The Complete EDB Guide - discussion

[Dol Guldur]

You should not use "not" in the building requirements as it will block it from appearing in the building browser (and all subsequent levels).

When I "branched" back in FATW I believe I set all the relevant levels to the same settlement-level so that the building browser presented something visually organized. I dislike it when mods have BBs messed up ;)

I'm not sure of the dynamics when the upgrades lines are used. My feeling has always been that if it does not display correctly in the BB then there might be some problem down the road - and certainly it's not much use to the player.

[CaesarVincens]

You should not use "not" in the building requirements as it will block it from appearing in the building browser (and all subsequent levels).

When I "branched" back in FATW I believe I set all the relevant levels to the same settlement-level so that the building browser presented something visually organized. I dislike it when mods have BBs messed up ;)

I'm not sure of the dynamics when the upgrades lines are used. My feeling has always been that if it does not display correctly in the BB then there might be some problem down the road - and certainly it's not much use to the player.

I see, now that you mention it I think I remember reading that before. I though it only applied to building_present(_min_level) requirements, right?

Well in their case (DTW's), there isn't really a way around it. They have culturally specific barracks, one for Roman, Greek, Eastern, and Barbarian each. Egypt and Thrace both have access to the Greek barracks, but also the Eastern and Barbarian barracks respectively. However, it is coded so that they cannot build each type in the same settlement. If you have suggestions as to a way around this they would be glad to have a fix.

[Dol Guldur]

I see, now that you mention it I think I remember reading that before. I though it only applied to building_present(_min_level) requirements, right?

No, it refers to HRs too hence the use of such names as "not_here"

[CaesarVincens]

No, it refers to HRs too hence the use of such names as "not_here"

Strange, because I use "not HR x" and the building shows up. I'll post some screen shots when I can.

[CaesarVincens]

Ok, I did a quick bit of testing. I found that the format "building requires x and not hidden_resource y" would not show up in the building browser, but "building requires x and hidden_resource dummyHR or not hidden_resource y" would show up. Functionality appears to be the same for both formats. This did not work for building level requirements, but a dummy building might work in that case, in analogy to the dummy HR.

[lim_lucky]

Oh btw, you can make it look a bit more easy by simply using:
upgrades
{
won1_god2 requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource not_here
}

Although this reply concerning the statement is a bit late, its better than nothing. I have found that the upgrade code provided by PatricianS above seems to work, even if the main building lines does not have all the factions, i.e. using the above example, the building line shown below will still function and no error is reported:
won1_god2 requires factions { romans_ julii, } ;and other conditions

The only problem is that the building may not appear on the building browser because the conditions may not suit the format as stated by CaesarVincens below:

Ok, I did a quick bit of testing. I found that the format "building requires x and not hidden_resource y" would not show up in the building browser, but "building requires x and hidden_resource dummyHR or not hidden_resource y" would show up. Functionality appears to be the same for both formats. This did not work for building level requirements, but a dummy building might work in that case, in analogy to the dummy HR.

Using a dummy building in the upgrades should provide similar benefits to the coding above (regarding culture break, building gap n stuff in my earlier post) AND will allow the 'building' to be present in the building browser.

upgrades
{
;GENUINE upgrade lines - it is better for hidden resources to be used here
building_name requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource x and not hidden_resource y ;and blah blah
;to allow building browser to display buildings EVERYWHERE irregardless of eligibility I guess - I view this option as a better alternative than not having a building browser at all.
building_name requires factions { all, } and building_present_min_level dummy dummy1 ;or building_present dummy depending on the building constraits, as dummy 1 can be any vacant and unreachable level in any building tree like the smiths, mines or roads or whatever.
}
;Actual building line - it is advisable to use building_present/_min_level here to allow players to see requirements
building_name requires factions { all, } and building_present_min_level market market

Again, pertaining to upgrade coding to display buildings in the building browser,
I am not sure whether a dummy hidden_resource works... i.e.
upgrades
{
;to prevent building gap error ...
won1_god2 requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource not_here
}

[CaesarVincens]

Could you explain what you mean by - "building requires x and not hidden_resource y" would not show up in the building browser, but "building requires x and hidden_resource dummyHR or not hidden_resource y" would show up. - I'm wondering what x is, is it a building / HR?

I think you figured this out, but by 'x' I meant any building. "dummyHR" just means a hidden resource that isn't used in descr_regions.

Although this reply concerning the statement is a bit late, its better than nothing. I have found that the upgrade code provided by PatricianS above seems to work, even if the main building lines does not have all the factions, i.e. using the above example, the building line shown below will still function and no error is reported:
won1_god2 requires factions { romans_ julii, } ;and other conditions

The only problem is that the building may not appear on the building browser because the conditions may not suit the format as stated by CaesarVincens below:



Using a dummy building in the upgrades should provide similar benefits to the coding above (regarding culture break, building gap n stuff in my earlier post) AND will allow the 'building' to be present in the building browser.

From my quick testing, a dummy building did not function in the same way as a dummy hidden resource, that is it did not cause the building to appear in the browser.

upgrades
{
;GENUINE upgrade lines - it is better for hidden resources to be used here
building_name requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource x and not hidden_resource y ;and blah blah
;to allow building browser to display buildings EVERYWHERE irregardless of eligibility I guess - I view this option as a better alternative than not having a building browser at all.
building_name requires factions { all, } and building_present_min_level dummy dummy1 ;or building_present dummy depending on the building constraits, as dummy 1 can be any vacant and unreachable level in any building tree like the smiths, mines or roads or whatever.
}
;Actual building line - it is advisable to use building_present/_min_level here to allow players to see requirements
building_name requires factions { all, } and building_present_min_level market market

I haven't done any testing with using requirements in both the upgrade line and building line. My thought is that it might mess things up, otherwise if more generic requirements are used it might work. Let me know if you've tested it and anything is contrary to my thoughts. I like using a dummy building in another line so it shows up in the browser. I'll do some testing with that and see what I can get done.

Again, pertaining to upgrade coding to display buildings in the building browser,
I am not sure whether a dummy hidden_resource works... i.e.
upgrades
{
;to prevent building gap error ...
won1_god2 requires factions { all, } and hidden_resource not_here
}

A dummy hidden resource would prevent the building from showing up unless there is an alternate requirement, even a negative one. However, it will maintain the illusion that any faction could build that level and prevent the gap error.

It's amazing to think that RTW has been out for so long an this is still very new information!