This conversation was pulled from the ' Historical Immersion Project - Download/FAQ' thread. I'd like to know what people think about this and if they have any ideas.
-
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.
51% makes more sense, otherwise you can get 4-county duchies have constant back-and-forth usurptions.
To be honest, I don't think I've ever actually witnessed such a back-and forth except in 2-county duchies, and in SWMH all of those require you to hold both provinces in order to create the duchy.
I thought the percentage for creation and usurpation were different?
If not, THAT would be the better fix. 50% to Create, 60% to Usurp.
If not, THAT would be the better fix. 50% to Create, 60% to Usurp.
They are actually separate, yeah (though the first implementation wasn't IIRC).
But I kind of want to avoid the situation where the duke holds one county, another guy holds two, and the 4th is held by some random guy. The second can't usurp at 510% in that case, which is silly.
And it is definitely something I've seen more often than a 4-province duchy split 2-2.
What about zijistark's idea? Do you think it would work, that is if someone was willing to do it?
It is doable, but I would consider 50% better than that solution, as I try to keep changes to landed_titles to a minimum, as that makes it quite a bit simpler to maintain compatibility with CKII's patches.
Could you give me an example of what it would look like in a landed_title and I'll see if I can experiment with it myself?
.png){kind=avatar}
first fix attempt from PI was a cooldown, then then the 51% thingy.
ideally, instead of usurpation i think a plot or an event giving a revendication might be a wiser path. not sure an event can check such situation though.
I'm sadly blanking right now. If it were something I actually wanted to implement I could probably come up with the code for it, but right now I'm getting no divine inspiration.
This. I see this happen MANY more times than an even 2/2 split. And I have only seen the back and forth happen once for sure - and that was in a case that someone was snipping dejure counties off of a duchy to reunite a kingdom. Frankly - in that case - the back and forth is just kind of a continuation of the warfare particularly since it happened in Spain.
While maybe not the absolute best solution (as code that makes the 2v1v1 allowable around the 51% would be very good)50% works to fix it and the times that it does not are limited in what I have seen. Forcing someone to go to 75% when they are already double the size of their opponents always kind of grated on me in Vanilla.
.png){kind=avatar}
FWIW:
My solution was to write a script which added a generic usurp trigger to every duchy with exactly 4 counties to implement what you described (which actually I may need to clarify if I'm to provide the correct trigger, but either way, it would be based upon the same nifty title trigger implemented in one of the patches). Duchies with exactly 2 counties should be under a dozen on the vanilla map, and 51% works for them. In other words, they're just given a trigger that says "has_landed_title = county1 has_landed_title = county2" (51% = 100% for 2 counties). Don't even have to use the nifty title trigger (as in, a script condition) for that case. Duchies with 6 counties can f**k off, 50% rule is fine for them; they're huge. Even so, the nifty title trigger would only require changing a single constant.
The script would also strip the landed_titles files of such triggers if asked to do so (leaves a comment to mark which triggers were its own and which were other custom-modded triggers), easing WinMerge with vanilla post-patch.
It would also parse the landed_titles structure in the Right Way, instead of the really-quick-job way that would be possible for this application. Indeed, the only reason I ever mentioned that I thought it was doable was because I saw a glimmer of a component to be used for automated SWMH title & title history verification that I'd meant to contribute to that team a long time ago after finding a number of bugs of a similar type.
Tee hee... Still not giving away the nifty trigger...
Odds of somebody successfully identifying the trigger condition I'm talking about in the next 20 minutes, anyone? Well, I guess have to post it now (unless someone else does before me), but I'm not actually going to flesh it out.
The gist is that neither Meneth nor myself would like to see PB's landed_titles file full of a buttload of create/usurp triggers for a good chunk (but intermittently applied for brevity, which almost makes it more confusing) of all the duchies. My problem is not really the one Meneth most recently cited (since a script would do it, you can start fresh no problem, resolve conflicts with vanilla changes, and then just re-apply the trigger rule) so much as just readability. Those files are already full of enough crap as it is, and yet they are the only reference on the default de jure hierarchy. When I want to find something in there, I want to go through as few extra pages full of barely-necessary stuff as possible to get there. More importantly, I need the truly custom create/usurp triggers that are in there to stand out like a sore thumb, because they are hotspots. They would not if 30-40% of the duchies had a custom trigger (which was essentially the same). Finally, apparently neither of us are particularly motivated by the idea, so it's probably just not going to happen.
Last edited:
I believe that 50% for creation and 51% for usurpation is the best setup. When the formula is 51% for creation, it really slows down conquest when you're surrounded by duchies with an even number of counties. You have to go out of your way to fabricate claims and so forth. This is especially the case for two-county duchies, like you see in Ireland.
51% for usurpation makes perfect sense, however. It does indeed prevent "ping-ponging".
51% for usurpation makes perfect sense, however. It does indeed prevent "ping-ponging".
num_of_realm_counties = {
value = 2
title = THIS (or possibly the name)
}
(Competition brings out the inspiration in me)
Edit since you probably want the full code:
Code:
NOT = {
holder_scope = {
num_of_realm_counties = {
value = 2
title = PREV
}
}
}
Last edited:
Even though I've essentially shutdown the idea of implementing these triggers throughout the landed_titles files (as Meneth seems in the same camp, and I can't imagine his taste for readability in those files differing from mine), this one's for the true enthusiasts/academics:
You'd design this trigger most elegantly using the num_of_realm_counties = { ... } condition.
Checkout the Duchy of Flanders, a 4-county duchy. I'm just going to use an interesting-for-edification-purposes allow trigger for the title rather than the simplest gist of what you guys were considering (also, since there was no consensus, I may as well be arbitrary and have fun with it).
A 4-county duchy is admittedly not the best one to flex the muscles of this trigger. 6 or even 8 (hey, we're talking theory here) would show-off better.
The NOT = { character = ROOT } check is probably redundant since any_playable_ruler specifically excludes ROOT, but since we're in a landed_titles file and scopes can be weird here, I added that extra line for safety (i.e., I don't want to take the time to test it).
I included the rest of the duchy definition, even the only interesting part is in the allow trigger at the top just to put in perspective the amount of text the trigger added relative to the amount of text taken to define the duchy, and this is a best-case duchy with only 4 counties and no cultural or religious localisation per-county or per-barony like is common some areas.
So what rule does it enforce?
Well, you must hold at least 2/4 of the counties in the duchy to create or usurp it (50% rule base case) but, additionally, no other ruler may be just as powerful as you are within the duchy (i.e., 2v2 in the 4-county case). In a nutshell, for a 4-county duchy, you must hold either 3 of any of the counties, or you may hold two while the other two are split between separate rulers (the "more powerful" rule I saw mentioned).
You'd design this trigger most elegantly using the num_of_realm_counties = { ... } condition.
Checkout the Duchy of Flanders, a 4-county duchy. I'm just going to use an interesting-for-edification-purposes allow trigger for the title rather than the simplest gist of what you guys were considering (also, since there was no consensus, I may as well be arbitrary and have fun with it).
A 4-county duchy is admittedly not the best one to flex the muscles of this trigger. 6 or even 8 (hey, we're talking theory here) would show-off better.
The NOT = { character = ROOT } check is probably redundant since any_playable_ruler specifically excludes ROOT, but since we're in a landed_titles file and scopes can be weird here, I added that extra line for safety (i.e., I don't want to take the time to test it).
Code:
d_flanders = {
color={ 240 167 130 }
color2={ 48 48 48 }
culture = dutch
capital = 78
allow = {
num_of_realm_counties = { value = 2 title = FROM }
NOT = {
any_playable_ruler = {
NOT = { character = ROOT }
num_of_realm_counties = { value = 2 title = FROM }
}
}
}
c_yperen = {
color={ 127 152 36 }
color2={ 255 255 255 }
b_ypres = {
}
b_rosebeke = {
}
b_cassel = {
}
b_roeselare = {
}
b_poperinge = {
}
b_menen = {
}
b_diksmuide = {
}
b_wervik = {
}
}
c_brugge = {
color={ 184 50 173 }
color2={ 255 255 255 }
b_brugge = {
}
b_damme = {
}
b_sluys = {
}
b_oostende = {
}
b_nieuwpoort = {
}
b_torhout = {
}
b_aardenburg = {
}
}
c_gent = {
color={ 187 198 243 }
color2={ 255 255 255 }
b_gent = {
}
b_doornik = {
}
b_oudenaarde = {
}
b_aalst = {
}
b_st_niklaas = {
}
b_dendermonde = {
}
b_kortrijk = {
}
b_geraardsbergen = {
}
}
c_hainaut = {
color={ 138 192 23 }
color2={ 255 255 255 }
b_valenciennes = {
}
b_cambrai = {
}
b_avesnes = {
}
b_mons = {
}
b_chievres = {
}
b_enghien = {
}
b_charleroi = {
}
b_ath = {
}
}
}I included the rest of the duchy definition, even the only interesting part is in the allow trigger at the top just to put in perspective the amount of text the trigger added relative to the amount of text taken to define the duchy, and this is a best-case duchy with only 4 counties and no cultural or religious localisation per-county or per-barony like is common some areas.
So what rule does it enforce?
Well, you must hold at least 2/4 of the counties in the duchy to create or usurp it (50% rule base case) but, additionally, no other ruler may be just as powerful as you are within the duchy (i.e., 2v2 in the 4-county case). In a nutshell, for a 4-county duchy, you must hold either 3 of any of the counties, or you may hold two while the other two are split between separate rulers (the "more powerful" rule I saw mentioned).
I took way too long to post the full solution. Hehe. Didn't even notice your post. You took more than 20 minutes, but I'll give you the prize, because you provided a usage example, and I only asked for the name of the trigger to use.
EDIT:
Your full code was a little bit... out of context, FWIW. A title allow trigger is in character scope with FROM being the title scope, so calling holder_scope = { ... } as you did would not happen in an actual allow trigger. However, at least you demonstrated the arguments.
OK, quiz time's over boys and girls. Meneth, you get a free candy bar. Tune in next time for other ways to waste your time, but fun!
Last edited:
FYI, the way to separate out usurpation and creation conditions in a given title's allow trigger is to use an alternation (OR) on FROM = { has_holder = no }, which is just a way of saying "this title, FROM, has no current holder (therefore we'd be creating it rather than usurping it)," which when false, obviously then means you're usurping it and not creating it.