Regent and Guardian

[unmerged(149861)]

Basicly, being a regent sucks. At best, you can pilfer some cash from your leige. At worst, the little brat kills you by shoving you off a balcony. Countries that are ruled by a four year old aren't showing the instability that should be the bane of every house and kingdom.

This shouldn't be the case. Being the regent should be the same as being de-facto king or ruler, able to rasie levies and collect the taxes from the child's demense (with a malus depending on traits, because a content or honest regent would'nt want the cash, while a greedy or deceitful regent might want even more). As a result, the position of regent should be contested bitterly by the most powerful nobles of the realm, not some lowborn ,weak regents being quickly turfed out and lords coming to battle over who looks after their leige until he is of age.

There should also be a bonus for being guardian as well as regent to the underage ruler, as this would translate to a very close relationship between the regent and the child, and so a regent and guardian should be nigh impossible to push out of power. That is, if the child and the guardian have a good relationship.

Some more events would be nice as well, for example having nobles rally to the banner of the underaged king to depose a tyrannical regent, with the king's defeat leading him to be imprisoned and the regent reign in his stead. Edward III is a great source for things like this.

Thoughts?

 

[SirDraco]

I agree with pretty much everything you said. There should be more power for regents. It would be great to see factions made to make someone else regent etc. Another example to add to your Edward III one would be that the Wars of the Roses originally started over who got to be in control of the King.

I don't think they should get as much power as the King does but should have some power.

 

[Torngasuk]

Due to the circumstances in which they are used, I lean more towards regents taking over the role of the ruler for the duration of the regency. An imprisoned ruler isn't going to be able to do a lot of ruling for his realm from a dungeon halfway across the world. An incapable ruler is, by definition, incapable of ruling. A 1-year old infant usually makes for a terrible negotiator at diplomatic meetings.

 

[anonymouswolfm]

Due to the circumstances in which they are used, I lean more towards regents taking over the role of the ruler for the duration of the regency..

In such case if the player's ruler is the minor does the player control the minor or the regent? If former, does it not mean that the player would be basically doing nothing for the whole period of the regency? If latter, then do you switch roles again when the regency ends? How does that also accommodate for MP games?

 

[Torngasuk]

The player would be basically doing nothing, yes. I have no objection to doing nothing if I make the mistake of getting myself captured or placing an incompetent ruler on the throne.

 

[SirDraco]

The player would be basically doing nothing, yes. I have no objection to doing nothing if I make the mistake of getting myself captured or placing an incompetent ruler on the throne.

I agree with this. Have some plots available. For instance if you are a captive then a plot to escape etc. Also if its a regency for a child monarch as the child gets older then give him more power, have him start plots etc.

 

[Torngasuk]

Another thing I'd like to see in relation to this: increased roles for council members. If a regent were able to choose members of the council, then he could promote friends and allies to it, who in turn might then aid him in the future when he is no longer regent.

If someone is trying to fabricate a claim on his title, he might go to his cousin the royal spymaster to guarantee that the man disappears.

If he is running out of cash, he might go to his uncle the steward to obtain a small loan from the royal treasury.

If he is thought poorly of or even excommunicated by the Pope, then perhaps he will ask his half-brother the chaplain to intercede on his behalf and put in a good word.

 

[SirDraco]

Another thing I'd like to see in relation to this: increased roles for council members. If a regent were able to choose members of the council, then he could promote friends and allies to it, who in turn might then aid him in the future when he is no longer regent.

If someone is trying to fabricate a claim on his title, he might go to his cousin the royal spymaster to guarantee that the man disappears.

If he is running out of cash, he might go to his uncle the steward to obtain a small loan from the royal treasury.

If he is thought poorly of or even excommunicated by the Pope, then perhaps he will ask his half-brother the chaplain to intercede on his behalf and put in a good word.

This is a must, it will also cause people fired from the council to work against the regent to either replace him or get their position back. A regency should always be a time of conflict between the families of the kingdom over who gets the most power and control over the King. So there should always be something trying to replace the current regent or trying to get on friendly terms with him.

 

[Kaiser Ludwig]

+>9000

 

[Mods]

I do not want to give entire control to the AI, that would be awful
This is one of those thing where gameplay>realism
There could be more events where regents take your stuff though, that's fine

 

[Torngasuk]

Another suggestion: a significant portion of prestige and piety (perhaps half) earned during a regency should go to the regent. My 1-year old infant ruler did not win that crusade himself, after all.

 

[unmerged(149861)]

I agree with pretty much everything you said. There should be more power for regents. It would be great to see factions made to make someone else regent etc. Another example to add to your Edward III one would be that the Wars of the Roses originally started over who got to be in control of the King.

I don't think they should get as much power as the King does but should have some power.

It should depend on the age of the king. The regent should have much more power while the king is still in the cradle, but lose it as he get's older. Of course, if the regent can supress the king and keep his current rights, I see no reason why he should carry on as "regent" even after the king comes of age, though this should be very very hard to bring about.

 

[unmerged(149861)]

I do not want to give entire control to the AI, that would be awful
This is one of those thing where gameplay>realism
There could be more events where regents take your stuff though, that's fine

A child being king, was frankly a disaster in these times. The game just doesn't represent that. A great deal more fighting over who should look after babby king would solve that, and the AI making a few bad calls would only add to that.

What would you rather see; a regent send all your levies up against a HRE doomstack, or a 0-0-0-0-3 skilled courtier being the regent to the French King. What one is more realistic, and what one is bad for gameplay?

 

[tnick0225]

I'm all for it...be nothing funner then recovering from a regency after my king gets gored by a pig

 

[Kaliptra]

I think the idea is good, but it must be different phases of a regency. A 14 years old boy can rebelled against his regent to try finish it whereas a 4 years old boy certainly wouldn't do that.

 

[lolciokuba]

These are great ideas, i always thought regency which was incredibly powerful position; was underrepresented in the game. Like others i would love to see plots and factions related to this issue, and way more possible events because at the moment it just seems like a wasted opportunity. It would also be cool to introduce some sort of Interregnum mechanic in case of a extremely bitter dynastic conflict or when a line of dynasty dies out.

 

[Kimberly]

I think the idea is good, but it must be different phases of a regency. A 14 years old boy can rebelled against his regent to try finish it whereas a 4 years old boy certainly wouldn't do that.

At the moment, I don't think the game supports under-16's ruling without a regent. You can set the age children need a regent at in defines.lua, but that applies globally.

 

[Kaliptra]

At the moment, I don't think the game supports under-16's ruling without a regent. You can set the age children need a regent at in defines.lua, but that applies globally.

However it would possible to make a regent a puppet of the monarchy, it wouldn't?

 

[Torngasuk]

I think the idea is good, but it must be different phases of a regency. A 14 years old boy can rebelled against his regent to try finish it whereas a 4 years old boy certainly wouldn't do that.

That seems fairly easy to implement. You'd just need to set the prerequisites for certain events so that they only trigger if the ruler is above a certain age.

A ruler nearing the end of their regency, but suspecting that their regent might be...disinclined to relinquish control, might then try acquire allies to force through a change of regency to someone more pliable.

 

[Tempestra]

I think forcing the player to sit there and do nothing while the AI plays their country would be a no-no.