It almost seems like you should make a fixing reapers due/vanilla spin off mod with all the stuff you are doing to make it more sensible.
It almost seems like you should make a fixing reapers due/vanilla spin off mod with all the stuff you are doing to make it more sensible.
I'm not terribly interested in doing a standalone "Vanilla RD rework" mod -- not because I don't want anyone else to be able to make use of my tweaks if they so desire, but because I don't really feel that I'd have the time or energy to support it as a standalone (and it'd require more work than just copying the relevant files and calling it a day, seeing as some Tianxia-specific stuff will be present in the files and would have to be separated out) -- but if someone else feels they'd like to separate the RD rework out into a vanilla-compatible mod or wants to incorporate them in some other mod, well, just ask and chances are we'll approve it with very minimal conditions (crediting Tianxia and not breaking the DLC locks, most likely).
We'll not under any circumstances be doing anything along the lines of a separate "Tianxia without the RD rework" version, seeing as that'd be a significant drain on dev resources for as long as Tianxia continues to be updated. I am keeping both the possibility that what I create might not end up being to everyone's liking and the general Tianxia approach to let vanilla take precedence where possible in mind while doing the overhaul; however, seeing as some of the Chinese alchemy/medicine stuff would be weird to have exist in a vacuum as far as RD goes if RD is active, and seeing as some of the stuff in RD that -- at least subjectively -- isn't in a good spot is highly relevant to us (e.g. the AI being able to ask its vassals to maybe not fight each other), I'd much rather make an attempt to make the whole thing work (subjectively) better than put up "Vanilla content; do not touch!" signs where I spot any issues not strictly relevant to the bare minimum necessary for Tianxia.
Tianxia's focus remains the Far East and related things rather than overhauling vanilla in general, but when we do something that is fairly closely tied to something from vanilla chances are we'll do some polishing to the vanilla setup, and if just tweaking a few numbers or adding a few checks feels insufficient a larger rework might be considered on a case-by-case basis. If any given rework ends up making someone feel that Tianxia no longer is for them, well, you can't please everyone, and at the end of the day my interest in working on Tianxia is contingent on me not having to extensively overhaul any given release version of Tianxia to make it enjoyable for me to play; I'm certainly not making every design decision based on whether it'd be what I'd do if I was modding only for myself -- and I try to do what I can to accommodate other playstyles and preferences where reasonable when implementing various things -- but given the choice between "Keep working on a Tianxia that's going to be very unenjoyable for me/that will require a ton of extra work to be made enjoyable for me" and "Take what currently exists and go off and make my own mod [that I'd likely not be publishing]" the latter option seems vastly preferable.
Why not reach out to the Cleanslate folks? Seems like these sort of vanilla bugfixes/sanity improvements are right up their alley.
does tianxia compatible with other mods such as graphical mod, or mod that add new building?
thanks for your answer silversweeper!Shorter answer:
Unless the mod specifically -- not "This is probably compatible with everything!" or any other generic statement to that effect -- states that it is compatible with Tianxia and it was updated fairly recently (mid-December 2023 or later), assume that it isn't compatible. If the mod was updated recently and claims to be compatible with Tianxia, then it is still the responsibility of that mod to ensure compatibility. We will not be attempting to keep track of which mods make that claim, we will not be checking that claim for them, and we will not be taking any steps whatsoever to ensure that compatibility is maintained when we update Tianxia; we'll not go out of our way to break compatibility, but "This might/would definitely break compatibility with mod X!" will not have an impact on what we do or how we do it.
Longer answer:
Graphics:
I have close to zero graphical modding experience, especially stuff like portraits and unit models, but from what I know of how CK2 modding works in general that really depends on how the mod is set up and whether that comes into conflict with Tianxia (or CleanSlate).
For example, a portrait mod that simply overrides the portrait files for southerngfx (i.e. the Iberian Portrait Pack) wouldn't run into any problems if that's all it does (at least not based on my understanding of portrait modding), while a portrait mod that adds a new spanishgfx and hooks that into the vanilla culture file would have a different outcome depending on when it is loaded -- if it loads before CleanSlate it'll be as if it never existed since CleanSlate overrides the whole cultures folder, if it loads after CleanSlate it'd result in an attempted merge that might get weird, and if it loads after Tianxia it could potentially revert some Tianxia changes to vanilla cultures; we have some of those, including for a few cultures close to the western edge of the map -- meaning the side-effects could be as mild as "The mod effectively fails to load" or as severe as "Breaks something non-graphical in Tianxia".
A "unit pack" mod would likely be similar to a portraits mod in how different the outcome might be, seeing as that's (to my understanding, at least) tied to the gfx entries for cultures in a very similar manner. A dynasty CoA mod would all but certainly either be broken or break Tianxia, seeing as there's only one interface file for hooking that in and we have changes in that file. A title flag mod would most likely be fine, though depending on the load order it might not show up properly. A title CoA frame mod would probably break or create issues, seeing as we've appended changes to CleanSlate's setup and they have changed their setup from the one vanilla uses. I have no idea about general interface mods, though we've done some tweaks there (e.g. changing the Bloodlines interface) that might conflict, and CleanSlate's major restructuring of the interface folder might result in conflicts with something that is based on the vanilla setup. Traits icon changes would probably be fine, assuming they just override the specific trait file(s) rather than the interface files. I'm not going to attempt to list everything else; in short, some things are likely to be all but guaranteed to be fine, others all but guaranteed to break stuff.
I don't really keep up with graphics mods in general (or really most other mods of any kind), but I believe BLG has a Tianxia-specific compatch/submod, which likely works at this time -- Nendur is quite experienced when it comes to portrait modding, and it was updated after 14.0.0 (and I don't believe we did anything in 14.0.1 that would have broken it) -- though we are not prepared to make any guarantees even in that case.
Buildings:
Assuming a building mod is compatible with CleanSlate, that it doesn't override any of their files that we have overrides for, that it doesn't override Tianxia's own files in a weird way (somewhat unlikely, seeing as we've got e.g. "SoH" in the file names), and that it doesn't do something with special units that fails to account for Tianxia's cultural buildings that have special units (for some hardcoded reason, each holding can at most provide one special unit type -- camels, horse archers, war elephants, or the like -- at a time), chances are a mod that adds more buildings would work if that is all it does (i.e. it just sets up building definitions and localisation for them); however, we are still not guaranteeing anything.
Hello, I noticed the 'silla_gim_bloodline' is never created in history files? Its description is localized as "The Gim clan was the third clan to rule in Silla, and could trace their ancestry back to Suro of Geumgwan Gaya."
In gameplay terms, I was wondering if it is correct to put the bloodline on the 'Silla Gim' progenitor King Gim Michu, or actually put the bloodline on a 'Silla Gim' descendant of Suro?
In the first case, we have to make Gim Michu's only daughter matrilineally married to properly propagate the bloodline. It would then be inherited agnatically all the way until the the final King of Silla, Gyeongsun, and his descendants up until 1337 start date.
In the second (more convoluted) case, I looked at the 'Gaya Confederacy' Gim Suro's descendants in the history files, and the most direct connection I could find between the 'Silla Gim' and 'Gaya Confederacy Gim' is the marriage between 'Gaya' Gim Munmyeong and the 29th Silla King, Gim Taejong Muyeol. Would it be correct to put the Silla bloodline on Taejong Muyeol so his descendants are 'technically' descended from Suro through his wife?
Unfortunately, Taejong Muyeol's last agnatic descendant, Gim Beopmun dies in 825, so the bloodline ends there, right? However! Gim Yeonhwa, a distant descendant of Taejong Muyeol, is married to the 38th Silla King Gim Wonseong. Wonseong is a twelfth-generation descendant of King Naemul and he inherits the kingdom in 785 after King Gim Seondeok II dies childless.
Would it then be appropriate to matrilineally marry Yeonhwa and Wonseong to preserve the 'silla_gim_bloodline'? They are of the same dynasty after all, and Wonseong is also a Royal 'Silla Gim' at this point. After this marriage, the bloodline would also be inherited agnatically until 1337.
On a side note, it is currently incredibly easy to find an unlanded 'Silla Gim' male and matrilineally marry them. If the 'silla_gim_bloodline' is ever implemented in this way, it will become much easier to Recreate the Hwarang.
View attachment 1128019
Minor issue, no background on text
Can't unsee, so fixed, along with the greyed out version used for the Permanent Regency trait.
This is the most game breaking of bugs. The game will be literally unplayable until the next release. You must hotfix now! [/sarc]Can't unsee, so fixed, along with the greyed out version used for the Permanent Regency trait.
Hello, I started as King of Goryeo in 1066 and noticed my two Gim vassals in the south as well as my brother and some of my sons were already members of the Hwarang society even though it hasn’t been reformed yet?
The localized description should probably read that they were descendants of either Kim Al-ji or King Michu if the Silla Kim bloodline was ever added. Kim Beop-mun was actually not the last agnatic descendant of Taejong Muyeol. He had other relatives that survived who were descended from his grandfather, Kim Ju-won, who survived in the form of the Gangneung Kim clan. For example, there was Kim Yang, who was descended from Ju-won's first son. There was also Kim Ye, descended from Ju-won's third son Kim Sin, who was given the surname of Wang by Wang Geon for his support in unifying the Later Three Kingdoms. We don't need an ahistorical matrilineal marriage when we should add his descendants instead.Hello, I noticed the 'silla_gim_bloodline' is never created in history files? Its description is localized as "The Gim clan was the third clan to rule in Silla, and could trace their ancestry back to Suro of Geumgwan Gaya."
In gameplay terms, I was wondering if it is correct to put the bloodline on the 'Silla Gim' progenitor King Gim Michu, or actually put the bloodline on a 'Silla Gim' descendant of Suro?
In the first case, we have to make Gim Michu's only daughter matrilineally married to properly propagate the bloodline. It would then be inherited agnatically all the way until the the final King of Silla, Gyeongsun, and his descendants up until 1337 start date.
In the second (more convoluted) case, I looked at the 'Gaya Confederacy' Gim Suro's descendants in the history files, and the most direct connection I could find between the 'Silla Gim' and 'Gaya Confederacy Gim' is the marriage between 'Gaya' Gim Munmyeong and the 29th Silla King, Gim Taejong Muyeol. Would it be correct to put the Silla bloodline on Taejong Muyeol so his descendants are 'technically' descended from Suro through his wife?
Unfortunately, Taejong Muyeol's last agnatic descendant, Gim Beopmun dies in 825, so the bloodline ends there, right? However! Gim Yeonhwa, a distant descendant of Taejong Muyeol, is married to the 38th Silla King Gim Wonseong. Wonseong is a twelfth-generation descendant of King Naemul and he inherits the kingdom in 785 after King Gim Seondeok II dies childless.
Would it then be appropriate to matrilineally marry Yeonhwa and Wonseong to preserve the 'silla_gim_bloodline'? They are of the same dynasty after all, and Wonseong is also a Royal 'Silla Gim' at this point. After this marriage, the bloodline would also be inherited agnatically until 1337.
On a side note, it is currently incredibly easy to find an unlanded 'Silla Gim' male and matrilineally marry them. If the 'silla_gim_bloodline' is ever implemented in this way, it will become much easier to Recreate the Hwarang.
The localized description should probably read that they were descendants of either Kim Al-ji or King Michu if the Silla Kim bloodline was ever added. Kim Beop-mun was actually not the last agnatic descendant of Taejong Muyeol. He had other relatives that survived who were descended from his grandfather, Kim Ju-won, who survived in the form of the Gangneung Kim clan. For example, there was Kim Yang, who was descended from Ju-won's first son. There was also Kim Ye, descended from Ju-won's third son Kim Sin, who was given the surname of Wang by Wang Geon for his support in unifying the Later Three Kingdoms. We don't need an ahistorical matrilineal marriage when we should add his descendants instead.
I would say holding off on them and saving the work for a later update would be a good idea for now, as the Korean characters should be all re-examined together at one point. There are some really weird family trees, such as Kang Gam-chan (姜邯贊) being the nephew of Kang Jo (康兆) and part of the same family, despite them having different surnames, or Wang Geon's fake brother. I'll have to make a post eventually detailing some of them.I'm not opposed to adding them provided sufficient information can be found, but I'm not convinced the information on the relevant Wikipedia pages is sufficient to do so in a satisfactory manner, and considering we've got a plethora of other things that require work -- both character history file-related and not -- I'd much rather devote resources towards things I feel more confident could be done in a satisfactory manner at this time.