Steam'i Yükleyin
giriş
|
dil
简体中文 (Basitleştirilmiş Çince)
繁體中文 (Geleneksel Çince)
日本語 (Japonca)
한국어 (Korece)
ไทย (Tayca)
Български (Bulgarca)
Čeština (Çekçe)
Dansk (Danca)
Deutsch (Almanca)
English (İngilizce)
Español - España (İspanyolca - İspanya)
Español - Latinoamérica (İspanyolca - Latin Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Yunanca)
Français (Fransızca)
Italiano (İtalyanca)
Bahasa Indonesia (Endonezce)
Magyar (Macarca)
Nederlands (Hollandaca)
Norsk (Norveççe)
Polski (Lehçe)
Português (Portekizce - Portekiz)
Português - Brasil (Portekizce - Brezilya)
Română (Rumence)
Русский (Rusça)
Suomi (Fince)
Svenska (İsveççe)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamca)
Українська (Ukraynaca)
Bir çeviri sorunu bildirin
[string "script\campaign\mod\apply_supply_lines_bundles.lua"]:318: attempt to call method 'force_type' (a nil value)
Imm playing as norsca and i have an army thats assisting an ally nation, but it's currently at 60% additional upkeep while in raiding encamy.
I had an idea for a feature suggestion: Have proximity to outposts in allied territories lower the upkeep of an army. It would add a stategic element to outpost placement, and also allow excursions into allied territories which should indeed improve the supply lines.
Let me know what you think! Thanks!
I checked a fresh campaign just to be sure, and all behaviors are as above - by default, new armies increase supply lines unless I exempt the faction. I suppose a work-around might be to exempt all factions from supply lines in campaign_features_tables, but perhaps there's some reason that this method wasn't chosen in the first place (future-proofing, maybe?).
Currently putting together a new modlist for a session and this bit is a pain to check for, especially since the games logfiles are of zero help when trying to narrow down a culprit and testing permutations/bisect requires several people to jump through hoops.
I saw there's a 2nd component to this mod, but it looks like it's already been integrated into this one.