Wouldn't call this bug, more of an oversight, but during the Norse culture split up it doesn't seem there's one designed for the Goths.
Hmm, it could be a tooltip gone horribly wrong. As in, it should all be wrapped in a big NOT = { } block. That is, if anyone of those were to become true, the ambition would fail to succeed. However, even then, the logic seems funny (momentarily going over your demesne limit should not make an ambition fail, if there's any HIP polish about), so I've got to question your external mod usage for certain here.
The first thing I'll do is look for this particular ambition in its source file to see what it says there. Maybe I can figure out which mod it's coming from.
The increase demesne ambition is coming from the VIET Immersion integration of the Additional Objectives mod. You can find the specific ambition in the ao_ruler_ambitions.txt file.
If it's only the tooltip that's in error I'm ok. I'm just concerned that the ambition might not be working at all. I'm not very good at deciphering this code.
success = {
custom_tooltip = {
text = OBJDEMESNESUCCESS
hidden_tooltip = {
OR = {
AND = {
demesne_size = 9
has_character_flag = demesne8
}
AND = {
demesne_size = 8
has_character_flag = demesne7
}
AND = {
demesne_size = 7
has_character_flag = demesne6
}
AND = {
demesne_size = 6
has_character_flag = demesne5
}
AND = {
demesne_size = 5
has_character_flag = demesne4
}
AND = {
demesne_size = 4
has_character_flag = demesne3
}
AND = {
demesne_size = 3
has_character_flag = demesne2
}
AND = {
demesne_size = 2
has_character_flag = demesne1
}
}
}
}
}
The issue appears to be that the code is using an outdated form of custom tooltips. If you change the success block to read like this:
Code:success = { custom_tooltip = { text = OBJDEMESNESUCCESS hidden_tooltip = { OR = { AND = { demesne_size = 9 has_character_flag = demesne8 } AND = { demesne_size = 8 has_character_flag = demesne7 } AND = { demesne_size = 7 has_character_flag = demesne6 } AND = { demesne_size = 6 has_character_flag = demesne5 } AND = { demesne_size = 5 has_character_flag = demesne4 } AND = { demesne_size = 4 has_character_flag = demesne3 } AND = { demesne_size = 3 has_character_flag = demesne2 } AND = { demesne_size = 2 has_character_flag = demesne1 } } } } }
It should work properly.
I don't know if this is just a coincidence but after making this change a number of other ambitions showed up, as well.
Well, it's very possible that it was messing up all the ambitions after it in the file. It's a shame the mod is no longer being maintained; AO is one of the mods I've often considered asking for permission to continue and expand, though I don't even know if the original creator is around any longer. (If nothing else, I'd love to get a crack at re-doing some of the graphics it uses, but that's more likely to happen through VIET.)
Well, it's very possible that it was messing up all the ambitions after it in the file. It's a shame the mod is no longer being maintained; AO is one of the mods I've often considered asking for permission to continue and expand, though I don't even know if the original creator is around any longer. (If nothing else, I'd love to get a crack at re-doing some of the graphics it uses, but that's more likely to happen through VIET.)
I would think that if it's abandoned it should become the property of the community.
EDIT: Actually, it looks like that mod is no longer being maintained. I'll make the changes to my local copy but maybe someone can fix it in the incorporated versions that are used in HIP modules.
Could be. Could be PB+SWMH just falling through on its job too.in SWMH alone these 2 provinces definitely do have holdings so I have no idea where is the problem.
Though I must admit that now for some time I am not using the current version, but the next one to be released (in which nothing has been changed in these 2 provinces).
Maybe a compatibility version uses old province history files instead of new ones, which got completely new set of holdings? Could be the reason for more such problems across East Africa.
Not all of AO's ambitions are in PB's scope, but a large enough core chunk of them are. I wouldn't approve of direct integration / fix-up in this case, but I would happily throw down code for wanted ambitions that aren't squarely in the Immersion category. [Besides, they can be moved to VIET once Immersion is more back up to speed if that seems appropriate, as most HIP users can't use Immersion right now.]
I fear CK II is not made to sustain such a big map as SMHW s....what will you do when India will be added?Many PC s barley run the mod as it is,if they add India it will be unplayable even for mid range PC s..
e_mali = {
color={ 223 139 40 }
color2={ 255 255 255 }
#color={ 241 175 15 }
capital = 925 # Mali
culture = soninke
k_ghana = {
color={ 90 130 30 }
color2={ 255 255 255 }
capital = 913 # Ghana
d_ghana = {
color={ 191 206 231 }
color2={ 255 255 255 }
capital = 913 # Ghana
TigerDolphins said:Playing with PB and SWMH (plus the compatability module). At every start date I've checked there are some incorrectly "empty" provinces in East Africa. c_nubia and c_hayya have owners but no holdings, which leads to various sorts of diplomatic weirdness (no DoW, provinces appear on map as part of their larger kingdom but the characters are "independent", etc). Solved this problem for my own game via cheating to gain the titles and then building holdings in the capital slot manually, but thought I should report it anyways.
Hmm, SWMH fellas? Or is this on our side? If a province isn't worth a capital holding being built by default at all, it probably isn't worth an extra province, right? I mean, I certainly don't want to account for county titles that have no de jure vassal titles or province_capitals in CB code, e.g. Before I look for myself, perhaps the appropriate specialist will chime-in.
That said, I imagine this is indeed a bug, but it is probably a WIP placeholder issue on the East African work. Nothing too game-breaking, thankfully. Thanks for the heads-up.