Captain to the Rescue

[Tintiam]

Alright this is going to sound weird, but I think something is going on with the add_alliance command.

If I use this code:

targetted_decisions = {
    hackhackhack = {
        filter = court
        ai_target_filter = court
        from_potential = {
            ai = no
        }
        potential = {
            is_ruler = yes
            higher_tier_than = baron
        }
        effect = {
            opinion = { who = FROM modifier = in_non_aggression_pact years = 10 }
            add_alliance = { who = FROM years = 10 }
        }
        revoke_allowed = {
            always = no
        }
        ai_will_do = {
            factor = 0
        }
    }
}

I can start up the game and try the decision out it creates alliances. If I start the game again, it only creates non-aggression pacts. If I start it again it creates alliances!

It's not a direct one to one relation per game session. Sometimes it creates an alliance, sometimes it does not, but it seems linked to the game session because if the decision creates only pacts, whoever I use it on will only get pacts. If in my restarted game it is creating alliances, it will always create alliances no matter who I use the decision on.

I think this is some weird behaviour and I hope it's not a hard to find bug.

 

[DC123456789]

I think you have to add alliances on both sides (i.e. add_alliance for Root to From, and then another for From to Root). That's the only way I could get it to work properly when executing effects in history.

 

[ngppgn]

Alright this is going to sound weird, but I think something is going on with the add_alliance command.

If I use this code:

targetted_decisions = {
    hackhackhack = {
        filter = court
        ai_target_filter = court
        from_potential = {
            ai = no
        }
        potential = {
            is_ruler = yes
            higher_tier_than = baron
        }
        effect = {
            opinion = { who = FROM modifier = in_non_aggression_pact years = 10 }
            add_alliance = { who = FROM years = 10 }
        }
        revoke_allowed = {
            always = no
        }
        ai_will_do = {
            factor = 0
        }
    }
}

I can start up the game and try the decision out it creates alliances. If I start the game again, it only creates non-aggression pacts. If I start it again it creates alliances!

It's not a direct one to one relation per game session. Sometimes it creates an alliance, sometimes it does not, but it seems linked to the game session because if the decision creates only pacts, whoever I use it on will only get pacts. If in my restarted game it is creating alliances, it will always create alliances no matter who I use the decision on.

I think this is some weird behaviour and I hope it's not a hard to find bug.

Hum... aren't alliances supposed to include NAPs? In the sense that if you have an alliance with a character, it is understood that you have also a NAP? What I'm getting at is that in theory you are not supposed to have BOTH at once, so maybe that's why the game is behaving so weidly.

 

[Tintiam]

Hum... aren't alliances supposed to include NAPs? In the sense that if you have an alliance with a character, it is understood that you have also a NAP? What I'm getting at is that in theory you are not supposed to have BOTH at once, so maybe that's why the game is behaving so weidly.

Actually from my attempts an alliance is never created if there is not already a NAP.

I commented out the NAP line and started up my game four times, and nothing ever happened when using the decision. (Even though the localisation says an alliance is created!)

 

[ngppgn]

@Divine: I understands this can be very low priority, but it seems that there some hardcoded-ness to tribal holding localisation.

namely, the string TRIBAL_NAME_PROV; which appear as a tribal holding name when you open buildview, even if the holding is owned by a character with a custon government (within or without the tibal governments group).
Also, in the province view, when you hover the mose over the image of a tribal holding, in the tooltip you see "Tribal lands of <holding name>. Searching through localisation, the only string that matches is tribal_barony_of. I tried setting a custom government, with title_prefix = "adventurer_" and put this line within a .csv file

adventurer_barony_of; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;x

That however doesn't change the result. here is a screenshot exemplifying both issues.

So, resuming, it seems that title_prefix doesn't work correctly for tribal holdings. And TRIBAL_NAME_PROV should not be applied outside of the vanilla tribal_gouvernment.

 

[Zarathustra_the]

There appears to be a bug in governments with the move_capital flag. IF you are not a nomad, the counter will tick over into negative, and so you will soon end up with -130 months till you can next move government. Is there anyway we may see this fixed. Furthermore, is there any chance we could see more flags in government types, things like max_wives and divine_blood perhaps?

 

[Tintiam]

Not sure if this is hard to implement due to it being tied to the title creation system or something, but is it possible to split up these defines

DEJURE_COUNTY_LIMIT_TO_CREATE
DEJURE_COUNTY_LIMIT_TO_USURP

between duchies and kingdoms?

There is already a define solely for empire ("imperial") titles (EMPIRE_DEJURE_COUNTY_LIMIT_TO_CREATE), but kingdom and duchy titles use the same define

 

[Romulien]

Furthermore, is there any chance we could see more flags in government types, things like max_wives and divine_blood perhaps?

Not sure if this is hard to implement due to it being tied to the title creation system or something, but is it possible to split up these defines

DEJURE_COUNTY_LIMIT_TO_CREATE
DEJURE_COUNTY_LIMIT_TO_USURP

between duchies and kingdoms?

There is already a define solely for empire ("imperial") titles (EMPIRE_DEJURE_COUNTY_LIMIT_TO_CREATE), but kingdom and duchy titles use the same define

Is this the new Suggestions for Improved Moddability thread ?

 

[Rylock]

Yeah, if this thread could be kept for modding issues rather than modding requests, that would be excellent. There's really no other place we can ask such questions, after all.

 

[Tintiam]

Is this the new Suggestions for Improved Moddability thread ?

My bad I actually thought I was posting IN the suggestions thread

 

[DC123456789]

I can confirm that the add_alliance command is broken. As Tintiam said, every other time the alliance is created properly and it's all fine, but at other times no actual alliance is formed but instead the game thinks that every ruler is allied for the purposes of penalties for breaking an alliance (i.e. anyone who declares war for any reason will get a 250 prestige penalty for breaking an alliance even if there is none).

 

[Azarias59]

Yeah, if this thread could be kept for modding issues rather than modding requests, that would be excellent. There's really no other place we can ask such questions, after all.

The Improved Moddability page screams "overgrown, unattended garden". Maybe Divine is reading through it; maybe not. But if someone could give us some periodical indication that they've gone through the requests, and maybe post their thoughts on some of the suggestions, it would be extremely nice - for morale, at least, if nothing else.

 

[blackninja9939]

The Improved Moddability page screams "overgrown, unattended garden". Maybe Divine is reading through it; maybe not. But if someone could give us some periodical indication that they've gone through the requests, and maybe post their thoughts on some of the suggestions, it would be extremely nice - for morale, at least, if nothing else.

Well I made a bullet pointed list of some of the key things and so far quite a lot of them have been added by Divine so I would think the thread does at least get visited even if no reply is posted

 

[omega20056]

@Divine: I have discovered the cause of my levy issue. It seems that, since 2.4.5, levy laws are not being applied to kings. The laws in my mod should force a king vassal to give their liege 100% of their levies, but the laws are not being applied to them. I've tried crown, demense, and obligation versions of the same levy law, and the result is the same. The only reason I can raise troops from my vassal kings is seemingly opinion. It's also interesting to note that vassal kings that hold viceroyal duchies receive the levy penalty, even when their main title is not a viceroyality.

I should be getting all 5,306 of that vassal's troops, but you can see for yourself that I'm only getting half, and that's based entirely on opinion.

 

[Divine]

@Divine: I have discovered the cause of my levy issue. It seems that, since 2.4.5, levy laws are not being applied to kings. The laws in my mod should force a king vassal to give their liege 100% of their levies, but the laws are not being applied to them. I've tried crown, demense, and obligation versions of the same levy law, and the result is the same. The only reason I can raise troops from my vassal kings is seemingly opinion. It's also interesting to note that vassal kings that hold viceroyal duchies receive the levy penalty, even when their main title is not a viceroyality.

I should be getting all 5,306 of that vassal's troops, but you can see for yourself that I'm only getting half, and that's based entirely on opinion.

Interesting. I'll make sure someone gets an eye on it.

 

[Zarathustra_the]

@Divine any chance you can have a look at the move_capital flag in governments, it loops into negative if used on a non Nomad Government.

 

[Divine]

There appears to be a bug in governments with the move_capital flag. IF you are not a nomad, the counter will tick over into negative, and so you will soon end up with -130 months till you can next move government. Is there anyway we may see this fixed. Furthermore, is there any chance we could see more flags in government types, things like max_wives and divine_blood perhaps?

Do you have any repro steps for this?
I tried to mod the feudal government to have "capital_move_delay = 1" and then I could swap my capital around through the province interface every month without issues.

 

[Zarathustra_the]

It seems to happen periodically. Works fine first switch then seems to bugger up later by stepping into negative. Sometimes after reloading. Sometimes after just extended sessions.

 

[Divine]

The Improved Moddability page screams "overgrown, unattended garden". Maybe Divine is reading through it; maybe not. But if someone could give us some periodical indication that they've gone through the requests, and maybe post their thoughts on some of the suggestions, it would be extremely nice - for morale, at least, if nothing else.

I'll try to make a post or two over there. I skim through it every now and then but I might miss some posts. Why I've been hesitant to post is that I've been gathering multiple suggestions then tried to evaluate how I should prioritize those and some stuff is on my list but if I get notified about more important issues they might get stuck in a limbo and be very far from implementation time-wise.

 

[Zarathustra_the]

Also i mostly play as a republic