Print

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

[Derakon]

Right now, you can either repel invaders, possibly at some loss of life, or completely lose your fortress. There's no middle ground. I suggest that some of the less bloodthirsty races (humans and elves, at this point) should be satisfied will killing your military and then installing their own government. Notably, your civilians are not killed. Basically the way this works is, they leave a squad of soldiers behind, and send for a governor. The governor acts like a noble who makes many demands and will send soldiers to beat up your civilians if the demands aren't met quickly. The governor and the soldiers all have high requirements, again, causing beatings if they aren't met. Additionally, the governor would:

 * Forbid the enlisting of new dwarfish soldiers (and require the disarmament of any existing ones, forcibly civilianizing them)
 * Forbid the creation of weapons, armor, or traps, including levers and pressure plates (if he can't understand how it works, then it can't be made), and require the dismantling of existing ones
 * Require production of certain trade goods in large quantities
 * Seize control of the trader interface from the player

Of course, the dwarfish caravan would not visit while your fortress is occupied, though depending on your size you might get a "sieging" dwarfish army to oust the invaders.

Now, it should be possible, if difficult, to run a resistance campaign against the invaders. In particular, I suggest that the "no soldiers" and "no weapons/armor" requirements require the governor or an invader soldier to see the violation take place before any punishment is applied. Thus it should be possible to run a secret forge and a secret barracks to train up a force to oust the enemy squad. It'd be difficult, though, since the soldiers are already on the inside of your fortress. Of course, you could also try to arrange "accidents" (e.g. deadly cave-ins), though if you miss some of the enemy, you can expect them to kill several of your dwarves.

The thing I find most amusing about this is that the governor behaves very similarly to our existing nobles...

[mizipzor]

I love the idea. 

[Julius Clonkus]

I support this. For civilized entities it makes no sense to finish you off instead of draining your resources.

You could even go a bit further.
Your dwarves should start a rebellion (which is not connected to the player) when the unhappiness spreads enough in the population (and they can outnumber the guards), especially when you got a dwarf who is ready to be the leader.

I think a rebellion of your dwarves should start with your dwarves making improvised weapons (spiked clubs anyone?) and 'disappearing' invader guards, which would result in a raid of the area the guard disappeared in. When they find the weapons or the guards, depending on the invader's ethics they'd make an example on some dwarf who knows how to make the kind of weapon found (Picking the dwarf would be like with a failed production order).

A rebellion would, of course, not be as effective as organized resistance by the player.

[Servant Corps]

You need to provide a benieft for the player to keep the Governor alive rather than just kill him off like other nobles.

[Grimic]

Hold him hostage. Solved.

[Julius Clonkus]

You need to provide a benieft for the player to keep the Governor alive rather than just kill him off like other nobles.

The profit is not getting your entire fortress crushed by a giant siege of said civilization, additionally the conquerors won't let random goblin sieges beat up their slaves. Also, I bet the invaders would drive out your nobles (or degrade them to normal citizens for the time being).

[Derakon]

The benefit of keeping the governor alive is that his soldiers don't slaughter your civilians. Any time a soldier or the governor is killed, some random dwarves -- doesn't even really matter if they're the ones who did it or not -- get beaten or killed. So it's in your best interests to see that the governor and his soldiers are happy, at least until you can manage to toss them out.

[Foa]

I'd love to have this to be implemented, I just need to make a plan on how to make a complete lock down drive.

It involves dogs, bridges, demons ( ? ) , and a few floodgates, maybe a few siege engines.

[Iden]

Hostile takeover.. interesting idea. I kind of like it. But i'm not entirely sure.

The premise of the game is that you have control of the Fort, and when you lose it, game over. This would put in place something that states that you can lose control of your Fort and continue playing. Could be a touchy area.

Goblins would likely kill/enslave as many as possible. End game.

However, as previously stated, other more reasonable civilizations would simply oust your government and put theirs in charge.

If this were the case, your nobles would likely be jailed or killed. Your military would be virtually destroyed (or forced to surrender after taking quite a beating).

One major problem with this is the lack of Advanced Siege Tactics. What if you just hole up? You have a steady supply of plump helmets and ample supply of water. They can't starve you out. They can't get in. You can't get traders, but big deal, you'll manage. What now? They can't possibly win or occupy you. This right here makes the whole idea trivial and pointless.

In a thread by the name (i believe) of Digging Enemies, and I think another siege-related thread, I have previously discussed alternative forms of siege that should be implemented. (If i'm up to it later i'll look them up and post links, i'm not up to it right now). With improved siege and a way to storm your fort, they can actually get in to conquer you, rather than pretending at being big boys outside.

Add in some ideas discussed in this thread about philosophy being introduced into dwarfen society, and my introduction to Schools of Thought and their effects on dwarf society. I actually do touch on civil war.

This links very closely to some of what I mentioned there, check it out. In the case of an occupying force, the school of thought would be different from what the natives believe. What a human occupying government thinks of the city and daily life will certainly be different from what the majority of the citizens think. Especially dwarves. Dwarves likely wouldn't take kindly to being occupied. Especially if there were booze restrictions!!! That makes for unhappy dwarfs.

Civil war becomes possible in this situation, whether in the form of simple riots (which would inevitably be dictated by how many dwarves are unhappy and how large the standing army/city guard is in the fort to keep the dwarves in line) or if in the form of secret resistance organized by the player himself.

An occupying army would simply not stand around for it. No weapons, ever. No Brewing, alcohol is rationed out to dwarves. Weapons forging, armor forging, hunting and woodcutting will all be left to humans. Dwarves get passive jobs where they can't be of any harm to anybody. No traps. No active military units, ever. If someone is caught smuggling, hiding contraband, or doing something illegal, punishment by jail time or in severe cases, death.

If noone can be found to blame, harsh sanctions are placed on the dwarves. Less booze, less food, more work. Government would place harsh mandates on the people. Very strict, very harsh, very very demanding mandates, but all reasonable things that could be accomplished by the dwarves (meaning no demanding things that you simply can't make). They would demand immense quarters of unbelievable quality for themselves, while demanding your dwarves live in poverty in meager quarters at best.

Great thinkers would spread ideas, incite anger. They would not stand for it. They would dissent against the government. The government may or may not stand for this. They may jail dissenters. They might limit gatherings of large groups in any place.

It could be interesting, but like the philosophy ideas, imo, to be truly worthwhile it would need dynamic changes and implementations to the way dwarfen society functions, how dwarves act and 'think'.

(All of this, of course, could be variable depending on the occupying force and how their society functions and thinks. Dependent on the school of thought their people use. Some societies may be nicer and more lenient towards the dwarfs, others not so much. Some may live to co-habit with the dwarves inevitably)

The point, however, at this point, should be to oust the occupying government and regain control of your fort. Inevitably more foreign nobles and soldiers may come to occupy your fort. You stop getting Dwarf Migrants and you begin getting foreign (human) migrants. All of this makes it harder and harder for your dwarves to break free, makes your freedom more challenging. The longer you take, the more your control over your dwarves slowly slips away. Inevitably if you don't do something... if your dwarves fail a revolt, or it simply becomes impossible to break free anymore.... You lose had fun. Game over.

[Foa]

Iden, the next version is going to have somewhat advanced sieges, all I know is that they'll make a camp, build a few engines, receive troops, and then rip you a new one.

[KenboCalrissian]

I don't know, to me this sounds like something I would refuse to play if it happened to my fort.  I'd just abandon.  My army failed to defend the fort, I lost the game... why do we need to draw it out over several years and rub it in when I can just start over?  I play DF because I have the freedom to handle any situation I want in a variety of ways - in this situation, many of those options are locked, or need to be done in secret, and it just becomes a frustrating waiting game.

Don't get me wrong, the idea itself is cool (as your support from other posts indicate), I just don't like the execution.  I'd prefer to see this as an alternative to Reclaim mode if you abandoned mid-siege, that way it's the player's choice to engage in this new play setting.  Alternatively, maybe when conquest is implemented, you could learn of other allied forts that have been enslaved and free them.

It may seem like a trivial thing to make this happen via a few menu clicks instead of happening automatically, but the changes to gameplay are drastic enough that I think the player needs to feel that they had a choice in the matter.

[Foa]

I don't know, to me this sounds like something I would refuse to play if it happened to my fort.  I'd just abandon.  My army failed to defend the fort, I lost the game... why do we need to draw it out over several years and rub it in when I can just start over?  I play DF because I have the freedom to handle any situation I want in a variety of ways - in this situation, many of those options are locked, or need to be done in secret, and it just becomes a frustrating waiting game.

Don't get me wrong, the idea itself is cool (as your support from other posts indicate), I just don't like the execution.  I'd prefer to see this as an alternative to Reclaim mode if you abandoned mid-siege, that way it's the player's choice to engage in this new play setting.  Alternatively, maybe when conquest is implemented, you could learn of other allied forts that have been enslaved and free them.

It may seem like a trivial thing to make this happen via a few menu clicks instead of happening automatically, but the changes to gameplay are drastic enough that I think the player needs to feel that they had a choice in the matter.

They forbid enlisting people not you can't enlist people, nor you are denied control denied the control of anything, except the trade interface.

So you can make an army in a vault, you can create weapons, and you can take back your fort, and then get sieged for a few seasons as they retry to conquer your fort.
This is just a tyranny that controls the mandates, and trade, if they order metallic objects from their mother land, you just got leverage... or climb tools for this high grade hill.

I for one would definetly create a purge system... and place it in a sealed vault ( only because of the [MISCHIEVOUS] ) and label it 'Let This Fort Surge with the Blood of the Blood God' .

[Iden]

Iden, the next version is going to have somewhat advanced sieges, all I know is that they'll make a camp, build a few engines, receive troops, and then rip you a new one.

Goodie. Well then we're a step closer? haha

I don't know, to me this sounds like something I would refuse to play if it happened to my fort.  I'd just abandon.  My army failed to defend the fort, I lost the game... why do we need to draw it out over several years and rub it in when I can just start over?  I play DF because I have the freedom to handle any situation I want in a variety of ways - in this situation, many of those options are locked, or need to be done in secret, and it just becomes a frustrating waiting game.

Don't get me wrong, the idea itself is cool (as your support from other posts indicate), I just don't like the execution.  I'd prefer to see this as an alternative to Reclaim mode if you abandoned mid-siege, that way it's the player's choice to engage in this new play setting.  Alternatively, maybe when conquest is implemented, you could learn of other allied forts that have been enslaved and free them.

It may seem like a trivial thing to make this happen via a few menu clicks instead of happening automatically, but the changes to gameplay are drastic enough that I think the player needs to feel that they had a choice in the matter.

It sounds interesting. I'm not really sure. It's not something I really see being implemented. Too questionable. The basic definition of losing control of your fort is an end-game situation. I don't know how I feel about it. It'd be interesting though, but debatable.

Maybe.... it could factor in as an Advanced Reclaim Scenario.

Perhaps under the circumstances of losing a fort to an enemy siege, the occupying government may allow the dwarven civilians to live under their forced rule. The reclaim party is there to reclaim them. Surviving dwarves inside the fort may help throw levels, bridges, open doors, etc. and help the reclaimers to successful take control of the fort again. Dwarves would rebel and come to your aid as necessary. Perhaps some dwarves would even defect and be loyal to the occupiers.

Just another idea.

[Foa]

Don't get me wrong, the idea itself is cool (as your support from other posts indicate), I just don't like the execution.  I'd prefer to see this as an alternative to Reclaim mode if you abandoned mid-siege, that way it's the player's choice to engage in this new play setting.  Alternatively, maybe when conquest is implemented, you could learn of other allied forts that have been enslaved and free them.

It may seem like a trivial thing to make this happen via a few menu clicks instead of happening automatically, but the changes to gameplay are drastic enough that I think the player needs to feel that they had a choice in the matter.


It sounds interesting. I'm not really sure. It's not something I really see being implemented. Too questionable. The basic definition of losing control of your fort is an end-game situation. I don't know how I feel about it. It'd be interesting though, but debatable.

Maybe.... it could factor in as an Advanced Reclaim Scenario.

Perhaps under the circumstances of losing a fort to an enemy siege, the occupying government may allow the dwarven civilians to live under their forced rule. The reclaim party is there to reclaim them. Surviving dwarves inside the fort may help throw levels, bridges, open doors, etc. and help the reclaimers to successful take control of the fort again. Dwarves would rebel and come to your aid as necessary. Perhaps some dwarves would even defect and be loyal to the occupiers.

Just another idea.

Hrm, they will enforce rules, but whose to say that they will take your power to designate the dwarves, they just enforce their rule, and control the trade.

Either you abandon and go onto the wholesomeness of an Advanced Reclaim Scenario, or you can make a little speakeasy of malice, just place in a backwater area, place a tunnel system that opens up to a few stockpiles ( food, drink, wood, metallic objects, and stone ) over time creating a little ragtag squad, or regiment, and you fill in the rest.