Regency is low impact

[Feels]

in my mind you shouldnt be able to make any decisions at all regarding the country until you are 16. This is how it worked in real life. All your gameplay should be focused on studying and personal quests and thats it.
Instead we have an annoyance that tries to enrich themselves and otherwise completely useless, i dont even know why they here

[drake_hound]

Eh in the middle ages people were adult at 12, cause average life expectency was 40.
Regency does have a impact, it was quite fun to test it out by being in a Jail all the time.

If you want super annoying then appoint somebody who is selfishe. and see your power diminish before you even reach the age of 16.

Anyway if you do not want to take any decision that is up to you.
Just don't do anything, but but .. why mandatory enforce it on others. when you can do nothing till you are 16.

[Feels]

Originally posted by drake_hound:

If you want super annoying then appoint somebody who is selfishe. and see your power diminish before you even reach the age of 16.

Anyway if you do not want to take any decision that is up to you.
Just don't do anything, but but .. why mandatory enforce it on others. when you can do nothing till you are 16.

yea why place restrictions on a player at all, everyone should play on god mode with infinite money facing no challenges ever, why annoy them?

Originally posted by drake_hound:

Regency does have a impact

and what impact is that exactly? all they do is steal money (not even from you, just out of thin air), insult the vassals or get claims for themselves, not make decisions regarding country's politics like they should.

[Dizzy Ladybug]

hopefully a conclave mechanic would change this. i agree it's a little silly for a child to just declare war without the approval of powerful vassals or the regent

[Harris]

Originally posted by Feels:

everyone should play on god mode with infinite money facing no challenges ever, why annoy them?

Even though I appreciate there is a part of the community that wishes for a more "hardcore" experience and less Sims-style storytelling (even though that's clearly a direction ck3 is headed), I can't help but get amused by the proposed ways to achieve that.

First we had the wild change called harm events. There are literal threads (not posts) on why it is such a bad idea as arbitrarily throwing a middle finger in the player's face always is. And now this. Imagine your ruler is casually assassinated as a result of randomly gaining a rival, and then you have no control over the realm for 16 years, but the regent has full control instead. I can assure you, in 6 months there will be no realm. And there would be literally nothing you could do about it.

And the question this begs is... how is this fun? You can't "win" in ck3, so the whole point of playing is setting personal goals and then achieving them. How is this fun when your progress can be wiped anytime so you have to start over? I dig the "ironman/hardcore" mode in arpgs when the character's death is permanent. But this death is always a result of the player's mistakes, and when it happens outside the player's control it's usually a huge deal. Because who would ever want to invest hours into something that can be gone any moment?

PDX made posts explaining there is no meaningful way to make the game "harder", and creating a mode with higher costs of actions and such would be pretty pointless as it's not real difficulty, not to mention a hassle to maintain.

Originally posted by Feels:

an annoyance that tries to enrich themselves and otherwise completely useless, i dont even know why they here

You're right, ck3 wasn't initially designed with regencies in mind, it's a later add which is why it feels out of place. To make things worse, it came as part of the free patch made by a small team with limited resources, evidently without much time, thought or playtesting going into it. If you said the game would be better without regencies in their current state, I would agree wholeheartedly.

[yungfella85]

Originally posted by drake_hound:

Eh in the middle ages people were adult at 12, cause average life expectency was 40.
Regency does have a impact, it was quite fun to test it out by being in a Jail all the time.

If you want super annoying then appoint somebody who is selfishe. and see your power diminish before you even reach the age of 16.

Anyway if you do not want to take any decision that is up to you.
Just don't do anything, but but .. why mandatory enforce it on others. when you can do nothing till you are 16.

Average age was low due to high to infant mortality which drove average age down. If you reached adulthood, most ppl lived about to the same age that they do now.

[kalanyr]

Originally posted by yungfella85:

Originally posted by drake_hound:

Eh in the middle ages people were adult at 12, cause average life expectency was 40.
Regency does have a impact, it was quite fun to test it out by being in a Jail all the time.

If you want super annoying then appoint somebody who is selfishe. and see your power diminish before you even reach the age of 16.

Anyway if you do not want to take any decision that is up to you.
Just don't do anything, but but .. why mandatory enforce it on others. when you can do nothing till you are 16.

Average age was low due to high to infant mortality which drove average age down. If you reached adulthood, most ppl lived about to the same age that they do now.

That's not quite right. Average adult life expectancy was noticeably below what you'd find in the developed world today* but yes the vast majority of the low life expectancy in mediaeval times was the huge amount of infant and child mortality.

* You're looking at ~50 for adults then vs ~high 70s to low 80s now depending on country.

ETA - CK3 targets 60 IIRC which is probably fine given that any one who counts as a character has influence comparable to lower nobility and so generally had a better life in general.

[drake_hound]

Originally posted by Feels:

Originally posted by drake_hound:

If you want super annoying then appoint somebody who is selfishe. and see your power diminish before you even reach the age of 16.

Anyway if you do not want to take any decision that is up to you.
Just don't do anything, but but .. why mandatory enforce it on others. when you can do nothing till you are 16.

yea why place restrictions on a player at all, everyone should play on god mode with infinite money facing no challenges ever, why annoy them?

Originally posted by drake_hound:

Regency does have a impact

and what impact is that exactly? all they do is steal money (not even from you, just out of thin air), insult the vassals or get claims for themselves, not make decisions regarding country's politics like they should.

Test it out first then, it isn't so hard.. what is the IMPACT so are you crying cause you didn't test it properly, but according to one game it has no effect ?

So you rant about god mode, but you didn't even bother to test it properly first?

[drake_hound]

Originally posted by kalanyr:

Originally posted by yungfella85:

Average age was low due to high to infant mortality which drove average age down. If you reached adulthood, most ppl lived about to the same age that they do now.

That's not quite right. Average adult life expectancy was noticeably below what you'd find in the developed world today* but yes the vast majority of the low life expectancy in mediaeval times was the huge amount of infant and child mortality.

* You're looking at ~50 for adults then vs ~high 70s to low 80s now depending on country.

ETA - CK3 targets 60 IIRC which is probably fine given that any one who counts as a character has influence comparable to lower nobility and so generally had a better life in general.

Eh ... where do you got that stats? middle ages where majority of peasant couldn't even read or write. oh you are talking about Wealthy Noble or a Emperor.
Oh wait those wars sure cull them fast, since peace wasn't common in Middle Ages.

Now CK3 target of 60 or 65 is fine it is a game after, same as child is adult is 16 is also fine.
Since it has to do with modern time.

But people sure have a wierd view of the middle ages, this with internet available to do your research.

[kalanyr]

I said *adult* life expectancy. If you lived to 25 in the middle ages you'd on average love to be 50 (and pointed out that's less than today). I specifically noted that the high rates of infant and child mortality too (life expectancy even for land owners was ~30ish if you factor in infant and child mortality because having a bunch of lifespans that are very close to 0 pull down the average extremely fast )

[drake_hound]

Originally posted by kalanyr:

I said *adult* life expectancy. If you lived to 25 in the middle ages you'd on average love to be 50 (and pointed out that's less than today). I specifically noted that the high rates of infant and child mortality too (life expectancy even for land owners was ~30ish if you factor in infant and child mortality because having a bunch of lifespans that are very close to 0 pull down the average extremely fast )

Then my apology you are right, you did do your research, here I was being sneaky like a AI toss in 10 year extra life expectancy.
To see if people would correct me, you just did.

[drake_hound]

For the record Middle Ages never recorded infant mortality, since same as Modern Day africa, they don't even bother to report it. having childeren simply happens if child dies it doesn't even get counted.
And even in Modern Day Africa UN isn't going around everywhere in the bush to count 0 born childeren, life expectancy is low in the Middle Ages, cause majority have NO rights.
So a peasant caught stealing, you can chop or hang him or her. infidility you can chop or hang her. Wives were a property (something some cave men still think is right)

[JC]

Originally posted by Harris:

First we had the wild change called harm events. There are literal threads (not posts) on why it is such a bad idea as arbitrarily throwing a middle finger in the player's face always is. And now this. Imagine your ruler is casually assassinated as a result of randomly gaining a rival, and then you have no control over the realm for 16 years, but the regent has full control instead. I can assure you, in 6 months there will be no realm. And there would be literally nothing you could do about it.

Um, that's life.. it randomly throws crazy crap at you and bad things happen. Why shouldn't this happen in a game? You can randomly die of a sickness, or battle, or a storm.. And even more random things. Why should everything in this game be known? I don't get it. Dying at any age is something that happens and happened far more frequently in this time than now. In fact the game actually lowered the death rate for kids in the game to help keep the amount of data lower. The game should be having 1/4 of kids dead by 1, and 50% not making it to 12. So as it is you are much more likely to live over all. There needs to be some sort of randomness or everyone is going to live to 75+ and what fun is that?


as for data, Medicine or lack there of it wasn't all that different than pre-1900's, We have lots of good data saying that's about the mortality rate for children. Anti-biotics changed everything. Pre-antibiotics basically every family had children that didn't make it to 12, and lots of women died in child birth. The game doesn't represent that either, but i'm on ok with both, we need to save data when we can or the game really gets a late game crawl or you'd need a much higher ram min.