Print

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

[TD1]

You could have a greater demon ruling over lesser demons who each rule a goblin civ.

It is terrifying.

[Button]

In previous versions, goblins tended to sabotage themselves by murdering their leaders in their sleep. It seems like Toady really cut back on that in this version, especially when the would-be victim is a demon.

So yeah, I think there needs to be another balance iteration on goblins.

[Slackratchet]

You could have a greater demon ruling over lesser demons who each rule a goblin civ.

It is terrifying.

I think that is thematic and amazing but should be not common. Finding a world where that happened would explain Goblins destroying everything and I would love to see that now and then. Though to me one demon with a Goblin army Vs another demon lead Goblin army sounds fitting and makes for some awesome 'caught in the middle' history for the other races.

In previous versions, goblins tended to sabotage themselves by murdering their leaders in their sleep. It seems like Toady really cut back on that in this version, especially when the would-be victim is a demon.

So yeah, I think there needs to be another balance iteration on goblins.

I was unaware of that. Seeing a version of that come back would be cool.

[TD1]

Thing is, you could have one demon-led goblin army versus another demon-led goblin army, then the winner would make the enemy an underling and take control of his army. Then, if there was another army, two goblin armies under one standard would win, take the other goblin army over...etc.

[Slackratchet]

I think that sounds too harmonious for Goblins, wouldn't they decimate the other army before they got to their leader?

[Graknorke]

I imagine one thing that would sort this sort of thing out would be using the leadership skill, as well as some personality traits as well, to partially determine how effective armies and sites are. That would allow for there to be such a thing as strong and weak rulers, generals, and so on. And since goblins seem to have surprisingly short leadership periods (due to murders and the like) it would give them a bit of a disadvantage.

[Slackratchet]

I imagine one thing that would sort this sort of thing out would be using the leadership skill, as well as some personality traits as well, to partially determine how effective armies and sites are. That would allow for there to be such a thing as strong and weak rulers, generals, and so on. And since goblins seem to have surprisingly short leadership periods (due to murders and the like) it would give them a bit of a disadvantage.

That's a good idea. I like that one a lot.

[pisskop]

Im actually fond of the age system we have now.  Setting their maxage to something like 200:1000 would let them live at least 200 and up to 1000 years.  A bit far out, but its not hard to get creatures with incredibly long lives that can fall over at any minute.

Now I have to find a reason to make a 1:10000 creature.

[BenLubar]

Now I have to find a reason to make a 1:10000 creature.

In order to get that creature to die, you would have to play in fortress mode continuously without pausing for anywhere from 1 hour to a few weeks more than a year.

[Lewa263]

From the worlds that I've generated in 0.40, it seems like the goblin civs whose demon masters die early tend to fare worse and not dominate the world. They're still immortal and have absurd overpopulation, but things like Dark Kobold Pits happen without a demon to whip them into shape. Maybe I'm only seeing patterns where none exist, though.

[sambojin]

I tend to like Toady's way of handling it, with the current gobbos as just a placeholder. Between starvation, constant warring and some border constraints, it should hold pop size in check slightly for now. Or at least the places where the huge pop blobs can be found. It's kind of nice to have a place where you really have to try hard to genocide a people.

I'm hoping that the caravan arc will put the goblin's focus on snatchers and slaves. With the snatched/slaves being the only ones that can do "drudge work" (ie: providing all the food and labour that the civ needs to survive) and goblins being only 1/4-1/8 as good at basic labours.

It would still allow goblin centric societies to exist, with huge requirements of goblins to keep a few nobles and military elite going. But more "successful" civs, with heaps of snatched/slaves, are the only ones that can really get the goblin warmachine running (heaps more free goblins to be militarized, fed and armoured by their slaves). Non-slave gob civilizations may have more goblins (less war to kill them all off), but a slave-keeping civ would be terrifying in war (but with high attrition due to it's constant fighting of them).

It'd make it a definitely evil civilization, but with limits and an archetype for different styles of it. Between resources available and the ease of their use (needing four times as many people just to feed your military and themselves is huge) we could end up with a plethora of different goblin "styles", but still tied firmly into the gameworld and it's mechanics.

This could be done with skill caps, a basic output divider for basic labours, or a tag such as [DOESNOTWORK]. Maybe people enslaved could also get a tag [DOESNOTFIGHT], so that they're skill capped or poor at it, giving a huge difference in abilities between goblins and those that work for them.

[Blastbeard]

You could have a greater demon ruling over lesser demons who each rule a goblin civ.

It is terrifying.

Why is that not a thing yet!?