it and tank the rebels. Admittedly, the +2 TTF makes that somewhat more attractive as an option, but after the despotic monarchy timeframe it feels increasingly weak.

Yeah, the lack of LA is an annoying oversight. (I hope.) I miss playing theocracies.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah, the lack of LA is an annoying oversight. (I hope.) I miss playing theocracies.

Are you sure it's an oversight? Most of the Christian theocracies can form something to lose the government type, except Papal State (where they deliberately added it). Teutonic/Riga/LO all can go Prussia, others can go Dutch/Prussia. Knights can go KoJ, though I'm not sure that swaps your government, but they're not exactly a popular start. The non-Christian ones are Ajuraan, Mzab, and one of the Tibet candidates, and they're kind of screwed since they pretty much have to rely on revolutionary rebels to switch out.

I suppose you can go humanist/religious and wind up with -2 unrest +6 TTF (religious, base, theocracy, maybe even +7 for Sunni or Catholic). Knights get -2 unrest and Ajuraan/Tibet get -1 from NIs, so you can get to +7 TTF and -4 unrest with knights via humanist/religious, or 7/3 as Ajuraan. Still, even if you lower LA that amounts to -.83 LA per year from the lowering, less than you'd get even with an administrative monarchy or iqta while at war. Provinces at 0 autonomy already are very stable though, so if you build up a strong original area maybe you just go nuts with vassals/coring and not care that you don't get 100% from it.

It's not idea but you can live with it I guess. It makes life really hard for Knights that stay Catholic and Mzab that stays Ibadi though .

 

[ahyangyi]

It is a bad game design IMHO. They were looking for another way the player will be locked from expanding (on a temporary basis) and used regency as an excuse. Regencies have the potential to be quite a big and depthy (is that a word?) mechanic of the game and instead is shoehorned into the road of co...warblocker.

The word you are looking for ls "deep"

 

[balmung60]

Are you sure it's an oversight? Most of the Christian theocracies can form something to lose the government type, except Papal State (where they deliberately added it). Teutonic/Riga/LO all can go Prussia, others can go Dutch/Prussia. Knights can go KoJ, though I'm not sure that swaps your government, but they're not exactly a popular start. The non-Christian ones are Ajuraan, Mzab, and one of the Tibet candidates, and they're kind of screwed since they pretty much have to rely on revolutionary rebels to switch out.

I suppose you can go humanist/religious and wind up with -2 unrest +6 TTF (religious, base, theocracy, maybe even +7 for Sunni or Catholic). Knights get -2 unrest and Ajuraan/Tibet get -1 from NIs, so you can get to +7 TTF and -4 unrest with knights via humanist/religious, or 7/3 as Ajuraan. Still, even if you lower LA that amounts to -.83 LA per year from the lowering, less than you'd get even with an administrative monarchy or iqta while at war. Provinces at 0 autonomy already are very stable though, so if you build up a strong original area maybe you just go nuts with vassals/coring and not care that you don't get 100% from it.

It's not idea but you can live with it I guess. It makes life really hard for Knights that stay Catholic and Mzab that stays Ibadi though .

Riga and LO will stay theocracies if they form Prussia - they're supposed to form Kurland to get a normal government.

Any non-Papal States Italian theocracy has no easy out (Italy only makes you a monarchy if you were a republic).

Non-Dutch (form Netherlands, become Dutch Republic), Rheinlander, or Hessian (Rheinlanders and Hessians can form Westphalia and become a constitutional monarchy) Germanic theocracies also have no easy way out.

KoJ doesn't change government, so no easy way out for the Knights.

All the rest of the theocracies either have to get their government changed by rebels, become Rheinlander/Hessian and form Westphalia, become Dutch and form the Netherlands, be/become some Maghrebi culture and annex Morocco and reform it (changes any government to despotic monarchy) (Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, however, will not work and only change tribal governments to monarchies), become Egyptian and form Egypt (any government -> despotic monarchy), become Greek and Orthodox and restore the Byzantine Empire, form a colonial nation and play as that, or hope for the event "Scheming Bureaucracy".

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Ouch, I forgot that Prussia is a unique TO thing for monarchy.

Mzab can of course form out of Mzab then, since taking down Morocco is going to happen soon-ish if you want to live long. Both they and Ajuraan can form Egypt too of course but that's really late in the game.

The Tibet decision doesn't swap government then?

I guess for the really stuck guys you just take religious + aristocratic soonish. Your mtth for revolutionary rebels isn't too bad if you have both, and in the short run religious tapers well with your government bonus anyway. I noted in another thread that just taking aristocratic ASAP gives you a reasonable chance to get rev rebels faster than you can possibly finish 2 idea groups to switch to a republic, so if you're an Italian minor or Knights I guess that's the route to go, especially if you're otherwise waiting until ADM 20+ you'll almost certainly get them multiple times before that.

I would be a bit happier if you could accept rev rebel demands or if they brought back noble rebels flipping you. Crazier things have happened in history on pain of death, same with pretenders, but it gives the player some room to work when it comes to governments without being too wonky.

 

[balmung60]

Ouch, I forgot that Prussia is a unique TO thing for monarchy.

Mzab can of course form out of Mzab then, since taking down Morocco is going to happen soon-ish if you want to live long. Both they and Ajuraan can form Egypt too of course but that's really late in the game.

The Tibet decision doesn't swap government then?

I guess for the really stuck guys you just take religious + aristocratic soonish. Your mtth for revolutionary rebels isn't too bad if you have both, and in the short run religious tapers well with your government bonus anyway. I noted in another thread that just taking aristocratic ASAP gives you a reasonable chance to get rev rebels faster than you can possibly finish 2 idea groups to switch to a republic, so if you're an Italian minor or Knights I guess that's the route to go, especially if you're otherwise waiting until ADM 20+ you'll almost certainly get them multiple times before that.

I would be a bit happier if you could accept rev rebel demands or if they brought back noble rebels flipping you. Crazier things have happened in history on pain of death, same with pretenders, but it gives the player some room to work when it comes to governments without being too wonky.

Tibet gets an event to either change their government to a theocracy or stay whatever they were before (and take a big stabhit and get a bunch of religious rebels).

Or if Ironman doesn't matter to you, my minimod lets you, you know, adopt secular administration by decision and adds it to forming Jerusalem as the Knights. You know, because I have to work in some shameless self promotion.

 

[DicRoNero]

While I understand what you're saying, 1.8 westernization doesn't hamper expansion as much as earlier patches. More importantly, for MOST nations that want to westernize, taking exploration will shave off decades via colony sniping that you just can't do with the TI in the way. That's not really an issue to Ottoman, Eastern, Muslim, or Horde (they can generally conquer for their border, with varying degrees of difficulty), though. However, all of these need time to fall behind in the first place, and hordes are stuck going economic if they want to use the decision to go republic, since they want an idea group that lets them leave horde government at all...but hordes want to blob hard ASAP and are geared to do that.

Sure, if you're Russia you can tank DIP tech and spam vassals (pressing horde CBs or some such) and westernize + switch government (assuming you're not playing Novgorod outright of course), and in that case you're losing out on utility slightly less, same with nations like Morocco, but in most cases the desire to westernize runs against a desire to be a republic now (in 1.7 when noble rebels made you a noble republic, that wasn't true at all of course).

But let's say you just open religious instead and tear Asia up with that. In the first 80-100 years, you have a pretty darned good chance of proc rev rebels anyway, then just let them win. This is only slightly less reliable than going 2 full idea groups and waiting on ruler situation, from a time perspective.

I gave it another thought and seems like you're right, picking Influence+Aristocracy to turn into Noble Republic isn't all that good. The reason I want it is getting Administrative Republic later, but since one slot is taken by not so useful idea group at the expense of early Religious, the culture conversion gets delayed and thus the benefits are moot. Besides, becoming Republic before proclaiming Erbkaisertum means having hard time claiming the title once you need it. So yeah, better hope proper rebels pop up mid-game.