• 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.
That surely is going to be months away. It strikes me as stupid for them to not include fixes in features that were promised in one dlc untill you release the next one.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
That surely is going to be months away. It strikes me as stupid for them to not include fixes in features that were promised in one dlc untill you release the next one.

The length of time it takes for anything to go through the pipeline means that whatever we see in a patch/release went into the actual code possibly months previous. Consider us hearing about fixes/changes early as a benefit rather than something to frustrate you because they don't toss it online immediately.
 
The length of time it takes for anything to go through the pipeline means that whatever we see in a patch/release went into the actual code possibly months previous. Consider us hearing about fixes/changes early as a benefit rather than something to frustrate you because they don't toss it online immediately.
They could at least put it in a beta release
 
They could at least put it in a beta release

And it may very well be -- but that would be a beta release for a future patch. When do you think the fixes in the current beta were put in there? It wasn't the day before it went public, I assure you. :)

We'll get it. I'm happy they trust the community enough to let us know ahead of time what's coming down the pipe.
 
What Rylock said. The current crop of the Captain's new modding features were programmed early in the post WoL time frame, and didn't go live until HL's first patch.
 
And it may very well be -- but that would be a beta release for a future patch. When do you think the fixes in the current beta were put in there? It wasn't the day before it went public, I assure you. :)

We'll get it. I'm happy they trust the community enough to let us know ahead of time what's coming down the pipe.
I know, just a bit impatient thats all :)

I trust them to put the stuff in eventually, its just the timeframe
 
Another one - ai_will_do doesn't seem to be doing anything in cb_types (giving a factor of 0 if distance exceeds a certain value does not preclude a crusade, but putting the distance restriction in can_use does), despite being added to some of the new vanilla CBs, and crusade weights don't seem to have much of an effect, if any, at least in the fragmented world of Lux Invicta.

So scripted triggers and events won't be fully fixed until the next major patch? Has the ai_will_do for cbs been fixed?

I can't seem to reproduce this. Setting all CB's to use factor 0, the only wars started are revolts/plots/event wars.

If you can give me a save where this regularly happens I can look at it again, but otherwise I will treat this as can't reproduce/fixed.
 
All I really know on that one is that putting this in the crusade CB ai_will_do:
Code:
     modifier = {
       factor = 0
       ROOT = {
         distance = {
           who = FROM
           value = 1000
         }
       }
     }
does not keep a landed religion head in West Africa from declaring a crusade on a realm in Tibet, which is probably close to 2000 distance and definitely over 1000.
 
All I really know on that one is that putting this in the crusade CB ai_will_do:
Code:
     modifier = {
       factor = 0
       ROOT = {
         distance = {
           who = FROM
           value = 1000
         }
       }
     }
does not keep a landed religion head in West Africa from declaring a crusade on a realm in Tibet, which is probably close to 2000 distance and definitely over 1000.

Using that code I get no long distance crusades - in fact I get no crusades at all in my game. So again, unless there is some reproduction case I can't do much about this.
 
I'll try reverting back to a version of Lux Invicta that was giving us the crusading problems, then sending you a link, but it won't be until tonight. It's possible the problem is upstream in the CB, but Validator wasn't indicating any problems.
 
I'll try reverting back to a version of Lux Invicta that was giving us the crusading problems, then sending you a link, but it won't be until tonight. It's possible the problem is upstream in the CB, but Validator wasn't indicating any problems.

The problem may also be in the measuring of the distance to Tibet. Wasn't there an issue with map distance which was (supposedly) fixed in one of the beta versions?
 
Lux Invicta build 1079 which is where I noticed that distance in ai_will_do didn't seem to do anything. Start a new game and within a month or two there are over a half dozen crusades for either Tibet or Bengal, despite both distance and crusade weights.
 
Lux Invicta build 1079 which is where I noticed that distance in ai_will_do didn't seem to do anything. Start a new game and within a month or two there are over a half dozen crusades for either Tibet or Bengal, despite both distance and crusade weights.

What version/patch is this one compatible with?
 
Buildings in forts... several people have tried to make them available, no one has reported success.

Correct. Buildings in forts was definitely not coded to work. It took some time but it seems to work correctly now.
 
I've had some trouble with the any_de_jure_vassal scope and the any_direct_de_jure_vassal scope.

This is what the any_de_jure_vassal scope gets me

PSGmTj9RyJnxPnHrcUwiOsQ46dQ1fDv9Pib6EqLYZ46v=w375-h138-no

and this is any_direct_de_jure_vassal

J_cwGZegs4qwP0m7TVZbUB7nHBePD3OnF4QCtOrTAfwY=w462-h324-no

From what I can see this is what the game contains:

Triggers:
any_direct_de_jure_vassal_title

Effects:
any_de_jure_vassal
any_de_jure_vassal_title
any_direct_de_jure_vassal_title
 
  • 1
Reactions:
From what I can see this is what the game contains:

Triggers:
any_direct_de_jure_vassal_title

Effects:
any_de_jure_vassal
any_de_jure_vassal_title
any_direct_de_jure_vassal_title
Why are they limited in such a way? And as you can see in the picture the any_direct_de_jure_vassal_title lacks localisation.