CK2Plus - Report a Bug

[vukica]

The college of cardinals is missing from their view screen. Only the Pope and my appointed Bishop can be seen. It makes sense for earlier start dates, but after 1066 they should be there.

That's a vanilla bug, don't remember why/when it happens.

I get great holy wars in pre 900 start dates even if is set them in the game rules to start later.

When do you get GHW/Crusades/Jihads?
Game rule can only delay for a certain number of years if they're activated.

The jihad weights are messed up. For example, Nikaea has a weight of 250 while Jerusalem has 75 and Africa only 20.

Known, and I think it's fixed in dev version.

 

[vukica]

I don't know if it's a bug or WAD but as a duke under gavelkind I can change succession law to ultimo (one condition on the allow OR clause is "emf_laws_no_crown_law_title_trigger = yes" (doesn't have crown laws)) but not to primo (the condition is replaced to check whether if it's a viceroyalty).

That means that no duke may institute primogeniture until enacting late feudal administration as they don't have crown laws so that the other OR condition pass.

Regards.

You still have crown authority, it's taken from the de jure title. It's not the best system TBH...

 

[Deranfan]

That's a vanilla bug, don't remember why/when it happens.



When do you get GHW/Crusades/Jihads?
Game rule can only delay for a certain number of years if they're activated.



Known, and I think it's fixed in dev version.

That's a vanilla bug, don't remember why/when it happens.



When do you get GHW/Crusades/Jihads?
Game rule can only delay for a certain number of years if they're activated.



Known, and I think it's fixed in dev version.

I get great holy wars in the second day of the game. The Abbasid's get involved in around 4 holy wars and another one for the purification of Persia at the same time.
I set the game rule for delayed Crusades but left untouched the one where I could chose between 1 and 10 years after the start of the game. I assumed the option for delayed Crusades would use the vanilla behavior which only allows them after the year 900.

 

[schwarherz]

I get great holy wars in the second day of the game. The Abbasid's get involved in around 4 holy wars and another one for the purification of Persia at the same time.
I set the game rule for delayed Crusades but left untouched the one where I could chose between 1 and 10 years after the start of the game. I assumed the option for delayed Crusades would use the vanilla behavior which only allows them after the year 900.

Holy war and crusade/jihad/great holy war are vastly different things

 

[AndryB07]

Maybe it is because of the custom-ruler, not sure, but I have a bug that's well... bugging me. I am attempting to start a game in Venice Merchant Republic ( earliest date, middle ages 769 or something ) and I select custom-dynasty. If I assume the dynasty of someone else ( since I don't like playing with a char with no history ) it crashes, like clockwork exactly after one year ( on the autosave )

It may be related to the inheritance of the house that glitches out? Anyone knows a way to fix it? Thanks.

Update - If I use custom-ruler without assuming dynasty through trait I get no crash after one year on autosave.

 

[Deranfan]

I found the problem. The historical events pack mod was causing the early crusades.

For the cardinals. If you wait a few months they get all assigned, its only empty when you start a new game.

 

[a1b2c3d4e5f6]

You still have crown authority, it's taken from the de jure title. It's not the best system TBH...

What I mean is that one law checks is CA is available while the other doesn't, considering both laws are virtually the same (the only thing that changes is whether the successor is the first or the last son/daughter) they should have the same checks in that particular clause (restricting to cultures/faith is another matter).

A block of conditions to switch from elective to ultimo are:

allow = {
            holder_scope = { NOT = { has_character_flag = liege_forced_succ_law } }
            emf_laws_change_succ_prestige_cost_trigger = yes
            OR = {
                emf_laws_no_crown_law_title_trigger = yes
                emf_laws_crownlaw_title_high_ca_plus_trigger = yes
                emf_laws_holder_has_late_adminstration_plus_trigger = yes
                emf_laws_holder_liege_has_late_adminstration_plus_trigger = yes
            }
        }

And elective to primo:

allow = {
            holder_scope = { NOT = { has_character_flag = liege_forced_succ_law } }
            emf_laws_change_succ_prestige_cost_trigger = yes
            OR = {
                emf_laws_crownlaw_title_high_ca_plus_trigger = yes
                emf_laws_holder_has_late_adminstration_plus_trigger = yes
                emf_laws_holder_liege_has_late_adminstration_plus_trigger = yes
                custom_tooltip = {
                    text = emf_ctt_holds_viceroyalty
                    hidden_tooltip = {
                        holder_scope = { any_demesne_title = { is_vice_royalty = yes } }
                    }
                }
            }
        }

What I don't know is if they are so similar, why one replaces the check on whether you have CA for a check on viceroyalties?

 

[FakeShady]

Has anyone witnessed the Golden Horde/Ilkhanate form naturally? I can't seem to get it to form even using console commands. The trigger looks off:

Spoiler

 

[LordPeter]

Has anyone witnessed the Golden Horde/Ilkhanate form naturally? I can't seem to get it to form even using console commands. The trigger looks off:

Spoiler

You are right, that looks fishy.
Not because you can't fire it in observer mode, that might have caused the issues with "title rank".
But because that top "Never" corresponds to a "always = no" in the code - meaning the event can not fire at all. I didn't notice anything because I don't usually play the later bookmarks or a longer session.
I suspect it is the result of a compatch gone awry, as in vanilla that event is inactive (has the same line, but is also commented out - it's an entirely different event there though).
There is another event in the same file (mongol_events.txt) with "always = no", with the ID 60006.

I am not 100% sure I understand these events though, so @vukica could you take a look?

 

[FakeShady]

You are right, that looks fishy.
Not because you can't fire it in observer mode, that might have caused the issues with "title rank".
But because that top "Never" corresponds to a "always = no" in the code - meaning the event can not fire at all. I didn't notice anything because I don't usually play the later bookmarks or a longer session.
I suspect it is the result of a compatch gone awry, as in vanilla that event is inactive (has the same line, but is also commented out - it's an entirely different event there though).
There is another event in the same file (mongol_events.txt) with "always = no", with the ID 60006.

I am not 100% sure I understand these events though, so @vukica could you take a look?

If it matters, I fired that event while not in observer mode. It cannot be fired in observe mode ("invalid id" or something)

 

[vukica]

What I mean is that one law checks is CA is available while the other doesn't, considering both laws are virtually the same (the only thing that changes is whether the successor is the first or the last son/daughter) they should have the same checks in that particular clause (restricting to cultures/faith is another matter).

A block of conditions to switch from elective to ultimo are:

allow = {
            holder_scope = { NOT = { has_character_flag = liege_forced_succ_law } }
            emf_laws_change_succ_prestige_cost_trigger = yes
            OR = {
                emf_laws_no_crown_law_title_trigger = yes
                emf_laws_crownlaw_title_high_ca_plus_trigger = yes
                emf_laws_holder_has_late_adminstration_plus_trigger = yes
                emf_laws_holder_liege_has_late_adminstration_plus_trigger = yes
            }
        }

And elective to primo:

allow = {
            holder_scope = { NOT = { has_character_flag = liege_forced_succ_law } }
            emf_laws_change_succ_prestige_cost_trigger = yes
            OR = {
                emf_laws_crownlaw_title_high_ca_plus_trigger = yes
                emf_laws_holder_has_late_adminstration_plus_trigger = yes
                emf_laws_holder_liege_has_late_adminstration_plus_trigger = yes
                custom_tooltip = {
                    text = emf_ctt_holds_viceroyalty
                    hidden_tooltip = {
                        holder_scope = { any_demesne_title = { is_vice_royalty = yes } }
                    }
                }
            }
        }

What I don't know is if they are so similar, why one replaces the check on whether you have CA for a check on viceroyalties?

Ok, that's wrong. There are no vice royal titles in Plus.

 

[FakeShady]

Has anyone witnessed the Golden Horde/Ilkhanate form naturally? I can't seem to get it to form even using console commands. The trigger looks off:

Continued:

More than once now, the Mongols will spawn, only for Genghis Khan to be completely unlanded and without troops just 1 day later. Fortunately, I have screenshots

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Exhibit C: Before - After

That last image: Yes, that's his entire family joining my court.

This bug cannot be produced reliably, I will say I can only reproduce it with ~25% confidence.

 

[Momhomard]

HI, I have huge freeze on the Beta version of CK2Plus 4.07BETA6 on CK2 2.8.1.1, since day one in 776 I have something like 10fps in 4x fast time

I tried to rollback on CK2Plus 4.06.8 (still on CK2 2.8.1.1) but this time it's the succession laws who change on appointment everytime for everyone even NPCs, even if I "allow_laws" and switch on something else, it will change on appointment (and even with children I have no heir)

 

[LordPeter]

HI, I have huge freeze on the Beta version of CK2Plus 4.07BETA6 on CK2 2.8.1.1, since day one in 776 I have something like 10fps in 4x fast time

Not a bug I'm afraid, performance might be significantly lower on slow PCs. I suffer from the same problem, but my PC is pretty old (Phenom II X4 @3.2 Ghz). The main devs have no problem running the newer versions on their rigs, which are newer gen with fast, proper quadcore i5/i7 CPUs.
Basically, CK2+ is a whole new game on top of an old CK2 engine, which requires you to have far superior specs than for vanilla CK2.
I'm afraid that's how it is right now, we may be able to optimize a bit, but it is unlikely CK2+ will ever become faster again. But as I said, it is not a problem on newer rigs with lots of Ghz.
What you can wait for is the "no India" performance submod which will remove part of the map and thus should increase performance significantly. However, it's not yet scheduled when it will be finished again (requires lots of work).

I tried to rollback on CK2Plus 4.06.8 (still on CK2 2.8.1.1) but this time it's the succession laws who change on appointment everytime for everyone even NPCs, even if I "allow_laws" and switch on something else, it will change on appointment (and even with children I have no heir)

Mod version 4.06 is for vanilla patch 2.7 only, it does not work with 2.8. So these problems are to be expected.

 

[Momhomard]

Thanks for your reply,
I don't have a slow config that's why I don't understand I have an I7 4790K with 16go RAM &1080ti, or maybe it's to short (CPU maybe) I don't know but didn't have this issue before it's like the normal game around 1300 or more when game is already advanced

Ok for the 4.06 it makes perfect sense then, I thought it was fully backward compatible

 

[vukica]

Using the wrong mod version *will* result with all sorts of bugs including performance issues.

One thing you can in general do, is to disable tracing for the game, i.e. remove -debugscripts etc. from the command line when running CK2.

 

[Momhomard]

I'm not sure to understand what to do, should I write this on the starts options on steam ?

"i.e. remove -debugscripts etc" ?

 

[vukica]

No, if you're already running with that, then remove it. Otherwise you should be at maximum speed already.

 

[Momhomard]

I don't know, in the start options of the game I don't have anything wrote, and I don't remember write this somewhere

 

[LordPeter]

I have an I7 4790K with 16go RAM &1080ti

Okay.
With that PC, you should not have a performance issue.
I'm afraid I have no idea what the problem is then
As I said several mod devs have similar (or slightly weaker) PCs, and they don't encounter any performance issues at all.

I don't know, in the start options of the game I don't have anything wrote, and I don't remember write this somewhere

Then you probably don't have it on - you usually don't turn it on unless you want to debug or develop mods yourself.
As vukica said, you should be at full speed. Why the performance issue exists for you I have no idea...