Complex conditionals for recruiting and building

[Simetrical]

Depends how it's parsed. If it's simple left-to-right parsing, what you'd want is "requires buildingalpha or buildingbeta and factions { x, y, }", because it would get parsed "requires ((buildingalpha or buildingbeta) and factions { x, y, })". It could also be right-to-left, in which case you'd want "requires factions { x, y, } and buildingalpha or buildingbeta" = "requires (factions { x, y, } and (buildingalpha or buildingbeta))". If it's using some other kind of parsing, God only knows.

You'll have to try it out for yourself, really. And post the results here.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Well I just tried out:

requires factions { x, y, } and buildingalpha or { z, } and buildingbeta

and the second part seems to work right now. But it ignores the restriction on the first part when I add that.

When I said:

requires factions { x, y, } and buildingalpha or factions { z, } and buildingbeta

the first part worked but the second part was totally ignored. Gah.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Aha. I found a way to get a second set of factions into a requirement line in constructing a building, but it still isn't nearly what I would like. The "or" apparently will keep two things together, so this would work:

buildingalpha requires factions { greek_cities, romans_brutii, } or factions { parthia, } and building_present_min_level hinterland_roads roads

I had been unable to get any second grouping of factions to work. So one set can have no requirements, while the second set has some. But this doesn't do a lot, as I was wanting to have different sets for multiple different factions. If anyone has any idea how to achieve this, please let me know. But the above appears to work. The first two factions have no requirements, and work immediately, but the last one, parthia, has to have roads built first before it will be buildable. But once they are constructed you could build it.

(It appears as if someone else in EB figured it out too, earlier. Probably Angadil, but not sure. But I see this same structure used in another building's requirements that I hadn't seen before.)

[Simetrical]

This would suggest that the requirements are parsed right-to-left, although it's not certain. If that is indeed the case, I suspect what you want would be unattainable.

[Seth Krn3ll]

I noticed a weird outcome.

When I put the "and not building_present" (or the "and not hidden_resource") condition for a building, the building tree is affected in ALL settlements.

Lets say I put a "not hidden_resource" condition to build a market, the markets disappears in ALL settlements building tech tree.

The condition works perfecltyperfectlyperfectperfectaperfectoperfectsperfectasperfectedperfecterperfectosperfectersperfe ctingperfectionperfectibleperfectionsperfectness - the market is buildable where the hidden resource is not present and cannot be built where the hidden resource is present, but the catalog of available buildings is impaired everywhere the same, no matter if the condition is satisfied or not.

On the contrary, if I put a "and building_present" (or "and hidden_resource"), tech tree is correctly affected - the market disappears - only where the resource is not present.

Is it just me or it happens to everyone?

[Aradan]

Did u try using the _min_level variation (of course using the first level as parametre)?

Never happened to me/fatw anyway, at least with "not hidden_resource". Can't remember an instance with the other atm.

[Seth Krn3ll]

Did u try using the _min_level variation (of course using the first level as parametre)?

Never happened to me/fatw anyway, at least with "not hidden_resource". Can't remember an instance with the other atm.

Mmm can you check it please to be sure?
I made lots of tentatives, changing the buildings involved, the resource, the faction, and I always have that same outcome.

Be sure to check the building catalog tree of the settlement, because its only there that it can be noticed: the building conditions works in the game, you see the icon of the new level to build. Its just if you check the tree that you see its not there.

Mmm let me post a few screens.

CONDITION:
red_eye1 requires factions { romans_julii, } and not hidden_resource barad_dur

OUTCOME:

>> CITY WITH RESOURCE:
Correclty, not shown and not able to be built.



tech tree:
Correctly, not shown.



>> CITY WITHOUT RESOURCE:
Correclty, shown and able to be built.



tech tree:
NOT CORRECTLY, NOT SHOWN





CONDITION:
red_eye1 requires factions { romans_julii, } and hidden_resource barad_dur

OUTCOME:

>> CITY WITH RESOURCE:
Correclty, shown and able to be built.



tech tree:
Correclty, shown.



>> CITY WITHOUT RESOURCE:

Correclty, not shown and not able to be built.



tech tree:
Correclty, not shown.

[Makanyane]

I'm fairly sure I had same issue (actually thought it was a known factor) - I know I wrote some of the building conditionals for Eod2 the very long way round by listing 'and or' all the positive ones when I was just trying to exclude one area.

The 'and not' condition for buildings is anyway known to mess up which culture the building turns up as, in EDB guide.

Note 1: Not conditionals (even if true) and positive conditionals that result false seem to break the culture/faction for the slave faction if those buildings are placed at game start - see this thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=81322

[Aradan]

My noob-ness strikes again - and a loss of memory apparently.

Yeah, checked it and you're right. We simply don't have such buildings viewable on the BB anyway, because they are either available on village level or they are branches of multiple-choice trees. Sorry for the above post - though Dol's perfect coding is to blame actually, not a single oversight in his EDB. :)

[Dol Guldur]

You need to reverse the thinking to make it a postive; this is why mods have such hidden resources as not_road etc.

This is a known issue.

[Seth Krn3ll]

You need to reverse the thinking to make it a postive; this is why mods have such hidden resources as not_road etc.

This is a known issue.

Glad to see Its not my mistake then :)

Yes making it positive was my first idea, but seems not appliable to my nedds.

That is: the goal is to make such building availabe in all settlements BUT one. That will mean to add that hidden resource to all regions fo the game but one.

Moreover, there are such unique temple buildings for EACH culture, so I'd need one hidden resource for ALL cultures added to ALL buildings but the one they don't have to build that temple - and for each culture the "free" region is different.

In facts, making it positive would mean to add 14 new resources to more then 80 regions... sounds a bit too complex to limit a building :(

O well, I'll think some workaround for that... maybe I'll put a undestructable placeholder in the building slot so to prevent it. That will leave the tech tree there but sounds better then removing it from all the settlements.

[CaesarVincens]

I know it's a bit late, but I thought it would worth telling about another way around the "not" conditional.

As stated above coding a building like so:

building requires factions {whatever, } and not hidden_resource x

will cause that building to never appear in the tech tree.

However, this coding, where "never" is a HR that does not appear in any region:

building requires factions {whatever, } and hidden_resource never or not hidden_resource x

will correctly show the building in regions without hidden resource x, but not in regions with it.

[Dol Guldur]

Did you miss out an "or"?

[CaesarVincens]

Did you miss out an "or"?

No


Thanks for catching that.