I successfully get the mod on starting menu, but the mod started to crash when loading. So there should be bugs in the files.
I found this in my codes that could be a possible bug:
This is the modifier. I am using SubjectRequirementSetId.
And then when I define requirements, I am using RequirementSetId.
But I read the original files, I found there should be no problem here. For they also use this different tag in the original files.
Can anyone tell me if this is wrong in here?
I found this in my codes that could be a possible bug:
Code:
<Modifiers>
<!--GRIMORE OF ALICE-->
<Row>
<ModifierId>ALCE_FOREST_GOLD</ModifierId>
<ModifierType>MODIFIER_CITY_PLOT_YIELDS_ADJUST_PLOT_YIELD</ModifierType>
<SubjectRequirementSetId>TERRAIN_IS_ALICE_FOREST</SubjectRequirementSetId>
</Row>
<Row>
<ModifierId>ALCE_FOREST_FAITH</ModifierId>
<ModifierType>MODIFIER_CITY_PLOT_YIELDS_ADJUST_PLOT_YIELD</ModifierType>
<SubjectRequirementSetId>TERRAIN_IS_ALICE_FOREST</SubjectRequirementSetId>
</Row>
<!--HANDLING DOLLS-->
<Row>
<ModifierId>ALICE_LUMBER_MILL_PRODUCTION</ModifierId>
<ModifierType>REQUIREMENT_PLOT_IMPROVEMENT_TYPE_MATCHES</ModifierType>
<SubjectRequirementSetId>REQUIRES_PLOT_HAS_LUMBER_MILL_SET</SubjectRequirementSetId>
</Row>
<Row>
<ModifierId>>ALICE_WORKER_EXTRA_TIME</ModifierId>
<ModifierType>MODIFIER_PLAYER_UNITS_ADJUST_BUILDER_CHARGES</ModifierType>
<SubjectRequirementSetId>UNIT_IS_BUILDER</SubjectRequirementSetId>
</Row>
<Row>
<ModifierId>ALICE_WORKER_DISTRICT_ACCELERATION</ModifierId>
<ModifierType>MODIFIER_PLAYER_ADJUST_UNIT_DISTRICT_PERCENT</ModifierType>
</Row>
</Modifiers>
This is the modifier. I am using SubjectRequirementSetId.
And then when I define requirements, I am using RequirementSetId.
Code:
<RequirementSets>
<Row>
<RequirementSetId>TERRAIN_IS_ALICE_FOREST</RequirementSetId>
<RequirementSetType>REQUIREMENTSET_TEST_ALL</RequirementSetType>
</Row>
<Row>
<RequirementSetId>REQUIRES_PLOT_HAS_LUMBER_MILL_SET</RequirementSetId>
<RequirementSetType>REQUIREMENTSET_TEST_ALL</RequirementSetType>
</Row>
</RequirementSets>
But I read the original files, I found there should be no problem here. For they also use this different tag in the original files.
Can anyone tell me if this is wrong in here?