So sometimes, in CK, you'd get the lousiest king ever and based on circumstances, there wasn't much way around it besides the "die" cheat. Tell me we can throw our kings off a bridge for the good of our kingdoms? That would be awesome... Thanks.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The thing is that you don't play a kingdom, you play a ruler.
Having sometimes good kings and sometimes bad kings is one of the things that make CK1 such a good game IMO. Being able to easily get rid of bad rulers, would kill a lot of the fun.
This. While it could get irritating when you were trying to do something on the realm level, it was worth it from a roleplaying perspective. In fact its the roleplaying that separates the CK and EU franchises. The resultant mayhem from a series of bad rulers can be utterly awesome once you break the EU mindset of playing a kingdom.
EDIT: That being said, I can see options popping up for rulers, good or bad (but especially bad) like "Your noble vassal Count Porkins of Hamburg has invited you over to dinner." Where declining loses relationship with vassals and personal prestige, but accepting runs the small risk of ambush. Or maybe you are offered a premium vintage of the finest ale, but perhaps a disloyal subject has spiked it with a little hemlock. And the crappier of a ruler you are, (and this should not only include poor personal attributes, but bad decisions on the part of the player) the greater chance of being offed. And then of course if the assasination is uncovered before the deed is done a whole slew of events can occur, same with post-mortem investigations.
As I'm writing this, it struck me that having detailed assasinations and other nefarious plots would really add a whole byzantine flavor to the game. Both player targeted and created. Perhaps as the Duke of Trebizond, one could enter into conspiracy with other disgruntled vassals to remove the sitting Emperor. The same could work in an HRE system, or even through the Papacy. Making your own dynamic medieval Tom Clancy novel would be perfect for roleplaying in a game like this.
Last edited:
Hello,
I have to agree. Indeed my favourite memories playing CK1 involve being stuck with a paranoid, crazy and overall incompetent ruler for years and years (including bitter divorces resulting in battles with his own sons)
. Getting rid of such rulers would just make the game bland.
Best
pieter
I have to agree. Indeed my favourite memories playing CK1 involve being stuck with a paranoid, crazy and overall incompetent ruler for years and years (including bitter divorces resulting in battles with his own sons)
. Getting rid of such rulers would just make the game bland.Best
pieter
if you could do that (and by extension the AI too), why have bad rulers at all anymore?
if you could do that (and by extension the AI too), why have bad rulers at all anymore?
Good idea ... lets make the minimum score of all rulers 14
... that way no one will ever be stuck with a bad king. Any heir with a bad trait or low stats will magcally gain stats and only get good traits too. Infertile rulers become a mass-producer of kids An abdication event could be created, in which the ruler might select to retire and leave the throne to his heir. But it should be pretty rare, and could be based on traits.
In CK1 the way was to send the king into battle and hope for a severe wound.
Ah yes I did that once with an awfull heir, declared war on the far away Cumans and sent him with a small regiment of 200 men to fight them. He acted very brave, but didn't return from the Russian steppes
In fairness, I suspect that CK2 will have the same legitimate response to a bad king that CK1 had: load up as the best heir and overthrow dad. It was easy to do in Ck1 and did not require any cheats.
But some of my best memories are of playing through the worst monarchs of my dynasty. My personal favorite was the young, healthy, and mentally ill Scottish king who lived and reigned until he was 80. Good times trying to hold everything together while he was sitting around with 0 in all stats except his health.
But some of my best memories are of playing through the worst monarchs of my dynasty. My personal favorite was the young, healthy, and mentally ill Scottish king who lived and reigned until he was 80. Good times trying to hold everything together while he was sitting around with 0 in all stats except his health.
Abdication could be done - One circumstance in which I can see it work is a massively pious king getting a choice to retire to a monastery, or to continue ruling.
This could also happen for a defeated and/or weak king, although this will also depend on his adversaries. Certainly when the current title holder is defeated by the next in line or most powerful claimant.
Agreed.. What about the old kings that slowly let their heir take control while they spend all the time at their summer homes? Or have a schizophrenia ruler have an option to disappear or run away for a time.
Resignation with the consent of the Court
the game should NEVER reward the player for murder. As in CK where the mechanis were such that there was a game-based motive towards the killing of spouses, nothing such as that should be permitted in the sequel.
If the ruler is both less capable and less popular than the heir, you should be able to get the court to remove the king for the next.
perhaps using a system like the EU:romes vv prefferred heir but with the king being in the running and then an unfit king would be able to be removed by the players action but with cost and risk of the old king rising against the action.
the game should NEVER reward the player for murder. As in CK where the mechanis were such that there was a game-based motive towards the killing of spouses, nothing such as that should be permitted in the sequel.
If the ruler is both less capable and less popular than the heir, you should be able to get the court to remove the king for the next.
perhaps using a system like the EU:romes vv prefferred heir but with the king being in the running and then an unfit king would be able to be removed by the players action but with cost and risk of the old king rising against the action.
Be careful what you wish for!
I was in a similar game once, having just reestablished total Carolingian dominance over the former empire (south england/east spain inclued), having placed my line on all the important positions, when my moron king went insane, I decided to try and assasinate some far out cousin (who was not under my rule for some reason), in the hope they'd retaliate and I'd get my own king assasinated.
they did retaliate, and so did everyone else since i got the "kinslayer" trait, the whole thing turned ugly extremely fast, people assasinating each other, civil war and so on. 5 years after the first assasination the sole survivor (within the realm) of the de vermandois family was the 3 year old son of a bastard sideline gone legitemate, and his father wasn't very bright...
30 or so male members in their prime just vanished in a sea of blood.
I have no idea how it got so far, I could count for 3 assasinations and 3 revolting de vermandois slayed in action. Lost 4 or so my self to assasinations and a bunch of others killed fighting.
most epic game I've ever played, but it kinda ended there as the realm fell apart & the mongols hit russia, crushing everything in their wake.
I was in a similar game once, having just reestablished total Carolingian dominance over the former empire (south england/east spain inclued), having placed my line on all the important positions, when my moron king went insane, I decided to try and assasinate some far out cousin (who was not under my rule for some reason), in the hope they'd retaliate and I'd get my own king assasinated.
they did retaliate, and so did everyone else since i got the "kinslayer" trait, the whole thing turned ugly extremely fast, people assasinating each other, civil war and so on. 5 years after the first assasination the sole survivor (within the realm) of the de vermandois family was the 3 year old son of a bastard sideline gone legitemate, and his father wasn't very bright...
30 or so male members in their prime just vanished in a sea of blood.
I have no idea how it got so far, I could count for 3 assasinations and 3 revolting de vermandois slayed in action. Lost 4 or so my self to assasinations and a bunch of others killed fighting.
most epic game I've ever played, but it kinda ended there as the realm fell apart & the mongols hit russia, crushing everything in their wake.
Yea, hopefully there will be a good flavor of events. I remember an awesome event in CK1 where a wild boar would maim you. I liked that one.
I wouldn't mind suicide being present in the game provided the player had very little control over it.
I'm envisioning it being the bottom choice on certain rare events-- with the other choices being alternate decisions for confronting certain life problems and then the bottom choice of something like "End it All?" providing the option for your king to kill himself.
What I have in mind are situations like the Battle of Svolder, where Olaf Tryggvason jumped into the sea rather than be captured by his enemies.
I'm envisioning it being the bottom choice on certain rare events-- with the other choices being alternate decisions for confronting certain life problems and then the bottom choice of something like "End it All?" providing the option for your king to kill himself.
What I have in mind are situations like the Battle of Svolder, where Olaf Tryggvason jumped into the sea rather than be captured by his enemies.
I agree that bad kings are just something you have to deal with.
However, it would be nice to have a way to deal with, say, a schizophrenic courtier that just killed the King's son. Without having to use F12-die, that is.
However, it would be nice to have a way to deal with, say, a schizophrenic courtier that just killed the King's son. Without having to use F12-die, that is.
![Sute]{h](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/Stellaris_pre_order/s/stellaris_avatars_fungoid_12_special.png){kind=avatar}
In my mind the stability of a long reigning king should anyways outweigh the penalty of bad stats. In other words it should always be preferable to keep your king alive.
You shouldn't be able to kill of your sucky ruler, just because he's a disaster, however if he's depressed he might kill himself randomly like in CK1. Also: I hope the court might get involved in plots by your heirs, that eventually could end in your king being assassinated. think the king's son plotting with the Spymaster.
This right is here is proof that Moronic Insane Kings are an EPIC part of the Crusader Kings experience. And given a way to easily remove them from power would also mean removing the possibility of countless EPICs of struggle, suspense, adversity, and ultimately failure or success.
No, idiotic kings are vital.