Don't most graphics where number of frames is relevant take a "noOfFrames = <X>" in sprite definition?
-
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.
@Divine can we get some more retinue override multipliers? Like how we have hire_cost and maintaince_multiplier, could we also get the ability to expressly set the retinue cap usage for the unit directly too? This would be really useful for doing things like specific retinues that should be more an army core than an elite personal bodyguard, without directly interacting with the maintaince declaration in defines or the special unit declaration. Could possibly use a reinforcement_modifier or something like that too.
I am on a team developing a mod for Crusader Kings II, Gloria Regni. During this, we saw the features coming for Monks & Mystics and got extremely excited with societies, since this is exactly what is needed to replicate Greco-Roman cults for Hellenic paganism. However, we soon realized you could only be in one society at once. This is unfortunate, since there are many figures who had been in multiple Mysteries simultaneously; such as Julian who was a member of Eleusian, Mithraic, Seven Rays, and was fond of other cults such as that of Serapis.
Thus, I ask the developers to allow modders to have the ability to make it so individual societies can be edited on whether or not they allow members to partake in other Societies or not..
Thus, I ask the developers to allow modders to have the ability to make it so individual societies can be edited on whether or not they allow members to partake in other Societies or not..
Seconded for the obvious reason as being leader of said mod.
Yes, but there is apparently a hardcoded limit to how many frames the game can use: An arbitrary number of 27 (at least for character backgrounds).
I heavily support the suggestion to allow for more frames in portrait graphics.
The main problem, however, is portrait backgrounds imo.
Since we now can add custom layers, clothing etc can, at least somehow, added after the regular layers - but backgrounds are behind the portraits, and there is thus no way to have additional ones even with such a workaround.
So I am probably asking on behalf of most portrait modders out there when I suggest:
Pretty please allow for more character (background) frames to be usable, via define or otherwise.
Well, it is not entirely, it is a limitation of how they have implemented the portrait properties: they are indexed by letters internally (you can see this with charinfo) so that's why the limit of 27 frames.
BTW why would the workaround of adding several layers for backgrounds not work?
Ah, I see.
Because all the new layers are in front of the character, at least afaik. Thus I can't add something that should be behind even a character's face, just in front of it.
If layers could be added between the current layers of p0 (background) and p1 (hair), then yes, that would be a workaround.
But that isn't possible, right?
Please move values that necessary for game rule modding out of the defines file, so that we can add in more options.
Like the Vassal and Demesne limit lines. That way we can add in the options for double, quadruple, etc...
Like the Vassal and Demesne limit lines. That way we can add in the options for double, quadruple, etc...
Code:
GAME_RULE_DEMESNE_SIZE_HALF = 0.5, -- Divider to decrease max demesne size when using "demesne size: half" game rule
GAME_RULE_DEMESNE_SIZE_QUARTERED = 0.25, -- Divider to decrease max demesne size when using "demesne size: quartered" game rule
GAME_RULE_DEMESNE_SIZE_UNLIMITED = 10500, -- Demesne size when using "demesne size: unlimited" game rule
GAME_RULE_VASSAL_LIMIT_HALF = 0.5, -- Divider to decrease vassal limit when using "vassal limit: half" game rule
GAME_RULE_VASSAL_LIMIT_QUARTERED = 0.25, -- Divider to decrease max vassal limit when using "vassal limit: quartered" game rule
GAME_RULE_VASSAL_LIMIT_UNLIMITED = 5000, -- Vassal limit when using "vassal limit: unlimited" game ruleYou can add layers wherever you want in the portrait definition. The order of layers in the portraitType definition determines which layers are on top of which. So if you put a custom layer between the vanilla background later and the base head layer, it will display behind the actual character face.
And this does work?!
Okay if this is really possible, then it would be a workaround-solution.
Ok one last question before this thread gets too derailed: Where would I find this definition "portraitType" you speak of? I can't seem to find it looking at the files...
In case I have a question after that, I'll quote and reply in the Quick Questions thread.
Oh, right, the genes. Makes sense, but it's pretty annoying nonetheless.
How would that help?
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but wouldn't adding a second background layer simply hide the one behind it? So you'd still only have access to a single set of backgrounds...
Make the first background in your new layer completely transparent. As long as the layer is using this background, you'll see the image behind it instead.
And this does work?!
Okay if this is really possible, then it would be a workaround-solution.
Ok one last question before this thread gets too derailed: Where would I find this definition "portraitType" you speak of? I can't seem to find it looking at the files...
In case I have a question after that, I'll quote and reply in the Quick Questions thread.
Scattered in .gfx files in the interface folder, and in the interface folder of the portrait dlc .zips. Look at the Portrait modding wiki page to see how they generally work.
Kind of an odd suggestion, but it'd be nice if we could define a failure chance for the execution methods.
Why? Well, there's a quote from Proceedings of the Durham Conference:
People sometimes survived their executions, and often either escaped or were pardoned (because their survival was thought to be divine judgment).
The chance should differ based on the execution method: for example, execution by a hunt should have relatively high chance of the prisoner escaping, whereas something like burning or disembowelment would be extremely unlikely to fail.
Why? Well, there's a quote from Proceedings of the Durham Conference:
People sometimes survived their executions, and often either escaped or were pardoned (because their survival was thought to be divine judgment).
The chance should differ based on the execution method: for example, execution by a hunt should have relatively high chance of the prisoner escaping, whereas something like burning or disembowelment would be extremely unlikely to fail.
Moddability Suggestions:
A way to set and view the creator of an artifact, and scope directly to them in an event. Would be extremely useful for, say, the phylactery of a lich in a fantasy mod...
A way to scope directly to the original owner of an artifact. Usage idea that comes to mind is the ability to return a famous artifact to its original owner's bloodline for cookies.
A way to set and view the creator of an artifact, and scope directly to them in an event. Would be extremely useful for, say, the phylactery of a lich in a fantasy mod...
A way to scope directly to the original owner of an artifact. Usage idea that comes to mind is the ability to return a famous artifact to its original owner's bloodline for cookies.
So what i'm suggesting is a way to make custom localization work in hover over tooltips
AND a way to localize the -id ending you get for lowborn characters with founder_named_dynasties = yes option
Here's what i'm trying to achieve:
if i hover over the trait, everything works fine - i get my postfix.
If i hover over the answer i get this:
it just displays the script name
AND a way to localize the -id ending you get for lowborn characters with founder_named_dynasties = yes option
Here's what i'm trying to achieve:
if i hover over the trait, everything works fine - i get my postfix.
If i hover over the answer i get this:
it just displays the script name
@Meneth just a reminder about putting in has_equipped Artefact condition. Further, would it be possible to make foci which you do not meet the potential for be greyed out? Currently, if we have custom conditions to let you choose a foci, and your ineligible, there is no graphical feedback that you cannot do this.
Is there a reason that secret religion was introduced as a big set of traits, rather than just having it be a character attribute similar to religion or culture? For a total conversion mod with many new religions, it would be a lot less messy than having to create our own huge set of secret religion traits and it would simplify creating religious secret societies.
Since my mod includes a few vanilla religions, it makes it even more complicated to introduce secret religion traits because we would need to remove some vanilla traits, modify some vanilla traits, and introduce new traits for our original religions.
Since my mod includes a few vanilla religions, it makes it even more complicated to introduce secret religion traits because we would need to remove some vanilla traits, modify some vanilla traits, and introduce new traits for our original religions.
Is there a way to make the AI generate less "generated characters"? I am talking about the random lowborns in AI courts. If not, could you make one in define.lua?