Print

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

[Align]

So perhaps you've played Sim City 4, or some other game where you can make a city or base etc in one location, then move to a different place on the world map and make another, and have the two react to each other. In Sim City this is just traffic and speed of growth, though.

Anyway, the idea would be to not force the player to abandon a fort - merely go back to the world map, or at least a list of started, not-abandoned forts, and play that one for a bit.
And then you could have trade deals between the two (or more) forts, for instance you might not have iron in one place but a lot of wood, or one fort might have a magma smelter and so can easily make goods from metal while another has... a lot of food? Whatever, you get the idea.

In this manner you could populate the map, over time - and thus the second part of topic title. No starting civs: as an option, you can turn off the AI-civilizations beyond the initial settler team. This could make things a bit more challenging since you'd have to arrange for wood caravans yourself.

The forts shouldn't be fully simulated when you're not controlling them of course, at most rudimentary stuff like food- and drink-producing capabilities balanced against consumption.

[Wahnsinniger]

Good idea, as this would actually give a reason do make "small" fortresses. Right now, its rather pointless to just try to make a small fortress which focuses on one thing, say Cutting lumber or mining and cutting gems. If you could 'not' abandon it, then you set it up so you could import these certain things into a bigger grander fortress.

Plus the whole idea of quitting a fortress but not abandoning it has been stated before. Its probably hard to conceptualize just how the game would handle it though. I think the ARCs which involve AI cities actually DOING stuff needs to be in first.

[Karlito]

I imagine that the basics for this will go in along with population counting for entities.

[ November 24, 2007: Message edited by: Karlito ]

[Balsis]

This is something that's been on my mind, as well. You know how when you're choosing your starting location, you can choose which dwarven mountainhome you're from? I'd love to able to make a grand mountainhome, then in later games, choose to come from it.

[Align]

Now that I've slept on the idea, I've got a bit of details:
Goblins and kobolds still exist, even with no starting civs turned on.
Immigrants still appear as if out of nowhere,
Wagon parts can be built(at the carpentry?), then built on the field much like siege engines, and have three options: Make/unmake settler team, Move goods to/from, and Embark.
If you make it a settler team, you get to assign 7 dwarves out of the ones you've got as well as goods. This would be different from the normal settler teams in that you get a much free-er choice of goods, but can't customize the dwarves at will, plus you have to provide all the stuff for the settler wagon yourself rather than it being given to you by the capital.
Normal caravans would just carry goods to and from a fort of your choosing. It'd require a driver, too.
Caravans will not return until you've traded with them in the other fort. Trading works as usual, sender gets the profit.

[ November 24, 2007: Message edited by: Align ]

[Wahnsinniger]

This could also be a way to control fortress populations. Too many immigrants? Just send them all out again to settle other lands. I'd prefer a simplier control, but making them emmigrate like this would work.

[Zironic]

Good, I could send all those jew crafters and milkers and other useless people to haunted areas.

Second thought: If they survived, they would be totaly beasts.

[ParrotPatrol]

quote:Originally posted by Zironic:
<STRONG>Good, I could send all those jew crafters and milkers and other useless people to haunted areas.

Second thought: If they survived, they would be totaly beasts.</STRONG>

"Jew" crafters?   :confused:

[Retales]

quote:Originally posted by ParrotPatrol:
<STRONG>

"Jew" crafters?    :confused:</STRONG>

*snark*

Yeah, it'd make more sense that the dwarves for example set up a smaller treecutting outpost at the base of the mountain to provide the bigger fort higher in the mountain with lumber.

[DrMorbly]

The only problem I see with multiple fortresses is how Toady would manage the passage of time.  When playing, time passes.  If you're playing one fortress then switch to another, what happens during that passage of time?

[Align]

Nothing.

You could say that dwarves don't accomplish anything without you managing them or just that you're going back in time or something...

[ZrO4]

quote:You could say that dwarves don't accomplish anything without you managing them...  

True enough. I think a population stasis is the best thing otherwise forts would die off too quickly to allow others to be built.

[Zombie]

That's exactly what happens in Sim City 4. :3 Population stasis.

[axus]

Well, what happens to NPC created towns during the passage of time?  Whatever solution applies to NPCs would be the same for forts previously run by players.

[mrshirt]

You could just auto run certain small fortresses, i'm sure.  Then, if a major event happened you could go back in time and deal with it yourself.

For example.  You have a large fort with many satellites down river.  Hypothetically, your main fort has crappy soil so can't make enough food or wood, so the other's could easily create a constant amount of either, since wood and food growth are predictable.  But, to prevent people from settling in extremely dangerous areas, if a major event happens before you would actually get a shipment, a messenger would come telling you about it, where you could take control of the small fort to resolve the issue, then you get so much wood/food as they would make post incident.

If that makes sense.