I believe a merger should result in two Kings! It is a disincentive for a Kingdom to merge with a slightly larger one!!
The 'king' of a merged kingdom is the king of the kingdom that had the most victory points. Besides the name the 2 roles are practically identical, with very few differences. There wouldn't really be a point in changing it.
There is some important differences between the king and the vice king.
An update will be made, which will make it more fair and logical.
There is a thread about Disbanding Kingdom Union, the vice king actually cannot set menhirs and several other things that cannot be made, so when it happen that the king is inactive then there is a problem.
Before the merging, the king of the kingdom with the most VP become king of the merged kingdom, but there is no OP at this time usually, the king isn't the one who make the VP, but the players, so it's not really logical currently.
the king isn't the one who make the VP, but the players, so it's not really logical currently.
Hey Drugs, can you elaborate on this?
To me it's all very logical. Stolen goods -> Treasures -> VPs.
Like a King without a Kingdom doesn't produce treasures, and therefore doesn't produce VPs.
A governor gets bonuses for selling stolen goods. A good Kingdom has to make sure that all treasures are in production in order to get the maximum benefit for their members as well.
It is a disincentive for a Kingdom to merge with a slightly larger one!!
As a person who has played both King and VK, I don't see the disincentive.
The Kingdom is larger as a result. The governors get better bonuses on their stolen goods. You are able to cover more ground. It's easier to open additional treasuries because you are able to distribute treasures easier among members.
The King is able to assign treasuries, set diplomacy, set menhirs and change the name/description of the Kingdom - these are all things that a VK cannot do.
A Vice-King can still collect Duke tributes, kick and invite members (just not through Menhir).
I think you touched on why it's so important to join with a King that you trust, especially if you are taking the VK position. But it also goes the other way. A King has to trust their Vice-King because they still have considerable power.
I mean, the players steal treasures which produce the VP's, at start I mean.
Before the merging there is no OP, so the king could be barely active or sitter access or anything.
My point is that sometimes the vice king could help much, if the king become inactive or at any point not active when it matter.