Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 

Here's a bug similar to random Barbarian events occurring at a sieged fortress:

I was sieging a fort, and I wanted to get rid of pesky scouts, so I patrolled. It's probably irrelevant, but I also stormed the fort the same month with one unit, just to peek inside. Anyway, I got a message about finding a sneaking enemy, but strangely there was no battle that I could click on.

The next month I stormed the fort and took it ... only to find that I no longer controlled the province. It was now owned by the scout I had uncovered the previous month, when I patrolled.

I had armies moving into the province the month I stormed, but since they were on 'move' and not 'move and patrol', they just ended up inside the fort, instead of fighting the scout. Not that it's possible to 'move and patrol' to a fort you're sieging.

Next time I discover a sneaking enemy while sieging, I'll be sure to leave a small force still patrolling when I storm a fortress. That way the scout won't capture my zero-PD province.

Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 

Actually vfb, I don't think it makes a difference.

I routinely leave units preaching, sieging, and patrolling when I storm forts just to make sure I don't lose the province if I lose the storm.

It has never seemed to matter- the province is still taken when I storm. Not all the time.. just sometimes.

Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 

It probably does, because that sounds like it works exactly like a barbarian raid event, only it's a scout being caught. Looks to me like the bug triggers whenever a third party incursion into a sieged province comes about through something other than normal army movement. May be related to the no control/partial control/full control of province thing.

Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 

The actual code in the mod is:

#selectspell "Hell Power"
#pathlevel 0 1
#end

That changes it from a B3 to a B1 spell. However, the mod does not change fatigue cost. So it still shows 3 slaves/300 fatigue.

If you add this line it fixes all the weirdness:

#selectspell "Hell Power"
#pathlevel 0 1
#fatiguecost 100
#end

Now it displays properly, is B1, and only costs one slave. I don't know if that's what QM wants though, it seems kind of drastic. But if the intention was to just reduce fatigue, then why not leave it at B3 and change the cost to 100?

Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 

I dont know if this qualifies as a bug, but, shouldn't Jaguar Warriors get the skinchanger tag?

Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 

Skinshifter is different from the transformation that Jaguars go through, though it is very similar. Honestly, I'm not exactly sure why they get their own special tag as there are dozens of units that change form.

Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 

Here's a bug you don't see everyday. My guy blessing the enemy.

Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 

That gives me an idea for a new unit.

Sleeper Agent - When you hire him he doesn't appear where you recruited him. Instead he kills another players recruit and takes his/her place. Then helps your side when they fight against you and causes unrest in the form of sabotage.

Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 

I had a mod called death cult

All the units had gcost = 0, or negative. All had stealth.

Some of the units were - horsemen of the apocalypse. Death eaters. Eye collectors.

Some commanders even earned gems.

The entire idea was that they lived among us. And only when it was the final time of showdown (Ie., the end times).... would they appear.

They would have a capital, of course, A city of the damned. But as they would not own many provinces - most recruitment was done via a commander order, as well as some autospawns.

Many of the commanders had #onbattle spells - like darkness, terror etc - because research would be hard.

All in all it was a lot of fun to make. I got it about 87% finished before I quit....

And it had a really, really creepy feeling when playing against it - because you literally never would know when some of these units would pop up in your territories. And you would never know if casual PD would defeat them....

Re: Bug Thread: Discussion
 

Sounds very interesting. Any way, what exactly happens with a negative gold cost and upkeep?