Suggestion Regency

I believe you age slower because you're "immortal". But from my standpoint that doesn't mean you should be younger it means you just don't age if you get what i mean. You're still 50 if you were born 50 years ago even if you still have the body of a 20 year old.

Back on topic:

This has been suggested before, and it's not a bad idea. It'd give the entire dynasty system a real justification of its existance. Seeing as how it's currently just a method of getting the odd super powerful champion if you're really lucky.

There's also a lot of suspension of disbelief involved with the lack of a succession/dynasty system. Like was mentioned in another thread about how the lack of lore detracts from the overall immersion into the game, the same goes here with the lack of inheritance. So I've killed the Tarthian leader in my borders, and she dies, but what stops her sons and daughters from taking the kingdom and running it for themselves? They're Channellers too, and should be Sovereigns in their own right. Whenever I make children in this game, they turn out to be vastly more powerful than my Sovereign, with greater potentials, strengths, etc. They could probably do a better job at leading and expanding the kingdom/empire than I could, so why do they disband the settlements and return to the wilds if I croak?

One idea.

Sovereign dies still should equal end of sovereign.

However, instead of fading away, if the sovereign has a adult  1st in line, they should be able to continue as the sovereign.  If there are multiple children, they can either turn barbarian, turn minor civ, or become heroes.   This should be a weighted random roll, with worse results the stronger the kingdom/empire is.  

if it was large empire with more than 1 child surviving the empire could split in pieces as new factions