• 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.
panther-anthro said:
Regardless, it seems like most of Interregnums team is gone?

The Interregnum Team doesn't really exist.

I coordinate the project and do 99% of the work.

Some people contribute by commenting on the fora.

Some people contibute by finding bugs.

Some people contribute by providing actual material.

My approach is to adopt as much of other people's contributions as possible. Even if I don't agree with it. I just try and get a sense of the 'majority' on an issue.

That said, it falls to me to veto somethings. For example, if you were very passionate about having Shi'a islam brought back into the game, it won't happen. That tag is being used by Mutazelism, lots of work has been done on it, and its too late to change that direction. If someone was really bent on that happening, then they need to start their own mod, and I wish them the best.

But to answer your question, until your arrival the following people were regularly contibuting:

MattyG

and the following people were ocassionally contributing:

Calipah

and then there is a long list of people who are 'gunners', as we say in Australia. ;)
 
<.< Well then, I'll try and change that 99%! =D You say what must be done, and I can do it. I like doing lots of work, and I have no problem thinking of ideas. If you don't like it, I'll make a new idea. Simple as that. I have no problem with it really.

Also, <.< I'm sure I can come up with a huge number of new events, etc.

Matty: In the Leon File, it says your playing as Georgia, you need to make it say playing as Leon. I'll show you the line.

event = {
id = 414999 #by MattyG
random = no
country = LEO
trigger = { ai = no }
name = "I See You're Playing Leon"
desc = "This event is to mark Leon as being player-run. In this way, should the nation become ai-controlled for a period, certain events that would normally happen for the ai, will now not happen for Leon. For multiplayer, this means that you can't expect an easy ride of things if you skip a session, nor come back to find the ai-only events have done strange things with your DP sliders and other settings."
date = { day = 10 month = january year = 1419 }
offset = 100
deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 1819 }

action_a = {
name = "OK"
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 1 value = -1 }
command = { type = setflag which = player_run }

This is the corrected version.
 
Last edited:
I apologise for not contributing any solid work so far, yet I feel frustrated by the vague requirements of Interregnum.

For example, should I even bother with 1.~ work, or focus only on 2.~?
Similarly, I don't know if we have resolved the Vitalian discussion, and so cannot focus too much on Danzig without the resolution there.

I need a little push to get me going, it seems. :(
 
Time Consumer said:
I apologise for not contributing any solid work so far, yet I feel frustrated by the vague requirements of Interregnum.

For example, should I even bother with 1.~ work, or focus only on 2.~?
Similarly, I don't know if we have resolved the Vitalian discussion, and so cannot focus too much on Danzig without the resolution there.

I need a little push to get me going, it seems. :(


I don't quite get you here.

You'd said a long time ago that you could move ahead with Danzig until I had done the Vitalian sequence, which I completed, including all the changes required to the Sund Crisis and the formation of Sweden and Denmark. Then you said in an email to me that you had what you needed to get moving with the Danzig work.

Not sure at all what is missing for you, so if you could be more descriptive about what you need, then we can press ahead.

Then there were the two other projects you have, first the Vinlanders and second the project of events for ai countries where they would gain additional cores in the mid-late 1400s to help push them onward a bit.
 
Ah yes, how silly of me, it's all there in the 2.0 piece. . .

As for the rest of it, I had forgotten.

So, let's see, what I've got to do:

Vinland - I don't see any reason to include something so utterly hopeless in 1.4/5, so it will be 2.~+ (to clarify: a three-province minor with an extreme problem in the expansion department in 1.~)
Wessex - I love this place quite a bit, and so am willing to write both for 1.~ and 2.~
Danzig - Due to the complexity of the plan, 1.~ will have a linear path, 2.~ will have the full non-linear arrangement. I'll start on the Danzig 1.~ rough draft in a few minutes (we don't have Vitalia in 1.~ do we?)

And, I don't remember the cores at all. Could you fill me in on that?
 
Time Consumer said:
Ah yes, how silly of me, it's all there in the 2.0 piece. . .

I will email the pertinent files again, rather than you trusting the events posted in the thread.


Vinland - I don't see any reason to include something so utterly hopeless in 1.4/5, so it will be 2.~+ (to clarify: a three-province minor with an extreme problem in the expansion department in 1.~)

I don't especially care about Vinalnd and it is potential controversial. Do it only if you really, really, really care.

Wessex - I love this place quite a bit, and so am willing to write both for 1.~ and 2.~

Write for 1.~ and I will convert it for 2.~

Danzig - Due to the complexity of the plan, 1.~ will have a linear path, 2.~ will have the full non-linear arrangement. I'll start on the Danzig 1.~ rough draft in a few minutes (we don't have Vitalia in 1.~ do we?)

No Vitalians in 1.~ (unless you want to convert them across, and why not ...).

Work on 1.~ in favour of 2.~ as the new map isn't out, so what's the point with a country which does not have a structurally important impact opn the game.

However, I'd say your priority ought to be Wessex.

And, I don't remember the cores at all. Could you fill me in on that?[/QUOTE]