I was thinking about a new mechanic for monarchies that would add regents that can be appointed via decisions or a new button.
There would be two ways to get a regent. You would either choose a random noble or politician of your country or you could choose one of your advisors.
Choosing the former would generate a regent with random stats that range from 0 to 3, but he'll at least have 1 MP (so there would be no 0/0/0 regents, but you could get a 0/1/0 if you're unlucky).
Choosing the latter would make your advisor regent. His position becomes free (so you can appoint a new advisor) and he will retain his MP bonus as one of his stats, while the other two stats are randomly generated (but they can't be higher than his advisor stat. So a +2 DIP advisor turned into a regent could get 2/2/0 stats or 1/2/1, but not 3/2/2).
The best possible outcome would be a 3/3/3 regent.
However, appointing a regent will have its drawbacks. First and foremost, your ruler's stats will be capped at 3. So if you have a 4/2/5 ruler and appoint a regent, his stats will become 3/2/3. Having a 2/2/2 ruler won't change anything.
A regent will cost gold to maintain, haven't thought about a number yet, maybe three times higher than his advisor wage (a randomly generated regent would use the same numbers, which will be determined through his highest stat, but that could become a problem if you get a very good and expensive regent in early game when you lack income).
Appointing a regent would further reduce legitimacy by 20 and stability by 1.
Having a regent would give a country modifier that reduces legitimacy and Dip Rep (and maybe prestige, too), as well as increases stability cost and maybe global unrest. Perhaps the harshness of the modifier could be tied to government rank. An Empire would get harsher penalties than a Duchy. This would be mostly because an Empire rank government should have enough income to field better advisors and thus get better regents and more MP in general.
While having a regent, there could be several events with positive and negative effects. One event could raise stability by 1, another event could further decrease legitimacy or prestige.
If your monarch dies without an heir or the heir doesn't have a strong claim while a regent is active, there may be a chance (depending on stability, legitimacy and maybe other factors) that your regent may attempt to usurp the throne. You would have a choice to accept or decline. Accepting will make your regent a ruler and if he has 3 in one stat, he might get an increase there (to simulate the removal of the stat cap, a 3/3/3 regent could become 6/6/6 with a lot of luck. A lot.) or not. If otherwise, a noble from your dynasty would have succeeded (you will be told what his stats would be), the noble will rise as a pretender. If your country would have fallen under a PU, a succession war will start.
Declining will cause the regent to rise in rebellion with a few pretender stacks and perhaps give some sort of temporary civil war modifier.
You could dismiss your regent again after 5-10 years or so, which would cost money (similar to dismissing advisors, just more expensive) and reduce stability. This would remove the penalizing regent modifier mentioned above. When a new monarch is crowned, you will be presented with an option to keep the regent or retire him, which in this case would be cheaper and not result in a stability loss. Again, this option will pop up when a new ruler is crowned, not when your current ruler dies. In the case that your heir is too young to be crowned right away, your regent will replace the Regency Council (which won't enable DOWs though until that is changed in vanilla, in order to prevent exploitation).
The idea about this suggestion is basically to give the player a chance to be less dependent on the RNG's mercy while playing monarchies. If you have a bad monarch, you could appoint a regent and get more MP, but this would have several drawbacks as mentioned above. If you have a good monarch, choosing a regent wouldn't be as viable. Appointing a regent for a 5/5/5 ruler (and especially a 6/6/6 ruler) would much likely result in less MP than you had before with additional penalties.
Of course, your ruler's stats will be saved when appointing a regent. So your 4/0/0 ruler who becomes a 3/0/0 ruler due to the stat cap would regain his 4/0/0 stats when the regent is dismissed.
There would be two ways to get a regent. You would either choose a random noble or politician of your country or you could choose one of your advisors.
Choosing the former would generate a regent with random stats that range from 0 to 3, but he'll at least have 1 MP (so there would be no 0/0/0 regents, but you could get a 0/1/0 if you're unlucky).
Choosing the latter would make your advisor regent. His position becomes free (so you can appoint a new advisor) and he will retain his MP bonus as one of his stats, while the other two stats are randomly generated (but they can't be higher than his advisor stat. So a +2 DIP advisor turned into a regent could get 2/2/0 stats or 1/2/1, but not 3/2/2).
The best possible outcome would be a 3/3/3 regent.
However, appointing a regent will have its drawbacks. First and foremost, your ruler's stats will be capped at 3. So if you have a 4/2/5 ruler and appoint a regent, his stats will become 3/2/3. Having a 2/2/2 ruler won't change anything.
A regent will cost gold to maintain, haven't thought about a number yet, maybe three times higher than his advisor wage (a randomly generated regent would use the same numbers, which will be determined through his highest stat, but that could become a problem if you get a very good and expensive regent in early game when you lack income).
Appointing a regent would further reduce legitimacy by 20 and stability by 1.
Having a regent would give a country modifier that reduces legitimacy and Dip Rep (and maybe prestige, too), as well as increases stability cost and maybe global unrest. Perhaps the harshness of the modifier could be tied to government rank. An Empire would get harsher penalties than a Duchy. This would be mostly because an Empire rank government should have enough income to field better advisors and thus get better regents and more MP in general.
While having a regent, there could be several events with positive and negative effects. One event could raise stability by 1, another event could further decrease legitimacy or prestige.
If your monarch dies without an heir or the heir doesn't have a strong claim while a regent is active, there may be a chance (depending on stability, legitimacy and maybe other factors) that your regent may attempt to usurp the throne. You would have a choice to accept or decline. Accepting will make your regent a ruler and if he has 3 in one stat, he might get an increase there (to simulate the removal of the stat cap, a 3/3/3 regent could become 6/6/6 with a lot of luck. A lot.) or not. If otherwise, a noble from your dynasty would have succeeded (you will be told what his stats would be), the noble will rise as a pretender. If your country would have fallen under a PU, a succession war will start.
Declining will cause the regent to rise in rebellion with a few pretender stacks and perhaps give some sort of temporary civil war modifier.
You could dismiss your regent again after 5-10 years or so, which would cost money (similar to dismissing advisors, just more expensive) and reduce stability. This would remove the penalizing regent modifier mentioned above. When a new monarch is crowned, you will be presented with an option to keep the regent or retire him, which in this case would be cheaper and not result in a stability loss. Again, this option will pop up when a new ruler is crowned, not when your current ruler dies. In the case that your heir is too young to be crowned right away, your regent will replace the Regency Council (which won't enable DOWs though until that is changed in vanilla, in order to prevent exploitation).
The idea about this suggestion is basically to give the player a chance to be less dependent on the RNG's mercy while playing monarchies. If you have a bad monarch, you could appoint a regent and get more MP, but this would have several drawbacks as mentioned above. If you have a good monarch, choosing a regent wouldn't be as viable. Appointing a regent for a 5/5/5 ruler (and especially a 6/6/6 ruler) would much likely result in less MP than you had before with additional penalties.
Of course, your ruler's stats will be saved when appointing a regent. So your 4/0/0 ruler who becomes a 3/0/0 ruler due to the stat cap would regain his 4/0/0 stats when the regent is dismissed.
Upvote
0