安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
I'd argue that entrenched regency should perhaps end the very day your ruler turns 16 and the "parting gift" should be reworked or perhaps removed outright - because as it stands nothing prevents you from rewarding your regent for a job well done through mechanics already in the game, like gifting gold or granting titles.
I have never actually encountered the regent coup thing, either on giving or the receiving end. As regent, I feel regency is too much investment / planning. Swinging scales of power happens too slowly, it feels like you need to become a regent for a newborn and have the next 15 years to spare to have time to actually achieve anything. Meanwhile 15 years is actually a lot in a single human's lifespan, and between feuds and new harm events I see regents just not being able to live long enough to accomplish anything.
Another pet peeve is how actually easy it is for someone other than your liege to topple you as regent. It's actually ridiculous how a fellow vassal can pull off a single scheme and take over with inhering scales of power no less, while the liege himself have to play the scales of power game to shake off the diarch.
Also, regency events mostly rely on your stewardship and diplomacy, meanwhile it's intrigue you need to create a situation where a regent would actually be needed, leading to a situation where I can't really make use of the regent post and advance the scales other than throwing resources at them.
So all in all, regency is something super gimmicky and something I don't have much desire to engage with at present. It's okay if you happened to become a regent and can use it for a quick favorable contract change, but otherwise... dissappointingly, if I want to take over my liege's realm, regency is the last thing I'd be using for that.
- you let yourself have some kid without having properly planned your succession
- your ruler is incapacited in his old days and it may take a few years (the most rgent level i got was 3). You still are able to suicide yourself if you prefer this solution.
- you're unlucky as it's an interested regent is making bread and butter inside your kingdom
It's somewhat realistic and i like it a lot.
Mos of the times you should be able to skip the regent part and avoid him to get too much power.
No I was on an elective succession (vikings) and the guy who took my place had a regent with a level 5. And when I paid 250 of piety or gold to decrease the level of balance, he could spend thousands of prestige so he reached the maximum level in a very short time.
Right. It's supposed to illustrate why elective succession is crap and why germanic tribal successions came to an end as they were dividing countries.
Why many people are telling to go from tribal to feudal with vikings asap.
But i agree with you the mechanic is frustrating.
I would argue the events are mostly happening way too fast.
I havn't checked but i felt my regent was lauching a change in vassal contrats every few months. He did a lot of trouble to the empire in a few years when i was incapacitated.
When you're only able to counter it more slowly.
But i'm not playing elective BS to get 10+ years of regency so i feel you.
Right but then no reason you can go into gold debt either :)
I have no issue with negative prestige, the issue is mostly to my mind this mechanic isn't balanced at the moment.
Yes. My first regent had maximum power, and he had -5000 prestige. Whoever replaced him immediately went into a prestige deficit because he increased his power level when I brought him down.