• Crusader Kings III Available Now!

    The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.


    Real Strategy Requires Cunning
Status
Not open for further replies.

unmerged(15247)

immortal technique
Mar 3, 2003
1.964
0
Garbon said:
If possible we should research how much it costs to learn a new tech. It is weird to see Mainz as a tech leader.

indeed; all that becouse years ago there were soo many cries for balance and impossible to play minors(!?) due to powers hyperteching. all valid points indeed, especially from gameplay aspects BUT the solution that the ceu2 designers came up solves a problem only to create another; well at least the game is more appealing since new player have better "chances"
 

unmerged(40707)

Just call me Yoda in private!
Mar 1, 2005
20.187
2
beregic said:
do they really need to be solved? i mean towards what end? ONLY to "fit" the posibility of having more commands? ;)
No, because we already experienced problems with use of current commands for specific goals and result was not satisfying.

This is not about adding/modifying stuffs for the "beauty" but because we identified they will be useful.
Nevertheless, it takes time and time is always limited and decisions will have to be made for priorities.

beregic said:
to be honest i was going to give eu2 up a long time ago if it is not for the way vassals and diplomacy works in eu2. the war system is pretty lame in itself nothing special there. the trade and economy are SO-SO all comes down to numbers just like in any other game. but diplomacy and the political system ARE original, no need to change much...
It doesn't mean such systems can't be enhanced... if it doesn't destroy the spirit of the game.
 

Circonflexe

Recruit
1 Badges
Jul 3, 2008
9
0
  • Victoria 2
Wanting to helplp

Hi, I'd like to lend a hand to the EU2 project. I have quite some experience in C programming, most of it under Linux and other Unixes (Solaris, *BSD); this includes network, memory, development tools such as autoconf... I already contributed some non-negligible code to FreeCiv. I also know some C++, though not as well as C, but am willing to learn it for EU2 :)

My main projects for the game would be, roughly sorted by priorities:

* I'd like to contribute to a Linux port of the game, of course. (Even if it works very well under Wine, this would be neat).

* I also have some goals about the game itself; this includes fixing some irritating GUI quirks (for example, make the keyboard configurable, so that we might be able to pause with <Space> key instead of the far-fetched <Pause>; make the Missionaries, Colonists, Merchants, Diplomats buttons up there open the corresponding action screen; etc.)

* Obviously, contribute to a better AI. Including keeping it up to date with any changes a user-dev-team might introduce.

* As for the Big Game Engine, the thing I find most important is to change the trading engine, and mostly remove the importance of COTs to make this more historical. I wish that there would be more COTs (maybe allowing players to *set up* a COT, with enough money), and that merchants would be used to make trade routes between those. Perhaps you should also be allowed to set the prices of the commodities at the markets; and the pirates would appear alongside your trade roads. This would make all of it more realistic, and allow you to engage into trade wars, such as buying all lead (or wheat) to prevent the Big Meanie's army from being able to invade. (The Dutch did a lot of this).

* I would also like to implement "colonial wars". In essence, you could use an explorer/conquistador to map a territory (including foreing TPs) and claim this for your crown (this includes Tordesillas, Louisiana, New Netherlands, for instance), which would give you a "colonial CB shield" on those provinces. A colonial war could the be waged (with rules to define). This did happen a lot of times, between for instance Portugal and the Netherlands in Brazil, England/Netherlands in the northern US, France/Spain in the southern US, France/Portugal in Brazil, and even Scotland/Spain in Darien and Brandeburg/Spain in Venezuela ("Kleinvenedig").

* Combine the two previous points, and what do you get? Privateers. Yummy.

I have almost no time avilable for coding *right now*, but plan to have some more in the future (in the autumn). That PhD dissertation is not going to write itself...

Is there any team already set up that would welcome a new member?
 

MichaelM

For the Glory lead
10 Badges
Jun 30, 2004
3.745
70
crystalempiregames.com
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • For The Glory
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris Sign-up
Circonflexe said:
Is there any team already set up that would welcome a new member?
Yes! YodaMaster is our project manager, so drop him a PM (or maybe he'll drop you one). :)
 

unmerged(40707)

Just call me Yoda in private!
Mar 1, 2005
20.187
2
Circonflexe said:
Is there any team already set up that would welcome a new member?
Some interesting ideas... :)

But I have to consult other members of the team first. I will PM you.
 

MattyG

Attention is love.
13 Badges
Mar 23, 2003
3.690
1
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Deus Vult
  • Diplomacy
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
Circonflexe said:
* As for the Big Game Engine, the thing I find most important is to change the trading engine, and mostly remove the importance of COTs to make this more historical. I wish that there would be more COTs (maybe allowing players to *set up* a COT, with enough money), and that merchants would be used to make trade routes between those. Perhaps you should also be allowed to set the prices of the commodities at the markets; and the pirates would appear alongside your trade roads. This would make all of it more realistic, and allow you to engage into trade wars, such as buying all lead (or wheat) to prevent the Big Meanie's army from being able to invade. (The Dutch did a lot of this).
Intriguing that noone else has yet suggested changes to this aspect of the game in this thread.

The CoT system is an intriguing situation. Nobody really likes it, but you will be hard pressed to get players to agree to something else, either! Minor changes, maybe, but a wholesale reworking of the trade system will be hard to get agreement on. Not that the SCT needs to get agreement on anything, it can do what it likes. Trying to develop a relatively-simple model for the varying economies of the period (it will be different for the Incas pre 1530 than for Europe in 1650 than for India in 1800) will be a real challenge. And I for one do not want to see anything even close to the tediously-fiddly scale of Victoria.

To some extrent I just ignore the trading system of EU2. It's totally abstract and I just do what I need to do: I print money when I have to, keep inflation low, grab CoTs as cash cows and don't bother with merchants intil at least Trade level 3. And try not to think about what it really represents. And it all sort of works in a very abstract, hazy, drug-induced sort of way.

If I had to have my wishes, it would be to do away with the CoT system altogether, simplifying the game even further. I have never liked the idea of sending merchants (these are individuals and the game operates on the scale of you representing an Eternal Gray Eminence). I'd rather see it that we set the policies and we do what we can to encourage merchant activity, which the game then hadles and calculates bsed on:

1. Manufactories (another strange element)
2. Mercanilism/Free Trade
3. Trade tech level
4. control of provinces with varied and valuable goods
5. Trade agreements and trade refusals (so they really make a difference)
6. The general number of positive relationships we have.

This would then calculate a monthly amount of tariffs we earn, based once again on the DP slider. Being closer to Free Trade would reduce the percentage of tariffs one earns but build a larger amount that the percentage is based on which, in the latter years of the game, would definitely translate into more ducats than Mercantilism. being closer to mercanilism would do the opposite.

However, I also think that being Free Trade ought to give bonuses to Infra and Trade tech groups, representing the greater influx/exchange of ideas.

* I would also like to implement "colonial wars". In essence, you could use an explorer/conquistador to map a territory (including foreing TPs) and claim this for your crown (this includes Tordesillas, Louisiana, New Netherlands, for instance), which would give you a "colonial CB shield" on those provinces. A colonial war could the be waged (with rules to define). This did happen a lot of times, between for instance Portugal and the Netherlands in Brazil, England/Netherlands in the northern US, France/Spain in the southern US, France/Portugal in Brazil, and even Scotland/Spain in Darien and Brandeburg/Spain in Venezuela ("Kleinvenedig").
Solid idea. Colonial Cores. Like it.
 

unmerged(40707)

Just call me Yoda in private!
Mar 1, 2005
20.187
2
MattyG said:
Intriguing that noone else has yet suggested changes to this aspect of the game in this thread.
I never expressed here all my ideas but I expressed some of them on the French forum (for those who can read it). ;)

For cores, four types:
-National provinces
-Claims (could be negociated in peace deals)
-Colonial cores (could be negociated in peace deals)
-Tordesillas (colonial cores + current rule for ToT => can't be negociated during ToT time and become "standard" colonial cores after)

National province is simply current definition of core with full effect. Others could have decreased effect on revoltrisk (could even increase it for colonial cores...) and incomes.

Of course, no need to go in Colonization map in order to see Tordesillas cores but colonial cores will then appear on this map too. A little icon over the shield will distinguish the cores.
It could be possible to check cores of other countries on political map. As an option, political map could even be playable.


About Trade system, this is another story. CoT could be the start points of Commercial roads and roads are defined as provinces to be crossed (land provinces or sea zones but not a mix). Area covered by a CoT could represent offer and demand for goods. If a CoT has a surplus, this surplus can be "sold" to the most "powerful" (trade level will have influence, but not only - see MattyG's proposal) CoT it is connected to (imagine for Portuguese a very valuable direct road from Tago to India... :) ). Merchants will not be sent but CoTs require investments from the owner in order to be able to collect or carry goods (merchant navies for maritime roads or caravans for land roads). For maritime roads, warships (or galleys if not part in open ocean) could be devoted to the defense (subtracted from available war navies). It could thus be possible to temporarily cut Commercial roads (or "steal", see privateers and pirates) if the road is not enough defended, especially during wars, but not only and not always.
This is just an idea but it could be an interesting evolution of current system.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(15247)

immortal technique
Mar 3, 2003
1.964
0
MattyG said:
Solid idea. Colonial Cores. Like it.
you already implemented those with the current engine in your mod. of course , with certain engine "limitations" BUT it works very good, on of the best, original part about intererregnum ;)
 

unmerged(40707)

Just call me Yoda in private!
Mar 1, 2005
20.187
2
beregic said:
you already implemented those with the current engine in your mod. of course , with certain engine "limitations" BUT it works very good, on of the best, original part about intererregnum ;)
We already use "colonial" cores a lot for AGCEEP too.
 

Jooone

Corporal
3 Badges
Apr 27, 2007
30
0
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • 500k Club
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
I have a question, with the source code released are you planning to extend the numbers of countries in the game. I know some countries has been left out because of the limit. For example, will the North American native tribes be put back into game now? or how about the Japanesse civil wars will it still be Japan with events or will the country actually get divided now?

Thanks Jooone
 

unmerged(40707)

Just call me Yoda in private!
Mar 1, 2005
20.187
2
Yes, see here. But even with current limitation, some tags were reserved for Japan and the new AGCEEP map. See discussion here.
 

Mats_SX

Field Marshal
27 Badges
Mar 11, 2005
5.617
0
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II
beregic said:
my point is that one should be carefull not to loose certain specifics eu2 has and the diplomatic-political aspect is likelly the one right on top of the list.

to be honest i was going to give eu2 up a long time ago if it is not for the way vassals and diplomacy works in eu2. the war system is pretty lame in itself nothing special there. the trade and economy are SO-SO all comes down to numbers just like in any other game. but diplomacy and the political system ARE original, no need to change much...
I did not suggest an arbitrary change with no alternative option. I suggested that perhaps it could be made possible to mod the amount of nations in one's alliance, to exceed the current four nation limit. Then players could make their own rules for themselves. You are happy and I am happy. There is nothing to contest here.
 

unmerged(40707)

Just call me Yoda in private!
Mar 1, 2005
20.187
2
Garbon is right. Every "entity" can't deserve a tag according to EU2 definition of a country. And gameplay is taken in account too.
Of course, we have to make choices because of current limitation but an infinite number of tags wouldn't change the definition of what can be a playable country.
 

Circonflexe

Recruit
1 Badges
Jul 3, 2008
9
0
  • Victoria 2
About trade:

The trade rules I suggested are obviously very vague and just that, a suggestion. Overhauling everything is not a top priority anyways; the first thing to do is boost a bit further the game stability and comfort, and the second one probably relates to the AI in some way.

The advantages of what I suggested was that commodities could have a different price in different regions -- obviously, furs would be much less valuable in Québec than in Madrid, and Europe's main exports would be weapons (and beads). This would allow the players to make a profit from the trade routes. (Think of Machiavelli: Merchant prince of Venice, for those who have played it). If we want to keep things historical (there is an If, there, and a big one at that) there should be no need to actually control a province to benefit from its trade, and a TP could even be set up in a non-controlled province: for example, the Portuguese, and then the Dutch, did a lot of trade in Japan; the French kept several TPs in India after the Seven Year's War; they also had a deal with the Ottomans. The closest we can get to this stuff right now is the trade agreement, which is meaningless if one or both sides don't have a CoT.

So the very rough ideas yield something like:

* the CoTs could have « ranges » much like they do now, and goods would diffuse from the provinces to the CoT to the provinces in their ranges in the same way they do now -- but also backwards, from the CoT to the provinces, from imported goods. This should set up a basic offer and demand economy, without there being too much micromanagement. (In reality, this should be done in a per-province basis, but this is not feasible).
The mercantilism slider would also have an effect on the shape of the CoT ranges: mercantilism would hinder provinces getting access to a foreign CoT (taxes).
For example, now the price of furs and tobacco is controlled by the promotion of civil servants. With this proposal, the promotion of civil servants in Spain, would raise the price of furs and tobacco in the Andalusia CoT only.

* merchants would link two CoTs. An interesting effect of enough free trade would be to allow a greater number of roads that connect two non-owned CoTs (again, the Dutch), whereas mercantile nations (Spain) could only link two CoTs that they own, and nations that fall somewhere in the middle could link an owned CoT with a foreign one. But you would benefit from owning the CoT (Dutch Batavia was set up for this).

* possibility to set up a trading post in a foreign-owned province. (Venice should have one of those in Constantinople at the beginning of the game; France in Pondicherry; Portugal in Nagasaki; England in Hong-Kong). This should entitle you to the trade benefits of the province, and there should also be some kind of counterpart for the province owner (who would obviously benefit from the TP to be in his province vs. the neighbouring one); for example, this might require a trading agreement, so that the province owner can freely trade in the TP-owner's CoT; and this should also imply a diplomatic guarantee.

* privateers on a province would yield to their owner some part of the trade throughput of this province, and a chance each month that the trade route stops (merchant killed). They would also randomly give CBs on their home country for their sometimes uncontrolled exactions (think of pirates sacking Cartagena).

* Mercantilism, while preventing foreign countries to trading with your spice-rich colonies, should also expose you to loss of income from contraband. So the penalty should be in terms of trade efficiency, not in number of merchants and colonists. (Spain was heavily mercantile and still a heavy colonizer; Louis XIV's reign was the times when France was both the most mercantile and the greatest colonizer). This would be an option for a player who is a bit lagging behind in trade, and who would want to be insulated from world trade -- try and hurt the others, even if he gets hurt too. (And this penalty could be negated, for some particular foreign player, by a trade agreement, such as the Spanish Asiento to England, which would obviously benefit England most; or the trade agreement between François I and Suleyman the Magnificent, both at the head of otherwise quite mercantile countries). Actually, this becomes a viable alternative once your part of the world production is larger than what you could expect of the world trade. (Spain, pre-1763 France, early Ottoman Empire).

* A lot of those conditions should be available as peace treaty options. Most peace treaties actually did include that kind of provisons, the Spanish Asiento being the most famous example.

Again, this is by no means a complete and definite proposition, but instead just a basis for more improvement!

Colonies

About the Tordesillas rules: I actually see no reason to make them different from claimed territory. The Tordesillas treaty was weakly enforced and sometimes renegociated (Spain and Portugal did some realpolitik), and grabbing of foreign colonies and TPs was certainly not done via Papal authority but by brute might (mostly against the French, at Fort Caroline in Florida, or in France Antarctique in Brazil). If the Tordesillas treaty did nothing but adding some huge claimed territory for Spain and Portugal, they would get a colonial-CB on anyone settling those places, and would be quite sure to win a colonial war in the early centuries; this initially huge advantage would later be eroded as the navies get mightier, and there would probably be no need for a such brutal ending to Tordesillas as the Tolerance edict.

And just for fun: give the colonies (viceroyalties) some names! Having on a map such separate entities as « Viceroyalty of New Granada », « France Antarctique », « New England », « Dutch East India Company (VOC) », « Portuguese Brazil », « Viceroyalty of Peru », « Danish India », « Louisiana » etc. would be veeeery coool, even with no effect at all on the gameplay.

If it has any effect, this could be related to the core provinces: for instance, « New England » would get cores (by event or by player's action) on « New Netherland »'s provinces, which would yield a colonial war between England and the Netherlands, limited to those colonies (though other colonies *might* get a CB on the attacker too -- colonial solidarity is not a given, but this is a nice pretext for grabbing some extra territory). In some way, this amounts to treating colonies a bit like super-vassals.

Another, nice side-effect would be to help a bit in colonial wars: as the colony already includes some provinces, this is a nice « plug-and-play »revolter.

Again, like everything I said about trade, this certainly poses lots of problems that I did not see.
But even without any gameplay effect, named colonies would really be coooooooool. :)
 

Toio

Field Marshal
6 Badges
Jun 18, 2003
7.699
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
Any changes in COTs that I read seem to all favour the bigger nations, what happens to smaller nations that have COTS, ie, Portugal, Venice, Denmark and Muscovy ( early in the game, no COT , no muscovy) . Should they not be aided ?

COTs where basically, Auction Houses where neighbours would pay a portion of their sale to the COT owner,

I think the COT ranges should remain and an annual fixed % of the province (not owned by the COT nation) value that was in the COT's "range" would pay the COT owner.

The COTs would also have a extra "gift" of monies given to it based on number of provinces with same goods under its influence dominating the markets of that continent. So, if denmark's COT have more fur provinces under its Cot range than another COT in europe , it will get more money.

Gold provinces should be included in the trade value of the COT

Merchant fee for attending a COT , 1 ducat for 1 merchant , 2 ducats for 2 merchants etc etc
 
Last edited:

Circonflexe

Recruit
1 Badges
Jul 3, 2008
9
0
  • Victoria 2
I'm on a roll right now...

The trade system I suggest makes it possible to implement Napoleon's Continental Blockade, and I suspect that it would actually hurt both England's and Europe's economies, as it historically did. So forcing blockade should be a diplomatic option.

I read some quite excellent things in this thread about the revolt system and support from foreign countries. I second that. (Think of French support for the Jacobites and the Americans, and English support for the Huguenots and the Dutch, and Russian support for the Polish Cossacks...). Trade should play a role here (the Dutch asserted in the 1770's that England could not deny them the right to trade even weapons with the Americans).

Being able to mod the army uniforms in a simple way would be great, if only to say that england = { coat = red, trousers = red, straps = white, embroidery = gold, hat = black, hatstyle = bearskin }, france = { coat = gray, trousers = white, straps = white, embroidery = gold, hat = black, hatstyle = tricorn } (plus modifications for differing tech levels). Then there would be two different mods, one with accurate historical uniforms, and the other one with each country's uniform of the same colour as the country in the political map for clarity, and a simple check to choose between in the game.

(Warning, troll ahead).
While we're at enhancing the scripting language, we could make it waaaay more powerful in a quite simple way: simply switch it to some existing embedded scripting language. To be specific, I'm thinking of Lua. With it you could do simple things that would really look like the current EU2 scripting style, but you could dispense from the parsing work (Lua does this quite well), and get the benefits from a real (Turing-complete, multi-paradigm (functional, object-oriented...)) programming language. For instance, setting the condition «three of those five provinces must be owned » for an event is just writing a trivial Lua function in the mod file, as is « revolt all Huguenot provinces of French culture into French Huguenots ». Embedding Lua into an application is quite simple from the coder's point of view (Lua interface is a mere stack), and it is an easy language for the modders.

This is obviously a very long-term goal. Embedding Lua is obviously non-trivial on the program side; it can be made trivial on the mod side however (just keep the « old » config files for a time, and make a minimal Lua config file that only reads and processes those itself, which is quite easy).
 

MattyG

Attention is love.
13 Badges
Mar 23, 2003
3.690
1
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Deus Vult
  • Diplomacy
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
Circonflexe said:
I'm on a roll right now...

The trade system I suggest makes it possible to implement Napoleon's Continental Blockade, and I suspect that it would actually hurt both England's and Europe's economies, as it historically did. So forcing blockade should be a diplomatic option.
However, a revamped Trade system such as the one you suggest needs to take account of Infra as well. Infra in EU2 is that basic level of administrative and (non-military) technological advance for a country (these two split for EU3). The Continental Blockade, both as a concept and as something that could be physically implemented, needs to be limited to the latter stages of the game, or, rather, the latter levels of Infra (9+).

This should be true also for the next point you make.

I read some quite excellent things in this thread about the revolt system and support from foreign countries. I second that. (Think of French support for the Jacobites and the Americans, and English support for the Huguenots and the Dutch, and Russian support for the Polish Cossacks...). Trade should play a role here (the Dutch asserted in the 1770's that England could not deny them the right to trade even weapons with the Americans).
Should tie into Infra level 4+.

To comment also on some of your earlier ideas ...

Expanding and altering the trade rules would be great, as they currently satusfy no-one, I suspect.

In the short term, at the very least I'd like to see two things occur:

1. The cost of sending merchants be better scaled to the value they can generate. In the early game only new players and the ai send merchants; they are simply too expensive for the ducats they generate. In the latter game, the opposite is true: the only problem you have as a player is generating enough merchants, as they are proportionally cheaper to place.

2. The value to a CoT owner is dispropotionate in the early game: 3 ducats per merchant makes them better than (most) gold provinces in the early game, a real cash cow. In the latter game, it matters relatively little who owns them, as 3 ducats per merchant is merely icing on the cake. This needs to be scaled more to the actual value of the CoT, if for nothing else than game 'balance', as the CoT's are an abstraction.
 

MichaelM

For the Glory lead
10 Badges
Jun 30, 2004
3.745
70
crystalempiregames.com
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • For The Glory
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris Sign-up
Circonflexe said:
While we're at enhancing the scripting language, we could make it waaaay more powerful in a quite simple way: simply switch it to some existing embedded scripting language. To be specific, I'm thinking of Lua. With it you could do simple things that would really look like the current EU2 scripting style, but you could dispense from the parsing work (Lua does this quite well), and get the benefits from a real (Turing-complete, multi-paradigm (functional, object-oriented...)) programming language. For instance, setting the condition «three of those five provinces must be owned » for an event is just writing a trivial Lua function in the mod file, as is « revolt all Huguenot provinces of French culture into French Huguenots ». Embedding Lua into an application is quite simple from the coder's point of view (Lua interface is a mere stack), and it is an easy language for the modders.

This is obviously a very long-term goal. Embedding Lua is obviously non-trivial on the program side; it can be made trivial on the mod side however (just keep the « old » config files for a time, and make a minimal Lua config file that only reads and processes those itself, which is quite easy).
That could be extremely useful, and I like the idea a lot. However, I'm not sure whether exposing an interface for Lua wouldn't be considered revealing source code, which is forbidden. I suppose we could ask Johan for clarification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.