Retirement of rulers

[unmerged(2456)]

Well it didn't always happen, but it has happened where a ruler would retire from his rule for reasons other than mental incapacity and if the next ruler died without a clear heir, or the next heir wasn't old enough, would take over as the ruler again or regent. In CK1 the only way to retire was to do so the permanent way.

Even if they didn't they still would often try to influence things. This type of dynamic where the current ruler is trying to rule the land while the previous ruler still retains the a lot of the status could lead to some interesting results.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Say like the current ruler got ill and stressed both himself and the player may find a "Retire" button useful

 

[Nyrael]

Retire button would be a good thing, but I think certain prerequisites should be met before that button could be used:
- ruler and heir must be in good relationship
- the ruler must have ruled for at least 30/40/50 years
- the ruler must not have certain traits (Amitious, Greedy, Power-loving,...)
- the ruler must have a certain trait (humble, stressed, aged,...)

Else, the player and AI could press Retire until they got a wanted ruler.

 

[Raczynski]

I think this might have happened about half a dozen of times in a period. I would say "too insignificant to implement".

 

[tretii_sleva]

Out of thousands of monarch who did "retire" on his own will? I guess not a lot.

 

[Beleg32]

I think this might have happened about half a dozen of times in a period. I would say "too insignificant to implement".

+2 Its intresting concpet but too insignificant.

Out of thousands of monarch who did "retire" on his own will? I guess not a lot.

Exactly

 

[Nyrael]

Maybe "insignificant", but not as hard to implent as most of other stuff suggested here.

 

[Antoine]

It would be less exploitable as a rare event than as something you control anyway. Triggers would be something like friendship between king and his first heir + aged king and depression or illness.

Out of that, I'd like to see forcing someone to retire as a peace condition, allowing to avoid to fight 40 wars with the same rebellious/mad vassal when you don't want to annex his county.

 

[wobbit]

Hmmm, can't think of anyone retiring the kingship of their own volition in the CK period. Doesn't mean it didn't happen though, Charlemagne's brother Carlomann retired to a monastery on his own free will IIRC. Could be an interesting option for what to do with deposed kings though: the former king could be sent to live on his personal lands, packed off to a monastery, mutilated (typically blinded, but having his nose and toungue cut off/out was popular in Byzantium and I think there were instances of fingers/hands being removed. The idea behind all of this being to render the victim incapable of ruling: how can you issue edicts if you can't see to read or sign them?) or killed. I've listed these in order of increasing extremity and while the more extreme measures should make it harder or even impossible for the former king to regain the crown, there should be greater social consequences for the more violent actions.

 

[Drakken]

Out of thousands of monarch who did "retire" on his own will? I guess not a lot.

Japanese Emperors had the Insei system as a tradition, which is basically the Emperor retiring to put his heir in his stead, but still control the strings behind him.

However, in Medieval Europe this is rarissime. They would just give more responsabilities to the Heir to fill in the roles they can't accomplish. Even when Tiberius "retired" in Capri, he was still officially in command.

 

[unmerged(133776)]

...They would just give more responsabilities to the Heir to fill in the roles they can't accomplish...

Which is what both the Human and the AI does now. Tho the Human player is usually smarter about it. We pack them with as many Duke Titles and over as many Count Vassals as is feasible. While the AI would usually just give them one Count Title and 'maybe' one Duke title if lucky where that province is.

I know, you probably meant a Title like 'Crown Prince' (with some responsibilities - and yes, I'd LOVE having my Heir with that title) or a Court position (like Chancellor, Marshall or Spy Master), but we're 'nudged' to give our sons titles by the game.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

It was quite common in the Early Middle Ages. In England it was almost the done thing to crown the heir while the father was still alive. In fact, a strong king might be more likely to do it than a weak one. Offa did it, so did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chindasuinth , who was not a man to be trifled with.

Can't think of many examples from the CK period though except as the clear result of force majeure.

 

[stantz]

I like that idea a lot. Getting stuck with an inbred, cleft pelleted , schizophrenic hunchback is kind of my own fault ( for having all those cousins marry so their families don't backstab me ) , but what really turned me off of crusader kings was that you just had no option but to play them out, and watch the kingdom fall apart, even if they have some halfway normal brothers.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I like that idea a lot. Getting stuck with an inbred, cleft pelleted , schizophrenic hunchback is kind of my own fault ( for having all those cousins marry so their families don't backstab me ) , but what really turned me off of crusader kings was that you just had no option but to play them out, and watch the kingdom fall apart, even if they have some halfway normal brothers.

That is exactly the reason why there shouldn't be a retirement option that allows you to change your crappy ruler for a decent one.

Those decent brothers should have the ambition to get the throne and possibly through your country into a civil war.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Maybe "insignificant", but not as hard to implent as most of other stuff suggested here.

^^This. I realize it was rare, but it's also something probably far easier to implement that could add a bit of depth and flavor. I also don't think it was as rare as some think it was.

That is exactly the reason why there shouldn't be a retirement option that allows you to change your crappy ruler for a decent one.

Those decent brothers should have the ambition to get the throne and possibly through your country into a civil war.

Yea, some prereqs as either an event or decision, possibly one being having ruled for X years.

 

[Woody Man]

It'd be quite interesting to have it as a peace term. Perhaps not that historical though.

 

[Meanmanturbo]

Why not having an "appoint crown price" decision leading to some beneficial bonuses reducing some of the stress for diminished control...but also might lead to a maybe a palace coup or assassination attempt or civil war if the crown price is a bit impatient and have the right personality...Maybe wanting the bad stuff to happen are poor game-play mechanics however

 

[Spurius]

Why not having an "appoint crown price" decision leading to some beneficial bonuses reducing some of the stress for diminished control...but also might lead to a maybe a palace coup or assassination attempt or civil war if the crown price is a bit impatient and have the right personality...Maybe wanting the bad stuff to happen are poor game-play mechanics however

This would be much better than allowing the ruler to abdicate. Choosing somebody who is not the obvious choice under the realm's inheritance laws, e.g. to avoid handing the throne to an inbred lunatic, should be a major risk to the ruler's job and personal security.