Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Suggestions for Improved Moddability

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69947 Bug Reports 19719 User Modifications 10606 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6376 After Action Reports
Show only dev responses
could we get option to add battle to war history via event or history/wars? Like:

any_war = {
-limit = { blah blah }
-add_battle = {
--name = blah
--winner_title = xyz
--winner_leader = id
--winner_loses = { numberofloses numbertotal }
--loser_title = xyz
--loser_leader = id
--loser_loses = { numberofloses numbertotal }
--warscore = number
-}
}

*changes topic before paradox realise it's actually attempt of bypassing not-moddable warscore*

Also it would be great if we have option to set flag on armies and unit. Like:

any_army = {
-limit = { location = id }
-set_army_flag = xyz
}

And then use it as conditions in combat_tactics. Also i would love if we could get set_owner command for army and units scopes and all of these earmark, owner, leader conditions. Command to make troops = -x work with only certain type of soldiers would be nice as well. And conditions checking both amount of troops and amount of troops type like how many light_cav is in army or how many galleys :3

And btw, could we get option to get "troops = x" command working upwards too? From what i tried to do we can only make army suffer loses, but what if i wish to make army bigger via command?
 
kuczaja said:
could we get option to add battle to war history via event or history/wars? Like:

any_war = {
-limit = { blah blah }
-add_battle = {
--name = blah
--winner_title = xyz
--winner_leader = id
--winner_loses = { numberofloses numbertotal }
--loser_title = xyz
--loser_leader = id
--loser_loses = { numberofloses numbertotal }
--warscore = number
-}
}

*changes topic before paradox realise it's actually attempt of bypassing not-moddable warscore*

Also it would be great if we have option to set flag on armies and unit. Like:

any_army = {
-limit = { location = id }
-set_army_flag = xyz
}

And then use it as conditions in combat_tactics. Also i would love if we could get set_owner command for army and units scopes and all of these earmark, owner, leader conditions. Command to make troops = -x work with only certain type of soldiers would be nice as well. And conditions checking both amount of troops and amount of troops type like how many light_cav is in army or how many galleys :3

And btw, could we get option to get "troops = x" command working upwards too? From what i tried to do we can only make army suffer loses, but what if i wish to make army bigger via command?
Click to expand...

@Meneth did say it would be pretty simple to make the damage unit command work for positive values. Btw, you can make the damage unit command work for specific unit types.

see the example here...
Code: 
random_list = {
            1 = {

            }
            4 = {
                damage_unit = {
                    amount = 5
                    type = heavy_infantry
                }
            }
            2 = {
                damage_unit = {
                    amount = 10
                    type = heavy_infantry
                }
            }
            1 = {
                damage_unit = {
                    amount = 15
                    type = heavy_infantry
                }
            }
            1 = {
                damage_unit = {
                    amount = 20
                    type = heavy_infantry
                }
            }
            1 = {
                damage_unit = {
                    amount = 25
                    type = heavy_infantry
                }
            }
        }

That said, setting a flag on an army would be great! Alernatively, being able to check a scoped army for a particular earmark would also be awesome.

Setting unit owners would also be amazingballs, but I suspect that may be very difficult to code if I am honest.
 
It'd be nice to have a way to specify in the history files which of two twins is the oldest (this can have pretty significant succession implications). At the moment it appears to be based purely on alphabetical order of their names.
 
Tiranasta said:
It'd be nice to have a way to specify in the history files which of two twins is the oldest (this can have pretty significant succession implications). At the moment it appears to be based purely on alphabetical order of their names.
Click to expand...

In CK2 there is no older/younger twin; what I mean by this is (at least from what I can see) the variable used for a character's age/birth date at it's lowest value is "day", since that's the smallest time unit in CK2. So twins both have the same birth day are, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same age. Hence alphanumerical assignment of succession to twins.
 
Korbah said:
In CK2 there is no older/younger twin; what I mean by this is (at least from what I can see) the variable used for a character's age/birth date at it's lowest value is "day", since that's the smallest time unit in CK2. So twins both have the same birth day are, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same age. Hence alphanumerical assignment of succession to twins.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. That's the problem.
 
Korbah said:
In CK2 there is no older/younger twin; what I mean by this is (at least from what I can see) the variable used for a character's age/birth date at it's lowest value is "day", since that's the smallest time unit in CK2. So twins both have the same birth day are, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same age. Hence alphanumerical assignment of succession to twins.
Click to expand...

True, but if which twin is higher in the line of succession were based on character ID order it would be better (because then you would be able to set the eldest twin through the IDs), instead of being alphabetically ordered as Tiranasta said. If it does indeed work like he said.
 
Andrelvis said:
True, but if which twin is higher in the line of succession were based on character ID order it would be better (because then you would be able to set the eldest twin through the IDs), instead of being alphabetically ordered as Tiranasta said. If it does indeed work like he said.
Click to expand...

That's a nice idea.
 
Some twin-related stuff in general could be useful: an impregnate_with_twins command, a has_twin condition, a twin_even_if_dead scope, etc.
(Some of these can already be achieved through existing scopes and limits, though. Maybe 'neater' code for that wouldn't be worth adding in.)

(Edit: fun discovery, if you use the current "impregnate" command three times in a row in the same block, the target will become pregnant with 3 children. They will all be born at the same time, but only the first two will receive the Twin trait.)
 
Last edited:
Ordering twins in succession by id would be far more robust (no need to a second tie-breaker in case they have the same name) however in any case currently there is no way to compare two id numbers so there would be no way to test for which twin is the older by script just with that chamge.
 
Nouni said:
Some twin-related stuff in general could be useful: an impregnate_with_twins command, a has_twin condition, a twin_even_if_dead scope, etc.
(Some of these can already be achieved through existing scopes and limits, though. Maybe 'neater' code for that wouldn't be worth adding in.)

(Edit: fun discovery, if you use the current "impregnate" command three times in a row in the same block, the target will become pregnant with 3 children. They will all be born at the same time, but only the first two will receive the Twin trait.)
Click to expand...

has_twin is already covered by checking for the twin trait.
 
@Meneth How hard would it be to add an effect similar to damage_troops that works against garrisons in holdings? Currently you can reduce the troops in a garrison of a holding that is being sieged, but it would appear that it is not possible to reduce the number of troops non multiplicatively in an non-sieged holding from the province scope.
 
Zarathustra_the said:
@Meneth How hard would it be to add an effect similar to damage_troops that works against garrisons in holdings? Currently you can reduce the troops in a garrison of a holding that is being sieged, but it would appear that it is not possible to reduce the number of troops non multiplicatively in an non-sieged holding from the province scope.
Click to expand...

What about adding negative modifiers to garrison size in a holding_modifier? Does it not apply immediately?
 
ngppgn said:
What about adding negative modifiers to garrison size in a holding_modifier? Does it not apply immediately?
Click to expand...
Mmm, the issue becomes one of scaling tbh. I want an effect that can be run x number of types and deplete the garrison/and or the unraised levy troops. This cannot really be done in absolute descrete amounts without doing a lot of byplay with modifiers. I mean sure you could hack something together, but it would need a whole bunch of scripted moving parts, and could really go buggy sideways.
 
@Meneth Would it be possible to let third party decisions be set up to take a title or a holding as a valid third party? As I recall you can set it so that they can take an artifact as one of the parties to the decision, so would opening this up to include titles and holdings work?
 
@Meneth would you be able to look to fixing the retinue modifiers for traits and for character modifiers? Currently the values all show up correctly in the tooltips but it does not alter the retinue cap in the slightest.
 
Zarathustra_the said:
@Meneth would you be able to look to fixing the retinue modifiers for traits and for character modifiers? Currently the values all show up correctly in the tooltips but it does not alter the retinue cap in the slightest.
Click to expand...
All modifiers will show up, pretty much no matter where you put them. That they do isn't something that should be "fixed".
It'd be nice for them to have an effect, but that's not something we have time to do at this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back