Suggestions for Improved Moddability
- Thread starter Meneth
- Start date
-
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.
Because major rivers appear to represent a different concept. As designed for vanilla, major rivers are rivers navigable by drakkars (norse longboats) but not by the types of boats used by other cultures. Making major rivers in vanilla into sea province would nullify that difference betseen norse ships and everyone else's.
But this is going off topic, so I'll restrain from further discussion.
Would be useful if there was some way to cancel the 'being executed' status.
Then we could use on_executed on_action to add events such as failed executions, last-minute rescues, or rich nobles trying to buy or bribe their way out of the execution.
Then we could use on_executed on_action to add events such as failed executions, last-minute rescues, or rich nobles trying to buy or bribe their way out of the execution.
Could we possibly get a maintaince_cap use modifier for retinues. Currently to alter the use of the retinue cap we need to alter the defines, if we could set it, or even set the cap usage in the retinue file, it would enable us to have multiple units of the same type, with differentiated retinue cap usage.
Might not be the 'best' place for this, and it's pretty minor... Any chance we could get a 'blank spacer' for the Game Rules? Right now I'm just faking it with a 1-option blank name event, but it'd be nice to have a "proper" spacer, and perhaps a "Header" for each group? :Shrug: As I say, might be better for a more "general suggestion", since it's just aesthetics, really...
Like, if I have 6 Rules, in four Groups. Right now they all follow on consecutively, with no distinction.
So :
A B
C D
E F
What I was thinking was like something to let it be arranged more like...
A
B C
D
E F
if we wanted :shrug: Like I say, it's more aesthetics than any 'practical' use. Right now, the best option seems to be just putting them in individual groups, and using the pages.
This is probably already suggested, but just to make sure. Can we get a method to make religious succession to be enatic?
A way to apply weighting to the random_x scopes would be nice. Unless I'm missing something, you don't seem to able able to use the factor and modifier commands to skew scopes like random_courtier or random_artifact in favor of certain conditions.
This should already be possible by enabling enatic for theocrats of your religion (i assume) and restricting all the others from theocrats of your religion. That should force those temple vassals to use Enatic.
Make the potential block of enatic_succession in succession_laws.txt look like this.
Code:
potential = {
holder_scope = { religion = my_religion is_theocracy = yes }
}Then add the following to the allow blocks of *all other* gender succession laws.
Code:
NOT = {
holder_scope = { religion = my_religion is_theocracy = yes }
}You'll also need to add the following to enatic
Code:
default = yes
default_selection = {
factor = 1
modifier = {
factor = 100
holder_scope = { religion = my_religion is_theocracy = yes }
}
modifier = {
factor = 0
NOT = {
holder_scope = { religion = my_religion is_theocracy = yes }
}
}
}
If I remember right, that can work with landed titles but not unlanded ones. It is possible that they changed/fixed it.
Hmm... I wonder why it doesn't work for landless titles?
At any rate, if you're religious head has Papal Succession it won't matter, because only existing theocrats will be eligible for the religious head.
At any rate, if you're religious head has Papal Succession it won't matter, because only existing theocrats will be eligible for the religious head.
Add the PdxMeshAlphaBlend shader that eu4 has so we can have transparent textures on models im ck2 if its not too much trouble. 
I was able to get it working for static models but not animated models.
I was able to get it working for static models but not animated models.
Last edited:
I would love to see some of the telemetry for users of my mod. It would be great to find out how my custom game rules are used, or what start dates are most frequently used in conjunction with my mod.
I imagine some of the other (much larger) mods would like to see their data too.
I imagine some of the other (much larger) mods would like to see their data too.
I lot of people are already hesitant about that data being sent to Paradox. I doubt they be happy about being sent to some individual they have no familiarity with.
I'm also not sure how well that would play with Steam Workshop, since they'd probably need to inform a user that data would be sent to the mod developer like that.
I don't want to know what joeSchmo9351 is doing when they are playing Ancient Religions. I wanna know what percentage of my users are playing with AI Revival turned on/restricted/off, or if they are using my Unfit King beta feature turned on. I wanna know which starts they tend to use, which characters they tend to play, and whether they Ruler Design. I wanna know what are the most common mods to be paired with my own.
I don't care about individuals, I want compiled statistics. This information can better inform me about what features my users like most, and what areas I can add new content to encourage a more diverse set of starts/decisions.
I don't care about individuals, I want compiled statistics. This information can better inform me about what features my users like most, and what areas I can add new content to encourage a more diverse set of starts/decisions.