Monarch stats

[unmerged(34993)]

Just my humble opinion.

1. Monarch diplo, eco and military skill ranges from 1 to 9(10?), with 1 being lowest and 9(10?) being highest.

2. Most monarchs should be average. Why? Because most of everything is AVERAGE. And high skills should show REALLY remarkable skills. Any low REALLY abysmal skills. So monarch with skills 5-5-5 or 4-6-5 should be MUCH more common, then a monarch of 9-9-9 (I think no such monarchs should be a all in Abe) or a monarch of 1-1-1.

3. People are not jacks-of-all-trades. I find it highly unrealistic to have monarch being good in everything. Everyone have some weaknesses and virtues. So monarch with stats like 3-5-7 should be more often that a monarch 5-5-5.

4. Majors should have one excellent (total skill summ 22-23) monarch and 2-3 good ones (18-20) for each period of prosperity. (When good events-reforms are made). Crisises should be represented by bad monarchs (less than 10) or by poor ones (less than 14).

5. Minors should occasionaly have good monarchs too. But less than majors - they are minors after all.

6. No one should ALWAYS have uber monarchs. Every counry had bad and good ones. Simulate this!

7. Democracies, "tings" and their kind are not tremendously effective. They should have average skill as talented people in them are balanced by stupid ones.

That is just my opinion. How do you like it?

 

[MattyG]

I have always seen the monarch stats in a different way, I think. For me they have always represented the ability of those formally in power, not just the monarch him/herself. In some nations that's a king and key advisors, in others a council or whatever. So, while Jacques II may have been personally weak in the military, maybe this is not reflected in the stat because of a good series of advisors and minsters.

Yes, we often increase these via an Excellent Minster type event, but I see that as a tool for one of the following purposes:

1. Flavour, to note the dynamic influence of a famous individual, or;

2. Structure, because the person will only be around for a set period before he dies, their a noble revolt against his level of influence etc.

However, in a scenario where we seek a little balance, your point is a good one. But monarchs should not be viewed in isolation. Some nations have better monarchs, but less-able (or fewer) leaders; more or fewer cores; more or fewer nice events or detrimental events. This even occurs within a nation, like Byzantium. There, the Bulgarian-origin monarchs are worse, but they avoid the Civil War events.

There also need to be some justification for Brittany being defined as a nation that is a 'major' and destined to do a little better (even as an ai nation) and Lorraine not, and it surely comes down to leadership.

I don't think we ought to be confined by a point system. Rather, if players feel that a particular nation has it too easy, then we look at the overall picture and adjust what it has been given. Sometimes this will mean adjusting monarch stats, it's one tool that we have.

That's my take.

 

[unmerged(34993)]

Well, yes. The main point was that most rulers should have average skills rather than good ones as most major rulers skills were in vanilla.

 

[MattyG]

Well, yes. The main point was that most rulers should have average skills rather than good ones as most major rulers skills were in vanilla.

In general, agreed.

Are there a few 'culprits' that have caught your attention? Remember that many nations have yet to be re-Aberrated ...