Why Is Elective Monarchy Such Garbage?

[SonofWinter]

I like to play Poland. I would like to know why the 55 year old King of Poland of House Jagiellon has to deal with a 79 year old heir, who has 20 legitimacy, in 1483? What exactly is the malfunction in Sweden? And who is responsible for this ABSOLUTE GARBAGE history? Is it that PI is incapable of cracking open a history book? Is the water in Stockholm filled with lead?

I have paid good money for a broken game, that borders on the moronic. So, since this is obviously NOT being fixed (as has been requested since Res Publica), I want to know who came up with this garbage so that I can hear their explanation for this filth.

And since I and others have tried the gentle approach before and got NOWHERE, I am forced to use the angry approach, since that is the only way things seem to get the notice of PI.

 

[Mikalos]

because the government of poland was historically god awful and terribly thought out, which is what ended up bringing it down in the first place

 

[IIWW]

The EM being a garbage is ok, the problem is that it starts when Jagiellons GET the throne, not when they loose it.

 

[Demusch]

Now now, this is a civilized forum, no need to use capslock n all.

On the elective monarchy: that's pretty much how the system functioned. Why wouldn't it be possible for the Sjem to say "Our current King fell of his horse, and the best candidate to fill the spot is 20 years older than he was. He's still qualified though.".

And even besides the elective system... In situations where the current king/queen does not have a child, the brother / sister / cousin of said leader is often next in line for the throne. And these can definately be older than the current ruler.

 

[User29]

BS to you saying it's historical, it went really elective when the Jagiellons died out, they die out in 2 generations MAX now because they are forced to have **** legitimacy heirs for no reason. The Main House should be able to have strong heirs like everyone else and if the player notices a better candidate and lets them win THEN let the house die out, or maybe just require a regular heir generation for the main household so if you don't have an heir the monarchy passes to the best "support heir" faction. that way things can work out semi historically. atm it's truly garbage.

 

[Arag]

Hey it's that thread again!

Again someone points out how ahistorical elective monarchy is in Res Publica. People agree with him, but differ in the details.
Paradox ignores this like all the other threads about Poland/Commonwealth since Res Publica was released. Life goes on unchanged, POL/PLC continues to get kicked with stab hits from dying monarchs every few years.

 

[SonofWinter]

because the government of poland was historically god awful and terribly thought out, which is what ended up bringing it down in the first place

Name one Jagiellon that lost the Crown to an Election and I'll shut my mouth for good. Otherwise, crack open a history book before you chime in with your ignorance.

 

[SonofWinter]

The EM being a garbage is ok, the problem is that it starts when Jagiellons GET the throne, not when they loose it.

Exactly. Until the Jagiellons die out, there should be no EM. And there should not be a Commonwealth until they die out.

 

[Incompetent]

The timing is not historically accurate: it appears too early and it also disappears too early (the struggle for royal power event can trigger any time after 1600). But some sort of elective monarchy should be in the game for Poland-Lithuania at some points in history, and also several other countries (e.g. Bohemia, Hungary, Sweden...)

Elective Monarchy is an eccentric government type, but I wouldn't call it a bad one. The main weaknesses are low legitimacy, slightly unpredictable succession (further increased by the random Sejm events, which are 50/50 good/bad), and stab hits from frequent monarch deaths. Set against that...

+ no regencies
+ cannot be pushed into a PU as junior partner, but can impose PUs on others
+ dynasty-hopping gives lots of opportunities to claim thrones
+ local heirs have better than average monarch stats
+ some influence over which candidate wins, so you have a chance to prevent bad heirs (not full control, but better than most monarchies)

 

[Freudia]

Elective Monarchy is fairly strong. It's timing is pretty off, though.

For a person that likes to play Poland, though: If you like playing Poland for 'historical immersion', why do you not have problems when you don't get partitioned? If you're playing Poland for the gameplay, why do you have a problem period? Elective Monarchy is strong in terms of what it can do.

 

[SonofWinter]

+ no regencies
+ cannot be pushed into a PU as junior partner, but can impose PUs on others
+ dynasty-hopping gives lots of opportunities to claim thrones
+ local heirs have better than average monarch stats
+ some influence over which candidate wins, so you have a chance to prevent bad heirs (not full control, but better than most monarchies)

A Jagiellon heir would still be King. And a regency would take place, with the Sejm being regent. - No regencies is STUPID and not historical.
The invasion by Sweden was a war for PU. - Thus Poland not being pushed into a PU is STUPID and not historical.
The Jagiellons were never able to claim another throne unless they were the legitimate heirs to it ala Hungary. - Being able to claim thrones is STUPID and not historical.
As the Jagiellon Kings of Poland were NOT better than their peers, since they inherited the throne. - Better stats are STUPID and not historical.

All the things you are talking about happened during the COMMONWEALTH, after the Jagiellon Dynasty died out. None of them happened in the KINGDOM of Poland, while the Jagiellons sat the throne.

No one asked for all these garbage features to be imposed on the KINGDOM of Poland, which was NOT an Elective Monarchy in practice sure, a 10%-20% increase in autonomy, makes sense but LEGITIMACY. Are you kidding me?

All of this goes back to Poland having STUPID features that have nothing to do with history. And I'm rightfully pissed at this shambles of an attempt to portray the KINGDOM of POLAND.

 

[SonofWinter]

Elective Monarchy is fairly strong. It's timing is pretty off, though.

For a person that likes to play Poland, though: If you like playing Poland for 'historical immersion', why do you not have problems when you don't get partitioned? If you're playing Poland for the gameplay, why do you have a problem period? Elective Monarchy is strong in terms of what it can do.

The COMMONWEALTH was an ELECTIVE MONARCHY. The KINGDOM OF POLAND, WAS NOT.

 

[Freudia]

The COMMONWEALTH was an ELECTIVE MONARCHY. The KINGDOM OF POLAND, WAS NOT.

That's why I said the timing's off, though. I agree with you on that regard. I lump Poland and PLC into the same nation, because I don't think there's a single Poland player who doesn't form PLC unless it's multiplayer, so it's fair to use them interchangeably.

 

[myrsl0ken]

I sense great nationalism in this one.

 

[SonofWinter]

I sense great nationalism in this one.

No, its not nationalism. I'd be pissed if the US was described as an Elective Monarchy as well.

 

[Demusch]

A Jagiellon heir would still be King. And a regency would take place, with the Sejm being regent. - No regencies is STUPID and not historical.
The invasion by Sweden was a war for PU. - Thus Poland not being pushed into a PU is STUPID and not historical.
The Jagiellons were never able to claim another throne unless they were the legitimate heirs to it ala Hungary. - Being able to claim thrones is STUPID and not historical.
As the Jagiellon Kings of Poland were NOT better than their peers, since they inherited the throne. - Better stats are STUPID and not historical.

All the things you are talking about happened during the COMMONWEALTH, after the Jagiellon Dynasty died out. None of them happened in the KINGDOM of Poland, while the Jagiellons sat the throne.

No one asked for all these garbage features to be imposed on the KINGDOM of Poland, which was NOT an Elective Monarchy in practice sure, a 10%-20% increase in autonomy, makes sense but LEGITIMACY. Are you kidding me?

All of this goes back to Poland having STUPID features that have nothing to do with history. And I'm rightfully pissed at this shambles of an attempt to portray the KINGDOM of POLAND.

you know, people interested in this topic will read what you're saying even without the caps lock, in fact they'll be quite a bit more likely to take you serious without it. All it does is make you look like someone who's shouting at their screen.
Anyway, the EM system was a choice paradox had to make. Either they put it in at the earliest bookmark, and risk people flaming them for not being historical, or they have it implemented through an event (or maybe the form Commonwealth decision) with people being upset at having too little time to get their heir on the throne. Also note that, at the point of implementing the EM, Poland was not yet lucky and hardly ever got to form the Commonwealth, which would have made this not even a sure thing to happen at all. If you link it to the Jagiellons dying out, then odds are that in most games, the EM does not surface at all.

Personally, I like the system being in. It gives you an opportunity to get a large power on your side through diplomatic actions rather than brute force, and one that's very dominant in its section of the world at that.

 

[Ultrix Prime]

Heh heh - perhaps you should reconsider expecting your appreciation of history to be reflected in a *video* *game*.

Stick with books and museums for gratification in matters of history, not computer programmers making a buck in Stockholm and you may find yourself more satisfied.

Thus, a bit of contemporary perspective might help in ameliorating the concerns around one's historical perspective ...

As in, it's their game and one cannot browbeat them into changing it with the cap locks key.

 

[Selvas]

I see EM mechanic as rather interesting and I quite like it, though like everywhere there is room for tweaks and improvement. One thing I was bothered with is low legitimacy for local dynasty rulers, but I guess it is just for balance as they have usually better stats.

On historical note, elective monarchy was around in Kingdom of Poland since death of the last Piast ruler. Nobels elected rulers, without their consent no Jagiellon could "inherit" throne of Poland, though they didn't look for other dynasty and true open election happened after Jagiellon main line died out. Even after that main candidates were from families with strong dynastic bonds with Jagiellon family like Vasas or Habsburgs (at least that is what they teach in polish schools). System evolved throughout the ages, but since EU is about alternative history, the way it is implemented is for me acceptable.

 

[AndrewT]

For the record, being rude to the developers is NOT the way to get your pet bug addressed.