Print

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

[Zemat]

In short, make civilization entities more random and maybe multiracial as an option.

This would require the possible elimination of civ entities from the raws (although they could be preserved as templates for the random civs). Divorcing civilizations from races would allow the game to create more randomized civilizations that could be better tied to the subregion in which they spawn. This way, worldgen, instead of trying to find an appropriate place for a race specific civ, would build a civ from a subregion and select the appropriate race or races to populate it with. This will also allow almost any intelligent race in the raws the ability of becoming part or build it's own civilization. There would be no need to create a new entity raw file for each intelligent race. Races could even create their own civs during history worldgen without it being the result of war or conquest.

This would also require changes in the way creatures are defined in the raws. Some properties of civs would need to be transferred instead to creatures, like for example, the tolerance to different sites and biomes. This way, a civilization would conquer or create a new town only if members of the population are willing to relocate to said subregion.

Cultural things like morals and preferences should be tied to religions instead to civilizations (this would require maybe making religion definitions in raws to be more flexible and complex). Stuff like tree diplomacy, peace with nature, child abduction, theft and morals of each civilization would depend on the dominating religion. Cultures then could be tied to towns and would transfer from town to town over time along with the religion. Also, cultural differences between towns and the capital could trigger civil wars and the creation of new independent civs from the rebel towns.

As a bonus, adventure mode should allow a player to play as any race member of a civ instead of just the civilization's original race.

Potentially, this change could break fortress mode since there would no longer be dwarf-specific civilizations. But on the other hand, the future of the fortress says that eventually any civilization of any race should be playable in fortress mode. So I guess this suggestion should facilitate the implementation of this.

[Mephansteras]

You'd have to make a lot of changes to the creature definitions for this to work, though. Otherwise you lose a lot of the racial specializations. Like Dwarves being masters of stoneworking/mining and elves being able to exist peacefully with nature. Some stuff really should be racially dependant, not just civ.

[PTTG??]

Well, I have to say I like where you're going with this. It sounds like a nice, natural way for there to be 'mixed' civs and some neat dynamics for wars and cultures forming. I'd like to see what Toady One thinks of this.

[Zemat]

You'd have to make a lot of changes to the creature definitions for this to work, though. Otherwise you lose a lot of the racial specializations. Like Dwarves being masters of stoneworking/mining and elves being able to exist peacefully with nature. Some stuff really should be racially dependant, not just civ.

That's my point, some race cultural stuff should belong to the creature definition in the raws and not the civ entity raws.

On the other hand, there's no such thing as DF canon. There's no "Dwarves should be like this" or "Elves should be like that". Just see how much creatures have, intentionally or unintentionally, changed from version to version: Elves became warmongering and intolerant; Goblins are now peaceful and tolerant; Carps turned into killing machines; And Elephants are no longer the nightmares they used to be.

[Granite26]

http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=3322.0

For a fully robust RAW system, you'll need (largely) the same set of tags available for nested civs (town vs country), individuals and races, with each tag serving as either a membership (granted once = forever granted) or as a modifier (Nature loving +1) and then include some form of conflict resolution on an individual level.

That way, you'll be able to have racist, insular entities, fully integrated entities, and everything in between, with the individuals therein acting as their own natures dictate.

[Zemat]

Hey, thanks for the link. I never read that before but I like what Toady said about nature vs. nurture. Although I still think that nurture options should be tied to cultures or religions and not to civilizations and those nurture options should be flexible to some point. Civilizations or kingdoms on the other hand should be completely a blank slate with nothing else other than allegiance defining them.

[Granite26]

That's the point though... if/when the Raw system is finished, that is representable through taking all the tags out of the 'civilization'.

Let's look at me.  I'm in Houston:

That means I am a member of the City of Houston, member of the state of Texas, citizen of the United States.  My religion is Protestant.  I'm pretty much a member of the 'Southerner' regional culture, as well as the 'General American' culture.  In terms of organizations, I am a 'gamer' and a 'roleplayer'.  Finally, I am human.

All of these 'memberships' give me certain tendencies.  Some, like being a member of the city of Houston, don't really impart a lot (the Raw entity for that group is rather empty), but the fact that I am a member of the 'General American' Culture and Protestant tells you quite a few things about me, particularly my moral stance.  It's hard to define human in the absense of a sapient alternative, but that means a few personality things as well.

On a personal level, there have been places where my group memberships give me tags that conflict.  My own personal moral conflict resolution has been engaged to resolve those conflicts.  My own personality matrix is influenced by my memberships, but not entirely defined (strength of personality gives varience from the defined norms for your memberships?)

Anyway, define things at the level you think they belong, and resolve it at the individual level.

[Mephansteras]

The game will also need ways to handle creatures who change civs during their life. An Elf who grew up in a goblin stronghold should be very different from an Elf who lived in an elven forest retreat for 300 years before being conquered and eventually moving to the stronghold. And both Elves should be different from goblins who grew up in the fortress, or humans or dwarves, for that matter.