Province Condition "ruler_martial"

[Ilkhold]

type = ruler_martial value = V
Notte: True if (Ruler+Marshal) martial >= V

Note: Wrong Game only checks for Ruler
Verified by triggering provevent 3000 via console for England 1066
With no Marschall (15+0): MTTH 1425 days
With Marshall (15+10): MTTH 1425 days
The factor 0.95 for Ruler Martial >= 14 is correctly applied.
The others for martial >= 17 and >= 20 are not.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Note: Wrong Game only checks for Ruler
Verified by triggering provevent 3000 via console for England 1066
With no Marschall (15+0): MTTH 1425 days
With Marshall (15+10): MTTH 1425 days
The factor 0.95 for Ruler Martial >= 14 is correctly applied.
The others for martial >= 17 and >= 20 are not.

This is WaD.

 

[Ilkhold]

The documentation works as designed? What is it designed for? To confuse people?
And events are designed to check for conditions that are met by maybe one of a hundred thousand characters to give a small modifier?

Sorry, but I don't believe that in a hundred years.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

ype = ruler_martial value = V
Notte: True if (Ruler+Marshal) martial >= V

Note: Wrong Game only checks for Ruler

That is WaD. Its looking at the ruler's base stats, not his modified ones for positions of courtiers.

 

[Ilkhold]

Yes, but what is with the events and the documentation?

 

[unmerged(9146)]

Yes, but what is with the events and the documentation?

To clarify what I think Ilkhold is asking about - if this is WaD and if indeed advisor's statistic is not supposed to be added and if it's done like this following the conscious design choice, then why the official documentation of the game (event_effects.txt file, namely) says otherwise? How can this feature be "works as designed" if designers of the game in the official game documentation say it is supposed to work in a different way? Wouldn't that imply that event_effects.txt is deliberately incorrect to confuse non-Paradox event scripters? Or is there another explanation I'm missing?

Moreover, the CK engine is designed in a way to save on computing power as much as possible (thus the whole idea of using history-independent distributions for mtth and such). I looked at hundreds of thousands of characters in the game and I found 1 (one) character that had a statistic of 20 or higher. Yet the game checks if the monarch has a characteristic of 20 or higher every single time mtth for researching a technology is determined. Surely, that's not very economical and it unnecessarily slows down the game, so the fact that this check is introduced in every single research event must imply that it's not just monarch's statistic that was supposed to be taken into account.

 

[Ilkhold]

Ah, very descriptive.

I think we can savely say, that some events (I don't know how many but at least the Tech advance ones) where designed according to the description form the events_effects.txt file quoted above.
But that is not how they work.
This clearly is a "not working as designed" as this seems to be the crucial expression to get proper attention.

I have put effort into recognizing, verifying and reporting it, and I was then a bit angered by a short and obviously unfitting "WaD". That's like a slap in the face.

As Jinnai then pointed out, the game engine works "WaD". This still leaves the events and their documentation to work otherwise.
That on itself may not look like a big problem, but it is a sign of bad organization and lack of an overall view from the developer. And that is a serious problem.

 

[Grosshaus]

I'm not involved in scripting and don't know that much about this, but this is what I think might be the case:

The condition was meant to calculate both ruler and his advisor, which is why it was included in the documentation. For some reason it was proved to be too hard code-wise to actually include the advisor, so only the ruler's stats could be counted. With all other things in mind it was forgotten to change the text in the documentation and also nobody told the guy who made all these events about the difference. When the events were in place it was found out, but since leaving them around requires 0 hours work and removing >0 hours work they were left.

So definedly there was not nothing intentional about this, certainly it's bad organization but please don't exaggerate the seriousity of a program. It's just extra code unused, not actually a bug. Anyway, I can try asking around whether it's possible to change the way the condition works or if the documentation can be fixed.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Well, I would think that it would be easier (and some helpful fan who can script could do it) to adopt that it works differently into events and into event effects document, which would need to get updated due to adding many new conditions and effects in betas (which some helpful fan could do as well, if Paradox doesn't have time to do it).

 

[Grosshaus]

Well, I would think that it would be easier (and some helpful fan who can script could do it) to adopt that it works differently into events and into event effects document, which would need to get updated due to adding many new conditions and effects in betas (which some helpful fan could do as well, if Paradox doesn't have time to do it).

I think this is something MrT should have a look then

 

[Ilkhold]

I think MrT is busy getting his crusade events right that won't work because he coded them according to a documentation that doesn't reflect the actual game mechanics.
I can't help feeling a bit like having a Deja vus.

I am just glad that I was exxagerating when talking about the problems of bad organization and lack of an overall view :wacko:

Regargind worktime we can savely assume that it costs less worktime to correct a 50 char documentation each time you change the according feature than to test the feature again and again whenever someone new wants to use it to figure out how it really works.
It saves time to trust a documentation and it prevents frustration if it is correct.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

I am looking into it.

 

[Ilkhold]

Thank you.