Print

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

[FantasticDorf]

I enjoy a bit of prison architect and it struck me how the system in which you sell your prison after you've developed it tying into the finances availible from the start for your next immediate prison (start small, snowball larger and be more ambitious) could translate well into DF.

Fundamentally though the games are quite different, there are similarities within the genre with production, housing and defence.

The idea is that by using subsequent menu's used to control and manage hill dwarves (all speculation), you can alter the menu screen's retire button into a "Found New Fortress" button which will retire your current fortress once the re-embarkation process is complete.

- You choose a suitable seven dwarves from your population and provide some wood to create a caravan, also selecting some materials up to a certain capacity to bring with you. Obviously there is a immense benefit here in the capability to be choosy with who you bring.

- Using minted coins of the appropriate currency types, you then directly convert them into embarkation points to pay for things. A very rich starting fortress will be able to create a luxurious new fortress, and the dwarves you bring along can be trained new skills as long as they aren't already very experienced with their current set of skills.

The amount of embark points you can add onto your next fortress is determined by a fraction of your existing fortresses value. So in essence dwarves can snowball in power through player success, and if a fortress fails they can simply fall back onto another fortress by un-retiring it.

This also opens some new possibilites on whether the two fortresses are run by the same or different governments laying claim to the sites such as barons or dukes or want to break away and found a new civilisation with their own dwarven monarch and government system when they are large enough.

[bluephoenix]

EDIT: Did not read entire post so what I said doesn't really apply. Super tired after work so these things happen.

[clockwork]

I like this idea.

[GoblinCookie]

Sounds rather like the game would get far too easy this way.  The question is whether the old fortress would even see any benefit to be had in contributing especially to the creation of new fortresses. Any new fortress is a competitor to itself after-all.   

[FantasticDorf]

That's a fair criticism, and i guess a natural solution would be to tighten how it operates, as well as add limitations to embarkation distance, maybe requiring to hop across multiple fortresses to get to a destination very far far away with this method. If you can successfully operate & grow a fortress using minimum or no materials then indeed the game might already be too easy for you

The starting experience will be the hardest based on how and where you embark and subsequently pushing foward into more dangerous areas after settling on a safe grassland or mountain biome with no local threats in order to build up your 'starter' fortress going from there. Unless the previous fortress is destroyed there would be a guranteed trade/migration link, but risk of isolating yourself at the end of the chain, and roads will likely spring up between you.

Another thing would be whether the journey's should be rendered in real time up until the point of arrival, and how the journeys are made via overland travel, cavern travel & use of sea & air and present dangers along the way. Compared with traditional retiring the fortress, embarking anywhere and arriving in a week you'd think the current method is impractically super-fast, if not for the fixed world rate of embark point budgeting.
- If you're both run by the same baron, it would be interesting if the fortress prior to you was more involved in defending and requesting aid & mandates from your fortress too, but it really depends on who is the direct junior partner (Monarch > Everybody in the direct fortress connection chain), and it would be cool if not frustrating to say the least if actions such as diplomats, petitions and trade agreements only occured in the baron's current holding (so effectively the traders visit you but you don't get any say on what has been ordered)

Subsequently choosing to have a more traditional independent method and instead assign either a mayor permanently OR a different baron instead of your previous fortress's current landholder will probably mean that said previous fortress won't interact with you so much rather than adjacency, so there will be no reinforcement troop relief or special interactions of that kind

Competition is good, it ironically makes more challenging gameplay and opportunities for worldgen things to happen such as loyalty cascade insurrections hurting/forging diplomatic links for better or worse.

[NW_Kohaku]

I'm honestly fairly sure this is eventually planned.

Anyway,

Sounds rather like the game would get far too easy this way.  The question is whether the old fortress would even see any benefit to be had in contributing especially to the creation of new fortresses. Any new fortress is a competitor to itself after-all.   

Who cares if it "makes the game easier"?  Toady has pretty overtly stopped caring about gamey things like progression of difficulty ever since the move to 3d.  You can start in a cheery Dr. Seuss world or start in a blasted Hellscape, whichever you want. 

Also, how is having more fortresses a competition to an old fortress?  That's like saying that you shouldn't found new cities in a game of Civilization, because your second city will be seen as competition to your civ's founding city.  Dwarves live in a hostile world where being able to have multiple fortresses better ensures the survival of their species against the hostile outsiders, and will provide soldiers that can march to their aid in the event of hostile outsiders besieging their mountainhomes.  New fortresses are extensions of their own power.