Print

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

[jipehog]

Human nature is to fight death, not fight to the death. There already many examples of surrender\yield mechanics in DF universe among its modes and there are some issues with implementing it. I agree with Pillbo that this is a different suggestion.

[brewer bob]

I can confidently say I don't think anyone wants masses of their civilians to surrender to the enemy in a siege lmao, whether that happens in worldgen or not.

Hate to break your confidence, but I'd wish to see this. And not only with civilians, but soldiers too. It would be great to have some kind of ransom mechanic also, since it used to be a big part of medieval warfare. (But that's an entirely different suggestion then.)

[SixOfSpades]

. . . there is going to be a need to handle military inventory better, so we might need an option to assign equipment to specific barracks (btw do the shared and armor/weapon rack system finally works?)

Not that I've seen. AFAIK, weapon racks & armor stands have no actual use beyond designating barracks and satisfying nobles' room requirements. Which is a shame. I'd like to see them have the same functionality as cabinets, storing the appropriate type of item belonging either to a single owner (in a bedroom), or a community (barracks).

I think that the ability to assign work clothing/outfits and armor/weapons is in different categories.

Yeah, this thread is becoming home to a whole constellation of suggestions only very tenuously linked to the starting point--and there are about to be a few more of them, too. Maybe I'll compile them all into a list & add it to the OP, for Toady's & Threetoe's convenience.

In worldgen, existing dwarf fortresses are taken over, they don't all fight to death and the idea is to have world-gen and fortress mode move together, not apart over time.

That's fine, but if your premise is "Fortress mode sieges should leave some survivors, the way they do in Legends mode", it is hardly a firm conclusion that "therefore, civilian dwarves cannot be allowed weapons or armor". For one thing, the two ideas of having armed civilians, and allowing individual dwarves to surrender, are not incompatible. For another, it's very easy to argue that arming one's civilians (both physically & mentally) would make many dwarves more likely to survive an invasion, not less. Third and lastly, if your premise is "Fortress mode sieges should leave some survivors,", then the most logical conclusion is "Fortress mode sieges should be coded to leave some survivors". Just replace invaders' current directive of "Path to and kill every last dwarf--unless you suffer losses of 75% or more, in which case leave the map" with any of myriad possible objectives, such as:
1) Path to & kill every dwarf, while the fort's population is greater than 20. Then, declare victory & leave the map, killing further dwarves only if they get in your way.
2) Path to every dwarf & for each one, randomly choose whether to maim, torture, or kill him.
3) Path to, seize, and leave the map with a significant amount (either in absolute number, or worth, or percentage of) the fort's artifacts, killing any dwarf that you happen to see along the way.
4) Path to, seize, & leave the map with a large quantity of the fort's (food / weapons / jewels / wealth in general / etc.), again all dwarves are KOS but don't deliberately seek them out.
5) Path to & kidnap (the highest-ranking noble / all nobles / particularly valuable craftsdwarves / a large number of children), leave the map with them, and keep them for (ransom / slaves).
Each of these changes to invader behavior would be far more narratively satisfying, at least to me, as having every non-militia dwarf fall to his knees & beg to be allowed to flee.

they [your fort's dwarves] need to, in extreme cases be able to overthrow you, the player and forcibly retire your fortress, forever.

Sure, I'm perfectly happy with the idea of a peasant revolt being added to DF Fort mode . . . not least because that's precisely the sort of situation in which it would make perfect sense for the civilians to be armed and armored. I'm just saying that, in a game full of potential situations that would be legitimate reasons to overthrow an oppressive government, it seems freakishly petty for anyone to draw the line at something so trivial as "The overseer makes us wear caps, instead of hoods or headscarves!"

Besides which it's difficult to imagine a goblin invasion force treating your surrendered civilians honorably instead of just killing them or torturing them to death for fun.

Just a reminder to consider potential invaders besides goblins. I think a dwarf would surrender to an invader from a different dwarven civilization far more readily than he would to a hostile elf. Goblins would be the worst, of course, but even they probably wouldn't torture captives to death, at least not right away--dwarves make excellent slaves, as we overseers know full well.

And yes, I'm with you in that I wouldn't want masses of my civilians to surrender to a siege. Some dwarves simply aren't physically capable of fighting, & there might even be a few actual cowards, and that's fine. But every representation of dwarves that I've ever seen or read paints them as valuing personal honor & duty to one's clan higher (usually FAR higher) than their own lives. The clear majority of dwarves, even civilian dwarves, should prefer to stand and fight.

Human nature is to fight death, not fight to the death.

Precisely, that's human nature. HUMAN.

[brewer bob]

Human nature is to fight death, not fight to the death.

Precisely, that's human nature. HUMAN.

The personalities of DF dwarves (or other sentient species) do not really differ that much from humans. They are slightly more single-minded, more prone to over indulgence and a bit more greedy, while less vulnerable to stress and less bashful. So, not really anything that implies they'd rather fight to death.

Spoiler: dwarf personality from the raws (click to show/hide)

Code: [Select]

[PERSONALITY:IMMODERATION:0:55:100]
[PERSONALITY:STRESS_VULNERABILITY:0:45:100]
[PERSONALITY:BASHFUL:0:45:100]
[PERSONALITY:SINGLEMINDED:0:55:100]
[PERSONALITY:GREED:0:55:100]

Civ values are a different matter, but there's really nothing there that determines if civ members are willing to "fight to the death", unless you interpret valuing loyalty and martial prowess as such. But even if that'd imply willingness to fight until the end, it'd apply to civ members of any species, not just dwarves.

Spoiler: dwarf civ values (click to show/hide)

Code: [Select]

[VALUE:LAW:30]
[VALUE:LOYALTY:30]
[VALUE:FAMILY:30]
[VALUE:FRIENDSHIP:30]
[VALUE:POWER:0]
[VALUE:TRUTH:30]
[VALUE:CUNNING:0]
[VALUE:ELOQUENCE:0]
[VALUE:FAIRNESS:15]
[VALUE:DECORUM:0]
[VALUE:TRADITION:0]
[VALUE:ARTWORK:30]
[VALUE:COOPERATION:15]
[VALUE:INDEPENDENCE:5]
[VALUE:STOICISM:5]
[VALUE:KNOWLEDGE:15]
[VALUE:INTROSPECTION:0]
[VALUE:SELF_CONTROL:0]
[VALUE:TRANQUILITY:0]
[VALUE:HARMONY:0]
[VALUE:MERRIMENT:15]
[VALUE:CRAFTSMANSHIP:50]
[VALUE:MARTIAL_PROWESS:15]
[VALUE:SKILL:30]
[VALUE:HARD_WORK:30]
[VALUE:SACRIFICE:0]
[VALUE:COMPETITION:0]
[VALUE:PERSEVERANCE:5]
[VALUE:LEISURE_TIME:15]
[VALUE:COMMERCE:15]
[VALUE:ROMANCE:0]
[VALUE:NATURE:-15]
[VALUE:PEACE:0]

Personally I think it should be up to the personality of the individual dwarf whether they're willing to die for their fort or would they rather surrender. How much they care to die for their fort could also depend on their general happiness in the fort, so if you'd have miserable tantruming dwarves, they'd be more likely to throw their weapons down and in some cases even gladly welcome their new overlords.

Regarding blurring the lines between civilians and military, I think it's a good idea and would also make sense from a (pseudo-)medieval fantasy perspective (levied peasants had to provide their own equipment).

[Red Diamond]

That's fine, but if your premise is "Fortress mode sieges should leave some survivors, the way they do in Legends mode", it is hardly a firm conclusion that "therefore, civilian dwarves cannot be allowed weapons or armor". For one thing, the two ideas of having armed civilians, and allowing individual dwarves to surrender, are not incompatible. For another, it's very easy to argue that arming one's civilians (both physically & mentally) would make many dwarves more likely to survive an invasion, not less. Third and lastly, if your premise is "Fortress mode sieges should leave some survivors,", then the most logical conclusion is "Fortress mode sieges should be coded to leave some survivors". Just replace invaders' current directive of "Path to and kill every last dwarf--unless you suffer losses of 75% or more, in which case leave the map" with any of myriad possible objectives, such as:
1) Path to & kill every dwarf, while the fort's population is greater than 20. Then, declare victory & leave the map, killing further dwarves only if they get in your way.
2) Path to every dwarf & for each one, randomly choose whether to maim, torture, or kill him.
3) Path to, seize, and leave the map with a significant amount (either in absolute number, or worth, or percentage of) the fort's artifacts, killing any dwarf that you happen to see along the way.
4) Path to, seize, & leave the map with a large quantity of the fort's (food / weapons / jewels / wealth in general / etc.), again all dwarves are KOS but don't deliberately seek them out.
5) Path to & kidnap (the highest-ranking noble / all nobles / particularly valuable craftsdwarves / a large number of children), leave the map with them, and keep them for (ransom / slaves).
Each of these changes to invader behavior would be far more narratively satisfying, at least to me, as having every non-militia dwarf fall to his knees & beg to be allowed to flee.

I wasn't arguing against your idea SixOfSpades, I was just arguing that it requires a surrender mechanic to *also* need to exist at this point as otherwise it gets in the way of us harmonising world-gen with fortress mode.  At the moment, enemies have no way of occupying the fortress, only destroying it and for this to not be the case, invaders need to draw a clear line between civilian and soldier, the exact opposite of the title of your thread.

If only some dwarves are armed and armoured, the enemy can kill all your armed dwarves and sieze all your stored arnaments to stop you manually making any more.  If you blur the line between the two by arming civilians, we need some way for the invaders to get the weapons *off* the civilians.  Surrendering in effect also does the whole line-blurring backward, it allows a way for our defeated soldiers to become civilians and not be killed when the fortress is occupied.

Sure, I'm perfectly happy with the idea of a peasant revolt being added to DF Fort mode . . . not least because that's precisely the sort of situation in which it would make perfect sense for the civilians to be armed and armored. I'm just saying that, in a game full of potential situations that would be legitimate reasons to overthrow an oppressive government, it seems freakishly petty for anyone to draw the line at something so trivial as "The overseer makes us wear caps, instead of hoods or headscarves!"

The overseer is the one being petty here, that is what they are objecting too; being governed by an entirely arbitrary ruler that makes senseless rules up on the fly.  The particular ordinance is merely symbolic of the bigger problem.

There is nothing petty about requiring all the civilians to be armed however.  That is quite decidedly deadly for the civilians, as the main protection civilians have in a warzone is that they are not considered a threat by the warring parties.  Arm them so they look like soldiers and they become a target of soldiers, but they aren't necceserily strong, trained, organised or equipped well-enough to actually stand any chance in an actual fight against said soldiers. 

To put is strategically, you are using them as human (dwarven?) shields for your actual forces; it is perhaps good for you, but not at all good for them.

[SixOfSpades]

The personalities of DF dwarves (or other sentient species) do not really differ that much from humans. . . . So, not really anything that implies they'd rather fight to death.

Huh. Of course, there's always the issue of "How much of this is 100% how Toady really, truly intends dwarves to be in the final game, vs. How much of it is just a temporary placeholder," but I'll admit that you're right, those raws-as-written don't back me up. I do find it odd, though, that Bashful is in there, while certain other facets aren't. If *I* were coding the average dwarf, I'd have pegged them for low Altruism, and high Perseverance & Vengeful, long before I considered whether dwarves were more or less Bashful than humans.

Personally I think it should be up to the personality of the individual dwarf whether they're willing to die for their fort or would they rather surrender. . . . in some cases even gladly welcome their new overlords.

Oh definitely, getting different reactions out of different individuals is way more interesting, and realistic, than some "civilian dwarves should do this, while militia dwarves should do that" rule. Theoretically, some extreme dwarves might even actively join the cause of the invaders, although only if their personality traits closely matched those of the enemy--meaning the dwarf would need to be highly aberrant (if it was an an elf or goblin siege), as well as unhappy.

I wasn't arguing against your idea SixOfSpades, I was just arguing that it requires a surrender mechanic to *also* need to exist at this point

That's good to hear. I always try to be more interested in finding what is right than who is right. So I don't mind admitting that I have spent very little time in either Adventurer or Legends Mode--I'm ignorant on the specifics of a hostile takeover in those contexts. When a site falls to invaders, what exactly happens to the surviving defenders? Do they remain in place, subservient to their new masters? If so, then yes, some kind of surrender mechanic would likely be necessary. Or do the survivors leave the site and become refugees, trying to make their way to some other friendly (or at least neutral) settlement? In that case, an individual (or family-sized) abandon mechanic would be more suited. Either way, the bulk of the behavior changes would fall to the invaders: Not only would their coding have to be changed to spare a vague number of dwarves, but also to accept a surrender and/or allow a fleeing citizen.

The overseer is the one being petty here, that is what they are objecting too; being governed by an entirely arbitrary ruler that makes senseless rules up on the fly.  The particular ordinance is merely symbolic of the bigger problem.

What sparked this whole line of discussion was a quote from Tamren: "While at the same time enforcing a strict dress code of shirt, pants and steel toed boots for both men and women. Cloaks, dresses and the like are not allowed as they are not OSHA approved." That wasn't arbitrary or senseless: Loose-fitting garments have lots of cloth that can get snagged in potentially dangerous machinery--which definitely can exist in DF. I set up my "caps vs. hoods / headscarves" comparison to follow in this exact vein. And yes, I believe that the overseer, and other site organizations such as guilds, should have the power to set and enforce some kind of dress code, partly because it has the potential to add flavor to the game. (Stinthad the Furnace Operator has repeatedly refused to wear his guild-mandated oven mitts while at his magma smelter, and the resulting burns are costing the hospital a lot of silk for bandages. Should you have the Hammerer mark him with a brand, or will simply kicking him out of the Metalworkers' Guild be sufficient?)

There is nothing petty about requiring all the civilians to be armed however.  That is quite decidedly deadly for the civilians, as the main protection civilians have in a warzone is that they are not considered a threat by the warring parties.

That is a reasonable argument that is supported by real-life facts. Now name a war zone that does/did not have a Resistance / insurgents / guerillas, who were effective in spite of (or very arguably because of) the fact that they could pass as civilians.
But your comment was about quasi-militia who didn't look like civilians--and I think you're selling them short. Sure, a civilian wearing leather/shell armor, and carrying only a domestic weapon, probably wouldn't last long against a typical goblin--but considering that most goblins aren't great fighters either, I think the duel would be a lot closer than you expect. Now raise the armor permission so that the civilian is wearing iron or bronze, & suddenly the stakes are almost even. Factor in the possibility that the civilian dwarves could retreat & bunch up until they outnumber the foes in their immediate vicinity, and suddenly the tide turns. I've never claimed that a single half-armored civilian should be either willing OR able to go toe-to-toe with a whole ambush squad, quite the contrary. But a mother who catches sight of a goblin baby-snatcher with a wriggling sack? That mother should be out for blood, no matter if she's armed with nothing but an awl. And a mother who knows that baby-snatchers are a possibility should very likely want to be armed with more than just an awl.

[Shonai_Dweller]

It's worth pointing out that civilians are actually armed in the rest of the world outside your fortress. Mainly with domestic implements (kitchen knives, meat cleavers and such) but it is something Fortress doesn't simulate right now. And since generally having the two modes simulate the same things is a goal at least this bit is probably planned.

Protective mother with a meat cleaver Vs goblin snatcher? I wouldn't bet on the snatcher's chances.

[Egan_BW]

Low altruism dwarves? No way. They're very communal and inter-dependent.

[Red Diamond]

That's good to hear. I always try to be more interested in finding what is right than who is right. So I don't mind admitting that I have spent very little time in either Adventurer or Legends Mode--I'm ignorant on the specifics of a hostile takeover in those contexts. When a site falls to invaders, what exactly happens to the surviving defenders? Do they remain in place, subservient to their new masters? If so, then yes, some kind of surrender mechanic would likely be necessary. Or do the survivors leave the site and become refugees, trying to make their way to some other friendly (or at least neutral) settlement? In that case, an individual (or family-sized) abandon mechanic would be more suited. Either way, the bulk of the behavior changes would fall to the invaders: Not only would their coding have to be changed to spare a vague number of dwarves, but also to accept a surrender and/or allow a fleeing citizen.

As far as I have noticed, the refugees leave the site *before* the invading army arrives.  Those that remain are divided up into civilians and soldiers, the latter fight in the battle while the former does not.   If the defenders lose, all the soldiers are killed and if the attackers decide to occupt the site, the civilians end up living in the resulting occupied site. 

In fortress mode things work differently.  There the invading army kills everybody until the player decides to surrender, at this point the remaining citizens of the player become refugees regardless of whether they were soldiers or civilians. 

What sparked this whole line of discussion was a quote from Tamren: "While at the same time enforcing a strict dress code of shirt, pants and steel toed boots for both men and women. Cloaks, dresses and the like are not allowed as they are not OSHA approved." That wasn't arbitrary or senseless: Loose-fitting garments have lots of cloth that can get snagged in potentially dangerous machinery--which definitely can exist in DF. I set up my "caps vs. hoods / headscarves" comparison to follow in this exact vein. And yes, I believe that the overseer, and other site organizations such as guilds, should have the power to set and enforce some kind of dress code, partly because it has the potential to add flavor to the game. (Stinthad the Furnace Operator has repeatedly refused to wear his guild-mandated oven mitts while at his magma smelter, and the resulting burns are costing the hospital a lot of silk for bandages. Should you have the Hammerer mark him with a brand, or will simply kicking him out of the Metalworkers' Guild be sufficient?)

My point however is that the government trying to control what your people wear is not devoid of drama.  I mean look at Iran......

That is a reasonable argument that is supported by real-life facts. Now name a war zone that does/did not have a Resistance / insurgents / guerillas, who were effective in spite of (or very arguably because of) the fact that they could pass as civilians.
But your comment was about quasi-militia who didn't look like civilians--and I think you're selling them short. Sure, a civilian wearing leather/shell armor, and carrying only a domestic weapon, probably wouldn't last long against a typical goblin--but considering that most goblins aren't great fighters either, I think the duel would be a lot closer than you expect. Now raise the armor permission so that the civilian is wearing iron or bronze, & suddenly the stakes are almost even. Factor in the possibility that the civilian dwarves could retreat & bunch up until they outnumber the foes in their immediate vicinity, and suddenly the tide turns. I've never claimed that a single half-armored civilian should be either willing OR able to go toe-to-toe with a whole ambush squad, quite the contrary. But a mother who catches sight of a goblin baby-snatcher with a wriggling sack? That mother should be out for blood, no matter if she's armed with nothing but an awl. And a mother who knows that baby-snatchers are a possibility should very likely want to be armed with more than just an awl.

The resistance can be identified based upon the fact they are armed unlike everybody else, which makes it possible to eliminate them without total genocide of the whole population.  This is why when you conquer a place, you pretty much always disarm the civilian population and there is seldom any problem getting said population to comply.  To be armed is to be a potential resistor and thus liable to be killed for whatever they did to the occupying powers, thus as an occupied, non-resisting civilian you want to rid yourself of any serious arnaments that you may have.  This is why we need a surrender mechanic for your idea, in the event that our military situation is hopeless your armed civilians need to throw down their arms.

The result of having armed mothers is that the goblins send only elite warriors in full head-to-toe armour with their very best weapons.  Said babysnatchers kill the mothers and then take the babies, so things are even worse than they were before (babies are more easily replaced ).  The mothers might want to arm themselves, but we would likely want to prohibit them because we want the mothers to survive.

The population of the fortress doesn't want to die but we however couldn't likely care less whether they die or not, but they aren't *our* people once the fortress is taken; this is the core problem with arming civilians.  Without military organisation and training, their ability to actually contribute to our defense is minimal, the important detail here is whether the fortress falls or not, not whether a few more goblins died in the process.  It actually reminds me of when Fredrick the Great of Prussia prohibited the citizens of Berlin from taking up arms to aid his regular forces, they won't make enough difference to change the outcome but the actual fall of the city will be a lot uglier since 'ordinery people' are now the enemy.

A 'lot uglier' is the word we are looking for here.  We, as fanatical devotees of the Dwarf Kingdom might well be happy to get our whole population killed in a futile struggle simply because 'a few more dead goblins' may tip the scales somewhere in the wider war.  The people on the other hand want to live and in a strange way they are on the same side of those 'few more dead goblins' who also want to live rather than being on our own.