Print

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

[GreatWyrmGold]

Cave adaptation doesn't happen on tigermen and the like, however.  They can go underground, but that doesn't mean they are cave-adapted. 

Likewise, dwarves that periodically travel aboveground avoid cave adaptation. 

Again, this is a matter of putting the cart before the horse - cave adaptation is caused by generations spending life underground, having cave adaptation doesn't cause creatures to start living underground. 

In order for cave adaptation to be justified there must have been an original cause for that shift to being an underground creature that had nothing to do with cave adaptation.

Indeed. However, that happened long before worldgen, back when dwarves' living ancestors were apes or mountain goats or badgers or bears or cats or whatever, so it's not important right now. Let's focus on what actually happens, not what happened. Actually, your assumption assumes that dwarves weren't originally people cursed with cave adaptation magically, leading to a variety of other adaptations for underground living (extensive body and facial hair, along with shortened limbs, for warmth; shorter stature for fitting into cramped spaces; stouter skeletal structure and possibly higher muscle density for mining and dealing with deadly cavern beasts; etc) came as a result of that--and since those are variations that occur, albeit in lesser magnitude than in the dwarves' case, the change from cursed humans to dwarves could probably occur within several hundred generations--something like around the amount of time between the development of agriculture and worldgen? Point is, just because in our world, a cave-adapted species would need to go to caves first doesn't mean squat in a magical world. It's a good idea/point, but it can be rebutted more easily the more magic is added to DF.

[xeniorn]

Dwarves do have a physiological reason for being good miners, cave adaptation.  Another race that does not cave adapt isn't going to be as comfortable working underground.

Actually, I believe you have that backwards - they are cave adapted because they spend so much time underground, not they spend all their time underground because they are cave adapted. 

Cave adaptation is a weakness, not a strength.

Your logic is sound, but by making such statements you start going in a very wrong direction. The race indeed became cave adapted supposedly because they worked underground a lot, but as it is at the time when worldgen occurs, the dwarves are naturally cave-adapted, even if they spend their whole life without entering an underground area. You cannot think long-term when considering DF history as it is too short for anything meaningful evolution-wise to come to be.

As dwarves are the only playable race in DF, there was no reason to put in reverse cave-adaptation for above-ground entities, which would make cave-adaptation an advantage for the dwarves. Just because gameplay wise it is only a disadvantage at this point, I wouldn't go so far as to calling cave-adaptation a weakness and not a strength. Putting game-mechanics aside, it is as much a weakness as it is a strength - an adaptation that changes the dwarves in such a way they physiologically prefer underground and the dark, even though they can handle light and the outside unless they stay underground for prolonged amounts of time without ever wandering outside.

My third point, pertaining previous claims of "everyone should be able to do everything with proper training" - I don't agree. It seems to me you're thinking about dwarves and elves as if difference between them is no greater than various real-world human races. While a person from any part of the world should be able to learn any skill other humans can do given enough time and tutoring and do it with similar proficiency, the same wouldn't work with elves and dwarves, for example. Consider the more extreme case of a human and a chimp. Putting intelligence aside, a chimp's body simply cannot do the same things as a human's does, and vice versa. Dwarves thought up of a way of working with metal that works well for a person of their stature, strength, that complements their characteristics in every way. Why is it so unthinkable that an elf simply couldn't do it that way well? Maybe muscles of elven arms are positioned differently, maybe their bones can't handle the stress of continuous pounding. Maybe they can't "feel" how the metal reacts below the hammer due to a lack of sensory mechanisms present in dwarven arms. I'm not saying elves learning from dwarves couldn't, in time, adapt their metalworking technique so they produce goods of matching quality, but I wouldn't jump to a conclusion that an elf could simply be taught to pound metal the same way a dwarf does and do it as well as a dwarf.

But I think you're right at the point in the part about social structure.

[NW_Kohaku]

I feel like I've been getting into a lot of these verbose debates, lately...

It's a good idea/point, but it can be rebutted more easily the more magic is added to DF.

I've never really liked the notion that magic should be unexplained.

Being as it is DF, I rather prefer the notion that magic is a force of nature that simply does not exist in our world, but nevertheless is an understandable and rational force.  Magic that exists in the game is predictable, if not exactly well-explained.  Evil areas mean zombies and occasionally clouds that do all kinds of not-good things to your dwarves.

I pushed along a thread on exploring the concept of a magic-based ecosystem, where magic, much like regular ecosystems, is consumed by the "autotrophs" that form the "plantlife" of caverns and form the basis of a magical ecosystem, and restored back by "decomposers" that replenish the magic supply of the area.

To simply say "dwarves are magic" and that therefore, none of their attributes has to make sense is deeply dissatisfying.

Just because gameplay wise it is only a disadvantage at this point, I wouldn't go so far as to calling cave-adaptation a weakness and not a strength. Putting game-mechanics aside, it is as much a weakness as it is a strength - an adaptation that changes the dwarves in such a way they physiologically prefer underground and the dark, even though they can handle light and the outside unless they stay underground for prolonged amounts of time without ever wandering outside.

There's nothing really advantageous about cave adaptation no matter how you might look at it.  It is, again, a weakness, not a strength.  Dwarves can live aboveground for their whole lives with no ill effects.  Humans and elves can live underground for their whole lives with no ill effect.  It's just that dwarves that spend most of their time underground will start feeling ill effect if they reach the surface.

Dwarves have advantages and adaptations that help them become better cavern survivors, but cave adaptation is less an advantage and more a vestigial weakness, like a moth's confusing artificial light for the moon and flying into a flame. 

Those advantages (short size, high strength, magical strange mooding and trances) are completely separate and distinct from their cave adaptation.  They work just fine with or without cave adaptation actually taking place in a dwarf.  If they do have a darkvision-like ability, then unless it actually only activates once dwarves become cave adapted (and ceases to function if they lose their cave adaptation), then cave adaptation is nothing but a weakness.

My third point, pertaining previous claims of "everyone should be able to do everything with proper training" - I don't agree.

That isn't the point I was making.  In fact, I was making a point fairly similar to yours.

The argument I was making was that saying "dwarves are poor swimmers because when you think of dwarves, you think of mountains, and they don't go out to oceans" is invalid reasoning, but that "dwarves are poor swimmers because they have shorter limbs compared to their more bulky torso" is valid reasoning.

If there is a valid physiological reason for an elf not to be capable of metalworking, it's one thing, but at the same time, if an elf is capable of carving wood or sewing images into cloth, why are they incapable of performing that same precision into carving stone images or statues?  How different are the requirements to be a wood sculptor from being a statue sculptor?

By comparison, if an ant-man lacks the eyesight and the mental development to appreciate aesthetics, then it makes perfect sense to say they make crappy artists. 

[Splint]

There are some you'd think would be cave-adapted by sheer virtue of being cavern dwellers, and I can't help but think alot of them are smarter than they let on since they can clearly communicate with elves, humans, and dwarves just fine. Hell, alot of cavern dwellers may have adopted the dwarven language for communication outside their species, or most likely have had more contact with dwarves than others at the very least. Bah, I went of track. Point is, there are some things that are in the game itself to affect the player race, and not others simply because we don't play as them.

And whoever said the thing about dwarves being poor swimmers due to thier build (shorter limbs and such) is a good point. Plus all the water retained by thier beards can't help that at all... Amphibious moat guards anyone?

Just... ignor me. I'll probably be injecting less coherent data as time drags on simply because the debate is over my head crushed my dreams already.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I feel like I've been getting into a lot of these verbose debates, lately...

You and me both.

It's a good idea/point, but it can be rebutted more easily the more magic is added to DF.

I've never really liked the notion that magic should be unexplained.

Being as it is DF, I rather prefer the notion that magic is a force of nature that simply does not exist in our world, but nevertheless is an understandable and rational force.  Magic that exists in the game is predictable, if not exactly well-explained.  Evil areas mean zombies and occasionally clouds that do all kinds of not-good things to your dwarves.

I pushed along a thread on exploring the concept of a magic-based ecosystem, where magic, much like regular ecosystems, is consumed by the "autotrophs" that form the "plantlife" of caverns and form the basis of a magical ecosystem, and restored back by "decomposers" that replenish the magic supply of the area.

To simply say "dwarves are magic" and that therefore, none of their attributes has to make sense is deeply dissatisfying.

I'd summarize what I said as more like "In a world where deities are known to curse people, and where people are known to cast some kinds of spells, it's possible that certain traits were added by magic, and if they were the other traits could have come from the lifestyle constraints imposed by the curse." Much wordier, but also closer to what I said.

Just because gameplay wise it is only a disadvantage at this point, I wouldn't go so far as to calling cave-adaptation a weakness and not a strength. Putting game-mechanics aside, it is as much a weakness as it is a strength - an adaptation that changes the dwarves in such a way they physiologically prefer underground and the dark, even though they can handle light and the outside unless they stay underground for prolonged amounts of time without ever wandering outside.

There's nothing really advantageous about cave adaptation no matter how you might look at it.  It is, again, a weakness, not a strength.  Dwarves can live aboveground for their whole lives with no ill effects.  Humans and elves can live underground for their whole lives with no ill effect.  It's just that dwarves that spend most of their time underground will start feeling ill effect if they reach the surface.

Dwarves have advantages and adaptations that help them become better cavern survivors, but cave adaptation is less an advantage and more a vestigial weakness, like a moth's confusing artificial light for the moon and flying into a flame. 

Those advantages (short size, high strength, magical strange mooding and trances) are completely separate and distinct from their cave adaptation.  They work just fine with or without cave adaptation actually taking place in a dwarf.  If they do have a darkvision-like ability, then unless it actually only activates once dwarves become cave adapted (and ceases to function if they lose their cave adaptation), then cave adaptation is nothing but a weakness.

Taking cave adapation by itself, yeah. Code-wise, nothing else has to do with dwarves' cave adaptation. Similarly, in the code, there isn't really any connection between a bird's flight and its wings, or a kobold's sealth and its tendancy to steal things, or a goblin's antisocial personality and its tendancy to go to war with everyone. After all, if we assume that dwarves evolved from something, like you did, why would they evolve to vomit (wasting time and precious nutrients) if they saw the sun after being underground too long?

My third point, pertaining previous claims of "everyone should be able to do everything with proper training" - I don't agree.

That isn't the point I was making.  In fact, I was making a point fairly similar to yours.

The argument I was making was that saying "dwarves are poor swimmers because when you think of dwarves, you think of mountains, and they don't go out to oceans" is invalid reasoning, but that "dwarves are poor swimmers because they have shorter limbs compared to their more bulky torso" is valid reasoning.

If there is a valid physiological reason for an elf not to be capable of metalworking, it's one thing, but at the same time, if an elf is capable of carving wood or sewing images into cloth, why are they incapable of performing that same precision into carving stone images or statues?  How different are the requirements to be a wood sculptor from being a statue sculptor?

By comparison, if an ant-man lacks the eyesight and the mental development to appreciate aesthetics, then it makes perfect sense to say they make crappy artists.

Ah, irony...

Just... ignor me. I'll probably be injecting less coherent data as time drags on simply because the debate is over my head crushed my dreams already.

Aw, don't feel left out. You can still point out good information. Like the amphibious guards--if you pay, say, cavefishmen to live in your moat in exchange for chum and metal armor/weapons, that moa would be much more fearsome. It's easier than any kind of tamed animal, perhaps barring pasturing them and then flooding the moat...but then what happens if they leave the pasture?

[Splint]

The moat-guarding animals that lack lungs proceed to air drown. I'll admit I always wanted a carp filled moat, but having amphibious moat guards seems so much better, especially if they strangle invaders under the water and can fish out dead enemy mounts for the dwarves to chop up, of which they'd get a 'cut'. ehehehe. get it? Cut? butchering the mounts...? .... I'll be quiet now...

[luisedgm]

Interesting idea

[Zale]

I've given up because all the debating makes this an obviously pointless thread to have gotten involved in.

I'd just like the option. If nothing else, figure a way to make them work as mercenaries. No slavery, both sides benefit, and not much consideration needs to be made for either side in such a situation. Tribe defends fort, fort pays them in tools or food or whatever. Pay insufficent, tribe leaves. Probably not possible/ this won't be implemented anyway.

Farewell thread. May your debate continue in peace.

This is what I would like. I'm a newb. The game is more than sufficiently complicated for me without having to apply the wonders of social and racial friction between the dwarves and their hired mercenaries.

Not to mention, that would probably take quite awhile to implement. 

[NW_Kohaku]

I've given up because all the debating makes this an obviously pointless thread to have gotten involved in.

I'd just like the option. If nothing else, figure a way to make them work as mercenaries. No slavery, both sides benefit, and not much consideration needs to be made for either side in such a situation. Tribe defends fort, fort pays them in tools or food or whatever. Pay insufficent, tribe leaves. Probably not possible/ this won't be implemented anyway.

Farewell thread. May your debate continue in peace.

This is what I would like. I'm a newb. The game is more than sufficiently complicated for me without having to apply the wonders of social and racial friction between the dwarves and their hired mercenaries.

Not to mention, that would probably take quite awhile to implement. 

Yeah, but Toady never does things when they are simple and efficient.  He only works on things when it involves adding a whole new dynamic to the game.

If we can describe our plans without resorting to flow charts and diagrams, it's not going to hold Toady's interest long enough for him to implement it.

[Corai]

This is the simplest I can make this.




Find "barbaric people"

They join and start working.

SMILES ALL AROUND.

Batmen-dwarves start appearing.

[Splint]

I think we can all agree this thread stopped going anywhere. Let it die people.

[NW_Kohaku]

I think we can all agree this thread stopped going anywhere. Let it die people.

I don't.  I kind of want to start diagramming out all the complexities I'd like to see, but it's a little too late at night to start that now.

Besides, you keep saying things about how you hate things that are complex and that you will never talk in this thread again, and yet, here you are...

[Splint]

I was talked back into it if I recall right. But the constant debates give me a headache so I try to avoid it if something comes up that is of that nature. Otherwise I'll be happy to either murder this thread in it's sleep or try to think of something productive to say.

[Zale]

I was talked back into it if I recall right. But the constant debates give me a headache so I try to avoid it if something comes up that is of that nature. Otherwise I'll be happy to either murder this thread in it's sleep or try to think of something productive to say.

Yes, people in this forum do tend to end up in huge block of text debates, don't they? 

I just skim right over them. If it doesn't relate closely enough to the actual subject of the thread, I skip to the next post. Debate is all well and good, but sometimes you end up running off on a tangent into deep and confusing territory.

Which leaves most people: 

But I would enjoy being able to somehow hire or utilize Animal/Beast-People in Fortress Mode. Especially for Mercenary work. Pre-trained and organized fighters? Do want.

Especially since I am rather bad at managing a military..

Oh and I've totally drifted off topic.. figures, since I've been up for far to long. Leaves the brain all fuzzy.

[Splint]

You're up too long when you've been up 24+ hours and take an unsettleing incident involving artificial human stupid out on a mod's creator. There, I just went WAY off topic. I win.

And they wouldn't be preorganized. But physically many animalmen would make theoretically better soliders than dwraves, or do thinks dwarves can't do or can barely do without dying (swim/fly) hence why people would want to use them.

Amphibious ones can fish out loot and corpses from moats and ponds, and attack invaders from the water/strike across unbridged streams and rivers while fliers can thin out attackers even if a fort's buttoned up (and it has above ground walls/defences) or directly fight flying  mounted invaders without needing ammo.

The issue is, in the long term there'd be no difference between them and dwarves other than thier percieved natural abilities, which annoys the crap out of some people while others don't give two shits and just want something nastier than dwarves to command while maintiaining a solidly dwarven fortress.