Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Regency

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings III 20881 Console 352 Suggestions 6302 Bug Report 4922 Tech Support 2637 User Mods 1966 Multiplayer 171 AARs (After Action Reports) MP Open Beta Feedback 27
If I had control over regencies, I would give them as much control over the realm as possible, especially the council. If the regent wants to give all the council jobs to his friends and followers, that's within his power. If the regent wants to go on campaign, he calls his banners and away they go. If the regent wants to plunder the royal treasury to line his own pockets, who's going to stop him? The counterweight to all of this being: whatever negative opinion modifiers the king would usually acquire from this behavior are inflicted upon the regent, and magnified. The regent is going to get considerably more pushback from the nobility if he tries to exploit or cripple them, and there will undoubtedly be others seeking to advance their own candidacy for the regency. If you can obtain the regency, it should be a path to great power, and a means to enrich your own house, king in all but name, but there will be consequences for that behavior, especially once the child-king comes of age. On the other hand, a good, loyal, and skilled regent may find himself gainfully employed and gifted with royal honors for many years to come.
 
There should also be an option for the regent to let the underage ruler abdicate in your favour.

It happened multiple times in Chinese history. So if they add China, then I can live out my wildest dreams!
 
Torngasuk said:
If I had control over regencies, I would give them as much control over the realm as possible, especially the council. If the regent wants to give all the council jobs to his friends and followers, that's within his power. If the regent wants to go on campaign, he calls his banners and away they go. If the regent wants to plunder the royal treasury to line his own pockets, who's going to stop him? The counterweight to all of this being: whatever negative opinion modifiers the king would usually acquire from this behavior are inflicted upon the regent, and magnified. The regent is going to get considerably more pushback from the nobility if he tries to exploit or cripple them, and there will undoubtedly be others seeking to advance their own candidacy for the regency. If you can obtain the regency, it should be a path to great power, and a means to enrich your own house, king in all but name, but there will be consequences for that behavior, especially once the child-king comes of age. On the other hand, a good, loyal, and skilled regent may find himself gainfully employed and gifted with royal honors for many years to come.
Click to expand...
I like that system. Yet, it should also be possible to have some influence depending on your age: When the ruler is 5 years old, the regent has full control. Once you get older, you gain more and more influence (can decide some things on your own) and more importantly should have the ability to plot to replace him.
 
Lordy's said:
I like that system. Yet, it should also be possible to have some influence depending on your age: When the ruler is 5 years old, the regent has full control. Once you get older, you gain more and more influence (can decide some things on your own) and more importantly should have the ability to plot to replace him.
Click to expand...

What if the regent doesn't want power?

Then a coup d'etat would be necessary.
 
Michael Bachari said:
What if the regent doesn't want power?

Then a coup d'etat would be necessary.
Click to expand...
You mean doesn't want to give it up? Then I agree. Although, to make the game still enjoyable, there should be harsh restrictions on the regents doing very bad things, such that it almost never occurs, if you watch out carefully.
 
Lordy's said:
You mean doesn't want to give it up? Then I agree. Although, to make the game still enjoyable, there should be harsh restrictions on the regents doing very bad things, such that it almost never occurs, if you watch out carefully.
Click to expand...

Only an ambitious regent should be able to force the ruler to abdicate.

Content regent should give up power easily.

But in all other cases there should be at least some tension during the transition period.
 
I think that regencies certainly should get some attention, and regents should have more power. But it needs to be implemented carefully. At one point, regents would grant themselves some of your counties, and players hated that.
 
DPS said:
I think that regencies certainly should get some attention, and regents should have more power. But it needs to be implemented carefully. At one point, regents would grant themselves some of your counties, and players hated that.
Click to expand...

Yet at the same time those same players would give themselves counties, if they were the regent. So we're all to some extent hypocritical.
 
There might be a problem with players literally not being able to do anything for however long they are under a regency.

Then again people in history avoided underage heirs for a reason...

In CK2, it is almost welcome to have as young an heir as possible, since you can directly influence the traits they gain from childhood and get a very long reign. You can also do most of the things normal rulers can do including declaring war
 
One thing I'd like to see is the ability to end a regency early, if the underage ruler is in their teens, sufficiently popular, and possibly ambitious or if the regent is bad. This has some historical basis and it frustrates me somewhat that every regency in CK2 is destined to last until age 15.

Edit: Ooh, maybe tie it in to the expanded factions mechanic — let the underage ruler start a faction to end the regency early.
 
Last edited:
Skales said:
There might be a problem with players literally not being able to do anything for however long they are under a regency.

Then again people in history avoided underage heirs for a reason...

In CK2, it is almost welcome to have as young an heir as possible, since you can directly influence the traits they gain from childhood and get a very long reign. You can also do most of the things normal rulers can do including declaring war
Click to expand...


You can always fast forward and hope for the best. :)
 
Metz77 said:
One thing I'd like to see is the ability to end a regency early, if the underage ruler is in their teens, sufficiently popular, and possibly ambitious or if the regent is bad. This has some historical basis and it frustrates me somewhat that every regency in CK2 is destined to last until age 15.
Click to expand...

I agree it should depend on the traits of the underage ruler and regent. If a minor is a genius he can take over the government at the tender age of 10 for example.

But if the regent is ambitious, the transition of power will take place at age 21.

And like you can see some traits could also cancel each other out, i.e. ruler has genius trait and regent ambitious trait.
 
Michael Bachari said:
But if the regent is ambitious, the transition of power will take place at age 21.
Click to expand...
This is something that I had been considering, but hadn't quite figured out the best way to implement it yet. I think an event chain would handle it best: if the child-king is emerging with particularly poor traits, then the regent may be able to make the case that the realm best stay in capable hands for, let's say, another five years or so. I also don't want to overlook the other cases for regency, apart from an underage monarch - when a ruler is imprisoned or deemed truly insane, a regency is also required. If you're imprisoned, clearly you're not going to be managing the day-to-day operations of your kingdom from your cell like some medieval mafioso, and upon release you'll have to deal with the consequences of what your regent has done in your absence.
 
Torngasuk said:
This is something that I had been considering, but hadn't quite figured out the best way to implement it yet. I think an event chain would handle it best: if the child-king is emerging with particularly poor traits, then the regent may be able to make the case that the realm best stay in capable hands for, let's say, another five years or so. I also don't want to overlook the other cases for regency, apart from an underage monarch - when a ruler is imprisoned or deemed truly insane, a regency is also required. If you're imprisoned, clearly you're not going to be managing the day-to-day operations of your kingdom from your cell like some medieval mafioso, and upon release you'll have to deal with the consequences of what your regent has done in your absence.
Click to expand...
It honestly still blows my mind that there wasn't a regency in CK2 when you were imprisoned.
 
Metz77 said:
It honestly still blows my mind that there wasn't a regency in CK2 when you were imprisoned.
Click to expand...
Huh, really? I mean I never noticed, but you may be right. I wonder if that's hardcoded or possible to mod...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back