Sorry about the Regency, but I don't want to change the rules mid-game since other people have had to deal with short reigns as well. For the next game, I would consider extending the 1-year period for a death to something longer. Would 5 years be too long?
Nah, I understand that people have short reigns, as kings die prematurely, yet regency's are the absence of a king, so when i give my report I don't feel like I've played an actual king...
Perhaps in the future, in another campaign if a Regency happens, then the player either may continue to play until a new king comes of age, or the following player should play the regency and the new king....
I have no problem with short reigns, as it happens (although extending it to 2 years would be fair).
At any rate, I'll play the regency right now, sorry to make such a huff about it![]()
The Short Regency Council of Germany:
1657-1661
some rebellious elements were put down.
A university is being built in Novgorod (i felt like building something substantial).
And England dragged us into a war, mainly for colonial gains in South America, which amounted to very little gain.
Long live the new King
Here is the turn:
http://www.mediafire.com/?8jlfzdt9nu4284u
Maybe for the next game our turn should simply be tied to the life a ruler, regardless of whether they start in a regency or not.
- Four Horsemen of the Presence
I only had my King for six years and couldn't do anything due to high infamy; it happens. :3
"Blacker than a moonless night. Hotter and more bitter than Hell itself… that is coffee."
Bookmarks