Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Safe-Keeper]

Now that we have burrows, might it not be possible to do a hot-seat multi-player game of sorts where you embark on a fairly large map and just split the dwarf force and their supplies in two, and create two sister fortresses, each ruled by one player? Step-by-step setup:

 • Set embark points to twice the usual amount in the worldgen parameters (yes, you can do this now !). Split it in half an have each player spend his or her share on skill points for the dwarfs and gear. Flip coins or whatever for the fourth dwarf.

 • Upon embarking, divide the supplies and define two burrows, one for each player. Assign one player's dwarf to one burrow, and another player's dwarf to the other.

 • Take turns digging out tunnels, setting up squads, and doing whatever else you need doing as the two fortresses chug along.

 • Handle trade between yourselves and caravans as best you can. Don't think war between the two fortresses is possible, but who knows, might be possible to mark your own dwarves for kill orders (would make noble management far easier !).

The only stumbling block I see is how to keep supplies in the right fortress -- I don't see a way, short of building a wall or something, to get the dwarves to understand that these supplies belong in the northern fortress, while those supplies belong down south. Should work out fine after the early-game, though, as the burrows will keep the dwarfs from running out to get your ally's newly crafted steel swords or whatever.

[twwolfe]

If you embarked on a map split by a river, and had one on each side of the river, you would only have to split the initial supplies, since you could get rid of the bridge once you finished moving stuff

[Emily Murkpaddled]

Another stumbling block I see is that the player who starts will need to take care of the second player's dwarfs until the second player's turn starts. This is maybe a fair trade-off for control of the 4th starting dwarf, though? Flip a coin, and whoever wins gets to decide who will play first -- the starting player needs to take care of all 7 dwarfs at the start, but will retain control of the 4th dwarf as recompense.

On the other hand, having all 7 dwarfs with which to get established (and twice the embark points' worth of supplies) could be seen as an advantage, so maybe the player who goes second should have control of the 4th dwarf? I guess this is probably more fair, as otherwise it would be "first player has 7 dwarfs to build a burrow for 4, while second player has 3 dwarfs to build a burrow for 3."

Unless the second player's turn starts when the first migrant wave comes?

There's a lot of ways to divvy it up, I guess, but it's definitely a cool idea. How easy is it to get self-sustaining burrows, though? It would be a bit cumbersome if one player's burrow started going under and they started stealing supplies from the other, starting a spiral that ends all dwarfs. Or maybe really cool...

[Ottofar]

7-people Free-for-all. Migrants killed on sight.

[Core Xii]

Another stumbling block I see is that the player who starts will need to take care of the second player's dwarfs until the second player's turn starts.

What do you mean? Just pause, player 1 places orders, player 2 places orders, unpause.

[Cheddarius]

This sounds cool, but I don't really see the point. If the two fortresses aren't going to be able to fight each other in any reasonable manner, why have a multiplayer fortress at all? Frankly, I think you could accomplish the same thing with two separate games.

[dwarfguy2]

trade, indirect war, interesting plots, etc.

[Cheddarius]

How exactly would trade and indirect war work?

[dwarfguy2]

indirect war: stuff like magma/water cannons, caving in the area under the other fort, etc.
trade: first player brings up an item on a bridgapult (do those still work?) and asks other player if he wants to trade. then the other player agrees, and puts something he thinks is a fair trade for it on his bridgapult. if both agree, the 'pults are launched.

[Cheddarius]

Hmmm, good point.

[Pjoo]

Ballistas and Catapults too?

[Safe-Keeper]

Yeah, a shooting war with catapults would be one way to handle warfare.

Biggest problem as I see it right now is caravans and invasions.

[Cheddarius]

Yes, you could have restrictions that force that. For example, you could say that a certain area on the first floor would have to be the only place food could ever be (farms have to be there, kitchens, stills, dining rooms too), and say that it could not have any walls in it. Then people would set up tons of ballistas to snipe dwarves from the other fortress.