Traits that are bugged in 1.2 with fixes. Part 1: Scarred, Farmer, Trader

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tai4ji2x

do you actually have to click on the advisor button to activate this trigger?

---

Nope, I was just queuing up buildings and clicking end turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unseen11

So um let me just get this straight.When I upgrade my Governors house and I firstly build a farm upgrade or trade/port upgrade before anything else i will get the Good Farmer/Good Trader virtue after building a bunch of other buildings that are either less then or equal to in level to the farm/trader? if i mod it

---

If by mod and the build order you described, you mean the change gregab25 proposed then unfortunately it doesn't work as intended. Completing any non-farm building gave you points towards GoodFarmer, even if the settlement had no farms. Completing the first farm, Land Clearance, also gave you a point towards GoodFarmer, but every other farm level gave you a point towards BadFarmer instead.

With the unmodded game it doesn't matter what order you build farms and trade buildings since the game does not compare the newly completed building with what has already been built. If you complete a farm or a trade building you get a point towards GoodFarmer or GoodTrader respectively, with the latter also getting points for ports and roads. If you complete a non-farm or a non-trade building you run the risk of getting BadFarmer or BadTrader points respectively.

If people are really that worried about getting BadFarmer in the unmodded game then the possible solutions are a pain in the ass, but still just about workable: simply never complete a non-farm building with your governor in the settlement, alternatively get to the third level of GoodFarmer, Agriculturalist, since this is a 'no going back' level and you can't subsequently lose it to BadFarmer.

If you're very lucky your governor will have started with Grower through random chance when he comes of age, although this is rare - only about 2% if I recall. If you have access to a temple of farming greater than shrine level your task just got a whole lot easier: drop your new governor-to-be into the settlement and as long as he doesn't move he has a 10% chance each turn of getting 6 points towards GoodFarmer.

(If your trainee is the governor of the farming temple settlement you perhaps want to avoid completing any buildings so that you don't get any BadFarmer/BadTrader vices, but you can still try to improve him further by setting the taxes to Very High and completing a troop every turn which has a small chance - about 3% - of gaining him a point in GoodAdministrator. You do run a very small risk of getting BadBuilder points with an idle building queue, so to avoid this simply queue up a building that you never allow to complete, removing it from the queue entirely and then restarting it each time it nears completion - this does waste money, but the choice is yours, cash or BadBuilder.)

If you don't have access to a farming temple and you're still trying to get a governor to Agriculturalist then your only option is to send him on a tour of your settlements, stopping off in each one as it completes a farm so that he gets the point of GoodFarmer. Given the micromanagement and build times required this is very awkward to achieve and I personally didn't find the effort worthwhile.

Frogbeastegg, try the fix I posted for BadFarmer a couple of posts up. While it doesn't make getting GoodFarmer more likely, leaving it a rare and thus valuable achievement, it does avoid governors getting BadFarmer simply for doing their job.

To simplify it for people here's the same change done for BadTrader...

;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing10
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished = trader
and AdviseBuild = trader

Affects BadTrader 1 Chance 100
;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing10a
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished = market
and AdviseBuild = market

Affects BadTrader 1 Chance 100
;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing10a
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished = forum
and AdviseBuild = forum

Affects BadTrader 1 Chance 100
;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing10a
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished = great_forum
and AdviseBuild = great_forum

Affects BadTrader 1 Chance 100
;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing10a
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished = curia
and AdviseBuild = curia

Affects BadTrader 1 Chance 100

For GoodTaxman you need to set your taxes to Very High while maintaining a settlement loyalty level of disillusioned, giving you a chance each turn of gaining 1 point in GoodTaxman. If your taxes are Low or Normal and the settlement's loyalty greater than disillusioned then you risk getting a point in BadTaxman, since your governor is obviously not taking the opportunity to squeeze more money out of the settlement.

Personally I think the GoodTaxman trigger should be changed to allow you to get the trait if the happiness level is disillusioned or higher, not just disillusioned. To do this change the current GoodTaxman trigger as follows...

;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing18
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition GovernorLoyaltyLevel >= loyalty_disillusioned
and GovernorTaxLevel > tax_high

Affects GoodTaxman 1 Chance 75

Overall the problem is that it seems CA don't really intend for you to have family members sitting around for very long as governors, we're instead meant to get them out into the field as generals or at least a mix of the two.

An idea I've been thinking of to totally revamp the traits system is to predispose the majority of characters towards being a general or a governor, with a few rare individuals able to function equally well as both. This does fit real world examples where great generals are often terrible civil leaders and vice versa. This would be done with a couple of new traits, General and Governor, possibly hidden, that are assigned to every character with the former finding it easier to gain combat traits and the latter governing traits. It would be possible for a general to build up his governing skills and even over time gain the Governor trait, possibly even lose his General trait, and vice versa for governors. It's only in the rough planning stage so far and since it'll require a huge increase in triggers to allow for seperate general and governor versions for many of them it might be that I'll hit a possible hardcoded limit... or alternatively I just give up from sheer exhaustion! ~:)

My own solution to this whole messy affair is rather simplistic and probably not as God intende, but anyway...

1) Never leave your generals in towns

2) If you get do happen to get new family members either through marriage or birth - leave them in a city with taxes set to HIGH for a few turns (unless they have excellent battle stats of course) , build as normal and see if they get anything good. If they do, keep em there or move them to a good city. If they don't, ship em out to the battle field.


It's a pity that I feel I have to play like that, but I don't trust what is happening with the traits, and it's too easy to get the bad stuff, and seems too hard to get the good stuff. Admittedly it seems that fighting makes it too easy to get the good stuff but you can't have everything... ~D

If we get a definitive answer or relatively simple (ie something that isn't going to take me hours to mod, or a download that isn't going to mess with too many other areas of the game) then maybe I'll re-introduce the governor side of things. As it is, my generals are just fighters.

Cheers,

Rob.

OK, rather than dwell on and tinker with the current bizarrely operated GoodFarmer/Trader triggers, I thought I'd post an alternative idea for a fix. This involves what is known as "self-perpetuating" triggers. What this will mean is that any character with the GoodFarmer/Trader trait has a small chance at the end of any turn to progress further in this trait. So a character with Grower will have a 4% chance of receiving 1 towards the next threshold level at the end of each turn.

Here's what the self-perpetuating triggers would look like with these traits:

Code:

---

Trigger selfperpetuating49
    WhenToTest CharacterTurnEnd

    Condition Trait GoodFarmer >= 1

    Affects GoodFarmer  1  Chance  4

---

Code:

---

Trigger selfperpetuating50
    WhenToTest CharacterTurnEnd

    Condition GoodTrader >= 1

    Affects GoodTrader  1  Chance  4

---

Reducing the GoodFarmer and GoodTrader thresholds from 6 and 24 to something like 4 and 16, respectively, would go somewhere in helping these self-perpetuating triggers come into effect.

Lastly, one might also reduce the chance for BadFarmer from 1 Chance 8 to something like 1 Chance 4, so that the BadFarmer trait is relatively less likely to be acquired..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

I really do hate the way this is currently working; my people are getting the same few repetitive vices over and over, and quite harmful ones too. I am actually far more bothered about the harm this does to the immersion factor provided by the otherwise excellent trait system; having so many people with the same few traits harms the feeling of individual characters, it reduces them to clones.

---

The problem mostly lies in the fact that it takes several (as in 8 or even 24) instances of triggers to get the good trait up one level, whereas it usually takes way fewer (read: a single one) instances to get one level of the corresponding bad trait. Or the triggers are set up in such a way that it's hard to avoid the annoying VnVs. That's why the game gets this punishing feeling, even if it appears that you're doing everything right.

For example, you'll always get useless assessors for having taxes lower than high. Simply, the trigger is set that if loyalty is greater than disillusioned (the blue face, i.e. 75-80%) and taxes are less than high, you have a chance to get badtaxman vice. You'll never be able to get goodtaxman virtue with the setup you described above (taxes on medium) since you have to have blue face loyalty and very high taxes, and not only that but also you'll never be able to counter the badtaxman progression (it's like a + - scale, one point in positive direction decreases the badtaxman). Another example is goodfarmer vs. badfarmer, where you need to build 6 farm buildings to get the first level of goodfarmer, whereas only a single non-farm building will net you a level in badfarmer. Although each farm building increase the goodfarmer with a 100% probability and the probability of getting a badfarmer from building anything else is 8%, I find that I'm way more likely to build "anything else" despite the apparently low probability than to build 6 farms under the same governor - and hence all the poor farmers out there.
Since I find this imbalance detrimental to my gaming experience, I have modified both the triggers and the thresholds for certain vices (farmer, trader, taxman...) to at least neutralize the effects you were talking about. In other words, it's not just the triggers IMO: you would have to build *24* bleeping farm buildings under the same governor to get the third level of goodfarmer virtue!! I'm tempted to say that most governors don't live that long, not even in 1.2. Of course, that's assuming you never build anything other than farms... or that you always pass the badfarmer check. Naturally, it only takes 3 failed checks (if you haven't build any farms and hence have no positive increase) to get the third level of badfarmer...

Sorry, a bit long and a bit of a rant, but you hit the nail on the head with one of the biggest things that (used to) bother me with the strategic map.

edit:
And from reading the posts after yours I see that I'm not the only one in this feeling. Sorry for the repeats, folks, I went straight to writing without reading on.

Self-perpetuating triggers? Now that's a good idea! :bow:

I'm not so sure that the issues surrounding the badtaxman traits are necessarily broken though. Remember this is ancient Rome, not a modern democracy. Tax was all about squeezing as much cash as possible out of the newly conquered. Tom Holland touches on the subject in his book Rubicon. I don't have it in front of me right now, but from what I recall his argument was that the Western civilisations originally didn't bother with regular taxation. Why go to all that bother when you could simply beat up your neighbours and take everything they had? Eastern empires, being much larger, had developed the necessary adminstration skills to levy regular taxes. Then, so Holland's argument runs, the Romans acquired Pergamum and everything changed. Now the Romans (particularly in the days of the Republic), if they got hold of a city that had a smoothly functioning administrative service tended to leave that service intact. Pergamum, being a relic of an old Eastern empire had the neccessaries to levy regular taxation on its subjects. And the Romans suddenly realised what an easy, and lucrative, task it actually was.

So in that light, the game is actually correct in punishing those generals who keep taxes too low. What I don't get though is why the tax farmer ancillary pops up if you go down the badtaxman trait tree. Tax farmers were sub-contractors used by Roman governors to increase tax revenues. So I would've thought they should be on the goodtaxman tree ~:confused:

If you had total authority over a city and found that you were no good at taxing, wouldn't you delegate the task to someone who was? I think the tax farmer ancillairy belongs on the bad taxer side.

On the larger issue, is there an agreed upon set of triggers for the farmer and trader traits that doesn't depend on the advisor? I've found her to be more like a trophy wife than an advisor: pretty to look at until she opens her mouth. The woman is utterly daft, and I don't want anything important like economic traits left in her clueless hands.

I'm with Jambo. Upping the chance of GoodFarmer (lower threshold) and lower the one for BadFarmer is the way I have followed. Now with the perpetuating trait I have gone a little back towards vanilla but it is much altered still.

Damn! Just noticed another badly made traittrigger. Look up the risky battles and you will notice that the battles that are supposed to be won = clear are in fact set to be = crushing. That means that every time you win a crushing victory that is risky you gain no less than 3 points in whatever risky-type you fought. But if you won a clear victory you gained nothing. That is unmodded. Personally I have modded crushing to grant only 1 point but give a 25% chance of skilladvance.

I think I am in need of a clearer explaination of what the problem is here...

I have been running tests with slightly modified export_descr_ancillaries.txt and export_descr_character_traits.txt files. I have modded them simple to set the chance values to 100 (or in the case of comingofage, marriage and adoption test I have set chance to 1). In export_descr_character_traits.txt I have also modded the trait threshold to be single point steps...

Concentrating on the farmer and Trader triggers the logic appears to be:

1. Build a farm build and get a GoodFarmer point (but you also get a BadTrader point)

2. Build a trade building and get a GoodTrader point (but also get a BadFarmer point)

3. Build a road or a port and you get a GoodTrader point and a BadFarmer point.

4. Build anything else and you get both a BadTrader and a BadFarmer point.

Before arguing whether this is right, is it what everyone else expects with the default trigger setup?

Yup, with the default triggers amended to have a 100% chance to acquire traits if the conditions are otherwise met, that's what I'd expect.

Yes, Bob. That is how it seems to work with the default triggers.

I spent some time today looking for a solution withot having to change the default threshold values. But I couldn't find one.

Without knowing more about all of the information that is returned from the "SettlementBuildingFinished" and "Farms" queries, I dont think any of us can get it working as CA intended.

To me the Farmer and Trader traits are broken unless CA intended for a governor to not be able to receive these traits without moving your governor from town to town solely building farms and then removing the governor when you build every single other building in the game.

As a player, i have reached my own threshold, and have received "frustration" level 1. :angry: This bug kinda ruins the game for me. It whispers to me in the back of my mind when i'm trying to play saying that i'm not actually playing the game. Just some sort of half game.

Anyways If I play anymore with 1.2, I will probably just disable the farmer and trader traits altoghter. Which, when i think about it, doesn't make me any happier really. :sad3:

I wish CA would fix this stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregab25

As a player, i have reached my own threshold, and have received "frustration" level 1. :angry: This bug kinda ruins the game for me. It whispers to me in the back of my mind when i'm trying to play saying that i'm not actually playing the game. Just some sort of half game.

---

lol, gregab. me too... me too... ~:mecry:

"apologists" for CA (somewhat harsh term, i concede) rationalize that just as a good chess player will play with missing pieces or other handicaps against a lesser player, so too must an RTW player do all she/he can to avoid exploiting the AI. i'm fine with that IN THEORY... the problem is, here it's like you're constantly having to add new restrictions and limits on yourself as you realize your opponent is even worse than originally claimed. sometimes you even see that the opponent doesn't even know certain rules or inadvertently breaks them on a consistent basis since it doesn't know any better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregab25

To me the Farmer and Trader traits are broken unless CA intended for a governor to not be able to receive these traits without moving your governor from town to town solely building farms and then removing the governor when you build every single other building in the game.

---

I'm pretty sure that's how they're supposed to work. For example, tell me how many high-star generals in MTW did you have that were also *not* inbred unhinged loons? I think that the rationale behind it is that otherwise it would be too easy.

The simple solution is to just lower the positive trait thresholds, or make the triggers give you more points for the good traits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tai4ji2x

seems like your sentence got cut off?

---

Yes, because vB 3 is moronically paranoid about less-than signs. The paragraph now reads "gregab25 therefore thought that the ≺= operator was bugged, so he changed it to NOT >. Unfortunately, this made every non-farm building increase his traits, tricking him into thinking that his interpretation of EDCT.txt was right."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Simetrical what did you do? And what was the effect?

---

I just modded the basic EDCT.txt to have a threshold of 1 for GoodFarmer, then I built a farm building and a non-farm building with different governors. The governor who built a farm building got a point of GoodFarmer, and the one who didn't didn't. This proved that the intuitive reading of SettlementBuildingFinished (that it returned the name of the building constructed) was the correct one. If gregab25 had been right, and SettlementBuildingFinished had just returned the level number of the building constructed, the non-farm building should have given my general a point of GoodFarmer (since its level was equal to the level of farms in the settlement).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregab25

Okay, after Simetrical's good, albiet immature, post . . .

---

Okay, I may have been a bit on the gloating side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregab25

However, in the default setting if you desire to become a good farmer or trader you will want to build all other buildings before the farm or trade buildings.

---

No. In the default settings, building any farm would give you +1 GoodFarmer, and building any other building might give you +1 BadFarmer. The GoodFarmer trigger doesn't care about which non-farm buildings you've built, and the BadFarmer trigger doesn't care about which farm buildings you've built.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregab25

Would someone please look into or explain why reversing the > = to a < = sign in the triggers does not reverse the results in game?

---

Depends on which sign you're thinking of. If you change "SettlementBuildingFinished >= farms" to "SettlementBuildingFinished ≺= farms", then you'll see no difference at the level "farms" (Land Clearance), since both settings trigger off "= farms". The latter shouldn't trigger on any higher levels of farm, however. Did you observe differently in your tests?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregab25

Easiest way is to see it for yourself. It will take less than 5 minutes. Simply set the thresholds for farming to 1, 2, and 3. Then go into the game and build various buildings and look at the results.

This is what i just did with the default triggers, and I was receiving the traits by building all the non farm and trade buildings first.

---

I suspect your EDCT.txt may have some lingering changes from your earlier modding which are throwing off the results. What's your full trigger for GoodFarmer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

I guess what this saying then is that as long as you have the basic farms in place, it will award you GoodFarmer each time you build another building?

---

No. I'm not sure that's implementable, actually. You'd have to compare the level of the finished structure to the level of existing farms, and I'm not sure that's possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

I saw someone say 'good farmer' has a 100% chance if you build [something, a farm most likely].

---

Close, but one important mistake. If you build a farm, you have a 100% chance of getting one point in GoodFarmer. The threshold for "Grower" is six, so your governor has to finish six farms to get it that way. In other words, it's exceedingly unlikely that you got any GoodFarmer trait from building farms. You probably got them from temples of farming (Ceres, Freyja and the like).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

Bad farmer I get on almost every single governor within 10 turns of their appointment.

---

Another problem with the thresholds. You have an 8% chance of getting BadFarmer every time you build a non-farm building—but the threshold of BadFarmer is only one, as opposed to GoodFarmer's six. The thresholds need to be modded to something reasonable, preferably symmetrical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregab25

Without knowing more about all of the information that is returned from the "SettlementBuildingFinished" and "Farms" queries, I dont think any of us can get it working as CA intended.

---

I'm pretty sure we understand those queries. "SettlementBuildingFinished" returns the name of the building that was just finished, and "farms" is just a building name. The comparison sign checks the relationship between the finished building and the named building: if they're in the same build tree, their level is compared, and the condition returns true iff the relation is true; if they're not in the same build tree, the condition returns false. I think we have ample evidence to support this interpretation, and nothing seems to contradict it.

-Simetrical

I'd like to look at the vanilla expected trait levels for farming. A 16 yr-old governor who dies at 66 governs for 100 turns, which I like 'cause it keeps the maths easy for me. During that time he can build no more than 5 farms max, right? 5 points of good farmer total.

How many other buildings can he build in that time? It takes 14 turns to build the governors houses, and 15 to build the farms, so he has 71 turns left in which to possibly get bad farmer traits. Anybody know off hand how many buildings he can build in that time frame, max? Until someone posts that number and makes a fool of me, let's assume the average building takes 3 turns, which makes for 27 buildings. 8% of 27 (so much for easy math) is 2.16 levels of bad farmer.

Net: ~2.8 levels of good farmer, from a life spent neutral on the farm subject. I would conclude from this that the threshold for grower should be no less than 3. Considering that the temple of farming adds 6 points every 10 turns on average, he who honors the farm gods gets 60 points of good farmer from that. Thus the threshold for Agriculturalist should not be greater than 62, and probably less.

I conclude from this that good farmer was intended to be a trait that only those with farming temples acquired, and everyone else washed out even in the long haul. I think 3, 18, and 36, would make good thresholds. Someone who builds farms first has a shot at getting grower for a while, even if he will eventually lose it for failing to honor the farm gods properly (which plays for me since he's not the onee actually DOING the farming). A man who is dilligent about farming and is seen to worship the farm gods, otoh, gets grower within his first 2.5 to 5 years, then after 15 years he gets level two, and after 30 years as a farmer, he spends the remaining 20 years renowned as an agriculuralist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simetrical

probably got them from temples of farming (Ceres, Freyja and the like).

---

those are fertility temples, i believe. not farming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pode

I'd like to look at the vanilla expected trait levels for farming. A 16 yr-old governor who dies at 66 governs for 100 turns, which I like 'cause it keeps the maths easy for me. During that time he can build no more than 5 farms max, right? 5 points of good farmer total.

---

He's limited to 5 farms if he stays in the same settlement for his entire life, but how many governors do this? With few exceptions I leave a governor in a city while it's growing or to help deal with unrest, then once the city is established and/or remains loyal with just a garrison I move my governor on to the next settlement or out into the field to lead an army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pode

...I conclude from this that good farmer was intended to be a trait that only those with farming temples acquired, and everyone else washed out even in the long haul. I think 3, 18, and 36, would make good thresholds. Someone who builds farms first has a shot at getting grower for a while, even if he will eventually lose it for failing to honor the farm gods properly (which plays for me since he's not the onee actually DOING the farming). A man who is dilligent about farming and is seen to worship the farm gods, otoh, gets grower within his first 2.5 to 5 years, then after 15 years he gets level two, and after 30 years as a farmer, he spends the remaining 20 years renowned as an agriculuralist.

---

Nice reasoning and solution for GoodFarmer, providing some reward for the average governor while still keeping the trait a relatively rare and thus precious virtue to possess, which seems to have been CA's intention. ~:)

I've opened up a Ludus Magna thread to research trait bug fixes of the type discussed here. I'd greatly appreciate it if those who have devised fixes could post (or in some cases repost) them over there, so that we can have them all in an uncluttered thread.

Thanks.

To continue Pode's discussion I we should discuss what we want to get out of the Goodfarmer and Goodtrader traits (and their opposites) and who should get them and for what reason...

I also like the concept that the dizzing heights of these traits are reservered for those governors that not only build loads of farms/trade buildings but also builds the farmer/trade temples...

Is it really only a change of the threshold values that is required to achieve this?

One thought I have been considering is a check to see if the the farm or trade build had been built before any other building of the same tech level (looking for which building ware upgraded first). And handing out GoodFarmer or GoodTrader points if those are first... Though thinking about it having Godfarmer and Goodtrader points gained simply by building the coorect building should be pretty easy to balance out with the threshold values.

And for handing out BadFarmer and BadTrader point a check to see whether those building had been upgraded as far as possible before the settlement itself is upgraded... So if you had a large town and a sufficient population to upgrade to a city, if you had not maxed out your farm and or trade buildings before upgrading the settlement you would get poorfarmer and/or poortrader points... This would make the slide into those traits much slower..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simetrical

I'm pretty sure we understand those queries. "SettlementBuildingFinished" returns the name of the building that was just finished, and "farms" is just a building name. The comparison sign checks the relationship between the finished building and the named building: if they're in the same build tree, their level is compared, and the condition returns true if the relation is true; if they're not in the same build tree, the condition returns false. I think we have ample evidence to support this interpretation, and nothing seems to contradict it.

---

Sorry if I'm slow on the uptake, but could you help me out here by explaining a couple of things?

If "SettlementBuildingFinished" and "farms" just return the names as you suggest, why would the equation not compare the names alphabetically?

Thus:

Condition "Market" >= "Farms"

Why would this not just compare the letter "M" to the letter "F", and return true?

I know this doesn't work, but is that not what the equation calls for if "SettlementBuildingFInished" and "farms" just return names.

And, If "SettlementBuildingFinished" and "farms" look up the level of the building in the file EDB.txt, does that not make them variables as i originally proposed, and which we know believe to be wrong?

So, isnt the trigger actually working in game by only returning the name and saying:

"farms" = "farms"

Which returns True.

and "anyotherbuilding" = "farms"

will always return false.

I don't believe the level is even checked and therefore the > sign in the equation is pointless. Which raises the question why is it there?

Both the > sign being irrelevant and the threshold being so high for GoodFarmer still leads me to believe that these traits aren't working the way CA wanted them to.

Oh, and the above explanation i made would also explain why reversing the > and < signs did not have any noticeable effect on the results in game.

Am I on to something?

In a word: nope.

From what you've said, apparently your problem is that you're viewing the condition as a mathematical equation, with SettlementBuildingFinished as a variable, but that isn't the case. SettlementBuildingFinished is a function and the rest of the condition are parameters. Go read the Events, Conditions, & Commands thread for further info, although to save time I'll copy the SettlementBuildingFinished info here...

Identifier: SettlementBuildingFinished
Trigger requirements: prior_build
Parameters: building description, logic token, test level
Sample use: SettlementBuildingFinished = governors_house
Description: Test to see what the last finished building was
Battle or Strat: Strat
Class: SETTLEMENT_BUILDING_LEVEL_FINISHED_TEST
Implemented: Yes
Author: Guy

From the Parameters and Description we can see the intended use and intent of the condition and from testing we can deduce how it operates: the function first compares the completed building with the test building parameter to determine if they're in the same building tree, if they are it then compares their levels using the logic parameter, returning true or false as appropriate.

Ok, if that is true, and i'll take your word for it that it is, is there another Identifier in the game that would compare the levels of buildings from different trees?

For example maybe something like this might work:

Trigger governing5
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition SettlementBuildingExists

Ug.. damn < = to sign...


For example maybe something like this might work:

Quote:

---

Trigger governing5
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition SettlementBuildingExists < = farms

Affects GoodFarmer 1 Chance 100

---

This may seem like a silly question, but I'll ask anyway:

If the VnVs were much better with version 1.1, then has anyone thought to just copy the file information from there and paste it into the 1.2 files to fix the VnVs??

Sinner, why does it only check buildingsfrom the same tree? If it checked the level of buildings from different trees it seems like everything else would work out?

The SettlementBuildingExists condition can be used but you get a very cumbersome trigger like so...

Trigger governing5
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished = farms
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= wooden_pallisade
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= muster_field
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= trader
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= roads
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= mines
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= temple_of_battle_shrine
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= temple_of_battleforge_shrine
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= temple_of_farming_shrine
... (all the other shrines)...

Affects GoodFarmer 1 Chance 100

With this trigger you'd only get a point towards GoodFarmer when you build Land Clearance and you haven't yet built any other building of the Town level.

You'd have to repeat this for each level of farm, changing the conditions to compare against the appropriate building for each building tree available at that level of settlement. Here's the Large Town/Communal Farming trigger as a further example...

Trigger governing5a
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished = farms+1
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= wooden_wall
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= militia_barracks
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= stables
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= practice_field
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= market
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= blacksmith
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= port
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= sewers
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= paved_roads
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= mines+1
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= tavern
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= temple_of_battle_temple
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= temple_of_battleforge_temple
and not SettlementBuildingExists >= temple_of_farming_temple
... (all the other temples)...

Affects GoodFarmer 1 Chance 100

With this trigger you'd only get a point towards GoodFarmer when you build Communal Farming and you haven't yet built any other building of the Large Town level.

I've no idea if triggers this big would even work and if I did use an idea like this for GoodFarmer, I'd personally drop the condition checking walls, roads, farming temples and perhaps fertility temples.

EDIT: SettlementBuildingFinished only compares levels of buildings in the same tree because that's how CA wrote the function!

Ah, thanks for the excellent help, Sinner.

With the threshold so high in the GoodFarmer and GoodTrader traits i thought that the trigger you just showed was how CA possibly intended for it to work.

Now, I just don't know.

To me it doesn't make sense the way it is now, and looking at those big triggers i just don't know what to think.

But, thanks a lot for the help and showing me how it works and also for giving me the link to the Events, Conditions, and Commands thread.

Cheers.
~:cheers:

Greg, look at the effects of the temple of farming and temple of trade triggers to help you understand why the thresholds are so high. temple of farming gives 6 points of good farmer every 10 turns. I can't check from work, but I suspect temple of trade pays out similarly well. I think the design concept is that a governor's individual ability may help some, but in the long run unless the townspeople see him honoring the gods appropriately, there won't be much change in the output of the town overall. The age of reason is still a LONG way away in game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pode

Greg, look at the effects of the temple of farming and temple of trade triggers to help you understand why the thresholds are so high. temple of farming gives 6 points of good farmer every 10 turns. I can't check from work, but I suspect temple of trade pays out similarly well. I think the design concept is that a governor's individual ability may help some, but in the long run unless the townspeople see him honoring the gods appropriately, there won't be much change in the output of the town overall. The age of reason is still a LONG way away in game

---

Yes, I am aware of the effects of the temples, and it may be you are entirely right. Of course this would mean all that factions that cannot build those specific temples would still have a very hard time getting those traits, which may be how it is intended to be. IE. Each faction has stengths and weaknesses in their ability to gain traits based on what temples they can or cannot build.

It certainly makes the Julii pantheon seem a bit less pathetic in comparison to the other Romans. The troops aren't as good, but there can be a WHOLE lot more of them.

^
again, i think the julii temple (ceres) is a fertility temple, giving fertility bonuses. it is not a farming temple.

Sinner, you are a saint... ~D

That would work beautifully for my Badfarmer and Badtrader idea...

The following would test when a settlment is upgraded to see if the govern had bothered to upgrade the farms first, if not he is a bad farmer. The fact that this only occurs rarely (up to 4 times in the life of a settlement) ties in well with the low threshold settings in the default trait. If you have left the triggers for GoodFarmer as default it is also pretty easy to recover from getting BadFarmer points simply by building farms. Thus to become an unredemably bad farmer (Loathes_Farmers) your general would have to been the govern during the upgrading of a settlement 3 times without having any farms built...

--------------------------------------
Trigger governing5
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished = governors_villa
and not SettlementBuildingExists = farms

Affects BadFarmer 1 Chance 100


--------------------------------------
Trigger governing5a
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished = governors_palace
and not SettlementBuildingExists = farms+1

Affects BadFarmer 1 Chance 100

And so on....

Using the same idea with Badtrader is slightly more complex because of the combination of buildings; trade, road and ports. Although, the only action to gain BadTrader points by default is not building trade buildings. So using the same triggers as for BadFarmer but checking for trading buildings not being built/upgraded instead. The slightly higher thresholds in BadTrader mean that to get the worst you would have to govern the growth of at least two settlements without building or upgrading the trade buildings...

The fact that there are three times as many opportunities to gain GoodTrader points is of set by the huge threshold levels...

Arrgghhh... Double post hell...

Good idea Bob! ~:)

I'd only give BadTrader for the trader line of buildings (trader, market, forum, etc) as it does now, without worrying about ports & roads, the other ways to gain GoodTrader. It'll simplify the trigger and keep closer to the vanilla intention.

EDIT: Perhaps the second trigger should be like this, changing the '=' for the farm condition to a '< =' ...

WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished = governors_palace
and not SettlementBuildingExists < = farms+1

Affects BadFarmer 1 Chance 100

That way you'll also get BadFarmer if you haven't built farms or farms instead of the just the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinner

Good idea Bob! ~:)
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished = governors_palace
and not SettlementBuildingExists < = farms+1

Affects BadFarmer 1 Chance 100

That way you'll also get BadFarmer if you haven't built farms or farms instead of the just the latter.

---

Surely that would make it too hard to get the BadFarmer trait as you would have to never build any farms to get BadFarmer points, and if you built even the lowest level of farms you never have to worry about getting the BadFarmer points...

Using = means that you have to keep upgrading your farms to avoid he BadFarmer traits, nad even if you do gain badfarmer points you can negate them by building the farmer later (which gets you a GoodFarmer point)... You would really have to make an effort to not keep you farms updated to gain the BadFarmer trait...

I guess this is down to personal opinion. Just how bad a farmer do you have to be to get the vice??? (same logic applies to BadTrader)

Yup, my bad.

Another trait I would like to discuss is Smoothtalker:

Trait SmoothTalker
Characters family
AntiTraits Feck

Level Plausible
Description Plausible_desc
EffectsDescription Plausible_effects_desc
Threshold 2

Effect Bribery 10

Level Slick
Description Slick_desc
EffectsDescription Slick_effects_desc
Threshold 4

Effect Bribery 20

Level Smooth_Talker
Description Smooth_Talker_desc
EffectsDescription Smooth_Talker_effects_desc
Threshold 6

Effect Bribery 30



;------------------------------------------

You can see that while this trait improves the chances of bribing someone (Effect BribeResistance is for preventing someone beeing bribed) and it can be gained through bribary missions. Yet it is own available to family members and not to diplomates... Surely this can not be right??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tai4ji2x

^
again, i think the julii temple (ceres) is a fertility temple, giving fertility bonuses. it is not a farming temple.

---

Tai, think about the word cereal for a minute ~D

Correct me if I'm wrong, it happens a lot, but when a dip opens talks with your general, if you counteroffer and they reject that outright, doesn't the full diplomacy menu, including bribe, come up if you try to make a new offer? Is that the situation that smoothtalker was meant for? Defensive bribing of a diplomat that has approached your general?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pode

Tai, think about the word cereal for a minute ~D

---

yes, but in the game it acts as a temple of fertility. look inside EDB.txt

only dacia, carthage, and macedon have farming temples.

:oops: :shame: Well, at least I did just say that I was wrong a lot, now we have proof. Mea Culpa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pode

Correct me if I'm wrong, it happens a lot, but when a dip opens talks with your general, if you counteroffer and they reject that outright, doesn't the full diplomacy menu, including bribe, come up if you try to make a new offer? Is that the situation that smoothtalker was meant for? Defensive bribing of a diplomat that has approached your general?

---

Good point, so the trait is having a positive effect as it is, cool...

Do you think it would be reasonable to mod this trait to make it applicable to diplomats as well as family members? Or could make the diplomats overpowered? Considering how much more expensive bribing is in 1.2 I don't think applying this to diplomats would be unbalancing...

As I recall family members can counter-bribe when a diplomat contacts them, they just can't initiate a bribe themselves. So Smoothtalker would help in these circumstances.

Counter-bribe? How does that work? I've both bribed family members and had family members bribed, and I've never either lost my diplomat to the other side or received the option to bribe the opposing diplomat, although I admit I haven't had too many family members bribed. Perhaps they didn't have the necessary skill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinner

As I recall family members can counter-bribe when a diplomat contacts them, they just can't initiate a bribe themselves. So Smoothtalker would help in these circumstances.

---

This should be quite easy t test for (at least whether the general actually picks up the trait is asy to test)...

With the modified trait file I am using if I can get myself into the position of a diplomat contacting one of my generals to negotiate something, if I counter by bribing the dilpomat and succeed the general should automatically get the trait (if it is all working)...

theother, when a diplomat contacts you, eg trying to negotiate a trade agreement, you have the option of sending a counter-proposal. Bribery is one of the options on the list, so instead of negotiating the deal the AI wants you 'steal' his diplomat. ~:)

I would like to see this thread get a bit back on topic. Perhaps it was a mistake, but I read all 5 pages of this thread. Now, having read all that I am confused as can be. What changes should I make to fix the bugged traits? I would really appreciate a final version of the changes that takes into account what has been said for the past five pages. Thank you for your time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charlesolmsted

I would like to see this thread get a bit back on topic. Perhaps it was a mistake, but I read all 5 pages of this thread. Now, having read all that I am confused as can be. What changes should I make to fix the bugged traits? I would really appreciate a final version of the changes that takes into account what has been said for the past five pages. Thank you for your time.

---

I think the reason for your confusion is because it has not been decided or agreed what the final solution should be...

We seem to have broken down into a couple of basic groups. The first is to simply adjust the threshold values for the traits in question to balance out the problems. The second is to alter how the triggers that generate these traits work.

The first is justified in that it is the least intrusive makes only a minimal change to improve the way the game plays. The second is justified if it is found that the triggers that power the traits are fundimentally broken and no amount of balancing the threshold values will fix things...

In some instances this is obvious like for the Scarface issue where the trigger is fundimentally flawed and needs to be fixed.

In other cases like GoodFarmer and BadFarmer it is less clear as we have not fully agreed how common these traits should be. The only thing that is obvious is that the poor manner in which the BadFarmer trait is triggered combined with it's bizaarly low threshold values makes the BadFarmer trait rediculously common...

I for one am a fan of altering the main trigger that generates the BadFarmer trait....

Can someone clarify for me what GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle actually measures? Is it (hitpoints lost)/(total hitpoints) as the name sugegsts?

I only ask because I thought from some other posts that it might in fact be (hitpoints left)/(total hitpoints). It would seem from Gregba's suggested fix (some pages back) that he believes it is this latter formula. I say this because he suggests you should get scarred if GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle is < 0.3. iirc that is, I haven't checked ...

This (obviously) affects what the scarred trigger will do. I gather from discussions that the consensus is that you should get scarred if you lose 70% or more of your hitpoints. Am I right about that?

Anyway, can someone set me straight on what the this function actually returns, and I giess I can make my mind up on where the break should be. I, too, am sick of getting horribly scarred people who lose influence as a result, when the most they have done is ride down a few routers.

And I thought that concensus was
GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle is < 0.7
or scarred after losing 30% of HP.

And that's probably what CA wanted, but reverted the function from HPlost to "HPleft".

Giving it to just those with less then 30% hp would make it very, very rare trait.

Thank you. I will make that adjustment to the battle scarred trait in my file.

i personally think only losing 30% is still too little (ie, still too easy to get the trait). i set the trigger to 0.6 (%40 HP lost).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tai4ji2x

i personally think only losing 30% is still too little (ie, still too easy to get the trait). i set the trigger to 0.6 (%40 HP lost).

---

Well, there are multiple level of that same trait, so it takes time for it too form.

And since 0.3 number was CA choice so be it (for a fix, not mod).

Has anyone suggested yet doubling the threshold values for all the traits gained through combat to counter the apparant doubling effect that occurs when you fight battles on the battlemap??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob the Insane

Has anyone suggested yet doubling the threshold values for all the traits gained through combat to counter the apparant doubling effect that occurs when you fight battles on the battlemap??

---

Yeah, but the problem is that the AI doesn't often fight on the battlemap. So if you doubled all the thresholds, it would take the AI twice as long to get each trait, which is no better than not doubling it (where the human player take half the time to progress up the levels).

One possible workaround would be to create a line of doubled battlefield traits that only the human player uses.

Except that you'd have to figure out a way to only have the player use them, which is tricky. There aren't any strat-map conditions that can limit a trigger to a player, unfortunately. You'd have to do it faction by faction, changing it for every game. Also, it would get screwed up if the player auto-resolved or the comp fought on the battle map, but both of those scenarios favor the AI, so that's okay.

How to work around this . . . you might be able to make some kind of conditional statement. Hmm. Wait, maybe I have something. What about this? Double all relevant thresholds, so my the last level of my example trait (GoodAttacker) has a threshold of 32. Then add a trigger (actually, two triggers, in case there's a limit on condition number) like so:

Code:

---

Trigger EvenGoodAttacker1
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition IsGeneral
          and Trait GoodAttacker = 1
          or Trait GoodAttacker = 3
          or Trait GoodAttacker = 5
          or Trait GoodAttacker = 7
          or Trait GoodAttacker = 9
          or Trait GoodAttacker = 11
          or Trait GoodAttacker = 13
          or Trait GoodAttacker = 15

    Affects GoodAttacker  1  Chance  100

Trigger EvenGoodAttacker2
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition IsGeneral
          and Trait GoodAttacker = 17
          or Trait GoodAttacker = 19
          or Trait GoodAttacker = 21
          or Trait GoodAttacker = 23
          or Trait GoodAttacker = 25
          or Trait GoodAttacker = 27
          or Trait GoodAttacker = 29
          or Trait GoodAttacker = 31

    Affects GoodAttacker  1  Chance  100

---

This solution isn't perfect. For it to work, you'd need to make all battle triggers have a 100% of giving you the trait(s) when their trigger conditions are met, which would make combat traits somewhat deterministic. To compensate, you could add selfperpetuating-type non-combat triggers to modify the traits up and down randomly, if you want.

Another problem is that battle triggers couldn't add any number of points other than one. AFAIK, we don't know how the triggers for a given event are parsed—if they're done sequentially, we could theoretically get around this problem by interspersing combat triggers with my new triggers. But it would probably be easier to just adjust all combat trait thresholds so that they work with two points per battle (which is what they'll get with the triggers set to give one).

Anyway, assuming that all battle triggers have a 100% chance of giving their traits, any general who fights exclusively on the battle map will always have an even number of points in his combat trait. If a general autoresolves, however, and no trait trigger gives a number of points other than one, he'll gain an odd number of points. The triggers above will immediately find combat traits with an odd number of points and bump them up by a point, effectively compensating for the lower payout of autoresolve.

Thoughts?

-Simetrical

Simetrical - sorry mate, you have complete lost me on that one...

I was thinking however that we could assume that the player largely fights on the battlemap and adjust the threshold to allow for that (doubling them)... We already know that the AI does not tend to gain high star rated general through fighting much, so we could try looking into a mechanisim to deliver high star rated generals outside of the battlefield...

Perhaps create a perpetual trigger for GoodCommand and BadCommander..

Theamin thing to consider is that anything we do will apply equally to player and AI..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simetrical

Except that you'd have to figure out a way to only have the player use them, which is tricky. There aren't any strat-map conditions that can limit a trigger to a player, unfortunately. You'd have to do it faction by faction, changing it for every game.

---

But would that really be too much of a problem? Just add in the 'and not faction = whatever' condition, make n copies of the file, edit each to add the relevant faction name and voila. Couple this with a little batch file to rename the file from the faction-specific one to the genuine one before firing off the RTW exe and away you go. I'm skipping steps here of course, and you'd have to make sure you played the right faction once you loaded the game, so it's not all that elegant. But if it made it work....

Anyway, just something to think about.

Cheers,

Rob

Simetrical, I get what you're thinking, but since the triggers are processed sequentially as far as I can tell I think we'll need something like this...

Trigger GoodAttacker1_31plus
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition IsGeneral
and Trait GoodAttacker >= 31
Affects GoodAttacker 1 Chance 100

Trigger GoodAttacker1_30
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition IsGeneral
and Trait GoodAttacker = 30
Affects GoodAttacker 1 Chance 100

Trigger GoodAttacker1_29
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition IsGeneral
and Trait GoodAttacker = 29
Affects GoodAttacker 1 Chance 100

etc

This way, if I have 29 points in GoodAttacker, the only trigger I match is GoodAttacker1_29. It then increases my points to 30, but I don't trigger GoodAttacker1_30 since I'm already past it. There are a couple of potential problems though: as yet do we know if the game is scanning the list of triggers twice, in which case the second time around it will trigger GoodAttacker1_30 after all; the other possible flaw is that there might be a limit on the number of triggers, which we could very possibly hit given the number we'd need to have for each current trigger condition.

As for the faction specific idea, that could work albeit with a lot of effort to set up, with the easiest solution being to set up each faction as a mod and then running that faction specific version of the game using the -mod:XXXX switch in the command line options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinner

As for the faction specific idea, that could work albeit with a lot of effort to set up, with the easiest solution being to set up each faction as a mod and then running that faction specific version of the game using the -mod:XXXX switch in the command line options.

---

Yeah, I've had much the same idea as Rob. The use of the mod is possible I guess, setting up a .bat script to run the game perhaps - press 1 to play Julii, and so on. I suppose that would be the least amount of work, in some respects, for the players and coders.

Still pondering the Simetrical/Sinner idea - has it been tested, or is anyone planning on testing it? So far, the best working solution that I've seen will just make the trait work as intended on average, and not for all instances. As I understand it, this would be a complete solution.

to get back on topic : the farmer/trader issue

Here's another 2 cents from from a fellow RTW player suffering from chronical poor farming at Frustration Level 1 Chance 100

reading through the entire 5 pages of this thread for the modding/scripting noob that i am and still trying to make sense out all of it i would like a conclusive answer to the issue.
Someone already said the same thing a few posts back without much result so it seems i will just have to give me the answer myself.

Well here goes: there is none...

I think it's safe to say that the trade/farm triggers are NOT bugged, but on the other hand saying that the default settings are a bit 'flawed' would be putting it mildly.
Well, with all the ideas, suggestions, testresults, modding examples etc given up until this point there is enough information here to play around with the trigger chances and trait thresholds to tweak and finetune it to your own preferences and playing style. Wich is exactly what i did, much to my own happiness.
I suggest that all of you who also cannot wait for the next CherryVanilla patch to adress this issue do the same, trust me you'll feel a lot better and no longer have that urge to throw R:TW out the window.

2 more things i want to say, then i'll shut up again.

First an example of what i mean with flawed default:
Aside from random births the only way to get BadFarmer is by building something other then a farm and the only way for BadTrader is by building something else then a trader, not building Ports and Roads do not affect BadTrader they only affect GoodTrader when you do build them , right ?
Then why is BadFarmer 1 chance 8% /building with trait thresholds of 1,2 and 3 and BadTrader only 1 chance 1% /building with thresholds of 1,3 and 6 ?!?

The default system is setup in such a way that only those few factions with an Agriculture or Trade Deity in their Pantheon will have a chance of avoiding the negative traits other then keeping their family member out of cities for their entire life, wich the other factions are condemned to.
Sure you may get 1 guy somewhere to go beyond the first level of the positive side of the trades with some absurd insane micromanagement, if he doesnt die of old age first before reaching NoGoingBackLevel 3. But even then there is no SelfPerpetuating or even a Genetics trigger to pass the hard earned virtue on to the next generation.
Specially in the later parts of the game you'll eventually run out of new farms to build since they can never be destroyed in newly conqured lands and you will end up with all your governors being Clones with the all the same negative Vices instead of unique characters with depth and personality no matter what you do...

thats what i mean with 'flawed' , its not bugged but it **** well needs fixing.
So either wait for a mod or patch or do it yourself.

Second ...
This is for the CherryVanilla mod people , both creators and users. Not sure if this has been adressed already somewhere else but i'll mention it again. After reading through this entire thread word for word and gaining some understanding of the Governing6 and Governing10 triggers and some modding of myself i noticed the following changes that were made:

Trigger governing6
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished > = farms

Affects BadFarmer 1 Chance 8
Affects BadAdministrator 1 Chance 10

Mod218 - 11/14 : added bad admin effect

Trigger governing10
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished > = trader

Affects BadTrader 1 Chance 1
Affects BadAdministrator 1 Chance 10

Mod221 - 11/14 : added bad admin effect

Now correct me if i am wrong, but does this not mean that building any trader or farm will give my governor a 10% BadAdmin chance and any other type of building a 20% BadAdmin chance ?!?

Ok that was all , i'l crawl back under my rock now.

You are correct with your last statement, SilverEye. If that's CherryVanilla then it hasn't addressed the fundamental flaw with the BadFarmer trigger, if anything it's made the situation worse for governors in that they'd get BadAdministrator as well.

I personally consider the trigger condition for BadFarmer to be bugged in that it occurs even if you've already built the farm for that level of settlement, so it's impossible to avoid, but that's just my opinion.

I think the the most palatable answers so far are to either add the AdviseBuild condition since at least that takes into account whether that settlement level's farm is available to be queued or not, or to use SettlementBuildingExists to check if the farm has already been built for that level. Either method requires the single current trigger to be replaced by 5, one for each level of farm, and both need the % chance of getting BadFarmer points increased else the trigger becomes nearly ineffective.


Switching back to the battle triggers problem: from my testing it appears that they only get tested once for autocalced battles, but twice for tactical battles. I think there's a clue for what's happening in the code in the Events, Conditions, & Commands thread, if you look at many of the battle conditions, they can occur either in Battle or Strat (ie. Campaign map). I think what happens is that autocalc battles cause the triggers to be checked by the Strat game engine, while player-fought battles first get checked by the Battle game engine at the end of the combat and then again by the Strat game engine upon return to the campaign map.

Whether this is what is occuring or not doesn't really matter, since the effects are what's important for us and the simple and sad fact is that we're getting two trigger checks for every player-fought battle.

As a note, my testing method was as follows: I played as the Julii, first editting Vibius Julius to remove his GoodCommander 1 trait. I editted the V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger trigger to remove the BattleOdds condition since I wanted it to return a result simply upon victory, so the trigger looks like this...


Trigger V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger

WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition IsGeneral
and WonBattle

Affects GoodCommander 1 Chance 100


The only other triggers that give GoodCommander are those for adoption, random birth and worthy of marriage, so I know that no other trigger will be effecting my tests since I'm using an already established family member.

As I've already said, on autocalc victories Vibius gained only 1 point towards GoodCommander as would be expected, but for battles I fought he gained 2 points per victory.

I then tested the idea initially proposed by Simetrical although I used my slant on it, replacing the standard V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger trigger with the following...

Trigger V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger_8plus
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition IsGeneral
and WonBattle
and Trait GoodCommander >= 8

Affects GoodCommander 1 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------
Trigger V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger_7
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition IsGeneral
and WonBattle
and Trait GoodCommander = 7

Affects GoodCommander 1 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------
Trigger V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger_6
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition IsGeneral
and WonBattle
and Trait GoodCommander = 6

Affects GoodCommander 1 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------
Trigger V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger_5
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition IsGeneral
and WonBattle
and Trait GoodCommander = 5

Affects GoodCommander 1 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------
Trigger V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger_4
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition IsGeneral
and WonBattle
and Trait GoodCommander = 4

Affects GoodCommander 1 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------
Trigger V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger_3
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition IsGeneral
and WonBattle
and Trait GoodCommander = 3

Affects GoodCommander 1 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------
Trigger V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger_2
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition IsGeneral
and WonBattle
and Trait GoodCommander = 2

Affects GoodCommander 1 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------
Trigger V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger_1less
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition IsGeneral
and WonBattle
and Trait GoodCommander < = 1

Affects GoodCommander 1 Chance 100

I only went up to 8 points since I expected significant results long before I'd get any higher. I ran my tests again and for each autocalc victory Vibius gained a point towards GoodCommander, and yet again for each player fought battle he gained two points per victory, so this method will not work either.

So what answer is left? I think that leaves only the faction-specific option even though it's a major pain in the ass. It would also kind of force the player into fighting out every battle since he wouldn't get double points for autocalcing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinner

So what answer is left? I think that leaves only the faction-specific option even though it's a major pain in the ass. It would also kind of force the player into fighting out every battle since he wouldn't get double points for autocalcing.

---

I'm beginning to think that there is no way around using player faction specific traits. Have been doing some tests of my own. However, things were delayed a little by me using Sobriety as one of the traits I used to test the triggers. With a British General. Yes, I know now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by therother

I'm beginning to think that there is no way around using player faction specific traits.

---

Okay, got the GoodCommander working properly using this idea.

I've made a new trait line, PlayerGoodCommander, as below:

Code:

---

;------------------------------------------
Trait PlayerGoodCommander
    Characters family
    AntiTraits PlayerBadCommander

    Level Confident_Commander
        Description Confident_Commander_desc
        EffectsDescription Confident_Commander_effects_desc
        GainMessage Confident_Commander_gain_desc
        Threshold  2

        Effect Command  1

    Level Good_Commander
        Description Good_Commander_desc
        EffectsDescription Good_Commander_effects_desc
        GainMessage Good_Commander_gain_desc
        Threshold  4

        Effect Command  2

    Level Superior_Commander
        Description Superior_Commander_desc
        EffectsDescription Superior_Commander_effects_desc
        GainMessage Superior_Commander_gain_desc
        Threshold  8

        Effect Command  3

    Level Great_Commander
        Description Great_Commander_desc
        EffectsDescription Great_Commander_effects_desc
        GainMessage Great_Commander_gain_desc
        Threshold  16

        Effect Command  4

    Level Legendary_Commander
        Description Legendary_Commander_desc
        EffectsDescription Legendary_Commander_effects_desc
        GainMessage Legendary_Commander_gain_desc
        Epithet Legendary_Commander_epithet_desc
        Threshold  32

        Effect Command  5

---

I've also added/changed both these triggers:

Code:

---

;------------------------------------------
Trigger V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition IsGeneral
          and WonBattle
          and not FactionType britons

    Affects GoodCommander  1  Chance  100

;------------------------------------------
Trigger V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger_Player
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition IsGeneral
          and WonBattle
          and FactionType britons

    Affects PlayerGoodCommander 1  Chance  100

---

To change faction, all you'd need to do is replace "britons" with whatever faction you intend to use.

You would, of course, need to do this with every trait line which is affected by the battlemap (GoodAttacker, BattleScarred, BadCommander, etc.). Hmm, it's not a great solution by any stretch of the imagination, but at least it works.

(Quote the post to get the correct formatting.)

Ok is this the way how Scarred and Coward traits and
Shieldbearer and Heroic Saviour ancillaries should work:

in export_descr_character_traits.txt:

Code:

---

Trigger battle1
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < 0.7 ;was > 0.3

    Affects BattleScarred  1  Chance  30
    Affects Brave  1  Chance  15

;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle1b
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < 0.7 ;was > 0.3
          and Trait Berserker >= 1

    Affects Berserker  1  Chance  30

;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle1R
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < 0.7 ;was > 0.3
          and CultureType roman

;    Affects BattleScarred  1  Chance  30
    Affects RomanHero  1  Chance  15

---

and:

Code:

---

Trigger battle4
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition GeneralNumKillsInBattle = 0 ;was not GeneralFoughtInCombat
          and PercentageEnemyKilled > 0 ;was = 0

    Affects Coward  1  Chance  10

---

And in export_descr_ancillaries.txt:

Code:

---

Trigger trigger_heroic_saviour
    WhenToTest PostBattle
    Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle = 80
          and not Routs
          and WonBattle
          and GeneralFoughtInCombat
          and IsGeneral

    AcquireAncillary heroic_saviour chance  50

---

and:

Code:

---

Trigger trigger_shieldbearer
    WhenToTest PostBattle
    Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle >= 0.2 ;was  5
          and WonBattle
          and not Routs
          and IsGeneral

    AcquireAncillary shieldbearer chance  30

---

Disregard last post, < = got truncated

Ok is this the way how Scarred and Coward traits and
Shieldbearer and Heroic Saviour ancillaries should work:

in export_descr_character_traits.txt:

Code:

---

Trigger battle1
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < 0.7 ;was > 0.3

    Affects BattleScarred  1  Chance  30
    Affects Brave  1  Chance  15

;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle1b
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < 0.7 ;was > 0.3
          and Trait Berserker >= 1

    Affects Berserker  1  Chance  30

;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle1R
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < 0.7 ;was > 0.3
          and CultureType roman

;    Affects BattleScarred  1  Chance  30
    Affects RomanHero  1  Chance  15

---

and:

Code:

---

Trigger battle4
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition GeneralNumKillsInBattle = 0 ;was not GeneralFoughtInCombat
          and PercentageEnemyKilled > 0 ;was = 0

    Affects Coward  1  Chance  10

---

And in export_descr_ancillaries.txt:

Code:

---

Trigger trigger_heroic_saviour
    WhenToTest PostBattle
    Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < = 0.2 ;was >= 80
          and not Routs
          and WonBattle
          and GeneralFoughtInCombat
          and IsGeneral

    AcquireAncillary heroic_saviour chance  50

---

and:

Code:

---

Trigger trigger_shieldbearer
    WhenToTest PostBattle
    Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle >= 0.2 ;was  5
          and WonBattle
          and not Routs
          and IsGeneral

    AcquireAncillary shieldbearer chance  30

---

I just realized that GeneralFoughtInCombat is always true, even if general in not actually fighting, but just standing in the battle (that why I thought it was bugged).

But if you withraw general from battle then it will be zero.

So original trigger would trigger coward, if you retreat all your units at start without any fighting. Also, if enemy does the same instead.

I don't think the faction-specific method will actually work 100%. theother has shown how I thought we'd need to set it up and I'll use that to explain what I believe the problem is...

I think it can now be accepted that while autocalcing only checks the triggers once, player-fought battles check them twice and that all AI vs AI battles are autocalced.

Using theother's handy example, while considering that similar changes will be needed for BadCommander, let's consider possible battle outcomes...

AI vs AI: The winner gets a point in GoodCommander and the loser gets a point in BadCommander. This is the desired result and is in effect the baseline to which we compare player vs AI battles.

Player vs AI autocalc, Player wins: The AI gets a point of BadCommander and the player gets a point in PlayerGoodCommander (ie. in effect half a point of GoodCommander). This is undesirable since the AI has gained an advantage over the player compared to an AI via AI battle.

Player vs AI autocalc, AI wins: The AI gets a point of GoodCommander and the player gets a point in PlayerBadCommander (ie. in effect half a point of BadCommander). This is undesirable since the player has gained an advantage over the AI compared to an AI via AI battle.

Player vs AI fought, Player wins: The AI gets two point of BadCommander and the player gets two point in PlayerGoodCommander (ie. in effect a point of GoodCommander). While the player result is as desired, the AI is suffering unfairly.

Player vs AI fought, AI wins: The AI gets two point of GoodCommander and the player gets two point in PlayerBadCommander (ie. in effect a point of BadCommander). While the player result is as desired, the AI is benefiting unfairly.

Note that I'm ignoring battle odds for this to simplify the tests.

To get the GoodCommander working right, you also need the BadCommander anti-trait.

Code:

---

;------------------------------------------
Trait PlayerBadCommander
    Characters family
    AntiTraits PlayerGoodCommander

    Level Indifferent_Commander
        Description Indifferent_Commander_desc
        EffectsDescription Indifferent_Commander_effects_desc
        Threshold  4

        Effect Command -1

    Level Incompetent_Commander
        Description Incompetent_Commander_desc
        EffectsDescription Incompetent_Commander_effects_desc
        Threshold  8

        Effect Command -2

    Level Poor_Commander
        Description Poor_Commander_desc
        EffectsDescription Poor_Commander_effects_desc
        Threshold  12

        Effect Command -3

    Level Pathetic_Commander
        Description Pathetic_Commander_desc
        EffectsDescription Pathetic_Commander_effects_desc
        Threshold  16

        Effect Command -5

---

Similarly, I've also added/changed both these triggers:

Code:

---

;------------------------------------------
Trigger V0100_Standard_Battle_Any_Loss_VnV_Trigger
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition IsGeneral
          and not WonBattle
          and not FactionType britons
          and BattleOdds > 1.5

    Affects BadCommander  1  Chance  50

;------------------------------------------
Trigger V0100_Standard_Battle_Any_Loss_VnV_Trigger_Player
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition IsGeneral
          and not WonBattle
          and FactionType britons
          and BattleOdds > 1.5

    Affects PlayerBadCommander  1  Chance  50

---

As before, replace "britons" with whatever faction you intend to use.

This faction specific thing is a little more complicated than I previously thought, as you'd also need to replace all the battlefield traits in the descr_strat.txt file for the player's faction. Hmm, it's never easy, is it?

Anyway, I've had a few battles with these traits, and they certainly seem to get the job done.

Edit: Of course, there is nothing you can do, with this system, to prevent the AI getting double traits (both good and negative) from the battlemap battles. And it means that you have to work twice as hard if you like to auto-resolve your battles. Meaning the more I think about this solution, the less I like it.

(Quote the post to get the correct formatting.)

I think I've cracked it, can somebody try this as well to make sure I'm not influencing my own results and seeing what I want to see...

First I doubled up the thresholds, so GoodCommander will be...

Trait GoodCommander
Characters family
AntiTraits BadCommander

Level Confident_Commander
Description Confident_Commander_desc
EffectsDescription Confident_Commander_effects_desc
GainMessage Confident_Commander_gain_desc
Threshold 2

Effect Command 1

Level Good_Commander
Description Good_Commander_desc
EffectsDescription Good_Commander_effects_desc
GainMessage Good_Commander_gain_desc
Threshold 4

Effect Command 2

Level Superior_Commander
Description Superior_Commander_desc
EffectsDescription Superior_Commander_effects_desc
GainMessage Superior_Commander_gain_desc
Threshold 8

Effect Command 3

Level Great_Commander
Description Great_Commander_desc
EffectsDescription Great_Commander_effects_desc
GainMessage Great_Commander_gain_desc
Threshold 16

Effect Command 4

Level Legendary_Commander
Description Legendary_Commander_desc
EffectsDescription Legendary_Commander_effects_desc
GainMessage Legendary_Commander_gain_desc
Epithet Legendary_Commander_epithet_desc
Threshold 32

Effect Command 5

Then, thanks to player1 noting that GeneralFoughtInCombat is always true in battle, I created an autocalc and a non-autocalc version of combat triggers like so...

;------------------------------------------
Trigger V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger_autocalc
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition IsGeneral
and WonBattle
and not GeneralFoughtInCombat

Affects GoodCommander 2 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------
Trigger V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger_fought
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition IsGeneral
and WonBattle
and GeneralFoughtInCombat

Affects GoodCommander 1 Chance 100

As a note, the autocalc version awards double the points since it only gets checked once, while the battle-fought version gets checked twice.

I ugre more testing with GeneralFoughtInCombat.

In my last test I just put coward chance to 8/100, with original equation, and after retreating from battle I haven't got coward tarit.

So, maybe it's when general retreats, but not other troops.
Not sure, anymore, needs more testing.

But, at least for Coward there is alternative...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinner

I think I've cracked it, can somebody try this as well to make sure I'm not influencing my own results and seeing what I want to see...

---

Looks promising. Will get to it asap.

Edit: Any reason why you knocked off the battleodds restriction, or did you remove it just for testing?

I removed it just for testing

Back after some more testing.

It seams that GeneralFoughtInCombat is always true.
Both in cases when general remained (both standing or fighting) in battle and when I withrow him from battle, the condition with generalfought was true.

I'm having difficulties getting Confident Commander from an autocalc victory. Fought two battles, won both, but only got a Battlescarred trait and a Galloper - nothing in the GoodCommander line. I also removed the battle odds, so that can't be it.

Edit: Okay, this doesn't work properly. The GeneralFoughtInCombat condition can be true for Autocalcs as well, so it doesn't differentiate.

To test this, I created a new trigger:

Code:

---

;------------------------------------------
Trigger FoughtTest
    WhenToTest PostBattle

    Condition IsGeneral
          and WonBattle
          and GeneralFoughtInCombat

    Affects GoodCommander  16  Chance  100

---

After an autocalc batte, my general was a Great Commander (16 points), which means the GeneralFoughtInCombat was true. Which is a shame: it was a great idea. Perhaps there is another condition that might do the job though?

Yeah, I just started getting the same issue trying to get BadCommander from a defeat.

I think what it does with autocalc is randomly determine whether the general fights or not based upon how many troops he has. I attacked Segesta with my general, a triarii, 6 hastati, a velite and an archer, and my general obviously didn't need to fight to get an autocalc victory so I triggered my 2 point award trigger. I repeated the attack with just the general and 2 hastati and this time the general must have fought - his unit suffered casualties - and I must have triggered the 1 point award trigger.

So it looks as though GeneralFoughtInCombat works correctly for autocalc, but since it always returns true in player-fought battles it's bugged in that instance.

If anybody is interested I made fixed version of Scarred/Coward trait at Scarface thread at twcenter.net

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index...&id=1811983775