Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Suggestions for Improved Moddability

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69870 Bug Reports 19708 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6362 After Action Reports
Show only dev responses
jursamaj said:
Sounds like is isn't actually a command in events, but a parameter of the create_* commands.

The thing is, marriages, divorces, gain/loss of titles, and various modifiers happen in history files, and are marked as happening at the correct times. Applying that to traits should not be difficult. Adding immortal_age to history is a kludge, and it's not even clear how it would work. If the game hasn't added their traits yet before game start, then immortal_age is meaningless at the history date you would need to set it. So making it available in history would *still* require the same dev effort as a new history command. And it might as well be a new general command, which could incidentally be used in history. *That* would open up some interesting possibilities (like a form of immortality in which one ages, just slower, or one in which apparent age actually reduces!).
Click to expand...

A new command doing this could be interesting I would admit, But I would sooner see the existing toolset simply be made to work so as to handle where we currently are. Otherwise we need to define multiple portrait sets as it is to better handle the issue in question.
 
@Meneth @Divine is there any possible chance we may in the future get more than four event options? It would be a seriously significant quality of life change if we could have as many event options as we can for Stellaris events for instance.
 
A Separate suggestion would be the introduction of centre, left and right _flank scopes called from a random_army scope. This would let us use the new set_flank_tactic command on an army flank which does not have a commander. Currently, we can only use these commands if there are flank commanders on the relevant flanks.
 
Zarathustra_the said:
@Meneth @Divine is there any possible chance we may in the future get more than four event options? It would be a seriously significant quality of life change if we could have as many event options as we can for Stellaris events for instance.
Click to expand...
I believe it has been said this will never happen in CK2 as the event system is quite a pain to modify especially so late in the development cycle of the game.
It is possible to work around it by having a master option which cycles through available options using variables which is the best we can do for now and works pretty well.
 
blackninja9939 said:
I believe it has been said this will never happen in CK2 as the event system is quite a pain to modify especially so late in the development cycle of the game.
It is possible to work around it by having a master option which cycles through available options using variables which is the best we can do for now and works pretty well.
Click to expand...

Black I am more than aware of this workaround, I am just looking for a way to better display the 30-40 valid options than having a lot of event cycling.
 
Zarathustra_the said:
Black I am more than aware of this workaround, I am just looking for a way to better display the 30-40 valid options than having a lot of event cycling.
Click to expand...
If you have 30-40 valid options for a normal character in a single event then you are doing something horribly wrong with designing your events...
As I said though I do believe it has been said that this is unlikely to be changed for CK2, which is unfortunate.
 
blackninja9939 said:
If you have 30-40 valid options for a normal character in a single event then you are doing something horribly wrong with designing your events...
As I said though I do believe it has been said that this is unlikely to be changed for CK2, which is unfortunate.
Click to expand...

Black, I am not doing it wrong, I just have a lot of options for various spells and wanted to reduce the number of targeted decisions :D
 
Zarathustra_the said:
Black, I am not doing it wrong, I just have a lot of options for various spells and wanted to reduce the number of targeted decisions :D
Click to expand...
I meant wrong as in abusing the game not as in incorrect code, but this is getting off topic now.
 
Events/Graphics
The ability to define event pictures based on triggers, similar to how it is now possible for descriptions:
ethiopianvampire said:
How do you do a dynamic picture block? I can't recall if you can and, if so, how.
Ex:
Code: 
namespace = my_event

character_event = {
id = "my_event.1"
desc = {
   trigger = {
      x/y/z triggers
   }
   text = "EVTDESC1my_event.1"
}
desc = {
   trigger = {
      a/b/c triggers
   }
   text = "EVTDESC2my_event.1"
}
picture = {
    trigger = {
      x/y/z triggers
    }
    picture = GFX_evt_a
}
picture = {
   trigger = {
      a/b/c triggers
   }
   picture = GFX_evt_b
}
# And possibly border?
border = {
   trigger = {
      x/y/z triggers
   }
   picture = GFX_evt_c
}
etc...
Click to expand...


Edit: Withdrawn! My bad, see below...
 
Last edited:
You can do this by defining them as part of multiple description blocks
Code: 
namespace = my_event

character_event = {
id = "my_event.1"
desc = {
  trigger = {
      x/y/z triggers
   }
   text = "EVTDESC1my_event.1"
   picture = GFX_evt_a
}
desc = {
   trigger = {
      a/b/c triggers
   }
   text = "EVTDESC2my_event.1"
   picture = GFX_evt_b
}
Not sure if it works work borders - I haven't tried.
 
Rydelfox said:
You can do this by defining them as part of multiple description blocks
Code: 
namespace = my_event

character_event = {
id = "my_event.1"
desc = {
  trigger = {
      x/y/z triggers
   }
   text = "EVTDESC1my_event.1"
   picture = GFX_evt_a
}
desc = {
   trigger = {
      a/b/c triggers
   }
   text = "EVTDESC2my_event.1"
   picture = GFX_evt_b
}
Not sure if it works work borders - I haven't tried.
Click to expand...
Oh indeed you can?
My bad then, I frankly thought this was impossible since the wiki did not have this information. Personally I don't care about borders, as the the event type should not change, just the flavour.

I hereby solemnly withdraw my above suggestion (unless Rydelfox is wrong, which is unlikely :p)
 
You know the rule to disable title localization?
It honestly needs more options;
  • Disable title localization for all titles
  • Enable title localization for Empires and under (All titles)
  • Enable title localization for Kingdoms and under
  • Enable title localization for Duchies and under
  • Enable title localization for Counties and under
  • Enable title localization for Baronies only
 
Is it possible to introduce localization for autocephalic patriarchs?
So that an autocephalic patriarch (non-Pentarch Patriarch under a King) can be called something else then "Patriarch" depending on the religion.
 
Aerkhanite said:
Is it possible to introduce localization for autocephalic patriarchs?
So that an autocephalic patriarch (non-Pentarch Patriarch under a King) can be called something else then "Patriarch" depending on the religion.
Click to expand...

I'd like to second this suggestion.
 
To add on my previous post:
Not just autocephalic patriarchs, but also Pentarch patriarchs.

Nestorians only had one Patriarch (The Patriarch of Antioch and all of the East), so their "pentarchs" could be should probably be called Metropolitans. Autocephalic patriarchs Primates.
 
Would it be possible for paradox to allow the possibility that river provinces could be modded to have ports, trade routes, and that merchant republics could have their capitals on rivers?
It's fairly ridiculous that this isn't possible already (as far as I know), for many rivers were used as methods of transportation, and people living next to river are usually not totally ignorant of ship building technology.
 
Stars_and_Bars said:
Would it be possible for paradox to allow the possibility that river provinces could be modded to have ports, trade routes, and that merchant republics could have their capitals on rivers?
It's fairly ridiculous that this isn't possible already (as far as I know), for many rivers were used as methods of transportation, and people living next to river are usually not totally ignorant of ship building technology.
Click to expand...

Well, you only need to put the major river provinces as normal sea provinces and volà you have river-based merchant republics.
 
ngppgn said:
Well, you only need to put the major river provinces as normal sea provinces and volà you have river-based merchant republics.
Click to expand...
But if I did that, say with the Mississippi, wouldn't it be impossible for an army to cross the rivers then? Wouldn't I have to make a strait between every adjacent province that exists next to a river between every conceivable province that it would border over a river?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back