Print

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

[sal880612m]

I think we should combine the mayor and manager into one but keep the value at 5. Also the military positions seem somewhat high. Also by Militia commander do you mean the single noble position or the Position 1 of any squad which IIRC is Militia Captain. If the former 5 is fine but if the latter I would go 3.

But besides just influence values should we not also decide on conditions under which such values are applied. So while someone may be slotted as a Hammerer it doesn't make much sense for them to gain any influence from the position when there are no crimes and never have been.

I am apparently a fan of complicated things. I think that IRL a hammerer would have more influence after meting out a punishment but that their influence would dwindle the longer they went without doing so.
On that note I am putting this out there:
By default a hammerer will have 0 influence and the value will never go below -1 but may go up to 2.
If the value isn't zero it will move toward it by 1 each year the hammerer does nothing.
It will be re/set to two each time the hammerer beats someone.
It will be re/set to one each time the hammerer imprisons someone.
It will be adjusted by -1 if the hammerer isn't able to deliver justice.
So if on Felsite 15 220 he beats someone his influence will be 2 until Felsite 15 221 at which point it will become 1. But say he then imprisoned someone on obsidian 21 221 he would retain an influence of 1 until obsidian 21 222 instead of it dropping down to zero on Felsite 15 222.

Probably too complicated but I wanted to throw it out there.

[neblime]

I mean militia commander.  Why does captain of the guard seem too high?  they are allowed to beat people up at will, I think that's pretty influental.  I like the idea of influence decay but i don't think it should go below 0.  maybe the captain of the guard should have a similar thing for beatings and militia commanders/captains should for when invasions occur.
Also I forgot militia captains I guess 3 influence for them is fine

[RabidAnubis]

Sal, I think the problem with that is that it depends too much on having an overseer that gets things to work in order to give influence, and additionally keeping track of it would turn out to be a chore.

[sal880612m]

I mean militia commander.  Why does captain of the guard seem too high?  they are allowed to beat people up at will, I think that's pretty influental.

With militia captains having 3 influence I am fine with 5 for militia commanders and captain of the guard. 5 just seemed like an arbitrarily large jump to me when militia captains weren't properly in the mix. I have OCD-type issues to the point I want to suggest that even normal soldiers get 1 influence just because the progression seems smoother to me that way.

I like the idea of influence decay but i don't think it should go below 0.  maybe the captain of the guard should have a similar thing for beatings and militia commanders/captains should for when invasions occur.
Also I forgot militia captains I guess 3 influence for them is fine

The numbers were just off the top of my head and meant to simulate something I would expect to see in RL.

Sal, I think the problem with that is that it depends too much on having an overseer that gets things to work in order to give influence, and additionally keeping track of it would turn out to be a chore.

As I said fan of complicated things and just throwing it out there. I haven't had much use for a hammerer in my own playing, to the point I am not sure how hard this would be to track. Again the numbers I gave were arbitrary and could just as easily range from 0-3 with 1 being the default. Or have one be the default and jump to 3 and 5 respectively. My playstyle tends toward obsessive so it is something I would try and track anyway. Sometimes I don't stop and remind myself not everyone is the same way.

[neblime]

well in the other thread we had normal soldiers getting some influence, but we also had a discussion about official and unofficial squads (I think that was also in the old thread) so basically any dwarf who can rustle up a peasant or two can have a squad, but that doesn't mean much if he's just going to beat up some wild animals or something, since we aren't having a central government this time i'm not sure how you can become an official squad...
any thoughts on that tele

[RabidAnubis]

I think a 1x 3x 5x system would work well.  For instance if there is a siege then the influence could be 3x, and if they won a major siege it could go up to 5x for a session.  Since it is title influence it is only defensive anyways, meaning that people just can't fuck with you while its happening.

[neblime]

sorry my internet has been down (and will be intermittent until sometime friday... GMT+10)
I like the idea of influence increasing depending on the military situation, maybe people as a whole can vote whether they feel threatened by outside attack or not,
and set percentages give us different multipliers of influence (say 0-50% is 1x 51-75% is 3x and 76-100% is 3x?)

[RabidAnubis]

I don't think that would work too well.  What do we get for voting threatened?

[kero42]

So you are suggesting that a military commander gets more influence during military situations?

I like the idea of it only giving a bonus in times where the people feel threatened.

So if we collectively think that a series of Kobold ambushes is no big deal, the commander (or whatever relevant position) does not get a bonus and can deal with it using existing recruits, but if we are seriously worried about a war with the elves (on the subject of elves, should we all make sure to have diplomats fixed, or does that fix come pre-done with the LNP?), he would get a bonus that he could use to recruit people or claim weapons?

So, does anyone have any ideas on what sort of world we want genned? My personal preferences would probably be something like this, but I'm very open to suggestion otherwise:

Medium-Small World size.

Any History length beyond the shortest one.

Average number of Beasts, or somewhere below that.

A few Civs, based on what is considered reasonable for the world size.

I am unsure about mineral scarcity, I have yet to develop a preference for any level.

[sal880612m]

^ Above settings sound fine. I would like mineral scarcity not to be too low.

[neblime]

I agree with the above, maybe have mineral abundance fairly high, we're only going to get one fort so we want a variety of metals we can do stuff with there.

as for the military stuff, you have a point anubis I suppose no one has any incentive to vote on that.  Maybe the overseer should just decide what the military situation feels like.

[RabidAnubis]

How are we going to manage the mineral consumption of the fort?  Do the miners keep what they get and the rooms we dig out?

I agree with the settings

[Cain12]

Like most of it, would like a short history, medium at most. Minerals wise I think having a lot would help. A large number of beasts would be nice but average is fine. Civs should match the world size, so medium or down. Don't really care much, sort of busy.

[neblime]

If you choose to live below ground then I'd say you definitely own what you carve out.
As for mineral rights, I don't know... if we bought a pick for every PC then they could mine out what they want and owning that would be fine I guess, unless it's on property someone else has claimed.

[RabidAnubis]

But I mean how would we actually indicate it is ours in game?  Would the overseer just look at an area that was just dug out and say

"Rabidanubis has 10 granite and 3 zircone" or is there some way to force items to go to specific stockpiles