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

[gregab25]

Scarred:

This is the most obvious so I'll start here first. Here are the triggers.

;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle1
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle > 0.3

Affects BattleScarred 1 Chance 30
Affects Brave 1 Chance 15

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

Translation:

After a battle if your general has greater than 30% of his hit points remaining you have a 30% chance of receiving one point of BattleScarred and a 15% chance of receiving one point in Brave.

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

Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle > 0.3
and CultureType roman

Affects BattleScarred 1 Chance 30
Affects RomanHero 1 Chance 15

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

Translation:

After a battle if your general has greater than 30% of his hit points remaining and you are roman you have a 30% chance of getting one point in BattleScarred and a 15% chance of getting one point in RomanHero.

Why it is bugged:

1. The greater than signs should be less than signs. You should be scarred when you are seriously wounded. IE LESS than 30% of your hit points should be remaining. As it is now you automatically trigger this test if your general does not even fight b/c he WILL have 100% of his points remaining.

2. If you are roman you are tested twice per battle. It is obvious by the name of the triggers that one is meant to be for romans only and the other for non roman cultures. I'll take a wild guess and say the "R" in trigger battle1R stands for Roman.

How to fix:

Make these changes highlighted in bold to the export_descr_character_traits file.

;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle1
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle [B]

[gregab25]

Damn, it truncated my post and i don't know why. I don't see an edit button either. Here is the rest of the post.

How to fix:

Make these changes highlighted in bold to the export_descr_character_traits file.

;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle1
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle [B]

[Red Harvest]

Most likely you are using some combination of symbols that it sees as an arrow. It truncates when you do this (very irritating.) Use "preview post" before you submit to see whether or not it is going to truncate.

[gregab25]

Seems to be a bug with using bold. So i cannot highlight the changes. Just make the triggers look like these to make the fixes.

How to fix:

Make these changes highlighted in bold to the export_descr_character_traits file.

;------------------------------------------
Trigger battle1
WhenToTest PostBattle

Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < 0.3
and not CultureType roman

Affects BattleScarred 1 Chance 30
Affects Brave 1 Chance 15

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

Condition GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle < 0.3
and CultureType roman

Affects BattleScarred 1 Chance 30
Affects RomanHero 1 Chance 15

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

Now, you will only be scarred if your general has LESS than 30% of his hit points remaining, and you will only be tested once if you are roman.

Please do not reply yet unless you have info on how to tidy up this post and clear the errors. IE an edit button.

[hrvojej]

Use code tags to post code fixes (the # symbol aobve the text).

[gregab25]

Farmer

Default Triggers:

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

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished >= farms

Affects GoodFarmer 1 Chance 100

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

Translation:

When a character is a governor and a building is completed in his town and the level of the building finished is greater than or equal to the level of the farm in the settlement then you have a 100% chance of getting 1 point of GoodFarmer.

;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing6
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished >= farms

Affects BadFarmer 1 Chance 8

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

Translation:

When a character is a governor and a building is completed in his town and the level of the building is NOT greater than or equal to the level of the farm then the governor has a 8% chance of receiving one point in the BadFarmer trait.

Why it is bugged:

1. Again the greater than signs should be less than signs. You should be a good farmer when your level of farms is greater or equal to your other buildings not the opposite.

2. You should be a bad farmer only when you ignore farms and build other buildings first. IE you built a building that is NOT LESS than the level of farms in the settlement.

The fixes:

Make the triggers look like this.

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

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished < = farms

Affects GoodFarmer 1 Chance 100

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

*do not leave a space in between the less than and equal sign. i had to leave a space there or the board will truncate this post.

;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing6
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished < farms

Affects BadFarmer 1 Chance 8

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

Now, any time you build building that is less than or equal to the level of farms you will get one point in GoodFarmer, and if you build a building that is NOT less than the level of farms you will get an 8% chance at becoming a bad farmer.

I am 99% sure this is the way CA intended it to be, but CA would need to comment for certainty.

The thresholds are very high for becoming a Good Farmer. For the first level you need 6 points. So even if you build a farm first you still need to build 6 more other buildings that are of equal or less level than your farms before you will receive the first level in GoodFarmer which is "Grower."

[therother]

Seems to be a bug with using bold.

Bold works fine. You were using "< " in a way that the board suspects might be html tags, which is a serious security worry for forums, and hence everything after it is removed. Just don't put anything directly after a < and you'll be fine.

[gregab25]

Trader

Default Triggers:

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

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished >= trader

Affects BadTrader 1 Chance 1

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

Translation:

When a governor completes a building and the level of the building is NOT greater than or equal to the level of trader building the you have a 1% chance of receiving 1 point of BadTrader.

;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing11
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished >= trader

Affects GoodTrader 1 Chance 50

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

Translation:

When a governor completes a building and the level of the building is greater than or equal to the level of the trader you have a 50% chance of gaining one point in GoodTrader.

;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing11b
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished >= port

Affects GoodTrader 1 Chance 80

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

Translation:

When a governor completes a building and the level of the building is greater than or equal to the level of the port you have a 80% chance of gaining one point in GoodTrader.

;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing11c
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished >= roads

Affects GoodTrader 1 Chance 80

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

Translation

When a governor completes a building and the level of the building is greater than or equal to the level of roads you have an 80% chance of gaining one point in GoodTrader.

Why they are bugged:

Again its those damn greater than signs being reversed!

How to Fix:

Make these corrections to the triggers:

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

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished > trader

Affects BadTrader 1 Chance 1

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

Here I removed the NOT from the condition. So if the building IS greater than the trader you have a chance for BadTrader. Or you could leave the NOT in the condition and make the sign a less than or eqaul to sign.

;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing11
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished > trader

Affects GoodTrader 1 Chance 50

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

Here i added the NOT to the condition and removed the equal sign so that now if the building finished is NOT a level greated than the level of trader you have a chance at GoodTrader.

;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing11b
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished > port

Affects GoodTrader 1 Chance 80

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

Again, I added the NOT and removed the EQUAL SIGN from the condition so that now if the building is not a level greater than the level of the port you have a chance at GoodTrader. Again, you could also try just reversing the sign in the orginal to a less than or equal sign.

;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing11c
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished > roads

Affects GoodTrader 1 Chance 80

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

Same as above. Added NOT and removed EQUAL.

NOTE:

For all the above fixes I added a NOT or removed the NOT depending on which ever the condition did not have. I also removed all the equal signs from the arguments. You could just as easily leave the NOT conditions as they were and instead reversed the signs from greater than to less than signs. Ultimately the effect is the same I believe.

I believe the above corrections make the traits behave as CA intended them to. These are not intended to be mods. Again however, CA would have to comment for me to be 100% sure.

Also, the Thresholds on gaining a rank in GoodTrader are the highest in the game I believe. They are 24, 48, and 60 for each rank respectively. So they are still very difficult to receive.

[gregab25]

I am now done with this post so please reply if you wish. If you suspect another trait might be bugged please mention it. I would like to look at. The above three traits seemed the most obviously bugged to me.

Bold works fine. You were using "< " in a way that the board suspects might be html tags, which is a serious security worry for forums, and hence everything after it is removed. Just don't put anything directly after a < and you'll be fine.

Yes, I finally figured that out. Thanks.

[screwtype]

Nice piece of detective work. I 've only played through half a campaign with 1.2 and I already have scarred, farmer and bad trader traits all over the place!

Thanks I will try those changes. BTW have you tested your theories to see if they work?

[Jambo]

Interesting.

But I'm not sure that the scarred trait, amongst others, is so easily fixed as originally thought. You might want to pop over to this thread in twcenter for some more information on the various traits that involve HPs and Generals in battle:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index...howtopic=21798

The problem seems to be the general being awarded these traits when not getting involved in the battle. This is irrespective of which way the ratio is annotated. Whether this means the HPs condition isn't working or more likely, the GeneralFoughtInBattle condition, i'm not entirely sure. However, it appears this can be somewhat remedied by the using the GeneralNumKillsInBattle condition instead.

Cheers

[Simetrical]

Are you sure that "farm" and "trader" in the SettlementBuildingFinished compare the level of existing farms/traders to the newly-finished building? I assumed that "Condition SettlementBuildingFinished >= farms" returned true if, when the trigger was checked, the settlement in question had any farm, no matter what building was finished. In other words, if you build something when a farm exists in the settlement, you get +1 to GoodFarmer (which, as you noticed, really isn't a lot), while if you build anything before a farm, you risk getting BadFarmer. In this case, the current sign makes sense.

I don't know which of us is right. Yours makes more sense, I must agree. It should be fairly simple to test.

-Simetrical

[gregab25]

BTW have you tested your theories to see if they work?

Yes. I have tested them and I am 100% confident in the BattleScarred and Trader fixes.

However I did some more testing on the Farming triggers and I am now recommending anyone that wants to apply these fixes, fix the farming triggers as I fixed the Trading triggers. In other words use NOT in the condition and remove the EQUAL SIGN. This is they way I had it in my file.

In the Farming post above, I simply reversed the greater than sign because I thought it would be simpler for everyone to see and to fix. However, after more testing it seems the game has a problem using the < = argument. It seems to either ignore the < sign and only use the = sign or the not work at all.

So, use the NOT condition and remove the EQUAL SIGN.

If you need to see what the fixes look like for the farming section using the NOT condition and without the EQUAL SIGN, request it and I will post it.

Once you make these corrections, I am sure the farming trigger section will be 100% good as well.

If you want to test it, drop the threshold down to 1,2, and 3 in the trait data section and you will see in a few turn that they are working.

BTW, everyone should backup there file and store it in a safe place before making changes.

The problem seems to be the general being awarded these traits when not getting involved in the battle.

This is exactly what the corrections above fixed. The general was getting tested even when he did not fight because the default argument called for him to be tested when he had greater than 30% of his hit points remaining. If the general does not fight, how many hit points will he have remaining? That's right, 100%. 100% is > than 30% which triggers the test. So the general had a chance of becoming scarred even though he did not fight.

Are you sure that "farm" and "trader" in the SettlementBuildingFinished compare the level of existing farms/traders to the newly-finished building? I assumed that "Condition SettlementBuildingFinished >= farms" returned true if, when the trigger was checked, the settlement in question had any farm, no matter what building was finished. In other words, if you build something when a farm exists in the settlement, you get +1 to GoodFarmer (which, as you noticed, really isn't a lot), while if you build anything before a farm, you risk getting BadFarmer. In this case, the current sign makes sense.

I don't know which of us is right. Yours makes more sense, I must agree. It should be fairly simple to test.

I thought this too at first, because I like you, was not sure what "SettlementBuildingFinished" meant. However, I kept getting BadFarmer traits and never any GoodFarmer Traits. So, after a bunch of testing, I am convinced it compares the level of farms vs the level of building completed.
Apply the fixes above and you will see it works. Don't reverse the greater than sign. I don't recommend that now. Use the NOT in the condition and remove the equal sign.

It also makes more sense this way. If you prioritize farms and build them first, it makes sense that you would be more likely to receive the GoodFarmer trait.

[Jambo]

Hi, gregab25, I take it you didn't read that thread at twcenter then?

Here's a quote from that thread of one of the recent tests I did:

Ok, regarding the GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle and GeneralFoughtInCombat conditions, this is far more complicated than first expected. Or least it certainly seems to be.

To try to fully understand the function of these I set up a test based on the heroic_saviour ancillary. For my heroic saviour trait I had already removed the conditions WonBattle and not Routs and for the test I increased chances of being awarded the ancillary to 100% - so it looked like this:

Trigger trigger_heroic_saviour
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition GeneralHPLostRatioInBattle "less than"= 0.2
and GeneralFoughtInCombat
and IsGeneral
AcquireAncillary heroic_saviour chance 100

For the test I changed the 7 ancillaries down from heroic saviour to have the same conditions but each with a varied HP condition. Inclusive of the heroic saviour these were "less than"= 0.2, 0.5, 0.8 and 1 and >=0.2, 0.5, 0.8 and 1.
So, armed with this I started a new Julii campaign and marched my leader to assault Segesta. When I assaulted the rebels I kept my leader out and away from the battle. I won the battle and upon returning to the campaign map I found I had received the first 7 of the 8 ancillaries (possibly a limit?). Repeating this battle changing the values to actual percentages rather than ratios didn't alter the outcome and neither did involving the general in the battle. It's fair to say I've reached a standstill and the only thing I could see governing these ancillaries seemed to be the chance of receiving them.

Take it from me, the stated change to the scarred trait doesn't work as you expect. I'm not sure whether the GeneralFoughtInCombat or the HP condition is bogus, but something isn't right.. The only way I can envisage some results is using the GeneralNumKillsInBattle condition. I havem't tested it in full, but at least this one forces the general to get involved for the traits to be awarded.

maybe someone can test and verify?

Cheers

Edited for the "less thans"

[gregab25]

Hi Jambo, I think I know why that wasn't working for you.

First of all I can see that by doing the math that ancilliary is going to be very hard to receive.

Second, i have found that using "less than"= does not work for some reason as i stated above. Maybe it is like html code in some way. To be honest i don't know the reason, but i know it doesn't work from all the tests i ran trying to figure out farming. You can make the same argument as a < = to though by using the condition "NOT" though.

Third, lets clarify that "GeneralHPLostRatioInBattle" is the general's HP at the end of battle divided by his HP's at the start of Battle.

Let's take a look. Here is the trigger you were using.

Trigger trigger_heroic_saviour
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition GeneralHPLostRatioInBattle "less than"= 0.2
and GeneralFoughtInCombat
and IsGeneral
AcquireAncillary heroic_saviour chance 100

Your argument says: After a battle if a General has less than or equal to 20% of his hit points remaining and he fought in combat then you have a 100% chance of receiving the ancillary Heroic Saviour.

I believe, correct me if i am wrong b/c i am not sure about this, that the default HP's for a General's Bodyguard of Heavy Cavalry is 2HP. So, it would be mathematically impossible to receive that ancillary with a default general, because to go below 20% your general would have to be dead.

IE:

2/2 = 100% - is not below the 20% requirement.
1/2 = 50% - is not below the 20% requirement.
0/2 = 0% - meets the requirement but your general is dead.

However, it is my understanding that a general that is also the faction leader receives 5 more HP for a total of 7HP. So it would be mathematically possible for him to receive the ancillary using your arguement if he had only 1HP remaing of his 7HP. 1/7 = 14%. But that still is a very low probability.

I have not investigated any of the ancilliaries yet or possible bugs with them. So I am not really familiar with the Heroic Saviour Ancilliary, but he sounds good. And, looking at the math, it may be that CA intended for it to a) only your faction leader or faction heir to be able to receive it, and b) the mathematical probability even with a faction leader or heir is very low.

But As i said above i believe the < = argument to be bugged. so i would still switch this trigger to read like this no matter what other changes you should make.

----------------------------------------------------
Trigger trigger_heroic_saviour
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition Not GeneralHPLostRatioInBattle > 0.2
and GeneralFoughtInCombat
and IsGeneral
AcquireAncillary heroic_saviour chance 100
----------------------------------------------------

All i did was change this:

Condition GeneralHPLostRatioInBattle "less than"= 0.2

To this:

Condition Not GeneralHPLostRatioInBattle > 0.2

If you think about it, it is still the same arguemnt just said in a different way.
And it avoids using the < = to sign which I believe is bugged or non functional.

Now if you are dead set on getting the ancilliary Heroic Saviour, you have the option to change several things in the trigger to get it.

For Example:

Ex. 1:
----------------------------------------------------
Trigger trigger_heroic_saviour
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition GeneralHPLostRatioInBattle > 0.2
and GeneralFoughtInCombat
and IsGeneral
AcquireAncillary heroic_saviour chance 100
----------------------------------------------------

Here I removed the word "Not" from the condition so that now at the end of battle if my general has more than 20% of his HP's remaining he has a 100% chance of receiving the ancilliary. Very good Probability.

Ex. 2:
----------------------------------------------------
Trigger trigger_heroic_saviour
WhenToTest PostBattle
Condition Not GeneralHPLostRatioInBattle > 0.8
and GeneralFoughtInCombat
and IsGeneral
AcquireAncillary heroic_saviour chance 100
----------------------------------------------------

Here I simply changed the value for the qualifier from 0.2 to 0.8. Now if the general does NOT have more than 80% of his HP's remaining he will qualify. Good probability with your general having to fight as the 2nd condition.

Anyways, there are several ways to get that ancilliary if you want him. I hope I have shown you why you were having such a hard time getting the ancillary and ways to fix it. For some generals it was just mathematically impossible and extremely hard for others.

Also thanks for bringing this to my attention as it seems there are some bugs in the ancillary triggers too that I want to look into.

[tai4ji2x]

gregab:

"< 0.3" is a little extreme, i think - meaning you'll have to lose 70% of your HP. campfreddie's fix brings it to "< 0.7" which is likely to be what CA originally intended, with 30% HP lost as the trigger. however, i still think that's a little too extreme as well - in the OTHER direction (ie, still too easy to get scarred). i myself put it to "< 0.6"

[tai4ji2x]

also: could you post a more current version of your farmer/trader fixes?

[gregab25]

"< 0.3" is a little extreme, i think - meaning you'll have to lose 70% of your HP. campfreddie's fix brings it to "< 0.7" which is likely to be what CA originally intended, with 30% HP lost as the trigger. however, i still think that's a little too extreme as well - in the OTHER direction (ie, still too easy to get scarred). i myself put it to "< 0.6"

Hi tai4ji2x,

Well, the value you, or anyone, wants to set it at is just a matter of personal preference. For me, less than 30% is good because a) I believe to be scarred you should be seriously wounded and 2) the value of .3 is the value CA intended it for it to be.

I think anyone should be able to surmise that 0.3 is the correct value if you look at this threads first post. The error in the Scarred trait trigger was a reversal of signs not in values. Reversal of signs is a simple and common error to make if you are not careful, and much more likely than CA not knowing what value they wanted.

With any of these corrections, I am not not trying to mod the game to my own personal tastes. I want to play the game the way CA intended it to be. I am just trying to make corrections to errors in math, coding, or whatever you want to call it.

With that said, you can mod the game however you like, so slap any value in there that floats your boat.

To each his own.

[tai4ji2x]

i'm actually not sure if that's what CA intended either... for the logic i'm trying to explain, here's a excerpt from the campfreddie fix's readme (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index...howtopic=21549 and http://www.twcenter.net/downloads/db/?mod=359)

The trait triggers for scarred and berserk traits use the GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle query.

They were supposed to give you a 30% chance of getting scarred traits if your general lost >30% of his hitpoints in a battle - but the developers messed it up.

GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle is supposed to find the ratio of hitpoints lost by your general, from 0 (full health) to 1 (dead).

In v1.0 and v1.1, the developers mistakenly used a percentage figure (>30%), which meant that the trigger neverworked (your general would have to be 30x dead to give you the trait).

In v1.2 they set it to a ratio instead of a percentage (30% = 0.3 ratio). However, this revealed that the trait trigger GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle was bugged. All generals would get scarred in battle, even if they didn't get involved in the fight!

I discovered that the query GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle was actually giving you the ratio of hitpoints remaining and NOT the ratio of hitpoints lost. Therefore, I've changed the triggers to GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle "less than" 0.7, so that the trait is gained when you have "less than" 70% of your hitpoints remaining at the end of the battle (i.e. you've lost more than 30%)

This reflects what was obviously the original intention of the developers.

The trait is still a little bugged, and seems to be tested for multiple times in one battle. If you really get your general beaten up, you can still jump to hideously scarred in one go (I managed to do this once). That shouldn't happen often though, and it'll never happen if your general avoids getting beaten up.

though i agree with your feeling that the trait should be much harder to get

[hrvojej]

Second, i have found that using "less than"= does not work for some reason as i stated above. Maybe it is like html code in some way. To be honest i don't know the reason, but i know it doesn't work from all the tests i ran trying to figure out farming. You can make the same argument as a < = to though by using the condition "NOT" though.

Well, if this is indeed true, then the character traits file needs some serious rewriting, especially if the >= doesn't work either.

[gregab25]

also: could you post a more current version of your farmer/trader fixes?

Sure. The trader corrections above are still the right ones, but here is how i would correct the farmer triggers now.

Corrected Farmer Triggers:

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

Condition not SettlementBuildingFinished > farms

Affects GoodFarmer 1 Chance 100

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

Translation:

When a Governor completes a building and the level of that building is NOT GREATER THAN the level of farms you have a 100% chance at receiving 1 point in GoodFarmer trait.

You could also read this as: When a Governor completes a building and it IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL to the level of farms you have a 100% chance at receiving 1 point in GoodFarmer trait.

;------------------------------------------
Trigger governing6
WhenToTest GovernorBuildingCompleted

Condition SettlementBuildingFinished > farms

Affects BadFarmer 1 Chance 8

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

Translation:
You can probably figure it out from the above translations.

Notes:

2 Notes worth mentioning.

1) the indentions in the triggers I copied and pasted here are not lined up exactly as in the actual export_descr_character_traits file. Use the the spacing for indentions like it is in the file. Just look at the other triggers in the actual file for examples. This is not a biggie, I don't even know if it effects any thing.

2) Remember to backup the traits file, and remember that both trader and farmer traits have high thresholds before you actually qualify to recieve the trait.

For example: The threshold to get the first level of farming is 6. So you will need to build at least 6 buildings at a level below or equal to your level of farms before you will receive the trait.

[Jambo]

So gregab...

Are you saying that all "< " signs do not work in the VnV's file? Would that include BattleOdds, etc, too?

And, one thing that doesn't hold up quite correctly is that in my tests I used the >= signs too. In each test I did the general was awarded the ancillaries when the general wasn't involved in the battle. Thus, the GeneralFoughtInCombat condition doesn't seem to work as intended, and that was the point I was trying to make. I was being awarded the ancillaries even though my general just sat back and admired the battle from afar.

This kind of makes the hitpoints lost settings irrelevant does it not? And, this was the reason I was suggesting using the GeneralNumKillsInBattle condition for the scarred/brave traits instead....

If you have some time, please try and read that thread at twcenter to get a more detailed understanding. I've been working on these traits and their nuances with the CVP team for a long time now.

[tai4ji2x]

jambo:

what about gregab's farmer/trader fixes?

[hrvojej]

And, one thing that doesn't hold up quite correctly is that in my tests I used the >= signs too. In each test I did the general was awarded the ancillaries when the general wasn't involved in the battle.

Have you tried it with just > instead of >=? Maybe it's all of the "or equal to" operators that are bugged?

[gregab25]

Are you saying that all "< " signs do not work in the VnV's file? Would that include BattleOdds, etc, too?

No. First of all i am only talking about "= signs extensively, but I seem to remember not having a problem with these. Beyond that I'm not ready to comment on them without more testing. However if it is like HTML code the < = sign makes an arrow while >= does not. But that comment is pure speculation.

Like I said above I have only worked on the Scarred, Farmer, and Trader traits so far because these were annoying the hell out of me. So, I am not going to speculate if things are bugged until I have a chance to look at them.

Likewise, I haven't looked into any traits that use the GeneralFoughtInCombat condition so I cannot comment on it now. But I have read your post and if what you are saying is true it might be bugged. I would like to look into it later.

I would like to reiterate though that the corrections i have posted thus far do work and have been tested. Please at least try them in game before you arbitrarily dismiss them. If you still think there is something wrong with any of those 3 trait corrections (scarred, farming, trader) we will probably just have to agree to disagree.

[gregab25]

Oops i got cut off again in that last post the first paragraphs are:

No. First of all i am only talking about < signs immediately followed by an equal sign. For now all I am saying definitively is that farming traits did not behave like expected until i got rid of them and instead use the NOT condition as above.

I have not tested >= signs extensively, but I seem to remember not having a problem with these. Beyond that I'm not ready to comment on them without more testing. However if it is like HTML code the < = sign makes an arrow while >= does not. But that comment is pure speculation.

[unseen11]

Wow thnks man, i've been meaning to find out how to fix up some of the bugs in rome and you've helped me big time

Just one question:

You said that for Trader, the lower or equal to building requirements are steep to get Good Trader virtue so maybe the amount of buildings you have to build to get Good Trader are bugged and need to be edited?

[tai4ji2x]

unseen:

i think it SHOULD take a lot to get such a good trait, so i would say that that aspect of it is NOT bugged

[unseen11]

unseen:

i think it SHOULD take a lot to get such a good trait, so i would say that that aspect of it is NOT bugged

Really? having to build 24 less or equal to buildings to get level one Good Trader is allright too you? ok man what ever you say...

though i have to admit im no expert in this whole subject anyway

[tai4ji2x]

huh? the first threshold is 6, not 24

EDIT: oh, whoops, i was thinking about farmer. well, trader is a powerful trait - i think for most factions, once you get some sea trade going, you're making enough money as it is already. but like you said, to each their own ;)

just another note - there are three building triggers for goodtrader: road, port, and trade. so you could easily have 3 points added in one turn from the building triggers alone. plus, there is also a trigger if your governor stays where there's a trading temple - and that alone is a big 12 point jump