Give a region to another faction via script

[bitterhowl]

I have a problem with auto_win command. When I script slave army to attack player's settlement with auto_win the game shows prebattle window, to choose fight battle or autoresolve. And I want slave army to capture the city by auto_win. How can I solve this?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

monitor_event SettlementTurnStart SettlementName Old_Oak
and not I_IsFactionAIControlled hre
and I_SettlementOwner Old_Oak hre
console_command auto_win attacker

spawn_army
faction slave
character random_name, general, age 45, x 22 y 65, label oo
traits Brave 3 , GoodFighter 2
unit SpearMilitia exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit SpearMilitia exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit SpearMilitia exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit SpearMilitia exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
end

siege_settlement oo, Old_Oak, attack

terminate_monitor
end_monitor

When I place console_command after army lines - same thing. And yes - SpearMilitia is correct - I count those unit type ingame, so I changed it in EDU and everywhere else where it necessary.

[Withwnar]

It is possible to disable the "fight on battle map" button or to script an auto-click of the auto resolve button. I couldn't find the tutorial I was thinking of but this one is similar: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...for-the-player

As this isn't a question about giving the settlement to another faction it would be better not to discuss it further here.

[Gigantus]

I am wondering: adapting this script to this tutorial (or horde factions in general as mentioned) shouldn't be too difficult. Thought behind this being the transfer (through revolt I guess) of a sacked settlement to the slaves, which I think shouldn't be the case - it should stay with the original faction. The SackSettlement event should make it easy to identify which settlement it is, I just see a huge monitor coming up to test for the prior ownership.

I am working on a script project of mine (The sack of Paris by Ragnar Lothbrok) in which the return of the sacked settlement to the French would be a cool finale. Ragnar will be a AI horde faction (using the default sacking mode of hordes when conquering initial settlements). The tutorial will include stuff like coding custom faction symbols, scripting a coastal landing and inland march with revealed tile mechanism and a few other assorted modding gems like the great vanishing act of Lothar once the sack is done.

[Withwnar]

SackSettlement is not something that happens often so not one I've had much dealing with. What I do know is that it only works on named characters, so if your army has no NC commander (e.g. killed in battle prior to the sacking) then it won't work.

I assume that its target_faction is the owner-prior-to-sacking, not slave? If it is slave then that's a useless thing for the event to export, because it would always be slave, right?

If that assumption is right then a known situation, e.g. your example of france-owned Paris being sacked, should be simple...

monitor_event SackSettlement IsRegionOneOf Paris_Province
  and TargetFactionType france

  ;set ros_owner = slave id
  ;set ros_target_faction_id = france id
  ;set ros_region_id = paris id

  ;do the switch, using the "Type 2 generic" method

end_monitor

That is, assuming that Paris is actually in the hands of slave at the time that SackSettlement fires. That is not true for GeneralCaptureSettlement, for example, but it is for OccupySettlement etc. If not then a campaign_wait might be needed in that monitor before doing anything else (0.1 is enough to make GeneralCaptureSettlement work).

And to limit it to just Ragnar's attack then you could set some counter indicating "this is Ragnar attacking", use that counter as a condition in that monitor, then turn the counter off in that monitor.

But yes, doing this for ANY settlement of ANY owner, being sacked by anybody, would be a lot of script/monitors.

[Gigantus]

From the screenshot I took before I clicked the sack button it was clear that the attacker was owner. So it's anyone's guess what target_faction value gets exported I think, but it won't be 'slave' in my opinion.

[Withwnar]

When you click the Sack button does this trigger SackSettlement or CitySacked (or both)? Usually it's the CitySacked but I don't know about hordes. And why is there no Exterminate button?

And when you click Sack is that when it goes to the slave faction?

[Gigantus]

This is the playable horde from the tutorial, they don't have a settlement yet. When I click 'sack' then the army leaves the settlement, it becomes slave with a minor garrison and the smoke animation starts.

And I have not tried out what event will trigger here.

[Withwnar]

This has been added to the OP:

WARNING: Make sure that this 'hidden' faction is not used for any culture/faction tag in descr_regions.txt. If it is then - when the faction_emerge part of the switch happens and that tag region has low public order - the region might also be taken over (emerged into) by the 'hidden' faction and subsequently given to the switch's to-faction.

I thought that I had already mentioned this somewhere but I couldn't find it.

e.g. In an earlier version of TATW, hungary (TATW's 'spawnpool' faction) was also the tag for a region near Mordor. Like this...

Tarnost_Province
	Tarnost
	hungary

From memory that settlement (A) was in the process of revolting (pitchfork & flames) when I did a switch on another settlement (B) ... the result was that A ended up in the hands of the faction I was trying to switch to. I can't remember if B did as well.

[Mylae]

I have a question about this script.
What if every single settlement in the map has a unique building that let me identify clearly what region is?
this way i do not need to create buildings all over the map, but to have this code in the EDB:

        milan city requires factions {   }
        {
            capability
            {
                ;;bonus
                law_bonus bonus 20 requires factions { all, } and event_counter settlement_transfer 1 and not event_counter target_settlement_milan 1 
                population_health_bonus bonus 20 requires factions { all, } and event_counter settlement_transfer 1 and not event_counter target_settlement_milan 1 
                happiness_bonus bonus 20 requires factions { all, } and event_counter settlement_transfer 1 and not event_counter target_settlement_milan 1                 ;;transfer malus
                law_bonus bonus -20 requires factions { all, } and event_counter target_settlement_milan 1 
                population_health_bonus bonus -20 requires factions { all, } and event_counter target_settlement_milan 1 
                happiness_bonus bonus -20 requires factions { all, } and event_counter target_settlement_milan 1 



            }
            material wooden
            construction  1 
            cost  0 
            settlement_min village
            upgrades
            {
            }

this way, every settlement, triggering a simple event counter, will get the bonus for the duration of the counter, except for the targeted settlement (in this case, Milan), which will get the malus. And so we do not need the huge check, the creation and dissolution of the buildings and so on.

[Gigantus]

The thought has merit, but it will not shorten the script by much as you will still have to trigger the individual event_counter. Never mind the 200 building slots this will occupy, and as it is a permanent building it will require a description and pic for each of them (the latter can be somewhat simplified by making use of the descr_ui_buildings file) - using the script replicator on the original script is more efficient here in my opinion.

Edit: some mods (EB, 1648) use unique buildings to provide regional info, in cases like this it would certainly be viable to add the capabilities.

[Mylae]

that's an interesting reply
I'm actually setting up a mod in which I already have in mind a similar setting to 1648, which I personally love.
Keeping track of a 200 max regions, and keeping in mind that each "building tree" may have up to 9 "buildings", it means I have to made 23 of them. Moreover, not all settlements should be able to be transfered, as well as some settlement could be transferred more than once.
Individual event_counters have to be created, yes, but as they should be 1-timers, after they run once, they should not bother much.
I will make some trial and error and post here the results, they may bear some interesting output.

[vsivak]

Maybe I am missing something but is hidden faction really needed? For example I use this script to give 1 settlement with lowest PO from egypt to spain every turn.

monitor_event FactionTurnEnd FactionType egypt
faction_emerge spain egypt 1 400.0 0.0 1.2 town false unused_label1 unused_name 30
end_monitor

[Withwnar]

Emerging a faction that is already emerged (present)? Interesting, never thought to try that.

Quick tests seem to confirm that it works.

[vsivak]

Yes exactly. The command works even if the faction is already present. Works for me.

[Mylae]

Yes exactly. The command works even if the faction is already present. Works for me.

That looks quite interesting.

Could you please share more info? How is a complete script?
A working template could be this:
1- A building with huge law/order bonus and malus:
Withwnar suggested to have a specific one built to give bonus except to the target settlement. However, we could also link a bonus/malus in a building and have it triggered by events.
For example, if every settlement has a different building present, and if we add a bonus or malus based on the existence of an event_counter we will significantly reduce the script lenght and working time. As Gigantus pointed out it may be a building-costly approach, as to fill a 200-provinces map, with a 9 building limit, means to use 23 of the 128 building trees hardcoded limit. Thus the game simply activates a bonus (and a malus) with a double event trigger.
Example:

        milan_province city requires factions { } 
        {
            capability
            {
                wall_level 1
                tower_level 1
                free_upkeep bonus 2
                happiness_bonus bonus 1
                recruitment_slots 1
;;;;;;;;;;;;; Bonus for settlement when a "public order bonus" is needed for script purposes; the bonus does not apply when the settlement is targeted
                law_bonus bonus 20 requires event_counter public_order_bonus 1 and not event_counter target_settlement_milan 1
                population_health_bonus bonus 20 requires event_counter public_order_bonus 1 and not event_counter target_settlement_milan 1
                happiness_bonus bonus 20 requires event_counter public_order_bonus 1 and not event_counter target_settlement_milan 1
;;;;;;;;;;;;; Malus for the settlement when targeted
                law_bonus bonus -20 requires event_counter target_settlement_milan 1
                population_health_bonus bonus -20 requires event_counter target_settlement_milan 1
                happiness_bonus bonus -20 requires event_counter target_settlement_milan 1


            }
            material wooden
            construction  2 
            cost  600 
            settlement_min village
            upgrades
            {
            }
        }

2- A faction_emerge script:
when the settlement is targeted via script, we have to spawn a unit on the inside: could it be the unit of an existing faction? If the targeted settlement is empty and the spawned unit is of the faction we want to transfer the settlement to, shouldn't the script end here? for game purpose, the settlement is "taken". Question arises.
If so, can you provide a viable example of how to emerge an already present faction? I might sound stupid but I cannot understand how it works. If I make an already present faction emerge, when transferring all its assets to another it will transfer all his settlements and units, so it will be beyond the scope of the "simple" transfer of a settlement.

[Gebilde]

its 128 building trees

[selv]

I am using the faction_emerge command with on map factions if it's of any use to someone, and it work fine. The only thing is that I am using shadowing but I see no reason why it woudn't work without it?

[selv]

Public Order : Wrong SettlementIf, despite all of the PO adjustments from the buildings, another settlement has a lower PO than our target settlement then that settlement will be transferred instead. The script handles that outcome - giving it back to the original owner - but its characters and units will now be standing outside. Not a game-breaking result but another faction could then walk in and take it before the player/AI can move them back in.

The likely cause of this is PO due to garrison. There is no way to counter this PO bonus with negative building bonuses.

A way to further reduce the target settlement's PO is via a governor trait that adds things like Squalor, Unrest, and perhaps negative LocalPopularity and Health. However, giving him the trait at the desired time could be tricky and it's possible that the settlement has no governor.

I have been looking into this for my scripts, as there are situations where I need to be sure beyond doubt and all that the transfer will happen no matter what. From my experience, there are two factors that can screw with the PO buildings and nullify them. The increase PO from governor traits, and the garrison effect from SOF_GARRISON in settlement_mechanic.

For the tests, I purposely took numbers to the extreme, the target settlement to transfer with 500% PO, and two settlements barely conquered with 0%.
The first problem, governor traits, is not that tough to solve. Set a super bad governor hidden trait that will be gained only during the interturn and if a governor is in the settlement you want.

;------------------------------------------
Trait BadGovernorT
    Characters family
    Hidden


    Level BadGovernorT
        Description SummerCampaigning_desc
        EffectsDescription SummerCampaigning_effects_desc
        Threshold  1

        Effect Law  -5
        Effect Unrest 50
        Effect Squalor 25
        Effect LocalPopularity -10
    Effect Health -10

;------------------------------------------
Trigger GiveBGT
    WhenToTest CharacterTurnEnd


    Condition EndedInSettlement
    and SettlementName Rome    
    and I_EventCounter senate_emerge > 0 
    and Trait BadGovernorT < 1


    Affects BadGovernorT  1  Chance  100


;------------------------------------------
Trigger RemoveBGT
    WhenToTest CharacterTurnStart


    Condition I_EventCounter senate_emerge < 1 
    and Trait BadGovernorT > 0


    Affects BadGovernorT  -1  Chance  100

the trait effects aren't very subtle nor very accuratly calculated but it doesn't matter here as long as it work, the trait will never be use except during the specific interturns where it is needed, increase/decrease the effects if you need.
Next we set a little monitor in campaign script to activate the event counter just when we need it.

monitor_event CharacterTurnEnd FactionType romani 
    and FactionIsLocal
    and I_NumberOfSettlements romani > 1
    and I_NumberOfSettlements papal_states < 1
    and I_SettlementOwner Rome = romani
    and not I_SettlementUnderSiege Rome    
    and I_EventCounter messaggio < 3
    and I_EventCounter rivoluzione < 1
    and I_EventCounter senate_emerge < 1
    and I_CompareCounter senate_civil_war_counter < 1
    
    set_event_counter senate_emerge 1
end_monitor

That's for me, the very same conditions that the next emergent or 'gift' script, then we set back the event counter to 0 in the said script outcomes:

monitor_event FactionTurnEnd FactionType romani 
    and FactionIsLocal
    and I_NumberOfSettlements romani > 1
    and I_NumberOfSettlements papal_states < 1
    and I_SettlementOwner Rome = romani
    and not I_SettlementUnderSiege Rome    
    and I_EventCounter messaggio < 3
    and I_EventCounter rivoluzione < 1
    and I_EventCounter senate_emerge > 0
    and I_CompareCounter senate_civil_war_counter < 1    
        
;;    add_settlement_turmoil Rome 1
    campaign_wait 0.1
    console_command create_building Adiacium ros_po_bonus
    console_command create_building Agrigentum ros_po_bonus
    console_command create_building Aleksandreia ros_po_bonus
    console_command create_building Alesia ros_po_bonus
    ;;;ect, ect
    
    console_command create_building Rome ros_target
    
    campaign_wait 0.1
    faction_emerge papal_states romani 1 500.0 0.0 1.2 town false
    campaign_wait 0.1
    
    if I_NumberOfSettlements papal_states > 0
    and not I_SettlementOwner Rome = papal_states
    
     destroy_buildings akni ros_temp_buildings false
         destroy_buildings england ros_temp_buildings false
         ;;;ect, ect             
         campaign_wait 0.1
         
    set_event_counter senate_emerge 0
    give_everything_to_faction papal_states romani false
    campaign_wait 0.1
    end_if
    
    if I_SettlementOwner Rome = papal_states
    
     destroy_buildings akni ros_temp_buildings false
         destroy_buildings england ros_temp_buildings false
         ;;;ect, ect             
         campaign_wait 0.1
         
         set_event_counter senate_emerge 0
         set_faction_standing papal_states romani 1.0
         console_command diplomatic_stance papal_states romani allied     
         end_if
         end_monitor

That will counter the possible harmful bonus of a governor, if there is one.

Second problem, and that is more tricky because I am not sure if my 'solution' is very good for the game in general. A very strong garrison can still screw with a script, even with the full PO buildings and the bad governor tricks, if the target has still a lot of bonuses granted by normal buildings or the like, and other settlements are at -200% from the target or near, before the script fires. In my tests.
The settlements mechanic values can vary from mod to mod but mine is close enough to vanilla regarding sof garrison, so I setted it like this for the first test:
<factor name="SOF_GARRISON">
<pip_modifier value="1.0"/>
<pip_min value="0"/>
<pip_max value="20"/>
</factor>
A strong garrison can make a difference of 100%, and as explained above, it is enough in extreme cases to screw the script. I then proceeded to reduce the max possible value to ten, and so a garrison can't make more than a 50% difference. This time the 500% settlement was given everytime against the 0% settlements, beating all the odds it seem.

Which leave us with one problem, is 50% of garrison max bonus enough? I would say it is, and might force you to train and keep governors which is not a bad thing but I didn't play a real game in a long time so... While my test numbers might seem extremes, depending on buildings and traits, a +200 PO difference is not that unlikely to happen, especially as the game progresses and depending in what goal you use the faction_emerge, it can be quite risky for gameplay to not take more measures beside the PO buildings.

edit, sorry about the color, can't find the normal color it seem.

[Withwnar]

Added to the OP.

Governor trait: did your tests show this to work? i.e. Without the trait the wrong settlement was given but with the trait the right one was. I'm not suggesting it wouldn't, just seeking clarification of whether this is a "should work" thing or a "definitely does".

I wonder about the case of two named characters being in the settlement. Might the Piety drop from the trait result in the the other guy becoming governor instead? If so then the other guy won't get the trait (if his CharacterTurnEnd had already happened) so the governor no longer has these PO dropping effects. Rather than giving the trait to the governor, giving it to all named characters in the settlement might be safer.

And if the settlement has no governor? In theory a named character could be spawned next to it, given the trait, walked in before and killed after the transfer. But I have a nasty suspicion that while he's walking in the script will carry on with the transfer process, defeating the point because he's not yet inside.

I am not sure if my [garrison PO] 'solution' is very good for the game in general

Yeah, messing with the game mechanics for the sake of one scripted feature isn't a decision to take lightly. But that's up to the modder.

[selv]

Governor trait: did your tests show this to work? i.e. Without the trait the wrong settlement was given but with the trait the right one was. I'm not suggesting it wouldn't, just seeking clarification of whether this is a "should work" thing or a "definitely does".

I wonder about the case of two named characters being in the settlement. Might the Piety drop from the trait result in the the other guy becoming governor instead? If so then the other guy won't get the trait (if his CharacterTurnEnd had already happened) so the governor no longer has these PO dropping effects. Rather than giving the trait to the governor, giving it to all named characters in the settlement might be safer.

And if the settlement has no governor? In theory a named character could be spawned next to it, given the trait, walked in before and killed after the transfer. But I have a nasty suspicion that while he's walking in the script will carry on with the transfer process, defeating the point because he's not yet inside.

Oh yes, I tested more time than I care to admit all about the faction_emerge, and beating all the odds, even in the most extreme cases was my last obstacle to sleep well at night, so to speak. So it's a definitly goes to counter any possible harmul bonus from a governor traits.
Don't mind the piety, this effect was just a test to check that the super bad governor trait wasn't staying after the script and that the trait triggers aren't playing tricks, which they don't. I am gonna remove the piety effect from my post.
And you are right about removing the governor check from the give trait trigger of course, my last tests were always on a one FM in the target settlement so it escaped me, but even without the -piety, it cost nothing to let any FM in the settlement have the trait, some strange things happen at turn end sometimes, better to be safe.

If there are no governor in the target settlement, then the trait is useless, no harmful governor bonus to counter and the PO buildings will work on their own... UNLESS, sorry for the big letter word but it's important, if there is still a huge strong garrison and a average +200 differences between the target and any other owned settlement, including in the most extreme tests I made of 500% versus 0, if a governor is in with the super bad trait. Really.

The two problems can cumulate, and unlike the buildings and character traits, I found almost nothing to temporary counter the effects of SOF_GARRISON.
Hence why I the cleaner seem yet to reduce this one value in the settlement_mechanic. No more than 50% max as above, and this time all possible corner of the problem seem handled, and all odds beaten.
I tested a bit some conquests and turn passages and frankly, aside that it take longer to leave a settlement without governor, the time to have some law, happinness or other buildings well set, the populace acclimated with religion/culture conversion and there isn't much differences, it's actually better and not heavy. From what I read, other mods do far worst with turmoil and unrest problems.
The only other alternative to reduce the garrison bonus would be the add_settlement_turmoil, but given it can't be taken away and must decrease with turns, it could escalate and become a much worst 'evil' than having garrison effects cut in half. At least I think so.

To try and resumate in 3 short points:
1, the PO buildings (in full, not just the ros_target) counter the normal buildings bonus and help greatly by reducing the target PO while raising all the others, and they are even enought in most reasonnable odds.
2, the super bad governor trick definitly ensure that a super good governor won't screw with the script, and if there is no governor, well he can't mess with the script so it's not a problem.
3, As explained just above, 50% max garrison bonus seem enough for gameplay, even for the ai and will help to beat the last odds.
4, (what? I said 3 points? I meant 4) these three used together beated a 500 vs 0 odd each time I tried, super garrison and too strong governor problems included, so I can't think of anything else that might surprise your well thought plans for switching any settlements ownership at any time.

Watch out for the other SOF values of descr_settlement_mechanic and try to stay close enough to vanilla if raising them for whatever reason, that's the last precaution I would suggest. If someone has a other trick for garrison bonus decrease, it would be cool to have a alternative but please, no add_settlement_turmoil, it could be far worst.

Edited my other post to remove the test piety effect and the governor check condition.