Print

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

[Loud Whispers]

What if an outpost was faced with destruction? A siege from humans or goblins, or maybe even from necromancers? Why must it always end in the destruction of one side or the other?
It would be rather interesting if a Fortress certain to be defeated could choose to surrender. The conquerors could then move in and establish their own puppet government (with harsh retaliation should the nobles die), the game essentially continuing as normal except with a new mountainhome of sorts and new mandates; harsher civs could even randomly select Dwarves and throw them in prison or try to establish their laws over the Dwarves (such as an Elf lord sentencing Dwarves who've cut down trees to beating - except using a stick instead of the Dwarven hammerer).

*EDIT

People have been suggesting this for a couple years now:
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=3010.0
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=6218.0
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=5056.0
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=4782.0

Please search Suggestions before posting.

Ah. My search-fu lost by 3 years.

[Icefire2314]

It sounds like a cool idea, but I don't see dwarves really surrendering. Anyway, it'd be cool if you could make a treaty of sorts.

[weenog]

I think this idea has potential, but it's too early for it.  When the world becomes more dynamic and interactive, and the player is able to move fortresses around (either by actually relocating in fortress mode, or by starting a fortress with the companions in adventurer mode), it should be revisited.  I wouldn't like to see a half-assed version implemented before the world can react suitably.

Nor would I want to see it turn up before the player has more options than just being the loser in a surrender situation.  Why shouldn't the player be the invaders forcing a surrender (or, for an especially terrible fortress, the defender forcing the invaders to submit)?  Why shouldn't the player receive news of distant battles and lost or gained territory from visiting diplomats, with an option (or requirement) to send along help for a war effort in the form of personnel, materiel, or both?

---

Dwarfs surrendering is pretty easy to imagine for me.  Civilians already panic at the sight of small birds and other animals, sometimes those that don't even have a valid path to reach them.  All it really needs is a civilian smart enough to understand that the interrupting critter is between him and safety, and that running off into the wilderness isn't going to help.

Urist McFarmer cancels Gather Plants: surrendered to badger.

[King Mir]

If it comes down to it, dwarves would more easily retreat to the caverns. Which is what abandoning amounts to.

[dwarfhoplite]

Why would goblins want to spare you after beating you up? You are building a colony too close to their home and they want to get rid of you.

[Catsup]

Dwarf: "My life for [name of your fortress]!"

since dwarves would rather die anyway than smash their children and friends to prevent tantrums, i dont think surrendering so they can live out the rest of their lives at the mercy of their captors is a "dorfy" idea. There is no glory in capture, but glory in fighting to the death in face of insurmountable odds.

[Babylon]

What if an outpost was faced with destruction? A siege from humans or goblins, or maybe even from necromancers? Why must it always end in the destruction of one side or the other?
It would be rather interesting if a Fortress certain to be defeated could choose to surrender. The conquerors could then move in and establish their own puppet government (with harsh retaliation should the nobles die), the game essentially continuing as normal except with a new mountainhome of sorts and new mandates; harsher civs could even randomly select Dwarves and throw them in prison or try to establish their laws over the Dwarves (such as an Elf lord sentencing Dwarves who've cut down trees to beating - except using a stick instead of the Dwarven hammerer).

*EDIT

People have been suggesting this for a couple years now:
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=3010.0
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=6218.0
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=5056.0
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=4782.0

Please search Suggestions before posting.

Ah. My search-fu lost by 3 years.

Considering Elven Ethics I think tree cutters would be sentenced to death, not a beating.

[Lielac]

What if an outpost was faced with destruction? A siege from humans or goblins, or maybe even from necromancers? Why must it always end in the destruction of one side or the other?
It would be rather interesting if a Fortress certain to be defeated could choose to surrender. The conquerors could then move in and establish their own puppet government (with harsh retaliation should the nobles die), the game essentially continuing as normal except with a new mountainhome of sorts and new mandates; harsher civs could even randomly select Dwarves and throw them in prison or try to establish their laws over the Dwarves (such as an Elf lord sentencing Dwarves who've cut down trees to beating - except using a stick instead of the Dwarven hammerer).

*EDIT

People have been suggesting this for a couple years now:
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=3010.0
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=6218.0
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=5056.0
http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=4782.0

Please search Suggestions before posting.

Ah. My search-fu lost by 3 years.

Considering Elven Ethics I think tree cutters would be sentenced to death, not a beating.

Nah. The elves would have them for dinner.

[Loud Whispers]

Why would goblins want to spare you after beating you up? You are building a colony too close to their home and they want to get rid of you.

They don't actually ever tell you why they want you dead so...?

[PDF urist master]

surrender, but surrendering comes with a massive happiness penalty.

[Helari]

Being conquered should be a game over but should not necessarily result in the whole population dying.

That way you can come back as an adventurer and murder the new ownership of the fort.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You can currently give into the siege, but that kills all your dwarves anyways so it's not this.

Since NPC surrenders and occupations* are being added, player-controlled forts surrendering might not be that tough.


*As in military, not as in jobs.

[louismoo]

Why would goblins want to spare you after beating you up? You are building a colony too close to their home and they want to get rid of you.

I'm pretty sure their just killing dwarves to steal their riches. It's nothing ethical like 'your ruining the hills around us, you must die!' like the elves.

[10ebbor10]

Goblins also do slavery.

Besides, not all defeats are complete defeats. Maybe the goblins could defeat you, but the battle would cost them to much. Hence they demand your surrender, in exchange for stuff.

[loose nut]

I would think different civs would want different things for winning a siege (which condition would be fulfilled by killing all the fort's military and beginning to kill off the civilians, let's say, such that an all-civilian fort could be safe as long as their external defenses held)

Goblins would want all the dwarven children, as much loot as they could carry, and regular tribute. Or they would just refuse surrender.
Humans would probably just want to loot the place and receive a lesser amount of tribute.
Elves might just want your animals and metal weapons/ armor, or masterworks, or artifacts.
A dwarven civ would want to execute your fort's nobles, install their own, and change the parent civ of your fort. Possibly inviting a countersiege from your original civilization.
A necromancer would want to take away a number of your dwarves for *experiments* and receive a regular tribute of dwarves thereafter.