Are the current known bugs listed when I download the latest version?
I don't really have a robust bug-tracking process in place. I've scrawled a few notes for myself in the URule version tab, to remind myself what I still need to do. For the UCam version, the only bug I'm currently aware of is that a couple of the buildings don't have the right magic items (I actually found which ones and fixed it in the URule version, just before the football started).
If you find a bug in UCam (other than the incorrectly calculating magic items), please let me know here. If you find a bug in the URule version that doesn't broadly fit into the notes I've made, also post here. Missing rules (from URule) are not bugs, but I am perfectly willing to prioritise the rules I implement based on user desire.
And once I actually throw up a version of the URule sheet (approx 13 hours from now), any bugs are actual bugs.
The rulership modifiers in URule seem to be bugged even for the regular rules; by way of example, I plugged a character into the Magister slot who's got a 21 Intelligence and +14 Knowledge (Arcana) and the modifier comes out -2.
O.o
Ooookaaaaaay......
I have an idea where that's come from, so I'll fix it ASAP.
I dont have Urule so I am just concerned with the Pathfinder rules for now. I might pick it up later however.
I dont have Urule so I am just concerned with the Pathfinder rules for now. I might pick it up later however.
I strongly recommend it, as it adds some really nice options to flesh out the kingdom rules (I'm a huge fan of espionage edicts, for example).
Having established that you're using the core rules, though, you want Version 5.3d. This version includes all of the optional rules (most of them optionally, but a few are hard-coded, mostly those to do with buildings), except the ones that are purely administrative (for example, exploration edicts cost BP but otherwise do not modify your kingdom stats at all, so I've left those out). I still need to add embassy buildings to the Diplomacy tab, though.
As mentioned before, I've killed all of the bugs I'm aware of except a small error in magic items: two buildings which should be adding wondrous items are instead adding any type of item. If you find any bugs (or spot anything you think is a bug), please let me know. I'm happy to have bug reports in this thread, by PM, or by email.
Have fun!
ok.. I will check the 3pp book out later on. I did run Kingmaker, but I still wanted better rules.
Working as fast as I can, but just hit a formatting error on the city sheets that I want to fix...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aaaand done.
Ultimate Campaign v5.3e.
Bugfix to correct magic items in a couple of buildings.
And the long-awaited Ultimate Rulership update (v5.4)
This is a work in progress and may take some time for all of the rules from the book to be fully implemented. Right now it includes Buildings (some special abilities are not functioning - specifically the "-yard" modifiers), the amended Taxation, Holiday, and Expansion (formerly Promotion) edicts, and all of the titles included in Ultimate Rulership (with respect to the Asian titles - I am not in any way shape or form an expert in linguistics, and had to assume that the masculine and feminine forms of pretty much all of the Asian honorifics are identical, so I will happily take corrections from anyone who knows better).
Thank you all for your patience.
Everyone keeps telling me that Open Office and Microsoft Office were cross-compatible. I'm happy to see that you don't believe it either, Chemlak.
Actually, they largely are. However one case which struck on this sheet (and I haven't yet gotten around to completely eradicating, which is partly why when you open the OO version you get a link pop-up asking if you want to update) is that of Excel array name definition, which OO can't handle.
Simply put, in Excel you can highlight a selection of cells, and give it a name (for example, when I first put the Rulers tab in, I defined the cells B3:B53 as "Characters"). Then, whenever you want to reference that specific block of cells, you just put (to use the same example) 'Characters' (without the quotes) in the formula. Saves a heck of a lot of $B$3:$B$53 in various places.
Unfortunately Microsoft have a proprietary interest in that particular shortcut, which means that none of the open-source spreadsheet apps are allowed to use it.
So I spent an age trawling through the sheets stripping out those definitions everywhere I could find them. There are still a few buried in there somewhere that refer to older versions of the sheet on my hard drive (which no longer exist on the drive), but the sheet doesn't actually use them, they're just still defined.
The end result is that the Excel version opens perfectly fine in Open Office, and (as far as I know) works perfectly fine, too.
However, since a problem could accidentally slip through the net as a result of those (unused) named arrays, and since it's pretty trivial for me to maintain both versions, I continue to keep both going, side-by-side, to simplify error correction in the future, if nothing else.
Been working with office programs for as long as they have been around. I have never once been able to open a Microsoft Office document in Open Office or vice versa without there being major changes to the form and function of the document.
|
I've run into a display error on the City Summary sheet. So far I've built 4 Houses, an Inn, a Shop, a Smithy, and a Tavern. On the City Summary sheet it shows a Temple on the Major Buildings line. I've calculated the bonuses for the 4 buildings I've built and they are showing up correctly (i.e. it's not calculating the bonus for the Temple) it just seems to be showing up erroneously.
Ooh, fun. The City Summary sheet is one of my least favourites (particularly the Major Buildings part) due to the bizarre shenanigans going on behind the scenes to make it work.
However, as far as I know, it should be displaying the top 5 most expensive buildings you've purchased (ahem: not counting those from URule, oops). I'll give it a look. It's probably searching in the wrong cells for buildings.
Just to add to the aggravation, since I'm running an online campaign, I've posted the spreadsheet to Google Drive where it's opened with Google Sheets. I have absolutely no idea what that may do to the code. ^.^
The biggest problem that may have resulted from this is that I'm not so far able to properly copy images from the Buildings tab to the city map tabs. I've tried getting around this by also opening the spreadsheet with Excel on my computer and importing images from that to the city map tab on Google Drive, but Google Sheets doesn't seem to have a bring to front/send to back function, so I can't get the buildings to stop hiding behind the map sheets. I kinda doubt there's anything to be done about that; fortunately I'd previously been planning to put city sheets up on the campaign's Roll20 page, so the visuals can be handled there instead.
We've taken a couple of kingdom turns so far and the group's mostly happy with your work, I'm glad to say. :) One thing that has come up, in addition to the same weird building thing that Marik notes, is that population calculations are off somehow -- the sheet thinks our village-size capital city is a Small Town, and I can't figure out how to adjust that.
I'm afraid I can't help on the Google Drive issues, but as far as the calculations go, it should work fine (since the only thing that would break it is the issue I was discussing with Ravingdork).
Correcting the settlement types to match those from URule is actually next on my list of updates (after bug fixes), so you shouldn't have to wait too long for your village to actually be a village. It's a bit mixed in with the modified population, though, so it might be more complex than I'm currently anticipating (aren't they always?).
@Ascalaphus:
Actually, they largely are. However one case which struck on this sheet (and I haven't yet gotten around to completely eradicating, which is partly why when you open the OO version you get a link pop-up asking if you want to update) is that of Excel array name definition, which OO can't handle.
Simply put, in Excel you can highlight a selection of cells, and give it a name (for example, when I first put the Rulers tab in, I defined the cells B3:B53 as "Characters"). Then, whenever you want to reference that specific block of cells, you just put (to use the same example) 'Characters' (without the quotes) in the formula. Saves a heck of a lot of $B$3:$B$53 in various places.
Unfortunately Microsoft have a proprietary interest in that particular shortcut, which means that none of the open-source spreadsheet apps are allowed to use it.
So I spent an age trawling through the sheets stripping out those definitions everywhere I could find them. There are still a few buried in there somewhere that refer to older versions of the sheet on my hard drive (which no longer exist on the drive), but the sheet doesn't actually use them, they're just still defined.
The end result is that the Excel version opens perfectly fine in Open Office, and (as far as I know) works perfectly fine, too.
However, since a problem could accidentally slip through the net as a result of those (unused) named arrays, and since it's pretty trivial for me to maintain both versions, I continue to keep both going, side-by-side, to simplify error correction in the future, if nothing else.
Ascalaphus: I'm vaguely aware of the difference between Open Office and Libre Office, but DM Sothal is essentially correct: any open source spreadsheet app should be able to open the Excel version of the file without error (exception: you may get a pop-up about data links to external files. Just say "yes" or "ok", or whatever positive response the pop-up asks for. I promise I'll clear them out when I'm bored for a few hours at some point, but they have no active role in the sheet).
My belief that this is the case stems from a fairly simple reason: it works for me.
I have Excel 2007 and a recent (note to self: update OO) version of Open Office on my machine. I do all of my work on the sheet in Excel. When I've finished, I save the Excel version over the top of the previous one in Drop Box. I then open up Open Office and load that saved Excel file, tell it to open a copy because the original is still open in Excel, and save the Open Office as a .ods over the existing Open Office version.
Since I started doing this there has been precisely one Open Office specific bug that I can't seem to crack: the army sheets don't like fractional CR entries (hence the Instructions tab providing the decimal numbers to use).
I also have a couple of friends who use Libre Office who open the Excel version without apparent fault (one of whom is one of my players).
At this stage, I consider the OO version to be little more than a nice gesture to help people who don't trust file conversions, and as an added layer of error detection for me, since if I suddenly start getting OO bug reports, it means I screwed something up in an Excel update by failing to ensure compatibility.
So far, I'm not getting those reports at all.
TL;DR Use the Excel version. It should be fine. If it's not, I want to know.
A problem of preferences I'm having: I'd like the settlement government modifiers to be adjustable by settlement, rather than having the kingdom's government type rule them all. That seems to be the intent of the settlement rules, and allows for variance within the nation.
I'm perfectly willing to exercise the notion, but I'm not seeing anything in any of the rules, UCam or URule that indicate that government modifiers apply to anything but the Kingdom as a whole.
Ah, I see the problem -- the rules appear to have been changed between Gamemastery Guide (which, per page 206, presents the settlement government modifiers as stemming from individual settlements' governments and specifically not from kingdoms) and UCam (which presents them as stemming from the kingdom's overarching governing body). I hadn't noticed the UCam changes.
You make a fair point, though, and I think it's worth addressing. Here's my take on it:
The rules for settlements in the GameMastery guide are presented to cover a broad selection of options without the need to concern yourself with larger political entities: if you want Town A to be run by a guild, it's run by a guild, end of story.
However the kingdom rules from UCam are designed to be an abstraction to enable relatively speedy resolution of kingdom-scale events, without getting down to the level of individual settlements in the kingdom beyond how those settlements affect the kingdom.
Using my favourite analogy of a kingdom as a character, buildings as gear, rulers as stats, giving settlements their own government is tantamount to giving individual stats to a character's arms - you could do it, but it clutters things up more than most people will want, and can't help but slow down play.
Further, as a general rule, the structure of government in a given societal construct tends to mirror that of the largest controlling government organisation: in a feudal society, the king is the overall ruler, the dukes are like the kings of their duchies, the earls like the kings of their earldoms, and so on. In a representative democracy, the elected government are the rulers, the state/county council are like the elected government, the city/town council are like the elected government. So a kingdom run by guilds will tend to have their cities managed by guilds. The net result being that Rulership is fractal: it's hard to identify the scale you're actually looking at, because the Rulership looks similar at all scales.
I do think that it would be an interesting exercise to have a kingdom with settlements of differing governmental types, but that is beyond the scope of the abstracted rules presented.
Well said. And if I feel the need to override it, I can just slap appropriate bonuses into the individual city tabs...
See, I knew there was a good reason I included user-defined modifiers to the settlement statistics...
Update:
URule 5.4a
Philip Knowsley has been an absolute star and done a sterling job modding the Alchemist's Lab image into a Windmill for everyone to use - I think it's fantastic.
Also fixed the City Summary bug.
Slow going recently whilst my wife's had tonsillitis, but she's all better now, so I should be in the mood to get more of a crack on with the next phase of rules and improvements.
Also fixed the City Summary bug.
Our capital's actual contents: 1 Shop, 1 Inn, 1 House.
Reported major buildings: 1 Jail. ^.^
Oh, fudge.
That means the problem's not in the place I thought it was (and fixed, there was definitely a problem there).
Unfortunately, it also means the problem's on all 25 city sheets. Damnit.
Okay, fixable, I believe. And I can finish the URule buildings while I'm at it. Joy of joys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm afraid the next update isn't quite ready yet: I've gone a bit cross-eyed staring at spreadsheets today, so rather than risk a mistake, I've called it a night.
However, to tease you all...
Full URule hex population calculations, including a terrain/improvements matrix to supplement the existing modifiers table on the Kingdom tab, and the ability to define base population levels for terrain types, as well as colour-coded error checking so you don't put too many farms in the matrix.
Settlement types now calculate using URule, and the minimum base value figures will follow the URule guidance: no longer will your villages have zero base value.
Full URule settlement population calculations.
Fixed that blasted Major Buildings bug, and have included the new URule building types in the table.
Sweet! Very much looking forward to it. :)
Once I've done the usual city copy/paste dance and fixed up any formatting errors, I'll post the latest sheet.
I'm also aware that I want to do a few tweaks to the UCam sheet, too (all background and formatting stuff).
I'm then going to take a bit of time off (just a few days) before I tackle magical improvements, natural advantages, and exotic settlements.
That'll be nice. My players just annexed Sootscale Caverns, so they have a cavern city/smallfolk settlement to deal with... :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Phew.
Update!
Version 5.4b (Ultimate Rulership)
Updates as mentioned above, and I learned a few tricks, too, which I'm looking forward to using in the future. I think I've managed to correct all the bugs I spotted in my test run.
Due to the MASSIVE population changes that occur as a result of using URule, I've kept a (possibly damaged, I had to do a recovery exercise) copy of 5.4a, just in case anyone comes back to me wanting it.
Enjoy, and if you spot any bugs, please let me know!
Well, the good news is that the population figures appear to be accurate to URule, and in the city summary tab the capital is now properly showing its major buildings as Inn, Shop, and the newly added Brickyard.
The bad news is that Sootscale Caverns in city tab 2, which has only a House, shows up in city summary as having an Orphanage, a Smithy, and a Tannery, as well as a lot of magic item slots... as do all the empty city summaries. (Also, unlike the capital which now properly reads as a town, its "village" status isn't showing up at all in the summary.)
Slightly off topic, but Other than the Inner Sea World Guide Campaign Setting, is there any good source books detailing the country of Galt?
Or is Paizo planning to create a Player Companion or Campaign Setting source book for this region any time soon?
Well, the good news is that the population figures appear to be accurate to URule, and in the city summary tab the capital is now properly showing its major buildings as Inn, Shop, and the newly added Brickyard.
The bad news is that Sootscale Caverns in city tab 2, which has only a House, shows up in city summary as having an Orphanage, a Smithy, and a Tannery, as well as a lot of magic item slots... as do all the empty city summaries. (Also, unlike the capital which now properly reads as a town, its "village" status isn't showing up at all in the summary.)
Good news: yay!
Bad news: Grrrrrrrrrrrr.
Told you I hate the City Summary.
Can't fix it today, but I'm going to tackle it again as soon as I can.
Well, it is a purely cosmetic issue as far as I can tell -- the misinformation isn't borking up any numbers and can easily be cross-checked against the city pages proper. So I'd call it low priority.
It's definitely purely cosmetic: the issue stems from how the sheet prioritises buildings and the formulae in the City Summary sheet that pulls that info from each city sheet. Hazarding a guess, the indexing going on is "finding" some buildings that aren't there, and telling cities 2-25 that they're there, and thus they're popping up in the city summary. Since it's affecting all of the cities after the first, that tells me the problem lies in the city sheets themselves. Easy enough to fix, just a find and replace, just frustrating that it happened at all.
On the plus side, one of the tricks I learned yesterday means that this type of problem will soon be a thing of the past: all of the city sheets will function the same.
The latest version of the Excel document keeps crashing on me. Any troubleshooting tips that I can use to fix this, because from what I've seen this is an AWESOME spreadsheet you've made, Chemlak and co.
Quick update: found another 50 or so incorrect cell pointers. Oops. Will correct as soon as possible.
And no idea why it's crashing, Alexander. Are you getting any error messages, or does it just stop responding?
Bugfix Update!
Version 5.4c.
I think I've finally licked that City Summary bug. I hope. And some other significant bugs showed up, too, which were throwing off settlement statistics by quite a large margin, and probably messing up Magic Items, too. Oh, and undocumented bugfix: Infamy and Fame weren't calculating properly for settlements. Undocumented because I fixed that one whilst my players were coming up with a plan.
Looks good! No more erroneous buildings or item slots. Thanks!
...but Sootscale Caverns is still not showing its settlement size type in the Summary.
Going forward, do you have any plans to replace the UCam army sheets with UCom (or, when Mr. Nelson finally gets around to it, UWar) versions?
EDIT: The only numerical change I've noticed is that the kingdom's Income has increased from 8 to 11. I assume that's due to the settlement statistic fixes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strange about the settlement types, but I can probably sort that pretty quickly.
Just to help people figure out the differences: if you have a building on line 32 or 44 of the city sheet, you can expect some drastic changes. If you don't, there's something else wrong.
Yes, I fully intend to update to Ultimate Battle and Ultimate War, but I'm going to do the books in order.
And a call for help: Alexander Augunas' problem (mentioned above) is an error cropping up with v5.4+ using Excel for a Mac. A bit of research suggests that there's a memory allocation glitch that most commonly occurs using VBA scripts in a sheet (of which there are none that I'm aware of), but none of the standard repairs do anything, and v5.3 works fine for him.
Not being a Mac user, troubleshooting is well-nigh impossible for me, so I could really do with some help.
I do have a few ideas I can still try, but there's no guarantees I'll come up with a solution.
So, if anyone can offer help or insight, please let me and Alexander know.
Thanks.
Edit: the most drastic step I can take is to incrementally re-write version 5.4, sending a copy to Alexander to test each time. I'd rather avoid it, but if I have to, I will.
Edit of edit: but I bet it's those building images...
