Regent and Guardian

[unmerged(149861)]

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

The player wouldn't sit idle. They would still control their demense and part of their levies and taxes (with the regent skimming most or hardly any off for themselves).

Frankly, I'd rather have limited control than my realm being a ultra-stable place of friends ruled by a drooling two year old with a inbred priest as regent.

 

[SirDraco]

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

If they added a lot more plots and events for a player who has a regent then you wouldn't be doing nothing.

The player wouldn't sit idle. They would still control their demense and part of their levies and taxes (with the regent skimming most or hardly any off for themselves).

Frankly, I'd rather have limited control than my realm being a ultra-stable place of friends ruled by a drooling two year old with a inbred priest as regent.

Yeah the player could keep control of his demense but would not have control over the whole Kingdom. Also undoing the mistakes of your regent, if you disagreed with what he did, would make the post regent game a bit more interesting.

It would be interesting if your regent pressed some of his own claims into the kingdom of your uncle, for instance you are the King of England and your mother's brother is the King of Scotland. It would be good if when you came of age your uncle demanded his territory back and you got the option to give it back to him or go to war to defend it.

 

[unmerged(149861)]

If they added a lot more plots and events for a player who has a regent then you wouldn't be doing nothing.



Yeah the player could keep control of his demense but would not have control over the whole Kingdom. Also undoing the mistakes of your regent, if you disagreed with what he did, would make the post regent game a bit more interesting.

It would be interesting if your regent pressed some of his own claims into the kingdom of your uncle, for instance you are the King of England and your mother's brother is the King of Scotland. It would be good if when you came of age your uncle demanded his territory back and you got the option to give it back to him or go to war to defend it.

To add to your last point, things would be exceptionally interesting if your regent holds a claim on your own kingdom. What better position to usurp a kingdom than from your position as regent.

 

[Torngasuk]

I'm pretty sure there is already an event for regents usurping your power.

 

[unmerged(149861)]

I'm pretty sure there is already an event for regents usurping your power.

Directly? As in, you die or are imprisoned and your regent takes your primary title? I've seen the events where you get land given away, but not that.

Even so, regencies are still badly implamented.

 

[Torngasuk]

Directly? As in, you die or are imprisoned and your regent takes your primary title? I've seen the events where you get land given away, but not that.

Yep. Here you go, I triggered it:

 

[SirDraco]

Yep. Here you go, I triggered it:

Are you, as regent, able to do this though? As while we have been talking about the player being the King, all thats been suggested should also be able to happen if you are regent.

 

[Torngasuk]

Yes. It's specifically triggered by an event that occurs for the regent.

 

[SirDraco]

Is it just a random event if the regent has a claim or can the regent actually plot etc to make it happen?

 

[Torngasuk]

It's the end of a event-plot arc where you have your ruler declared insane and have them placed under house arrest in order to prolong the regency.

 

[SirDraco]

It's the end of a event-plot arc where you have your ruler declared insane and have them placed under house arrest in order to prolong the regency.

Ahh interesting. Still there could still be loads added to regency to make them more interesting.

 

[unmerged(149861)]

Are you, as regent, able to do this though? As while we have been talking about the player being the King, all thats been suggested should also be able to happen if you are regent.

I've never seen that before. It should be happening a great deal more, I think. Regents should also try less extreme measures, such as attempting to revoke titles from lords who oppose their position as regent and then either keeping those lands or granting them to their supporters.

Also, who is that regent in the screenshot? A randomly generated courtier, or is he from a powerfull family? If the former, it shows you how stupid the regent system is when a nobody can rule a powerful kingdom over the heads of great dukes and such.

 

[Torngasuk]

A randomly-generated bishop serving as court chaplain, I think. Started a new game as him, and the regent is a randomly-generated steward.

 

[SirDraco]

Just thinking about the Edward III example from earlier. It would be interesting as well if the Queen and her lover could conspire to get rid of the King so that they can have control the under age heir as regent

 

[Faulty]

Regencies are less stable already:

- Ruler has close to no prestige so no opinion bonus
- Ruler has a short reign opinion penalty
- Ruler has "liege is a child" opinion penalty
- Weak claims can be pressed

 

[unmerged(149861)]

A randomly-generated bishop serving as court chaplain, I think. Started a new game as him, and the regent is a randomly-generated steward.

Well...

Regencies are less stable already:

- Ruler has close to no prestige so no opinion bonus
- Ruler has a short reign opinion penalty
- Ruler has "liege is a child" opinion penalty
- Weak claims can be pressed

Regencies are just too stable, frankly, there should be wars every few years, and low crown authority should be active throughout the reign of regents.

 

[Faulty]

Regencies are just too stable, frankly, there should be wars every few years, and low crown authority should be active throughout the reign of regents.

There should only be wars if there are reasons for wars, like low opinions (which regencies already have!)

Crown authority represents the institutions and bureaucracies that are established over time, not the literal charisma of the king. That's why you can only raise it once per lifetime. It shouldn't evaporate over night.

 

[Gqarz]

I do agree that regencies should be tough times for the monarchy. There were many instances of wars over regency and care of the child monarch. The player in a regency does not really have to sit by the sidelines. They could play the regent who basically acts as the ruler until the next player king character comes of age. There could and should be numerous disadvantages to playing the regent such as, not being able to wage offensive wars, unable to expand personal demesne, unable to form new treaties, but able to complete those already in the works ie. betrothals. Unable to change crown laws. They SHOULD be very vulnerable to plots that involve lowering crown authority, and reducing noble taxes and levies.

 

[Faulty]

I do agree that regencies should be tough times for the monarchy. There were many instances of wars over regency and care of the child monarch. The player in a regency does not really have to sit by the sidelines. They could play the regent who basically acts as the ruler until the next player king character comes of age. There could and should be numerous disadvantages to playing the regent such as, not being able to wage offensive wars, unable to expand personal demesne, unable to form new treaties, but able to complete those already in the works ie. betrothals. Unable to change crown laws. They SHOULD be very vulnerable to plots that involve lowering crown authority, and reducing noble taxes and levies.

They are vulnerable to all of those things already, they have bad opinions with their vassals. I also don't think it makes sense to let the player control their regent, it goes against the spirit of playing as characters rather than as a nation (besides which, the regent shouldn't share the motivations of the ruler)

 

[NewbieOne]

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?

I agree that having Regent as a simple honorific title is silly. Also, the Spymaster becoming the default regent is silly. Or a mayor becoming the regent of a kingdom before dukes and kinsmen or even immediate family.

Likewise, the "prince consort" getting nothing more than the title is kinda silly too but probably necessary for the sake of simplicity.

Any declarations of war, changes to laws, council appointments and grants or revocation of titles should go through the regent and be voided by his veto, although he might be replaced (Replace Regent CB?).

They are vulnerable to all of those things already, they have bad opinions with their vassals. I also don't think it makes sense to let the player control their regent, it goes against the spirit of playing as characters rather than as a nation (besides which, the regent shouldn't share the motivations of the ruler)

Event-based vetoing would work. Or just cutting off some options and decisions (especially DoW).