Bug reports

[Rylock]

not sure if it is a problem with reapers due and HIP but whenever I try to play a game as baldwin the leper king of jerusalem in 1175 the game crashes when initializing. My theory is that his leper condition clashes with the new diseases in reapers due.

Contents of version file, please? I'm not seeing a 1175 bookmark in SWMH, and there certainly isn't one in vanilla.

 

[Truenova]

Version file:

[HIP Release 2016-09-06 (Hades2)]
EMF: Extended Mechanics & Flavor (v6.01 - 2016-09-06)
SWMH (v2.96 - 2016-09-05)
SED: English Localisation for SWMH (v2.2.6 - 2016-09-05)
ARKO Armoiries (2016-08-31)
LTM (C - 2016-04-10)
VIET Events (v2.0.1 - 2016-09-03)
CPRplus (v2.6.1 - 2016-09-05)


I didn't use a bookmark, I tried clicking the bookmarks before and after the date then just moved the year up to 1175 until baldwin iv was king

 

[Rylock]

I didn't use a bookmark, I tried clicking the bookmarks before and after the date then just moved the year up to 1175 until baldwin iv was king

Ah. I advanced from 1171 to January, 1175 and booted up as the king of Jerusalem just fine.

I don't use VIET, however, and don't suggest anyone else does. Perhaps try without that.

 

[zijistark]

Version file:

[HIP Release 2016-09-06 (Hades2)]
EMF: Extended Mechanics & Flavor (v6.01 - 2016-09-06)
SWMH (v2.96 - 2016-09-05)
SED: English Localisation for SWMH (v2.2.6 - 2016-09-05)
ARKO Armoiries (2016-08-31)
LTM (C - 2016-04-10)
VIET Events (v2.0.1 - 2016-09-03)
CPRplus (v2.6.1 - 2016-09-05)


I didn't use a bookmark, I tried clicking the bookmarks before and after the date then just moved the year up to 1175 until baldwin iv was king

The issue could very well be related to the fact that you clicked bookmarks "before and after the date." There is a long-running issue in all Paradox games whereby "going back in time" (which implies reversing the execution of history) to get to the desired start date will lead to some pretty random behavior.

Generally speaking, one should try to avoid doing so whenever possible (even quitting the game and restarting once you've actually found the date you want in the lobby before actually trying to play that start date). It's something we cannot do anything about.

It's also not something to fear too much, because overall, reverse history execution ("going back in time") has gotten a lot better in recent years and rarely does cause issues. However, keep it in mind as a potential source of weirdness.

 

[SvenO100]

So, I am suddenly allied with everyone on the game map. I cannot disolve any alliances, the check mark says "temporary alliance" and that you can't disolve them. This appears to be the same for everyone else on the game map. (Going to Diplomatic map mode and clicking on any ruler shows the entire world in blue, signalling alliance.)

 

[zijistark]

So, I am suddenly allied with everyone on the game map. I cannot disolve any alliances, the check mark says "temporary alliance" and that you can't disolve them. This appears to be the same for everyone else on the game map. (Going to Diplomatic map mode and clicking on any ruler shows the entire world in blue, signalling alliance.)

Save the game. Quit the game. Restart the game. Load your save. Problem should be resolved. This is a fairly well-known vanilla issue.

 

[Hodgey]

New to HIP, so not sure if bug or wad, but tech spread is mostly equal around the map. I have no place to send my spymaster. Can anyone explain why? Thanks!

 

[Toa Kraka]

The event emf_crusades.13 in religious_events.txt assumes that a crusade-unlocking event (39660 through 39663 in religious_events.txt) will occur before a jihad-unlocking event (39670 through 39674 in religious_events.txt) in every campaign. However, this is not a valid assumption, and causes the first declaration of jihad to be delayed incorrectly if jihads are unlocked before crusades.

For example: What if a Christian Emperor of Italy conquers Tunis in the year 1000? Event 39674 fires immediately (minimum year: 1000), setting the muslim_jihads_unlocked global flag--but, because emf_crusades.13 is looking only for the christian_crusades_unlocked global flag while ignoring muslim_jihads_unlocked, the emf_muslim_crusades_unlocked global flag isn't set (by emf_crusades.15, which looks for the emf_crusades_unlocked flag, which is set by emf_crusades.13) until decades later when event 39660 is triggered by the Muslims' holding Jerusalem (minimum year: 1090), preventing the Sunni Caliph from declaring a jihad for Africa when he should have been able to do so for almost a century. (A situation very similar to this scenario happened to me in one of my past campaigns.)

This is a bug in EMF (both Zeus and Hades). It can be fixed by changing a section of the trigger for emf_crusades.13 from has_global_flag = christian_crusades_unlocked to or = { has_global_flag = christian_crusades_unlocked has_global_flag = muslim_jihads_unlocked } in emf_crusades.txt.

 

[Tirion1987]

We don't have a particularly good visualization of holding slot growth potential on SWMH, no. @IoannesBarbarus can dig-up some statistics we ran to generally assess the situation if he feels so inclined, though.

It all depends upon whether you choose crown focus provinces that have more baronies defined for them in landed_titles than are actually used as part of the history-scripted 'max_settlements' value for the province. This is a lot of them, but some provinces (usually SWMH originals that may have been split from larger vanilla provinces or never had vanilla associations at all) will never cause that event to happen. Most provinces that you'd expect to be able to add some holding slots can-- maybe not up to 7, but more than initially.

The SWMH team was unwilling to either a) use made-up barony names (Paradox literally used a random fantasy place name generator), or b) go to the effort of buffing-up extra, real settlements just for this feature of the DLC.

I'll admit: this upset me a bit at first, but we (EMF) were at least able to come-up with a way to still be able to add holding slots whenever and wherever it is possible (not as simple as it sounds due to need to fully avoid a CTD issue related to provinces having incorrect 'max_settlements'), and this certainly has made the best of things at least. EMF without SWMH, of course, fully supports holding slot growth potential to the full theoretical maximum of 7 for every province on its map (since it's just a slightly souped-up vanilla map).

Sorry to bring his up, but will we ever be able to add holding slots to all SWMH-original provinces? Maybe it's just me, but my demesne tends to be almost exclusively made up of those :/ Especially given that I love playing subsaharan Africa...

 

[zijistark]

Sorry to bring his up, but will we ever be able to add holding slots to all SWMH-original provinces? Maybe it's just me, but my demesne tends to be almost exclusively made up of those :/ Especially given that I love playing subsaharan Africa...

Oh, BTW: We do have an excellent visualization of what provinces can benefit from adding holding slots due to Prosperity now. @IoannesBarbarus made a beautiful heat map super-imposed on a blank SWMH map outline to cover both the questions of "how many holding slots in total can any given province reach with the prosperity mechanic?" and "how many additional holding slots can any given province add to the base amount of capacity?" (surprisingly, the latter is actually less useful in practice, IMHO). He should be the one to post his neato maps, though.

Back to your question: No, I don't think so. @Aasmul (in charge of SWMH), and I think his team as well, are staunchly opposed to adding fictional or anachronistic or really even any kind of barony titles to provinces for this purpose. It makes sense to a certain degree (at least for fictional baronies): this map is supposed to be vaguely historical, and adding fantasy holdings where they don't make any sense is anathema to that. I sympathize with you, however.

 

[Rylock]

The event emf_crusades.13 in religious_events.txt assumes that a crusade-unlocking event (39660 through 39663 in religious_events.txt) will occur before a jihad-unlocking event (39670 through 39674 in religious_events.txt) in every campaign. However, this is not a valid assumption, and causes the first declaration of jihad to be delayed incorrectly if jihads are unlocked before crusades.

For example: What if a Christian Emperor of Italy conquers Tunis in the year 1000? Event 39674 fires immediately (minimum year: 1000), setting the muslim_jihads_unlocked global flag--but, because emf_crusades.13 is looking only for the christian_crusades_unlocked global flag while ignoring muslim_jihads_unlocked, the emf_muslim_crusades_unlocked global flag isn't set (by emf_crusades.15, which looks for the emf_crusades_unlocked flag, which is set by emf_crusades.13) until decades later when event 39660 is triggered by the Muslims' holding Jerusalem (minimum year: 1090), preventing the Sunni Caliph from declaring a jihad for Africa when he should have been able to do so for almost a century. (A situation very similar to this scenario happened to me in one of my past campaigns.)

This is a bug in EMF (both Zeus and Hades). It can be fixed by changing a section of the trigger for emf_crusades.13 from has_global_flag = christian_crusades_unlocked to or = { has_global_flag = christian_crusades_unlocked has_global_flag = muslim_jihads_unlocked } in emf_crusades.txt.

Fixed, thanks for the report.

 

[Rylock]

So, I am suddenly allied with everyone on the game map. I cannot disolve any alliances, the check mark says "temporary alliance" and that you can't disolve them. This appears to be the same for everyone else on the game map. (Going to Diplomatic map mode and clicking on any ruler shows the entire world in blue, signalling alliance.)

We _think_ we may have narrowed down the cause of this to the use of add_alliance in emf_crusades -- meaning this bug wouldn't kick into gear until a crusade was successful and the new kingdom was passed onto someone else. If so, this means add_alliance is bugged and we'll have to report it, but we do need to figure out first whether it's actually responsible (anyone who's getting this bug can remove the line from emf_crusades and test, which would be helpful...though keep in mind it doesn't retroactively change anything).

 

[Tirion1987]

Oh, BTW: We do have an excellent visualization of what provinces can benefit from adding holding slots due to Prosperity now. @IoannesBarbarus made a beautiful heat map super-imposed on a blank SWMH map outline to cover both the questions of "how many holding slots in total can any given province reach with the prosperity mechanic?" and "how many additional holding slots can any given province add to the base amount of capacity?" (surprisingly, the latter is actually less useful in practice, IMHO). He should be the one to post his neato maps, though.

Back to your question: No, I don't think so. @Aasmul (in charge of SWMH), and I think his team as well, are staunchly opposed to adding fictional or anachronistic or really even any kind of barony titles to provinces for this purpose. It makes sense to a certain degree (at least for fictional baronies): this map is supposed to be vaguely historical, and adding fantasy holdings where they don't make any sense is anathema to that. I sympathize with you, however.

Thanks. Say, are the actual files where this is defined more or less constant between releases? It might bug me enough that I'd make a submod for myself, but only if it can easily be slapped onto subsequent versions.

 

[Finarfin]

I don't use VIET, however, and don't suggest anyone else does. Perhaps try without that.

What's the reason for this? I see that the default condition is off for a HIP installation. Is it an abandoned sub-mod that causes issues?

 

[Toa Kraka]

Is it an abandoned sub-mod that causes issues?

This.

When will this Mod Return.. I love the Flavor and Roleplaying events that it gave to the game...

Considering that Cybrxkhan is retired and there hasn't been any progress in about a year or so. Likely never.

 

[Rylock]

What's the reason for this? I see that the default condition is off for a HIP installation. Is it an abandoned sub-mod that causes issues?

As mentioned, it was made by Cybrxkhan -- who is now long gone, and nobody really upkeeps it. Which means that, over the last few compatches it's fallen by the wayside, and may have now reached the point where either someone goes in and updates it all or it will have to be taken out of HIP completely. In the meantime, even though it defaults to "off" many people install it anyhow...and its outdated code causes a lot of unforeseen issues.

 

[luxaster]

Not sure if this counts as a bug or an oversight (do those go here?), but just wanted to let you all know that the event that makes your fighter trait downgrade as you age still fires when you are immortal, so my 55 year old immortal Basileus just lost his formidable fighter to old age.

 

[Rylock]

Not sure if this counts as a bug or an oversight (do those go here?), but just wanted to let you all know that the event that makes your fighter trait downgrade as you age still fires when you are immortal, so my 55 year old immortal Basileus just lost his formidable fighter to old age.

That sort of thing is likely to happen, as none of the EMF events really comply with the new DLC stuff. We compatched without knowing what those events do, after all. So, yes, much as I dislike the very idea of immortals in the game, I guess we have to make everything work together -- so if you notice stuff like that, do let us know.

 

[Greybeard0815]

In my current playthrough I was able to usurp the ERE with my Jerusalemite Crusader Kingdom. Since becoming Emperor the game notifies me that a Council position for Despot of Basilea etc. is free. However my Council doesn't have such a job.

I'm playing without Conclave. Could that be related?

 

[Tirion1987]

In my current playthrough I was able to usurp the ERE with my Jerusalemite Crusader Kingdom. Since becoming Emperor the game notifies me that a Council position for Despot of Basilea etc. is free. However my Council doesn't have such a job.

I'm playing without Conclave. Could that be related?

Yep. Conclave drastically reorganizes the Council window, splitting it into 4. You only have 1 of those.