Don't understand this one:
"The "potential" section for buildings should allow things like NOT and OR"
Why wouldn't these work?
"The "potential" section for buildings should allow things like NOT and OR"
Why wouldn't these work?
-
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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
IIRC those simply didn't work in the potential section of buildings.
Must've been fixed at some point; I'll take it off the list.
Hell, I'm using them in PB. I'm pretty sure it was broken at one point, but it clearly isn't the case now.
This one can be removed now:
"Ability to change the relative frequency of names. (E.G., William might be set to three times as common as Godfrey)"
"Ability to change the relative frequency of names. (E.G., William might be set to three times as common as Godfrey)"
Allow heir designation on a dynasty basis and even though it is already on list have it work for titles as well.
A blank diplomatic action that is disabled in the normal game but can be enabled in defines.lua and as on_actions that go with it so we can use it to do our own diplo actions.
All code for the interface is written in C++ and thus hard-coded.
Make Winters moddable so they can be started by events and have their severity set by modifiers, a lot to ask I know but in AGOT there is no real seasons in a linear manner.
Already said but making the new start menu more moddable, currently only the right 3 start dates will show up due to requiring dlc for the other 2 to be active.
Already said but making the new start menu more moddable, currently only the right 3 start dates will show up due to requiring dlc for the other 2 to be active.
Before CM, the game could tolerate characters with wrong holdings at character selection-- that is, you could have a character control three feudal counties and one city county, and as long as the capital was defined as anything but the city, the game would recognize that the realm was feudal and just had one wrong holding type in it, and would let you play as that character as a feudal lord. After CM came out, the game would notice that city holding, spot no patrician vassals and conclude that the realm was a non-merchant republic and would render it unplayable at game start.
If whatever mechanism is involved in that process could be reverted to pre-2.2.0, that would help save a lot of work. I know I gave some characters wrong holding types in the postapoc mod, and now many previously-playable realms are crying that they're theocracies or inland republics.
If whatever mechanism is involved in that process could be reverted to pre-2.2.0, that would help save a lot of work. I know I gave some characters wrong holding types in the postapoc mod, and now many previously-playable realms are crying that they're theocracies or inland republics.
With Gars' permission, I've moved the list to the wiki: http://www.ckiiwiki.com/Modding_suggestions
This means that anyone can now add to the list, though I'll probably rewrite suggestions for clarity and readability. Registering to the wiki is not necessary, but recommended.
If vandalism becomes a problem, editing will be restricted somewhat (requiring users to actually register and edit something else first), but I don't expect it to be necessary.
Note that there's a significant backlog of suggestions. Only suggestions from before 2014-08-11 are on the list, so if you've suggested something after that you should add it to the list.
This thread will still remain for discussion, and it is recommended to post in this thread whenever one adds to the list.
This means that anyone can now add to the list, though I'll probably rewrite suggestions for clarity and readability. Registering to the wiki is not necessary, but recommended.
If vandalism becomes a problem, editing will be restricted somewhat (requiring users to actually register and edit something else first), but I don't expect it to be necessary.
Note that there's a significant backlog of suggestions. Only suggestions from before 2014-08-11 are on the list, so if you've suggested something after that you should add it to the list.
This thread will still remain for discussion, and it is recommended to post in this thread whenever one adds to the list.
A single line about it linking to the post is probably best. There's another entry on the list that does that.
What makes it difficult is making the voting process both simple and robust. Manually tallying vote is horrible, as anyone who've done so can attest, and an automated system would need to ensure people can't vote multiple times and such.The problem with the list is that it would be a full time work for a whole team of developers to implement all the items in it !
Maybe what's missing is a community based voting process/tool (for instance by having modders select only their top 3 features), to make these inputs more valuable to Paradox ?
@Captain Gars I've added a note to the "rejected" section:
"This sections is for suggestions that have been confirmed will definitely not be implemented in the foreseeable future.
Note that only Captain Gars is allowed to move suggestions into or out of this section. Edits not by him doing so will be reverted."
Sound good?
"This sections is for suggestions that have been confirmed will definitely not be implemented in the foreseeable future.
Note that only Captain Gars is allowed to move suggestions into or out of this section. Edits not by him doing so will be reverted."
Sound good?
You're still free to clarify or refine suggestions outside the rejected section.
I still hope that the community/Meneth can keep the list up-to-date, clean it up and etc. because I don't have much time for that.
Yeah, and it's very hard to work from when it's cluttered with too much irrelevant stuff.
I've readded it.
Gars can move it to "rejected" if it something that's definitely not going to be done, but that fully moddable succession isn't going to happen doesn't cover this suggestion.
- 2
I have no idea. I'm just saying that bugs shouldn't be reported here.