CK II - 2 tribes 1 county

[randomguyplays]

One line summary of your issue
2 tribes 1 county

Game Version
3.30 XDSW

What expansions do you have installed?
All of the above

Do you have mods enabled?
No

Please explain your issue is in as much detail as possible.
there are 2 tribal holdings in 1 county. PRETTY SELF EXPLANATORY DAMMIT

Steps to reproduce the issue.
conquer tribal county as nomad-move capital to said county-settle as tribe in said county

Upload Attachment

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

Diclaimer: I'm just another forum member

Steps to reproduce the issue.
conquer tribal county as nomad-move capital to said county-settle as tribe in said county

How is that a bug ?
The capital is a nomad holding and gets turned into a tribal holding when settling as a tribal.

 

[Fitzjacob]

How is that a bug ?

It's inconsistent with tribal rules which forbids the construction of a tribal holding in a province that already contains one. Also, tribal mechanics are dependent on empty holding slots. A tribal holding gains strength from empty holding slots, two tribal holdings in one county decreases each others' strength. It's doubtful that such a situation is intended.

Then again, I, too, am just another forum member.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

It's inconsistent with tribal rules...

Uncovincing to me and disagree.
He isn't a tribal before and tribal counties do exist fine with or without an empty holding.
Tribal mechanics are not dependent on empty holding slots.

PS:
(basically the answer on the OP case)
If he hadn't moved his capital before settling, then there would indeed be only one tribal holding and none extra created afterwards,
but he did move into a tribal county before settling, turning its capital into a nomad holding, thus the result after settling.

 

[Fitzjacob]

He isn't a tribal before and tribal counties do exist fine with or without an empty holding.
Tribal mechanics are not dependent on empty holding slots.

I meant "dependent" as in they rely on the empty holdings for support, as specified by the two tribes weakening each other, not dependent as in them being necessary for the mechanics to function at all. I'm not a native speaker so I might use the word wrong but hopefully I'm getting my point across.

If he hadn't moved his capital before settling, then there would indeed be only one tribal holding and none extra created afterwards,
but he did move into a tribal county before settling, turning its capital into a nomad holding, thus the result after settling.

Yes, this is indeed what happened but there should be checks in place to ensure that a situation like that doesn't occur.

For example, the decision to turn ones nomadic capital into a tribal holding can be unavailable if the capital province already contains a tribal holding, forcing you to settle in the already existing tribal holding instead. Something like this:

            OR = {
                holding_type = tribal
                AND = {
                    holding_type = nomad
                    has_building = no_baghatur_council_2
                    location = {
                        any_province_holding = {
                            NOT = { holding_type = tribal }
                        }
                    }
                }
            }

Here is specification for the rules for tribal holdings from the wiki (first paragraph).

There can only be one tribe in a province, but it gets +50% income and levy size for each empty slot in the province.

This further supports that two tribal holdings in a province in an unintended gamestate, an oversight that should be rectified.

@randomguyplays:
Is it possible for you to pillage the secondary tribal holding when you've settled or is the pillaging of tribal holdings forbidden due to it being assumed that there can only be one them?

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

I meant "dependent" as in they rely on the empty holdings for support, as specified by the two tribes weakening each other, not dependent as in them being necessary for the mechanics to function at all....
Yes, this is indeed what happened but there should be checks in place to ensure that a situation like that doesn't occur.

Nah i pefectly understood and stil disagree.
A tribal county witout an empty holding will then simply only have as many troops as the capital provides as with any other tribal county that has no empty holding.
That's it.

Here is specification for the rules for tribal holdings from the wiki (first paragraph).

This further supports that two tribal holdings in a province in an unintended gamestate, an oversight that should be rectified.

I don't see that this supports it.
First of all, it's just the Wiki, anyone can write in there.
Second, having two tribal holdings in a county is perfectly possible and i had such a situation relatively often over the years.
Third, it has been like that...at least in 2.834 and i'd think before that.
You are not going to convince me, sorry.
So, let's just agree to disagree.

I think it makes perfect sense to happen under that circumstance of a nomad capital in a county with a tribal holding.