• 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.
Yeah, it's impossible to do anything more complicated than culture_group > culture. I'd love to be able to have something akin to subgroups, or the ability to simulate it by saying "these two cultures like each other slightly better than normal." So I could make Scots and Irish folk dislike each other slightly less than they dislike the Welsh and Bretons (who they obviously dislike less than people in completely different groups).
Yeah, that was something I thought of, too, but thought it might be a bit too much to ask :p

There's this new dynamic <culture>_opinion documented in cultures file. Maybe it can be used in a culture's charcter_modifier, to achieve this ?
I haven't tested.
Ah, I hadn't seen that (the files I've been using are my own bare-bones ones, so... :S )

# Culture-specific opinion can be added to modifiers (E.G., norse_opinion = 5), but the modifier *has* to be defined in 00_modifier_definitions.txt as well. It also needs localisation. Works for groups as well
Sounds like it could be used to off-set the Foreigner Modifier, could be handy :D Thanks :D
 
This would only be useful if there existed some way to create a new culture from two other cultures. If suddenly french becomes part of the west Germanic group but still has entirely french names, then it'd be utterly useless.

I think his point was rather to have a melting pot culture with mixed names that e.g. was included in the west_german group, but that by event you could instead move it to the latin group, depending on circumstances of the game.

Another example would be a bunch of possible Norse melting pots that you assign to different culture groups as needed, depending on where the adventurers ended up.

Yeah, it's impossible to do anything more complicated than culture_group > culture. I'd love to be able to have something akin to subgroups, or the ability to simulate it by saying "these two cultures like each other slightly better than normal." So I could make Scots and Irish folk dislike each other slightly less than they dislike the Welsh and Bretons (who they obviously dislike less than people in completely different groups).

Yeah, the way it is now, I have to have two identical cultures, and depending on where the melting pot appears, it chooses the one of that area. A way of dynamically moving cultures would be cool as well (moving a culture from a group to another), but yes, the naming wouldn't make much sense.

Also, sharing groups would be very easy to implement.
cultures.txt for defining all the cultures, and culturegroups.txt for defining culture groups.

For example:

cultures.txt has; Sicilian, Siculo-Greek, Siculo-Norman, Siculo-Arab, Bedouin_Arabic, Levantine_Arabic, Norman, Pontic_Greek, Byzantine_Greek, Ligurian, Venetian, Neapolitan

culturegroups.txt has Sicilian_Group, Greek_Group, Arab_Group, Norman_Group, Italian_Group, NorthItalian_Group, SouthItalian_Group

Sicilian_Group = { Sicilian Siculo-Greek Siculo-Norman Siculo-Arab }
Arab_Group = { Bedouin_Arabic Levantine_Arabic Siculo-Arab }
Greek_Group = { Pontic_Greek Byzantine_Greek }
Norman_Group = { Norman Siculo-Norman }
Italian_Group = { Sicilian Ligurian Venetian Neapolitan }
NorthItalian_Group = { Venetian Ligurian }
SouthItalian_Group = { Sicilian Neapolitan }
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the way it is now, I have to have two identical cultures, and depending on where the melting pot appears, it chooses the one of that area. A way of dynamically moving cultures would be cool as well (moving a culture from a group to another), but yes, the naming wouldn't make much sense.

Also, sharing groups would be very easy to implement.
cultures.txt for defining all the cultures, and culturegroups.txt for defining culture groups.

For example:

cultures.txt has; Sicilian, Siculo-Greek, Siculo-Norman, Siculo-Arab, Bedouin_Arabic, Levantine_Arabic, Norman, Pontic_Greek, Byzantine_Greek, Ligurian, Venetian, Neapolitan

culturegroups.txt has Sicilian_Group, Greek_Group, Arab_Group, Norman_Group, Italian_Group, NorthItalian_Group, SouthItalian_Group

Sicilian_Group = { Sicilian Siculo-Greek Siculo-Norman Siculo-Arab }
Arab_Group = { Bedouin_Arabic Levantine_Arabic Siculo-Arab }
Greek_Group = { Pontic_Greek Byzantine_Greek }
Norman_Group = { Norman Siculo-Norman }
Italian_Group = { Sicilian Ligurian Venetian Neapolitan }
NorthItalian_Group = { Venetian Ligurian }
SouthItalian_Group = { Sicilian Neapolitan }

Nothing is "very easy" to implement unless one know how they are currently implemented. Anyway, how would your proposal work regarding e.g. opinion bonus? For example, say character A is ligurian, characer B is venetian, character C is sicilian and character D is neapolitan. C and D share a group, D shares a different group with A and B, with A and B sharing yet another group. How does this translate in terms of opinion?
Also consider things like the character finder. Right now you can filter searches by culture group. How would that be modified under your proposal, since one culture could be in a variable number of groups?
 
Nothing is "very easy" to implement unless one know how they are currently implemented. Anyway, how would your proposal work regarding e.g. opinion bonus? For example, say character A is ligurian, characer B is venetian, character C is sicilian and character D is neapolitan. C and D share a group, D shares a different group with A and B, with A and B sharing yet another group. How does this translate in terms of opinion?
Also consider things like the character finder. Right now you can filter searches by culture group. How would that be modified under your proposal, since one culture could be in a variable number of groups?

I'd have to brainstorm about the character finder, perhaps.

I'd say if they share no groups, the same as right now (foreigner).
If they share the same culture, the same as right now (same culture).
I'd say that a culture defines a "primary" group (For example Greek_Group for Byzantine_Greek, Arabic_Group for Bedouin_Arabic, SouthItalian_Group for Neapolitan) to which they belong, and if they share that one, they'd get a similar opinion as if they share a culture group right now.
If they do not share the "primary" group, but instead a secondary group (Italian_Group for all Italian cultures) they'd get a lesser bonus to opinion, not regarded as a foreigner but neither as a same-culture-group, depending on how many culture groups they share. If they share one, he'd get 1x the bonus (let's say the bonus is +10), if two - 1.5x (+15), if three - 1.75 (17.5), if four - 1.875 (18.75), etc.

These would be defineable in defines.txt.
 
It'd be useful if there was some way to add a targeted fertility penalty for couples.

So that things such as the vanilla 'separate bedrooms' marriage event would work better.
Currently those reduce fertility as a whole, which doesn't make much sense. Sleeping in separate bedrooms shouldn't make it less likely for the character to impregnate his lovers, concubines, seduction targets, etc.
 
Last edited:
It'd be useful if there was some way to add a targeted fertility penalty for couples.

So that things such as vanilla 'separate bedrooms' marriage event would work better. Currently those reduce fertility as a whole, and I don't see it makes much sense that sleeping in separate bedroom from your spouse makes it less likely to impregnate your lovers, concubines, etc.

This. A more generalised version would also be great to handle inter-species fertility for fantasy mods.
 
Yeah, but having it as a condition in of itself is less complicated and more reliable, especially when you're trying to do it in an event/decision/cb trigger. Considering we already have conditions like num_of_trade_post_diff, num_of_hospitals_diff, and num_of_forts_diff I don't think it's too much to ask.
 
@Meneth @Divine Just gonna ask, with the set_tactic command, it currently does nothing if scoped to an army flank where there is no commander. Could you possibly also make it work from the army flank itself, not just the flank commander? Currently my events using the command only have an effect if there is a commander which is more than a little irritating.
 
There are some pretty basics things that - afaik - can not be checked for via conditions.

I do thus hereby suggest the addition of conditions to check for:
1) Bordering a Minor River (province scope)
2) Climate (Mild/Normal/Severe Winter, Temperate) - not the is_winter, which only checks if there is a winter *right now* (province scope)
3) Tax Income (holding/province scope)
4) Tradevalue (holding/province scope)
5) currently being looted (province scope)
Those would be especially useful for my economy mod, but I assume a lot of other mods would also love a condition at least for "bordering minor river".
 
There are some pretty basics things that - afaik - can not be checked for via conditions.

I do thus hereby suggest the addition of conditions to check for:
1) Bordering a Minor River (province scope)
2) Climate (Mild/Normal/Severe Winter, Temperate) - not the is_winter, which only checks if there is a winter *right now* (province scope)
3) Tax Income (holding/province scope)
4) Tradevalue (holding/province scope)
5) currently being looted (province scope)
Those would be especially useful for my economy mod, but I assume a lot of other mods would also love a condition at least for "bordering minor river".
5) can be done already, I think. Scope to any unit in the province and test if they are looting.

Wholeheartedly agreed on the others.
 
Unit scopes though can be kinda clunky though,
 
A is_equipped condition or similar for artifacts. Also the condition is_active returns true for unequipped artifacts that still fulfill the activation conditions except being equipped, ingame they're considered inactive.
 
It would be very useful is the "trigger" field for buildings could be able to scope to the holding itself. The "potential" and "is_active_trigger" fields can do that by using FROMFROM, but that doesn't work for the "trigger"one .