Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

C.O.R.E BUGS

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
ConjurerDragon said:
When researching new ammunition for my tanks I stumbled across the "Panzergranat 39" and "Panzergranat 40".

The text.csv should be corrected in all forms of Panzergranat to Panzergranate
Click to expand...
Cool thanks CD i will put it on the to do list.

Dr
 
Another typo in text.csv

Missing character in yellow:

SYR_DESC;Conquered by the Ottomans in 1516 the lands that would become modern Syria consisted of parts of the Ottoman vilayets of Damascus and Aleppo. As the Ottomans undertook a modernization program in the nineteenth century in an attempt to preserve the Empire's territorial integrity and increase the authority of Istanbul over the provinces new Western ideas about politics society and the economy began to filter into the region along with increasing Western economic penetration challenging the traditional authority of local Arab Sunni Muslim elites. As the Young Turks undertook a program of Turkification after 1908 for the Ottoman Empire's elites the local elites of Syria began to turn to Arabism with some hoping to transform the Ottoman state into a Turkish-Arab Dual Empire that would preserve their traditional influence and a few even calling for independence. Severe repression by the Young Turks of these Arabists combined with the strains of World War I would lead to the conquest of Syria by the forces of the Arab Revolt in 1918. Having been promised the leadership of an independent Arab state in exchange for leading revolt against the Ottomans Sharif Husayn's son Faysal moved in 1919 to declare himself ruler of Syria based in Damascus. A secret arrangement between Britain and France to divide the Arab possessions of the Ottomans the Sykes-Picot Agreement placed Syria in the French sphere and they soon demanded Faysal recognize French overlordship. When Faysal refused the French invaded Syria and drove Faysal out in 1920. From then on the French would have to contend with Muslim Syrian hostility to their control of the League of Nations mandate. To meet this challenge the French attempted to divide Syria into smaller states in which minority groups would dominate - successfully implemented in the creation of Lebanon in 1924 and also used to grant limited autonomy to the 'Alawi of the Syrian coast the Druze in the Mountains southwest of Damascus and the Kurds east of the Euphrates River. This did little to gain the French support of most of the majority Muslims of Syria and in 1925 revolt would again threaten French power leading to complaints in the League of Nations that France was not fulfilling its Mandate responsibilities. By 1927 the Revolts would be crushed and in 1930 the French would attempt to create an 'independent' republic in which minority groups preserved much autonomy and the French retained a dominant position. The majority Muslim communities rejected this solution and continued to agitate for greater control something which had been gained by Iraq in 1932 from the British. In 1936 following a further outbreak of riots across Syria the French would sign an agreement granting Syria much more control over its own affairs and ending the local autonomy enjoyed by minority areas gaining the support of some key members of the Sunni Muslim elite in Damascus and Aleppo. Yet the 1936 treaty faced many challenges. Some radical Syrian Muslim nationalists led by Dr 'Abd al-Rahman Shahbandar rejected it as too little demanding full independence the reunification of Lebanon with Syria and the withdrawal of French troops. The 'Alawi and Druze communities resented the restoration of Sunni Muslim dominance and demanded the restoration of local self-rule while the Turks in Alexandretta (al-skandariyya Hatay) demanded reunion with Turkey. And many on the French right vowed to fight the passage of the treaty by the French Chamber of Deputies arguing it reduced France's power in a key region at a time of growing threats in Continental Europe. Whether the 1936 Treaty was to become the basis of France's fulfillment of its mandate responsibilities seemed very much an open question.;;;;;;;;;;X
Click to expand...
 
Bhutan bug

I think the part of the description of Bhutan about it´s territorial losses are wrong. Bhutan ruled part of the Bengal and ASSAM "duars". I don´t think that they actually conquered something like part of the siamese plains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Sinchula

Code: 
BHU_DESC;In 17th century the Lama Ngawang Namgyal who had fled Tibet managed to unify the country and to secure his further conquests through the building of monastery fortresses (Dzongs). The first spiritual and secular ruler of Bhuatan, called Shabdung, helped the Drupka Sect to win and transferred the Tibetan governmental system of Dalai Lamas to Bhutan. The Drukpas (Druk = Dragon) gave the country its name - Dragon Land (Druk Yul). The succession of the ruler was based on reincarnation. Shabdung Namgyal supposedly separated the country into three regions which were ruled by princes (Penlop). In 19th century only two of the three houses were still of importance - the Tsonga-Penlops east of the Black Mountains under the Wangchuk family and the Paro-Penlops who governed almost all of western Bhutan. With the election of the Penlop of Tsonga, Ugyen Wangchuk, on 17th December 1907, as the first Druk Gyalpo (Dragon king) the Shabdung system was replaced by a hereditary monarchy. Externally, Bhutan came into conflict with the expanding British East India Company who drove the Bhutanese out of the Indian regions of Cooch Behar between 1772 and 1774. During 1864-65 Bhutan lost claims to parts of the Bengal and [color=red]Siamese[/color][color=yellow]Assam[/color] Plains in the Second British-Bhutanese War. In the Treaty of Punakha 1910 Bhutan formally became a British Protectorate but retained its internal autonomy.;;;;;;;;;;X
 
ConjurerDragon said:
I think the part of the description of Bhutan about it´s territorial losses are wrong. Bhutan ruled part of the Bengal and ASSAM "duars". I don´t think that they actually conquered something like part of the siamese plains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Sinchula

Code: 
BHU_DESC;In 17th century the Lama Ngawang Namgyal who had fled Tibet managed to unify the country and to secure his further conquests through the building of monastery fortresses (Dzongs). The first spiritual and secular ruler of Bhuatan, called Shabdung, helped the Drupka Sect to win and transferred the Tibetan governmental system of Dalai Lamas to Bhutan. The Drukpas (Druk = Dragon) gave the country its name - Dragon Land (Druk Yul). The succession of the ruler was based on reincarnation. Shabdung Namgyal supposedly separated the country into three regions which were ruled by princes (Penlop). In 19th century only two of the three houses were still of importance - the Tsonga-Penlops east of the Black Mountains under the Wangchuk family and the Paro-Penlops who governed almost all of western Bhutan. With the election of the Penlop of Tsonga, Ugyen Wangchuk, on 17th December 1907, as the first Druk Gyalpo (Dragon king) the Shabdung system was replaced by a hereditary monarchy. Externally, Bhutan came into conflict with the expanding British East India Company who drove the Bhutanese out of the Indian regions of Cooch Behar between 1772 and 1774. During 1864-65 Bhutan lost claims to parts of the Bengal and [color=red]Siamese[/color][color=yellow]Assam[/color] Plains in the Second British-Bhutanese War. In the Treaty of Punakha 1910 Bhutan formally became a British Protectorate but retained its internal autonomy.;;;;;;;;;;X
Click to expand...
You might be right,But i think that Assam was part of Siam earlier and that the Japs Returned it to Siam duriing the WW2.

thailand.gif

Am i correct thinking Assam and Shan States are the same?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shan_State

So to tweak ,or not to tweak ,that is the question :)

Dr
 
Last edited:
Dr Rare said:
You might be right,But i think that Assam was part of Siam earlier and that the Japs Returned it to Siam duriing the WW2.

thailand.gif

Am i correct thinking Assam and Shan States are the same?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shan_State
...
Click to expand...

No. You forget that between Bhutan and Siam lies Burma/Birma/Myanmar/whatevercountry. They hold the Shan states as eastern part of their country at the border to Siam/Thailand. Assam is nowadays part of India and directly borders Bhutan:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indien#Bundesstaaten
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Another typo?

The text description of standardized ammunition from text.csv. IMO it should read that standardization DEcreased the volume of supplies needed and not INcreased. After all when you have to store dozens of different calibres of ammunition you should need more storage space than if you have to store only ammunition of only a few calibres?

TECH_APP_INF_7_1_DESC;The standardization of munitions indecreased the volume of supplies needed, but most importantly allowed for a greater flexibility in logistics. A shipment or truck convoy earmarked for a combat unit could be swiftly redirected to another unit since both took the same supplies.;;;;;;;;;;X
Click to expand...
 
ConjurerDragon said:
The text description of standardized ammunition from text.csv. IMO it should read that standardization DEcreased the volume of supplies needed and not INcreased. After all when you have to store dozens of different calibres of ammunition you should need more storage space than if you have to store only ammunition of only a few calibres?
Click to expand...
Yes indeed sounds more correct to me also ,well spotted CD.Will add/alter for next text.csv.
thanks

Dr
 
Yet another bug

I started a game as Switzerland and tried to do some diplomacy. Then I noticed that I was able in 1936 to release
VICHY FRANCE as a puppet. With Geneve (936) as single province.
:confused:

The problem is a wrong entry in revolt.txt in the DB folder. VIC (Vichy France) has province 936 defined as a minimum core. :rolleyes:

936 needs to be removed from the minimum core list.

Should we change the expirydate as well? It makes no sense to have 1960 here, wenn revolters in HoI can only be released by event and the event that releases VIC can only trigger until 1942.

Code: 
VIC = {
	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1936 }
	expirydate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1960 }
	minimum = { 
# Main French
		545 915 917 923 926 927 928 929 930 931 935 [color=red]936[/color] 937 944 945 947 949 951 934 523
# Vichy Colonies North Africa
		31 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1011 1012 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1030 1033 
		1041 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1056 1060 1061
		1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1108 1109
		1111 1112 1113 1114 1116 1117 1118 1120 1124 1126 1127 1128
# Madagascar
		1319 1322 1329
# French Indochine
		1603 1604 1607 1608 1727 1728 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1739

#Djibouti
		1289
#French Pacific 
		2126 67 
#French Caribbean 
		312 269 271

	}
	extra = { }
	capital = 915 # Vichy
	ai = "core_Vichy.ai"
}
 
ConjurerDragon said:
I started a game as Switzerland and tried to do some diplomacy. Then I noticed that I was able in 1936 to release
VICHY FRANCE as a puppet. With Geneve (936) as single province.
:confused:

The problem is a wrong entry in revolt.txt in the DB folder. VIC (Vichy France) has province 936 defined as a minimum core. :rolleyes:

936 needs to be removed from the minimum core list.
Click to expand...
Ok this i do not think is an issue to tweak, as in the case of all revolvers they can only be manually released by a human player so it doe not matter really.As France you can release Vichy in 1936 or Croatia playing as Yugo's.

In the Case of the Swiss Province this is in the Revolt files as its connected to break up of Switzerland events that can happen in game so i think its best to leave it for that reason also.
ConjurerDragon said:
Should we change the expirydate as well? It makes no sense to have 1960 here, wenn revolters in HoI can only be released by event and the event that releases VIC can only trigger until 1942.
Click to expand...
Yes ,but yet again its the same for all others,also say you want to liberate an annexed Vichy after recapturing it or whatever other fantastical ways people play best not to limit the possibilities.

Dr
 
Dr Rare said:
Ok this i do not think is an issue to tweak, as in the case of all revolvers they can only be manually released by a human player so it doe not matter really.As France you can release Vichy in 1936 or Croatia playing as Yugo's.
Click to expand...

Sure. Because France owns all *minimum* provinces of Vichy and Yugoslavia owns all minimum provinces of Croatia. 936 however is Geneva and should not be a minimum nor even an "extra" province of Vichy at all in the revolt.txt.

In the Case of the Swiss Province this is in the Revolt files as its connected to break up of Switzerland events that can happen in game so i think its best to leave it for that reason also.
Click to expand...

I found that in the cored_new_order_independance.txt file, event GER 6391
This is an ahistorical event that is partly wrong - the triggered Vichy and italian events right below in the same file have different idnumbers than the events triggered by 6391.

IF Vichy should gain a core on 936 (Geneva, french speaking part of Switzerland) then it should only happen with that event. The revolt.txt does not need 936 to be part of the minimum provinces for this to work and should still be removed.
 
ConjurerDragon said:
Sure. Because France owns all *minimum* provinces of Vichy and Yugoslavia owns all minimum provinces of Croatia. 936 however is Geneva and should not be a minimum nor even an "extra" province of Vichy at all in the revolt.txt.



I found that in the cored_new_order_independance.txt file, event GER 6391
This is an ahistorical event that is partly wrong - the triggered Vichy and italian events right below in the same file have different idnumbers than the events triggered by 6391.

IF Vichy should gain a core on 936 (Geneva, french speaking part of Switzerland) then it should only happen with that event. The revolt.txt does not need 936 to be part of the minimum provinces for this to work and should still be removed.
Click to expand...
Ok thats pretty clear now ,thanks.
So we will remove 936 from the Vichy Revolt entry.:eek:o :)

To make everything match and work what do we need to do to fix the problem that is partly wrong with the ahistorical event,which id numbers should be what?.... and do we need to also add the Geneva CORE Claim to the existing ahistorical event or is it already part of it?

:doc:
 
Dr Rare said:
Ok thats pretty clear now ,thanks.
So we will remove 936 from the Vichy Revolt entry.:eek:o :)

To make everything match and work what do we need to do to fix the problem that is partly wrong with the ahistorical event,which id numbers should be what?.... and do we need to also add the Geneva CORE Claim to the existing ahistorical event or is it already part of it?
:doc:
Click to expand...

Event as in cored_independence.txt. My comments below.

Code: 
#####################################################################################
#Partition of Switzerland Events
######################################################################################
event = { 
	id = 6391
	random = no 
	country = GER
	trigger = { 
			event = 5107 #New Order West must be triggered

			# All Switzerland is German-held 
			control = { province = 541 data = GER } #Bern
			control = { province = 564 data = GER } #Zürich
			control = { province = [color=red]934[/color][color=yellow]936[/color] data = GER } #Geneve
			control = { province = 914 data = GER } #Lausanne
                        [color=yellow]owned = { province = 541 data = GER } 
                        owned = { province = 564 data = GER } 
                        owned = { province = 936 data = GER } 
                        owned = { province = 914 data = GER } [/color]
			NOT = {	
			exists = SCH
				}

		}

	name = CEVTNAME_6391
	desc = CEVTDESC_6391

	style = 0
	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1936 }
	offset = [color=red]7[/color][color=yellow]30[/color] # Check for trigger conditions every [color=red]week[/color][color=yellow]month[/color]
	deathdate = { [color=red]day = 30 month = december[/color] year = 19[color=red]47[/color][color=yellow]60[/color] }

	action_a = {
		name = CEVTACTA_6391
		command = { type = addcore which = 541 } #Bern
		command = { type = addcore which = 564 } #Zurich
		command = { type = secedeprovince which = VIC value = 936 } #Geneva
		command = { type = secedeprovince which = ITA value = 914 } #Lausanne
		[color=red]#[/color]command = { type = trigger which = [color=red]3692[/color][color=yellow]6392[/color] } #Vichy event - added soon
		[color=red]#[/color]command = { type = trigger which = [color=red]9693[/color][color=yellow]6393[/color] } #Italian event - added soon		
	}
	action_b = {
		name = CEVTACTB_6391
		command = { type = addcore which = 541 } #Bern
		command = { type = addcore which = 564 } #Zurich
	}
	action_c = {
		name = CEVTACTC_6391
		command = { type = independence which = SCH value = 1 }
		#command = { type = trigger which = 6510 } # - added soon
	}
	action_d = {
		name = CEVTACTD_6391
		command = { type = independence which = SCH value = 1 }
		command = { type = dissent value = 5 } #Lot of disgruntled Nazis here..
	}
}

event = { 
	id = 6392
	random = no 
	country = VIC
	#Triggered by Swiss partition event

	name = CEVTNAME_6392
	desc = CEVTDESC_6392

	style = 0


	action_a = {
		name = CEVTACTA_6392
		command = { type = addcore which = 936 } #Geneva	
	}

}

event = { 
	id = 6393
	random = no 
	country = ITA
	#Triggered by Swiss partition event

	name = CEVTNAME_6393
	desc = CEVTDESC_6393

	style = 0


	action_a = {
		name = CEVTACTA_GREAT
		command = { type = addcore which = 914 } #Lausanne	
	}

}

The whole event is somewhat sloppily scripted and can´t work as it is in the files.

1) Currently the event choice that should trigger the corresponding events for VIChy and ITAlia are #commented out.

2) The trigger checks that GER *controls* the provinces of Switzerland and Switzerland does not exist. But that still leaves space for Switzerland having been annexed by the Soviets and controlled by Germany or whatever unhistorical stuff might happen in a game. If the intention is that Germany has annexed Switzerland then it should check if GER OWNS AND controls those provinces.

3) According to the current CORE principles the deathdate should simply be year 1960 to allow longer games.

4) If we assume that the existing events below are meant to be connected to the event above then choice a should trigger events 6392 and 6393 instead of 3692 and 9693. Looks like some sort of extremely tired kind of switching of numbers when scripting ;-)

5) The trigger checks that event 5107 has fired - but that does not ensure that Vichy actually exists to receive the province that it should receive. And it doesn´t check that ITA is part of the axis either so that it makes sense that GER cedes the other province to them.
5107 fires only if either 5100/5101 or 5102 have fired - that means GER defeated ENG by occupying London without that the USA have joined the war.

6) It checks if the trigger is true every 7 days - a lot of CPU usage for an ahistorical event that can only trigger after Germany ahistorically defeated England. I suggest to change that to 30 to check once per month.

Edit:
7) The event checked for control of 934 - that is not even in Switzerland, but Clermont-Ferrand in the midst of Vichy France... Changed to 936 Geneve.
 
Last edited:
@ Hoi1 Resistance Intelligence & Logistics Officer!

ConjurerDragon said:
The whole event is somewhat sloppily scripted and can´t work as it is in the files.
Click to expand...
Amazing!Obviously nobody ever played the events through properly.Well done CD for spotting this.Seems you have found a quagmire!
Whats the point of the events if they do not work:wacko:They must have never tested them properly in the first place.

I think all your points and suggestions 1-6 are valid.(and number 4 is defiantly sleepy scripting)

If you would care to do your Red/yellow thing that would be great.

Another amazing post, i am awestruck by your scope of understanding of how everything works and is interlinked.

Dr
 
Last edited:
Dr Rare said:
Amazing!Obviously nobody ever played the events through properly
Click to expand...

That´s not suprising - after all this event would only fire if Germany ahistorially successfully invaded England and won the war against England *before the USA join the war* AND ahistorically invaded and annexed Switzerland. Only few people play that way.

In the events comments it´s mentioned that Yogi would continue scripting "soon"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back