[mod] Phaze's Futanari Mod

[Darsel]

Finally got around to doing another run in the game, and decided to run this alongside the campaign - I really like what you've done with this mod so far. The flavor and vibe of taking in a troublesome 'outcast' enclave is really nicely done.

 

 

Random thoughts/suggestions/observations:

1.) Have you considered making the gold cost of phase 3(?)'s ultimatum scale with liege title? (ex. 50g for count, 100g for duke, 200g for king, 500g for emperor.) Doing a single county start lead into some pretty jarring gameplay(specifically development stalling/debt) issues. I had to do a LOT of, excessive, raiding and ransoming just to stay out of debt as a fledgling duchy with that 200g bribe looming overhead every couple years. It lead to a situation where I wasn't really able to invest in the lands that I did hold - paying the merchant during that phase to try to speed it up wasn't even a viable consideration. This is just my opinion, but I do think there is room for the situation to be.. encumbering.. without it having to be the SOLE focus of the realm's development.

 

2.) On the subject of the merchant.. Purchasable trinkets? Maybe some "outfits"/armor that don't improve your military, but provide 'social' benefits/tradeoffs?

 

3.) As the enclave becomes further entrenched, have you considered a 'coming of age' tradition/festival/rite of passage where new adults are 'broken in'/indoctrinated by the futas( with a minor permanent positive modifier as a result/reward)? (on_adulthood was the scripted event trigger in ck2; I presume it's the same for ck3, but you might want to double-check.) Perhaps the enclave could Wedding-Crash at lower integration phases, potentially creating unwanted bastards and/or lover relations?

 

4.) On a quasi-related tangent, have you considered tie-ins to the Witch trait and their gatherings(particularly if a witch coven is founded)? Those gatherings usually involve hedonistic indulgence - the bounty of futanari sexuality would surely be considered a worshipful feast at such meetups. (I suppose this idea could potentially tie into the horse-stuff of your Milfy mod as well.)

 

 

Anyways, those are my thoughts/ideas so far on the gameplay side of things for this mod. Love the work; proud of you for working past the hard-coded limitations!

[Phaze Star]

26 minutes ago, Darsel said:

single county start

Funny thing is I almost always start as a custom single county tribal ruler. I may find it easier sinice I know everyhting about the mod, but I didn't want it to be too easy.

 

27 minutes ago, Darsel said:

Purchasable trinkets? Maybe some "outfits"/armor

Still trying to figure out artefacts code-wise at them moment, but yes this is a good idea

 

29 minutes ago, Darsel said:

Wedding-Crash at lower integration phases

Coming of age, Weddings and other vanilla activities are still complicated for me. Aside from just trying to understand them, compatability would also be a consern. Good ideas, not sure if I am currently able to do them.

 

31 minutes ago, Darsel said:

tie-ins to the Witch trait

In a similar vein, I am not familiar with the workings of witch coverns at them moment.

[Darsel]

Quote

Funny thing is I almost always start as a custom single county tribal ruler. I may find it easier sinice I know everyhting about the mod, but I didn't want it to be too easy.

That's fair, and while the 200g cost is 'doable', I guess the point was moreso that it just felt a bit "too" stifling for that particular campaign. I guess the added context is that it was a cultural assimilation run, so expansion was mitigated by cultural acceptance for hybridization. (Taking in the futa outcasts did feel really nice from a roleplaying perspective, as my ruler was a foreigner themself trying to create a new culture in the region.) It felt like I didn't have room to build up holdings and organize feasts/hunts while also managing that particular ultimatum. The earlier phases were inconvenient as a ruler, but didn't grind everything to a halt like that particular phase did. (I'm not saying you have to change it - it's YOUR mod, just offering subjective feedback. )

 

 

2 hours ago, Phaze Star said:

Coming of age, Weddings and other vanilla activities are still complicated for me. Aside from just trying to understand them, compatability would also be a consern. Good ideas, not sure if I am currently able to do them.

on_action/Scripted Effect intercepts are actually fairly independent things that just happen in addition to everything else that happens when they normally fire. It's pretty hard to create an actual conflict with them unless you have one messing with the exact same variables as some other mod(which wouldn't explicitly be your fault). 

 

For example, here's a snippet from one of my CK2 submods (../common/on_actions/):

on_birth = {								# Fires for every character when born
	events = {
		WPOA_Core.510							# Check if Futa
		WPOA_Core.520							# Check for True_Dynasty
	}
}

on_adulthood = {							# Fires for every character upon reaching adulthood
	events = {
		WPOA_Core.511							# Futa may become Lustful
	}
}

on_divorce = {								# Fires when a character is divorced from their spouse
	events = {
		WPOA_Core.521							# Cleanup True_Dynasty cflag
	}
}

While those intercepts fire silent events, you can obviously fire shown events as well. They will happen in addition to(immediately after) anything that would normally happen. The main thing of meticulous note will be having logic within the 'landing' event to check if the person is in a realm with the enclave/if they qualify before firing off the naughty stuff. I confess I don't know how you track enclave ownership and progression, but you'd use those same trackers for such checks - you'll probably use them to limit the scope of the event itself, depending on how you have it set up.

 

Spoiler

(If curious, the True_Dynasty character flag was a system I used to assign proper dynasty inheritance in same-sex marriages because the game would get confused. The above logic allowed WPOA_Core.520 to immediately fix dynasty after the child was born/the game tried to assign whatever it mistakenly 'thought' it should be. The character flag was assigned during the marriage decision to the person who was the supposed to pass down their dynasty. Then, the on_birth would check the parents for that cflag when they were born through the above Scripted Effect and pass on the dynasty of the character holding the True_Dynasty cflag. To avoid potential unwanted edge-cases, the cflag also needed intercepts with on_divorce, on_death, etc. to remove it in those situations as needed. Sadly, this whole system doesn't work in ck3 due to the hard coding they added around same-sex marriage.. instead of actually just fixing it like this obvious solution.. I digress.)

 

[Phaze Star]

I see what you mean. I could probably make some things based off those triggers for lower Enclave Relations. Nice to see that I did a good enough job for the Enclave Experiance to feel immersive

[Finisher]

Spoiler

17 hours ago, Kylles said:

I would like to suggest some (many) changes for the balance of MAAs (Milf and futa).

I revised what I used myself to get rid of bias (like making futa units op) and tried to make all unit close to vanilla Cultural MAAs power.
Any and all criticism is welcome as this is nowhere near perfect as I have (only) 250h in the game.

Some very little changes are not listed in the notes, feel free to compare with the original mod files.

Suggested MAA balance changes for PhazeStar's mods - ChangeNotes.txt 4.03 kB · 1 download 00_futa_maa_types.txt 3.91 kB · 1 download 00_milfy_maa_types.txt 6.59 kB · 1 download

 

So, I have been helping with the last couple of updates, and since I made the Saboteurs and the Realm Guard, I thought I should chime in regarding these MAA at least. I do appreciate any feedback though.

 

The reason why the Saboteurs (and the Cult Bait) have low numbers with low stack size numbers is they are basically supposed to be siege units, and they just have an added bonus of being able to fight in battles as well. The Saboteurs are a better Trebuchet (Tier 3 Siege), as they share the same siege tier and they have higher troop number per stack (which increases how fast sieges are done) and more siege value. The reason I added them was the Bait get outclassed as soon you unlock Tier 2 siege weapons and that just felt wrong.

 

Their stats can still be increased, of course. However, increasing the stack size just makes sieges way too fast, as the siege value is added per unit. That is the reason why base game siege weapons have 10 units per stack size. There are also way more things that buff skirmisher sizes, compared to siege weapons at least. I am not sure if anything that buffs siege value like the mines also buff their siege values though.

 

Nothing to say regarding the Realm Guard. I haven't had the chance to properly use them during a normal game yet. I don't have a clear idea of how strong they are.

 

I do appreciate the feedback as I've said.

[Kylles]

3 hours ago, Finisher said:

The reason why the Saboteurs (and the Cult Bait) have low numbers with low stack size numbers is they are basically supposed to be siege units, and they just have an added bonus of being able to fight in battles as well. The Saboteurs are a better Trebuchet (Tier 3 Siege), as they share the same siege tier and they have higher troop number per stack (which increases how fast sieges are done) and more siege value. The reason I added them was the Bait get outclassed as soon you unlock Tier 2 siege weapons and that just felt wrong.

 

Their stats can still be increased, of course. However, increasing the stack size just makes sieges way too fast, as the siege value is added per unit. That is the reason why base game siege weapons have 10 units per stack size. There are also way more things that buff skirmisher sizes, compared to siege weapons at least. I am not sure if anything that buffs siege value like the mines also buff their siege values though.

After reading your post I wasn't certain how all this siege value math works, so I did the logical thing and tested it.

 

I changed the stack size, the siege value, the siege tier (to see if it had an "overkill" impact), the unit type (to siege weapon), I stationed and un-stationed it, changed it's fight stats (damage impact maybe ?), terrain bonuses... all for around 3 hours of editing the file and re-launching the game over and over.

Turns out the siege value is a linked to the stack number and not to the stack size. 
It means a Futa cult saboteurs regiment will always give 0.5 not matter how large a single stack is. Nothing else has an impact on the siege power other that the current number of stacks sieging the castle. It is impacted by the losses however, if the stack size is 100 and you lost 20 in combat, the actual "stack number" sieging is 0.8 (80/100), even if you bought 3 stacks in your regiment (for 300 total) if you have 80 on the castle, it still counts for 0.8 stacks, thus giving you 0.4 siege power.

 

This is of course multiplied by all sources of siege efficiency, such as Warlord Education (5 star gives +50%), perks (one in the first martial tree gives +40%) and stationed holding (tier 1 castle give +5%, unique mines buildings can give +20% etc...) 

tl;dr : the siege power in the file is distributed to the whole stack and not given to each unit

For example, with 0.5 siege value and a stack size of 15, each unit has 0.0333... siege power. With 42 of them at the wall and a total of +95% siege efficiency you have a total of (0.033...*42)*(1+0.95) = 2.73 siege power from Saboteurs only. Resulting in a total of 3.73 with the base 1 siege power. It is further multiplied by siege events like Spreading sickness that give +10% resulting in (3.73*1.1) = 4.103 siege progress per day
The game will show 4.1 tho, it gives only 1 digit.

CONCLUSION : You can actually get crazy with the Futa Cult Baits and Saboteurs ! You CAN make them stacks of 30, 50, 100 or even 500, the siege will not go faster !

[Bloodly]

...I saw the request for Free Use event.  I immediately have issue with it.  Can we get a Challenge to persuade them what the issue is?("Let's turn the rule around...would you still accept that?  Consent matters.")

[Phaze Star]

11 minutes ago, Kylles said:

the siege power in the file is distributed to the whole stack and not given to each unit

Very interesting. When I made Futa Bait with low stats though, it was because I just wanted them to be seige weapons with a little more utility. The idea was not to make them the backbone of your military.

[Phaze Star]

1 minute ago, Bloodly said:

...I saw the request for Free Use event.  I immediately have issue with it.  Can we get a Challenge to persuade them what the issue is?("Let's turn the rule around...would you still accept that?  Consent matters.")

I do not force the player to accept those terms if that is what you mean

[Kylles]

Additional last minute Discovery !!!

You can had siege_value as a terrain bonus ! It works !
Probably also works with siege_tier if you want !

Ex : 
terrain_bonus = {
        hills = { siege_value = 100 }
    }

 

Still modified by current stack size, even with +100 siege value, it only adds 80 if you have 0.8 stack sieging.

[Phaze Star]

4 minutes ago, Kylles said:

Additional last minute Discovery !!!

You can had siege_value as a terrain bonus ! It works !
Probably also works with siege_tier if you want !

Ex : 
terrain_bonus = {
        hills = { siege_value = 100 }
    }

 

Still modified by current stack size, even with +100 siege value, it only adds 80 if you have 0.8 stack sieging.

Wow, I thought siege bonus was stand alone!

[Kylles]

16 minutes ago, Phaze Star said:

Very interesting. When I made Futa Bait with low stats though, it was because I just wanted them to be seige weapons with a little more utility. The idea was not to make them the backbone of your military.

Agreed, but as of current (unedited) mod, they are literally useless in combat and you'd be better off if they didn't fight because losses reduce siege power.
Maybe make them weaker than normal skirmishers, but not insignificant.
(currently cult bait contribute to 6*12 = 72 damage (per stack) whereas normal skirms have 10*100 = 1000 damage !)

[Finisher]

1 hour ago, Kylles said:

tl;dr : the siege power in the file is distributed to the whole stack and not given to each unit

Huh. Neat. Nice work. I was under the impression that it was per unit, not per stack. I remember testing that my self as well. That was a long time ago though, so I guess I misremembered. My bad.

 

42 minutes ago, Kylles said:

You can had siege_value as a terrain bonus ! It works !

I was also very surprised when I first found that out. Made some special flat terrain fort buster type of infantry for my personal mod afterwards.

 

Quote

all for around 3 hours of editing the file and re-launching the game over and over.

Also for your future endeavours, If you launch the game in debug mode, any edits to files you make will be updated during the game while it is open. There a few exceptions, but mostly everything will be "hot-loaded" while the game is open.

Edited June 24, 2024 by Finisher

[nehub]

Great mod! Question: my female rules has had dozens of children that are "Futa Fathered," but none of the daughters are Futas themselves. I have Carnalitas with Futanari trait inheritance on, is there some other trigger that's necessary to have a futa daughter?

[Phaze Star]

6 minutes ago, nehub said:

Great mod! Question: my female rules has had dozens of children that are "Futa Fathered," but none of the daughters are Futas themselves. I have Carnalitas with Futanari trait inheritance on, is there some other trigger that's necessary to have a futa daughter?

As you can imagine that whole systems has been a lot of work to set up. I am suspecting that there is a slight issue with passing on the Futa trait if you are just female. When I tested being the Futanari, daughters had a good chance of being Futa themselves. Hard to say for certain.

[nehub]

2 minutes ago, Phaze Star said:

As you can imagine that whole systems has been a lot of work to set up. I am suspecting that there is a slight issue with passing on the Futa trait if you are just female. When I tested being the Futanari, daughters had a good chance of being Futa themselves. Hard to say for certain.

Thanks for the response. I think that's likely; none of the Futa father's traits are being passed on to her futa-fathered children. (She's the futanari knight, and has several positive congenital traits).

[Darsel]

6 hours ago, nehub said:

Thanks for the response. I think that's likely; none of the Futa father's traits are being passed on to her futa-fathered children. (She's the futanari knight, and has several positive congenital traits).

I noticed and suspected that was the case as well. Since Futa-Fathered is a trait, it could be used as a direct check to increase the chance of a daughter getting the futa trait at birth(Futa-Fathered implicitly means atleast one futa was involved in the creation of child, so it's a pretty straightforward and simple conditional). Standard Congenial traits would be harder to handle, as I presume it will be difficult to determine the futa-father on the code side of thing due to hard-coded limitations.

[Phaze Star]

8 minutes ago, Darsel said:

I noticed and suspected that was the case as well. Since Futa-Fathered is a trait, it could be used as a direct check to increase the chance of a daughter getting the futa trait at birth(Futa-Fathered implicitly means atleast one futa was involved in the creation of child, so it's a pretty straightforward and simple conditional). Standard Congenial traits would be harder to handle, as I presume it will be difficult to determine the futa-father on the code side of thing due to hard-coded limitations.

I have some ideas on a fix, but they will dumb down the trait inheritance method. At the same time, if it functions more relaiably that is not nessisarily a bad thing.

[Lyskorie]

Customizable Localization for V9 is out: phaze_futa_custom_loc (V9).rar

Also on GDrive.

 

For a suggestion, I think the mod could do with a few more "gentle" events, for a lack of better words. Quite a few events/event chains have the futas be pretty sexually violent, and I think it could be nice if we could have more that's more gentle and mundance to balance it out.

To piggyback off from another suggestion, I'd love if the futa knightess event can fire for futa rulers as well. Maybe it can be toggled through a game rule.

[Phaze Star]

1 hour ago, Kieva said:

Customizable Localization for V9 is out: phaze_futa_custom_loc (V9).rar

Also on GDrive.

 

For a suggestion, I think the mod could do with a few more "gentle" events, for a lack of better words. Quite a few events/event chains have the futas be pretty sexually violent, and I think it could be nice if we could have more that's more gentle and mundance to balance it out.

To piggyback off from another suggestion, I'd love if the futa knightess event can fire for futa rulers as well. Maybe it can be toggled through a game rule.

If there was high enough demand, I could dedicate an update to "lighter" futa events, but I would need to kniw it is in fact in demand. As for Futa Knightess, her whole event chain is written presumming her liege is not futanari. So I would need to basically create a whole new version of the character / events to allow her to spawn for Futa rulers.

[Darsel]

As I think on it, I personally like that they're a bit pushy. The narrative seems to imply that they're a suppressed and persecuted people; I can see why they would be angry and might not have sufficient.. development time/space.. to practice more benevolent and courteous social conventions.

 

That said, having a branching choice between 'taming' or 'unleashing' their oversexualized tendencies could create an interesting gameplay and storytelling dynamic as they become more settled. Perhaps such a choice would need to be made as part of the final settling/integration phase, or perhaps it's a culmination(cumulative score) of choices made during each phase's progression event('rewarding/negotiating good behavior' vs 'appeasing/encouraging their aggression').

 

As a quick brainstorm:

"Tamed" Path - better (liege) stress relief and county happiness modifier(s).

"Primal" Path - better (liege) dread retention and levy reinforcement(due to rampant breeding).

Edited June 29, 2024 by Darsel

[Phaze Star]

1 hour ago, Darsel said:

create an interesting gameplay and storytelling dynamic

This is a good point. It would suffer a bit in regards to imerssion (Depending on the players perspective) because all the other Futa events would proceed as normal. So in your "tamed" society, a max backed up Futa is still going to rampage, which doesn't feel right. Plus, to some extent there will always be that primal urge as it is core to their identity.

[Saber83]

Another idea is maybe add the lighter content as a generational thing. Since the enclave can be "inherited" by your descendants, If the original ruler's children and grandchildren continue to have good relations with the Futa Enclave, maybe include more gentle events. Kind of like the "All hanging out" event.

[Phaze Star]

1 hour ago, Saber83 said:

Another idea is maybe add the lighter content as a generational thing. Since the enclave can be "inherited" by your descendants, If the original ruler's children and grandchildren continue to have good relations with the Futa Enclave, maybe include more gentle events. Kind of like the "All hanging out" event.

That could be a feature. I think my biggest hang up is it means a lot of the effort / content would no longer be accessible as it is phased out by the lighter stuff.

[Lyskorie]

On 6/29/2024 at 4:42 PM, Darsel said:

As I think on it, I personally like that they're a bit pushy. The narrative seems to imply that they're a suppressed and persecuted people; I can see why they would be angry and might not have sufficient.. development time/space.. to practice more benevolent and courteous social conventions.

 

That said, having a branching choice between 'taming' or 'unleashing' their oversexualized tendencies could create an interesting gameplay and storytelling dynamic as they become more settled. Perhaps such a choice would need to be made as part of the final settling/integration phase, or perhaps it's a culmination(cumulative score) of choices made during each phase's progression event('rewarding/negotiating good behavior' vs 'appeasing/encouraging their aggression').

 

As a quick brainstorm:

"Tamed" Path - better (liege) stress relief and county happiness modifier(s).

"Primal" Path - better (liege) dread retention and levy reinforcement(due to rampant breeding).

That's one way to look at it I suppose. Then again, I don't see how being a suppressed and persecuted people would be a catalyst to be hypersexual, violent and depraved; if anything, those feel more like what those in power would make up to demonise and suppress them. Some sort of optional storyline to attempt to dispel this unfavourable portrayal could be great, I think.

As an aside, I do think the whole conceit of futas being "demonic beasts with no self-control" kind of tunneled it into a specific, not exactly favourable, depiction of futas. That said, if "gentle" (again, for a lack of better word) futa content does come into play, I think tying it to the enclave is a bit limited. The enclave is important but it should by no means the be all and end all of futa diplomacy.