First of all: You got my very respect for this big mod with its different pieces.

I like your idea of simulating a transfer of food between the provinces via the food-market very much. It's great, because it brings in some kind of inner-faction trade route system.
I tested some more and found out following things:
- the error seems to occur on every building, where in the effect_scope slider "provincial_to_provincial_own_adjacent" and "provincial_to_provincial_own_adjacent_food" is chosen,
- what means, that for example also the farms are effected (they just produce their ground value for the region, but no multiplier of the fertility that would be granted to the neighboring provinces).

This seems to be some bug in the programming by the developers, but that's just some assumption, because I do not understand much of this. All I am able to do is testing and figuring out, what's happening while changing certain values.

A solution would be to lower the general food production of the markets/farms but than - instead of "provincial_to_provincial_own_adjacent_food" - use the "province_to_regions_own_in_adjacent_province" like it's set for the sanitation biuldings; this works fine, just tested it.
(So the food production of farms and markets would have to be about 1/3 of it's actual value, because the effect would be granted to every region in a nearby province and not only to the province itself).

One other thing to do would be to lower the food production value of the salt mines, and maybe also add an adjacent-effect to them (at least while playing the danes in AoC: While most of my provinces lack food at around -30 (what results in low public order and income in this provinces) I got an overall food production of 310 just because I own 3 salt mines).

Thanks Tom for the great feedback!

I agree, there are many of these conditions that seem to be a bit on the trial and error side. Many only work for certain stuff too. It can be a bit aggravating when you are trying to get it to do something you want it to do.

I like your idea, but I am trying to think if it is actually useful? Food is considered a province function already. All food made or collected goes to the province. It maybe better to just have it provide a base food income.

I do agree with the salt, and there are others that are OP..it was more of an experiment at the time to see if the Romans would quit starving themselves. I think there are other issues I need to fix with the regional crisis management system first.

Hi Xeryx, I use your collection of XAI mods for attila. I've noticed an issue with some of the buildings within the game.

Now, I play as the Garamantians, and the issue i've noticed is with the building's named Food Trader [attila-enc.totalwar.com] and Food Market [attila-enc.totalwar.com]. You're able to access them once a Plaza [attila-enc.totalwar.com] is built within an empty province slot and upgraded to a Bazaar [attila-enc.totalwar.com]. In addition, the necessary research has to been made before you can construct these buildings. I believe the order is: Plaza(lvl I) > Bazaar(lvl II) > Food Trader(lvl III) > Food Market(lvl IV).
The food trader/market, which are suppose to benefit from better food stats, lack the proper balance compared to similar buildings stats.
For example, the Spice Market[attila-enc.totalwar.com] & Oriental Market[attila-enc.totalwar.com] stats are meant more for income/wealth gain, than any other stat. If you compare these two building's with the food trader/market, you will understand why I said their imbalanced.
(I mean really? they deal with food.. how can they not have/benefit from better food stats.)

It would be very much appreciated if you could fix the food stats of the Food Trader , and Food Market buildings when you have a chance. I ask because, I still actively play Attila and this issue is hurting my game. I mean that in terms of my experience with both wanting to use the building, and the a.i. actually using it. Although, I know not to build the food trader/market; because the uselessness & imbalance in its current state; the a.i. waste a building slot on it. That's becaise their scripted to utilize the building's stats, which are suppose, to provide them with decent food stats which boost their growth, and survival. however, it does nothing beneficial for the a.i. or player.

Please Xeryx, solve this issue when you have the free time.
Again, it will be very much appreciated.

Below, are screenshots of the buildings, in question, to give you a better comparison
and understanding of their imbalanced stats.

https://steamhost.cn/steamcommunity_com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1302393364
https://steamhost.cn/steamcommunity_com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1302393406
https://steamhost.cn/steamcommunity_com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1302393446
https://steamhost.cn/steamcommunity_com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1302393478

I am on Vacationin China, I will be back Next month.

ohh ok than. see you when you get back

I don't know if this is the mod that causes the problem, but in my Ostrogoths campaign I have many unexplainable income reductions ever since the beginning of the campaign. I couldn't find the reason so far, there are no hordes, no raiding, no enemy agents... The only mods I use are your XAI collection and an improved unit stat tab.

Screenshot

Enemy agents are harder to see, there is less money than vanilla. But there should definitely be hordes.

I've been having these reductions the entire game in all my provinces. I might try to start a new campaign to see whether they will occur again.

And thank you for replying to my posts!

Update: New game as Sassanid Empire

Update: the Advanced Campaign AI causes it. I will post any further observations in the related topic.

Good troubleshooting there, again II am sorry for any inconvienance. I am pretty busy right now startiing a business. I will make note of this though and get to it when I can.

Ostrogoths City tier 3 has much higher wealth suprlus (subsistence - maintenance) of 350 compared to all other tiers:
Tier 1: +150
Tier 2: +100
Tier 3: +350 (!)
Tier 4: 0.
I suppose it wasn't intended.

It's likely is a typo in maintenance cost, it is -150 and should be -450.

probaby a typo