The Citadel

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.

To simulate a ruin you can also reduce the number of allowed settlements in a region.

Riso wrote:To simulate a ruin you can also reduce the number of allowed settlements in a region.

We're already at minimum for these provinces. 1 settlement is reserved for provinces beyond the wall, since that's a whole other manner of desolation than a destroyed castle.

I'm still of the mind that the most simple, crisp, and elegant way to go about this( and I do love crisp and elegant) is to have just one 'building' that is simply named Economic Prosperity. It builds extremely slow and carries a good chunk of the base stats and or modifiers for levy size and tax income. It has 10 or more levels, with an exponential climb in cost and build time above level X (choose where you want it). It is this one building that is at risk of downgrade during normal sieges. In the most perfect world of elegant simplicity there would only be 2 buildings, the core castle or town, and Economic Prosperity/level, or whatever the heck you'd like to name it.

Another point: I think it somewhat unfair and unbalanced that in a war the side who is under constant occupation can win by attrition with very little cost. I've observed this in-game. The crownlands were under siege and threat constantly. over time the attackers were defeated by attrition. I think attackers should eventually be able to field bigger levies since the economic level of the defender is being degraded. That's why I suggest levy size being tied to the economic indicator building.

On a sidenote, I've done some tweaking of my own, and one point of note I'd like to bring up is garrison size. I noticed that garrison and levy size are equal, and I thought that a bit odd (realistically, not gameplay-wise). A garrison would never be so large. The battle would be basically won in the field, or the defender would have to keep his levies on defense. So I cut all base troops to 10% of their normal numbers, and raised levy% to compensate (leaving levy sizes about the same while having garrisons be much smaller). I jacked up fort level modifiers to keep siege times long. Large forces now have the possibility of direct assault, something I thought sorely missing in both CK1 and CK2. Many a fortress and city was assaulted in the long history of war..but not in CK2. Is there anything we can do about that? Big issue I see is the AI won't make use of it I don't think, even when losses by assault would be lower than the attrition of a full siege. On that topic, does anyone know where to find (is it even possible to mod) the modifier for assaults and attackers losses and such?

I was looking through some CK1 mods cuz I know they had specific building destruction going on. Here's one:
effect = { type = remove_improvement value = civilian_harbour }
Is it possible in CK2? Can an event be coded like that to just downgrade a building by 1 level?

There are events in CK2+ which destroy buildings, so some form of this is possible.

I noticed that storms end and the twins have their own castles - ca_storms_end and ca_twins - i was wondering if it wouldnt be better to have all LP capitals (Casterly Rock, Winterfell, Riverrun, Highgarden, Sunspear, The Eyrie and Kings Landing especially) and maybe even Dragonstone have their own personal building.

thoughts?

Good idea.

That's exactly what I've been thinking. ESPECIALLY regarding the Eyrie. That castle struck me to be one of the mosy impregnable fortresses in all of Westeros when I read the book. But in this mod the Eyrie barely have any troops or fort level. Why is that? It is located on very high ground on top of a mountain and should be very hard to besiege. And easy to defend. There should definetly be a building for the Eyrie that will atleast increase it's fort level drastically.

AnthonyNo13 wrote:That's exactly what I've been thinking. ESPECIALLY regarding the Eyrie. That castle struck me to be one of the mosy impregnable fortresses in all of Westeros when I read the book. But in this mod the Eyrie barely have any troops or fort level. Why is that? It is located on very high ground on top of a mountain and should be very hard to besiege. And easy to defend. There should definetly be a building for the Eyrie that will atleast increase it's fort level drastically.

The castle itself is not very big at all.

It's getting to it that's the hard part.

That is the case with most castles, they're intentionally built in such places. And as such fortification level accouns for the geographical features as well. The Eyrie should have a huge fort level, and so should it's gates.