~ Captain's Log ~

[theStormWeaver]

- Added set_pentarch_title = <title> effect.
- The pentarchy entry in landed titles can now be assigned to a specific religion rather than all religions with autocephaly.

The following usage would be valid in landed_titles.txt

b_jerusalem = {
    pentarchy = orthodox
    pentarchy = miaphysite
}

b_jerusalem = {
    pentarchy = yes
}

The first example would only add Jerusalem as a Pentarch title for the Orthodox and Miaphysite faith while the second example would add Jerusalem as a Pentarch title for ALL religions that use autocephaly and pentarch mechanics.

I love you.

 

[Divine]

Am I correct in assuming that <scope> = { set_pentachy_title = <title> } makes <scope> be under the authority of the pentach of <title> (e.g. k_aragon = { set_pentarchy_title = b_jerusalem } would make the kingdom of aragon be under the authority of the patriarch of jerusalem, as oposed to being an autocephallous kingdom?).

Yes, that is the intended syntax and usage. In addition to that you can use the right-hand-side value of "none" to explicitly reset the title to not be under the authority of a specific patriarch.

 

[Divine]

Btw @Divine is there any news on whether or not Family Palaces can be extended to non Merchant Republics. @Captain Gars had discussed it a while back as something he would look into, and it would be really nice to be able to let other government types enjoy having family homes



Edit

@Divine Perhaps a way to give us more control over Patricians in different situations, is rather than exporting max_patricians to defines, to export it to governments instead. This way we could create different Merchant_Republic Governments with different max_patricians to simulate different situations, if this might be a bit easier than implimenting a limit on the number of Patricians based on the Liege Title.

The nature of family palaces unfortunately seems to be very tied up in merchant republic mechanics. It would be a major task to untie all of that so that makes us to not prioritize that for the time being.

About max_patricians, I think it might be deemed problematic in various ways to define it per title and having control over it with laws. Having governments control it would be possible. I'll add it to my great list of todo. However it's not on the top of my list for a while. (I also want to rule out the title option thoroughly before I do any new changes)

 

[Zarathustra_the]

Well if nothing else governments would make it considerably more viable for the unique instances where it is most useful.

With that in governments about all that would be required is the rest of the culture and religious flags to be applicable from Government and we modders could achieve some fun things.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Just throwing these out because they're old issues that I hope won't require too much work to fix: Change unlanded son prestige loss to be triggered in the succession law and government form files. Split unlanded son prestige loss into unlanded son, unlanded children, and unlanded daughters, so that absolute cognatic and enatic realms don't only get landless son prestige loss. Modders can then make it so that agnatic and agnatic-cognatic feudal non-gavelkind non-iqtas realms are the only ones with landless son prestige loss, absolute cognatic ones get landless children prestige loss, and enatic and enatic-cognatic ones get landless daughter prestige loss.

 

[Rylock]

Just throwing these out because they're old issues that I hope won't require too much work to fix: Change unlanded son prestige loss to be triggered in the succession law and government form files. Split unlanded son prestige loss into unlanded son, unlanded children, and unlanded daughters, so that absolute cognatic and enatic realms don't only get landless son prestige loss. Modders can then make it so that agnatic and agnatic-cognatic feudal non-gavelkind non-iqtas realms are the only ones with landless son prestige loss, absolute cognatic ones get landless children prestige loss, and enatic and enatic-cognatic ones get landless daughter prestige loss.

Keep in mind there's already a Suggestions for Improved Moddability thread. This thread's solely for Captain Gars (or Divine now) to tell us about modding changes that are in the pipe.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Keep in mind there's already a Suggestions for Improved Moddability thread. This thread's solely for Captain Gars (or Divine now) to tell us about modding changes that are in the pipe.

Oops, got confused on which one should go where.

 

[Divine]

- add_character_modifier and add_holding_modifier now supports the stacking = yes parameter.
- Added has_holding_modifier = x trigger that returns true of the holding has modifier x.
- Added has_instances_of_character_modifier, has_instances_of_province_modifier, has_instances_of_holding_modifier = { modifier = x amount = y } trigger where y is the amount of current applications of modifier x that the character needs to currently hold for the trigger to return true.
- Added remove_character_modifiers, remove_province_modifiers, remove_holding_modifiers = { modifier = x amount = y } effects that removes y amount of modifier x from the current scope.

 

[Zarathustra_the]

I think I love you @Divine those commands are so amazingly powerful for the kind of modding I tend to do

 

[theStormWeaver]

- add_character_modifier and add_holding_modifier now supports the stacking = yes parameter.
- Added has_holding_modifier = x trigger that returns true of the holding has modifier x.
- Added has_instances_of_character_modifier, has_instances_of_province_modifier, has_instances_of_holding_modifier = { modifier = x amount = y } trigger where y is the amount of current applications of modifier x that the character needs to currently hold for the trigger to return true.
- Added remove_character_modifiers, remove_province_modifiers, remove_holding_modifiers = { modifier = x amount = y } effects that removes y amount of modifier x from the current scope.

This is amazing, because I just had an idea barely 10 minutes ago that would be made so much easier to implement with this change.

All hail Divine, giver of gifts.

 

[Divine]

- Added on_trade_post_construction_start, on_fort_construction_start on action entries.
- Added on_trade_post_construction_completed, on_fort_construction_completed on action entries.
- Fixed some issues with on_settlement_construction_start on_action events.

Edit: Forgot to mention a couple of on action entries.

 

[Azarias59]

- add_character_modifier and add_holding_modifier now supports the stacking = yes parameter.
- Added has_holding_modifier = x trigger that returns true of the holding has modifier x.
- Added has_instances_of_character_modifier, has_instances_of_province_modifier, has_instances_of_holding_modifier = { modifier = x amount = y } trigger where y is the amount of current applications of modifier x that the character needs to currently hold for the trigger to return true.
- Added remove_character_modifiers, remove_province_modifiers, remove_holding_modifiers = { modifier = x amount = y } effects that removes y amount of modifier x from the current scope.

Do opinion modifiers support the "stacking = yes/no" parameter yet?

 

[Zarathustra_the]

Do opinion modifiers support the "stacking = yes/no" parameter yet?

opinion modifiers stack normally anyway, well the effect does anyway.

 

[Azarias59]

opinion modifiers stack normally anyway, well the effect does anyway.

So there isn't a "stacking = no" effect then?

 

[Zarathustra_the]

Nope. Opinion modifiers naturally stack, so +5 for one feast, will stack with +5 from the next feast, until the first one naturally expires. It is possible to limit them in application however, with a check if the opinion modifier already exists, and that would achieve the same functionality.

 

[Azarias59]

Nope. Opinion modifiers naturally stack, so +5 for one feast, will stack with +5 from the next feast, until the first one naturally expires. It is possible to limit them in application however, with a check if the opinion modifier already exists, and that would achieve the same functionality.

Well, I would like the modifier to be "renewed" without stacking. Though I'll stop here, as I would not want to hijack the thread.

 

[Zarathustra_the]

that can be done, make the application check if it is already applied, if it is, remove it, then apply it again.

 

[LumberKing]

- Added set_pentarch_title = <title> effect.
- The pentarchy entry in landed titles can now be assigned to a specific religion rather than all religions with autocephaly.

The following usage would be valid in landed_titles.txt

b_jerusalem = {
    pentarchy = orthodox
    pentarchy = miaphysite
}

b_jerusalem = {
    pentarchy = yes
}

The first example would only add Jerusalem as a Pentarch title for the Orthodox and Miaphysite faith while the second example would add Jerusalem as a Pentarch title for ALL religions that use autocephaly and pentarch mechanics.

Would it also be possible to set a different pentarch for different faiths? For example, if you are Orthodox, k_arabia will be under b_jerusalem while Miaphysites will have k_arabia under b_antiocheia.

 

[Divine]

Would it also be possible to set a different pentarch for different faiths? For example, if you are Orthodox, k_arabia will be under b_jerusalem while Miaphysites will have k_arabia under b_antiocheia.

It was a while since I implemented it now but I think that functionality was intended. If you just do pentarchy = yes then it will be a pentarch title for all religions using pentarchy and if you do pentarchy = orthodox you only add that title as a pentarch title for the orthodox religion.

 

[Divine]

Sorry that it's been a while since I implemented stuff and that I've only been here answering urgent questions. But I've been busy working with Stellaris the previous weeks and now I'm back for a while focusing on CK.

- Added back_faction and leave_faction effects.