The Citadel

apg post :
"yes you can 'destroy buildings' using remove_building = - which only works when in the scope of a baronies/counties title."

Application from one modder of our mod (fisrt post)

Code: Select all

decisions = {
   temp = {
      potential = {
         ai = no
      }
      allow = {
      }      
      effect = {
         b_kings_landing = {
            remove_building = ct_asoiaf_crown_basevalue_6
         }
      }
   }
}

Many CK1 mods (including the AGOT one) used events to destroy buildings with rebellions and sieges being the triggers. It is possible. I for one would love a siege system that depends on more than just morale dropping to zero. It would be much more thrilling to have events that would bring down the walls, or ones that provided the attacker or defender with interesting and/or risky choices (into the breach!) with potentially heroic or devastating consequences. Events to build siege works (at a cost of gold) could be one way, so that a player could, if rich enough, increase the chance of such siege related events.

One building that would add flavour would be a rookerie, which could be used to increase the holding lord's diplomacy/intrigue stats.

Just joining the discussion, so sorry if this has been suggested already.

What about some type of housing for troops, so when upgraded sufficiently, armies passing through your own lands won't suffer attrition?

jaggedblue wrote:Many CK1 mods (including the AGOT one) used events to destroy buildings with rebellions and sieges being the triggers. It is possible. I for one would love a siege system that depends on more than just morale dropping to zero. It would be much more thrilling to have events that would bring down the walls, or ones that provided the attacker or defender with interesting and/or risky choices (into the breach!) with potentially heroic or devastating consequences. Events to build siege works (at a cost of gold) could be one way, so that a player could, if rich enough, increase the chance of such siege related events.

We cant destroy specific buildings... only random ones.
And we cannot destroy the castle/city/temple barony.

Oga, the code I posted above is said to be working to destroy specific buildings...
To destroy castle/city/temple, I have some idea... Will need to test if it works, but pretty sure I can have ruins over the map...

But its not an event... how you plan to do it?
A ton of decisions for the archmaester's AI to trigger?

I need to check that:
- location = { } is working for army leaders. In that case, it is possible to target the territory in which you are laying siege
- FROM = { } might also be working, and even more precise (might target barony)

Then it should be possible to trigger events with the on_siege_pulse stating that siege engin are ready and giving option such as :
- aim for the walls
- aim for the keep
- aim the other buildings
granting a chance to destroy a building.

In case of victory and if there is little constructed, it might be possible to give a building giving -500% levy, -500% garnison, -500 taxes. Thus making the barony in ruins and worthless.
Lords then could pay (decision or building upgrade?) in order to remove this ruin building in order to have a new castle (or whatever). It wouldn't enable to switch toward another type de building, but it should work.

What I fear, is to have too much events making war time unplayable...

Ruins might be unbalanced, but if there's a prosperity system like CK1 then it could lose a level. This would better model the burning of the Riverlands.

Ogaburan wrote:But its not an event... how you plan to do it?
A ton of decisions for the archmaester's AI to trigger?

That effect is applicable to events and decisions, in fact any effect is.

Well, we can have multiple level of "ruins"... from total destruction (Castamere) to houses were burnt.

Yeah, that's true. I've been thinking that buildings might be a better way to control prosperity than modifiers. I presume there's an add_building command?

Castamere and Summerhall should both definitely start a ruined wreck.

If i was Robert (and Lyanna lived and thus i didn't want to eradicate the house) i would love to give the Targs just Summerhall, a complete ruin it would be so cruel.

After a bit of experimentation with possible syntaxes, I found all we'd presumably need in order to do cool things with buildings. Not only there is a command to add buildings, there's also a trigger which checks for them. It's not documented anywere, so don't hold me responsible if it breaks things

Here's an expansion of the example from the last page so you can see how things work:

Code: Select all

decisions = {
   ethnic_cleansing_in_flea_bottom = {
      potential = { ai = no }
      allow = { b_kings_landing = { has_building = ct_asoiaf_crown_basevalue_6 } }
      effect = {
         b_kings_landing = {
            remove_building = ct_asoiaf_crown_basevalue_6
         }
      }
   }
   
   cast_mass_resurrect = {
      potential = { ai = no }
      allow = { b_kings_landing = { NOT = { has_building = ct_asoiaf_crown_basevalue_6 } } }
      effect = {
         b_kings_landing = {
            add_building = ct_asoiaf_crown_basevalue_6
         }
      }
   }
}

There's no need to have special buildings to simulate a ruin. Just have them start with several levels lower fortifications and expansions than everyone around them.

I've been thinking that buildings might be a better way to control prosperity than modifiers. I presume there's an add_building command?

General prosperity of a region should be base tax, modified by buildings further upwards, and then there should be random events to simulate good and bad years with modifiers.

Another thought on how to control economic growth (maybe you already thought of this) is to assign all the base stats to the core building and only use % modifiers for the secondary buildings. That way a humble backwater at best can only get a % of its base building, so no matter how high its upgrades it will never compare to a large center.

Cabezaestufa wrote:Here's an expansion of the example from the last page so you can see how things work:

I still see a problem with that... you don't target a "random" holding but a specific one... And I somehow fear targeting correctly a "random" one with some conditions.


About Riso proposal:
For the building thing, having a building to make it ruins or having a building not to make it ruin, the result is the same from the player point of view but not from the AI point of view.
Let say that you create a new castle. If ruin is a building, the castle will be created as a working castle. If ruin is the status of the castle without building, then the castle will be in ruin. At this point, player would build the building to give "life" to the ruined castle. So no problem here. With time and cost being the same, there is no problem.

Now if we look from an AI situation. Ruin being a building is as vanilla from AI point of view. If ruin is the base status, first the AI might spam them in every county, then, they might not upgrade them "fast" enough to put them as constructed castle... Overall, the AI might not handle very well a base holding being "empty".


About prosperity, well, it would be only logical that random events simulate good and bad years, however there is currently a limit which is that there is no barony modifiers and only county modifiers. If we want to affect a barony we are forced to use a building, Let say there are thief in the city A. Why should castle B endure tax lost?
And if you say that because of trade they should, then why shouldn't it affect the neighboor counties and so on?
There are random events that must affect only one barony and not the other in the county, and we only have the option of buildings for that.


About jaggedblue proposal:
Isn't it what we already do somehow? You can't create a second king's landing keep as far as I know.

The proposal we talked about was to have several levels of ruin that an owner will have to dig himself out of. Summerhall or Castamere would have to be cleared and rebuilt entirely. Something like Harrenhal would never truly be repaired, but it can be refitted and prettied up a bit.

Really that's just an unnecessary addition for what, two, three places? Set the tax income so low that any owner would require decades to get a leg up instead.

Riso wrote:Really that's just an unnecessary addition for what, two, three places? Set the tax income so low that any owner would require decades to get a leg up instead.

One of the goal is to be able to destroy holdings and transform then into ruins (under some conditions). This wouldn't be just for 2/3 places but for all the places the player/AI will want to transform something into ruins.
I can imagine the Iron Islands' raid CB having X% chance to lower a building level. If there is no building to destroy, then the holding get a "ruin" level.