There should be more ways to lose legitimacy

[HypnoSkales]

I saw that the Shogunate's abilities are being changed are their cost is now 50 monarch power instead of 20 legitimacy..... Seriously, what even is the use of legitimacy in this game? You almost always have 100 of it and don't have to worry about it anyways (sometimes you lose 3 or 5 on a royal marriage, but that's it I guess). At least with prestige you can placate subjects, but with legitimacy? Nothing. It just sits there, always at 100. That's why I really enjoyed playing as a shogun or as a hindu nation (switching hindu deities gives like -20 or more legitimacy) - because I actually had to worry about this resource. I actually appreciated the little +1's and +0.5's modifiers that I got in those games. But now, as f.ex. Poland? I don't have to care about it. At all. Even though I have a monument (Malbork castle) that gives me +0.5/+1 legitimacy, I don't need to care about it, since I'm always at 100. A possible solution to this "issue" would be that maybe heirs shouldn't go up to 100 legitimacy. Maybe it should be capped at something like 60 or even 80. There's no way that a 14 year old child is going to convince their whole court that they're a truly legitimate heir to their country. It's unrealistic. Either cap the heir claim strength or make it grow slower, so that an heir only gets to 100 legitimacy when they're in their 20s or 30s. Probably the 2nd option would be better, since the game even has a +0.5 monthly heir claim increase in one of the government reforms ("Uparaja succession"), which is currently literally the most useless reform in the game, probably even more useless than the "Feudal nobility" tier 1 one.

 

[fireandplague]

Yes, when contrasted with Republican Tradition and to a lesser extent Devotion and Meritocracy, Legitimacy is too easy. As a Republic you're constantly thinking about your RT and making decisions about tradeoffs between it and other resources (primarily monarch points). Why is Legitimacy even in the game if all the devs do is keep reducing its relevance?

 

[Opanashc]

Disinherit heirs, to get the perfect one, just to have a hunting accident, and start all over.

 

[HypnoSkales]

Disinherit heirs, to get the perfect one, just to have a hunting accident, and start all over.

That costs prestige, not legitimacy

But when thinking about it.... yeah, maybe it should cost -20 legitimacy instead of -50 prestige. That would make a lot more sense.

 

[fireandplague]

That costs prestige, not legitimacy

But when thinking about it.... yeah, maybe it should cost -20 legitimacy instead of -50 prestige. That would make a lot more sense.

I'd be behind it costing both, maybe -25 prestige, -25 legitimacy, or even -50/-25

 

[FishieFan]

Yes, when contrasted with Republican Tradition and to a lesser extent Devotion and Meritocracy, Legitimacy is too easy. As a Republic you're constantly thinking about your RT and making decisions about tradeoffs between it and other resources (primarily monarch points). Why is Legitimacy even in the game if all the devs do is keep reducing its relevance?

Because a monarchy doesnt need to prove itself legitimate it just is. Whereas theocracies need to prove theyre pious, republics need to prove theyre not dictatorships, chinese empires need to be meritocratic.

 

[fireandplague]

Because a monarchy doesnt need to prove itself legitimate it just is. Whereas theocracies need to prove theyre pious, republics need to prove theyre not dictatorships, chinese empires need to be meritocratic.

Why do we even have legitimacy then? Just get rid of it.

In reality though, monarchies remained legitimate because they took great pains to remain so. There certainly was not a lot of disinheriting, even though I'm sure many monarchs would have viewed second sons or nephews or cousins as better rulers. Part of the foundation of their legitimacy rested on the fact that succession followed the laws of heredity. And there were monarchies that never successfully established a system of legitimacy, such as the Roman/Byzantine Empire. This enabled regular military coups replacing the ruling dynasty.

As far as implementing some things in the game, I'd also be behind female rulers giving -0.50 or even -1.00 yearly legitimacy depending on religion and culture, to reflect the sexism of the time. After all, Queen Elizabeth was constantly pretending to look for a husband, to deflect the murmurings that a woman couldn't rule on her own without a man by her side. Eventually this did become more farcical and stopped altogether as her power base grew stronger.

 

[Banedon Runestar]

Because a monarchy doesnt need to prove itself legitimate it just is. Whereas theocracies need to prove theyre pious, republics need to prove theyre not dictatorships, chinese empires need to be meritocratic.

Legitimacy isn't a measure of how how well monarchies are viewed as a governing system.
Legitimacy measures how much support there is for the current occupant of the throne (or heirs) vs other potential claimants.

 

[apcio]

Yes, when contrasted with Republican Tradition and to a lesser extent Devotion and Meritocracy, Legitimacy is too easy. As a Republic you're constantly thinking about your RT and making decisions about tradeoffs between it and other resources (primarily monarch points). Why is Legitimacy even in the game if all the devs do is keep reducing its relevance?

Legitimacy is easy to get but also got the worst bonuses. While for RT, Devotion and meritocracy you get reform progress growth, for legitimacy you get +1 diplomatic reputation, and that's only at 100 legitimacy. It also does not allow you to get 6/6/6 ruler as easly as RT does, so it being the easiest to get has it drawbacks, and having low legitimacy (what sometimes happens) triggers rebels and disasters, having it in game just adds more possibilities and makes game more challenging (not much but still) so removing it makes absolutely no sense.

 

[RichardOlcese]

Legitimacy wasn't lost in absolute monarchies as it's lost now in democratic systems. A president could lose a lot of legitimacy from one day to another due to the media, people being able to read, political consciousness, scandals... But back in the 1400s and during the following centuries, kings and rulers in general weren't so susceptible to a loss of legitimacy. Of course there were cases, such as Charles I of England, Louis XVI of France, and some monarchs who were unpopular or even deposed, but it wasn't remotely as common as it's today and the game reflects adequately on that. Perhaps there could be more events about legitimacy loss/gain, for instance if you decide to send/not to send help during a famine or epidemics, but we should understand that the period was relatively stable regarding what we call legitimacy.

 

[apcio]

Legitimacy wasn't lost in absolute monarchies as it's lost now in democratic systems. A president could lose a lot of legitimacy from one day to another due to the media, people being able to read, political consciousness, scandals... But back in the 1400s and during the following centuries, kings and rulers in general weren't so susceptible to a loss of legitimacy. Of course there were cases, such as Charles I of England, Louis XVI of France, and some monarchs who were unpopular or even deposed, but it wasn't remotely as common as it's today and the game reflects adequately on that. Perhaps there could be more events about legitimacy loss/gain, for instance if you decide to send/not to send help during a famine or epidemics, but we should understand that the period was relatively stable regarding what we call legitimacy.

if there is going to be more ways of losing legitimacy then it should get a buff, since having to pay a lot for avoiding collapse of your nation just because of pure rng will nerf monarchies massively, especially if legitimacy wil keep these weak bonuses it got right now

 

[Tempscire]

Legitimacy is easy to get but also got the worst bonuses. While for RT, Devotion and meritocracy you get reform progress growth, for legitimacy you get +1 diplomatic reputation, and that's only at 100 legitimacy.

You also get +1 tolerance to all faiths and +10 absolutism, which is actually quite strong, at least in an expansion focused game. Legitimacy is also linked to royal marriages, which are worth another ~1-2 diplo rep and allow personal unions, which can be one of the easier ways to expand in EU4.

It also does not allow you to get 6/6/6 ruler as easly as RT does,

If you have sufficient prestige, monarchies can keep up in terms of average monarch stats, at least with standard term length. There have already been quite a few discussions on this topic in the forum. You also do not get the high absolutism hit most republics confer. Which takes several valuable government reform slots to compensate. And with lower term length you will get even more penalties to absolutism.

 

[apcio]

You also get +1 tolerance to all faiths and +10 absolutism, which is actually quite strong, at least in an expansion focused game. Legitimacy is also linked to royal marriages, which are worth another ~1-2 diplo rep and allow personal unions, which can be one of the easier ways to expand in EU4.

+1 tolerance of all faiths is locked at max 3 and works only if there are other faiths also absolutims is locked for most of the game. PUs are locked to Christian faith and marriages take diplomatic slots.

If you have sufficient prestige, monarchies can keep up in terms of average monarch stats, at least with standard term length. There have already been quite a few discussions on this topic in the forum. You also do not get the high absolutism hit most republics confer. Which takes several valuable government reform slots to compensate. And with lower term length you will get even more penalties to absolutism.

disinheriting heirs hoping for new ones doesn't guarantee a 6/6/6 ruler but can give 0/0/0 ruler, and again absolutism is locked for most of the game.

 

[Tempscire]

+1 tolerance of all faiths is locked at max 3 and works only if there are other faiths

ToTF is not capped, the other two are but you still need to reach that cap, which is impossible for some religions. If one considers humanist ideas to be good, +1 tolerance of all faiths is also a good bonus. It obviously depends on your playstyle, but at least among very good SP players humanist is often considered to be a very good idea group. And at worst it is -1 national unrest which is still a decent bonus.

also absolutims is locked for most of the game

Also depends on how one plays, but even if global trade is 10 years late, clearly 201>176 holds.

marriages take diplomatic slots.

Sure but they are still quite useful.

disinheriting heirs hoping for new ones doesn't guarantee a 6/6/6 ruler but can give 0/0/0 ruler,

The average stats are far more important than a hypothetical worst case scenario. It is theoretically possible that you can never reelect a single ruler in the whole game as a republic. That does not mean that it is a particularly relevant case. Once you disinherit an average of three times per heir you catch up with the monarch point generation of a republic which always reelects. And you only pay prestige, while a republic pays ~2,2 republican tradition a year which is difficult to compensate. The chance of a 0/0/0 heir while disinheriting 3 times is (1/16)^12 which is approximately 0,00000000000036% so it is really not a significant concern.

So if you only play until the age of absolutism, republics can somewhat compete with monarchies. But in most SP games monarchies are probably still quite a bit better. Better diplomacy, tolerance, less stab cost and better government reforms for expansion vs reform progress growth, no prestige requirement and the potential for slightly higher MP generation with 3 or 2 year election terms. If you also account for age 3 and 4, you do not even need to discuss this.
Also New Men is a tier 8 reform (so you won't have it long before absolutism) and monarchy reforms are generally quite a bit better. Compare for example Kingdom for the people (which is not even particularly good in its tier) with the whole of tier 9 for republics.

 

[apcio]

ToTF is not capped, the other two are but you still need to reach that cap, which is impossible for some religions. If one considers humanist ideas to be good, +1 tolerance of all faiths is also a good bonus. It obviously depends on your playstyle, but at least among very good SP players humanist is often considered to be a very good idea group. And at worst it is -1 national unrest which is still a decent bonus.

it is decent but not as good as reform growth modifier

Also depends on how one plays, but even if global trade is 10 years late, clearly 201>176 holds.

you still gotta wait over 150 years to get that advantage

Sure but they are still quite useful.

useful, but some republics also got access to them so it's not exclusive to monarchies (idk about theocracies)

The average stats are far more important than a hypothetical worst case scenario. It is theoretically possible that you can never reelect a single ruler in the whole game as a republic. That does not mean that it is a particularly relevant case. Once you disinherit an average of three times per heir you catch up with the monarch point generation of a republic which always reelects. And you only pay prestige, while a republic pays ~2,2 republican tradition a year which is difficult to compensate. The chance of a 0/0/0 heir while disinheriting 3 times is (1/16)^12 which is approximately 0,00000000000036% so it is really not a significant concern.

republics still got higher chance for good rules, since they get access to goverment reforms that increase ruler's stats and they get higher reform growth than any other goverment type.

So if you only play until the age of absolutism, republics can somewhat compete with monarchies. But in most SP games monarchies are probably still quite a bit better. Better diplomacy, tolerance, less stab cost and better government reforms for expansion vs reform progress growth, no prestige requirement and the potential for slightly higher MP generation with 3 or 2 year election terms. If you also account for age 3 and 4, you do not even need to discuss this.
Also New Men is a tier 8 reform (so you won't have it long before absolutism) and monarchy reforms are generally quite a bit better. Compare for example Kingdom for the people (which is not even particularly good in its tier) with the whole of tier 9 for republics.

Monarchy might have a bit better goverment reforms but it will gain them a lot slower compared to republics, if you will focus on goverment reforms you might get to tier 7 before age of absolutism but that's not something great since that will mean less expansion. keeping high prestige is always good due to bonuses it gives and higher MP generation is really good since it helps you in playing tall and wide so you will be able to do both better than monarchy unless it got lucky with ruler and he is actually good, but that doesn't happen really often

 

[Tempscire]

republics still got higher chance for good rules, since they get access to goverment reforms that increase ruler's stats

If you are really interested in the truth of this statement, you can calculate it yourself or read up on the already existing analysis. I am not going to argue about basic maths.

 

[Banedon Runestar]

it is decent but not as good as reform growth modifier

you still gotta wait over 150 years to get that advantage

useful, but some republics also got access to them so it's not exclusive to monarchies (idk about theocracies)

republics still got higher chance for good rules, since they get access to goverment reforms that increase ruler's stats and they get higher reform growth than any other goverment type.

Monarchy might have a bit better goverment reforms but it will gain them a lot slower compared to republics, if you will focus on goverment reforms you might get to tier 7 before age of absolutism but that's not something great since that will mean less expansion. keeping high prestige is always good due to bonuses it gives and higher MP generation is really good since it helps you in playing tall and wide so you will be able to do both better than monarchy unless it got lucky with ruler and he is actually good, but that doesn't happen really often

I’m not sure how you’re playing, but I was able to start as an aboriginal tribe, use government reforms to go horde, shift to a monarchy, and get to T10 with them, well before the Age of Absolutism, while conquering and colonizing most of Indonesia, New Guinea, and the Pacific Basin.

 

[apcio]

If you are really interested in the truth of this statement, you can calculate it yourself or read up on the already existing analysis. I am not going to argue about basic maths.

+1 to each one of ruler skills or just possibility to choose one out of 3-5 rulers that each got different stats means you have higher chances to get good ruler than waiting to get random heir that can die or hoping for a event that will give you good heir that also can randomly die

 

[apcio]

I’m not sure how you’re playing, but I was able to start as an aboriginal tribe, use government reforms to go horde, shift to a monarchy, and get to T10 with them, well before the Age of Absolutism, while conquering and colonizing most of Indonesia, New Guinea, and the Pacific Basin.

That's interesting, except idk what do you mean by "Well before the Age of Absolutism", that can be 10 or 50 years if not more

 

[LukasYork]

I’m not sure how you’re playing, but I was able to start as an aboriginal tribe, use government reforms to go horde, shift to a monarchy, and get to T10 with them, well before the Age of Absolutism, while conquering and colonizing most of Indonesia, New Guinea, and the Pacific Basin.

I'm sorry but pics or didn't happen

It's quite easily doable to get to T10 before the Age of Absolutism as a monarchy, but getting Tribal and Horde reforms as well... consider me doubtful

Unless you blocked the spawning of Absolutism or very freely using the term 'Well before'