Print

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

[Dirst]

I have a quick question about language files, and I hope it has a simple answer.  What happens if a T_WORD is defined in some languages and not in others?  Does the underlying WORD get ignored by everyone, or just automatically culled from civs who would otherwise use it but don't have a translation for it?

[Putnam]

They will use the word regardless if a translation exists and it will show up as a blank in-game. If you remove T_WORD:DAGGER:urist from dwarves, "Urist Avuzurist" becomes "  Avuz ".

[Dirst]

They will use the word regardless if a translation exists and it will show up as a blank in-game. If you remove T_WORD:DAGGER:urist from dwarves, "Urist Avuzurist" becomes "  Avuz ".

Thanks.  Not the answer I was hoping for, but good to know that any new WORD needs T_WORD's in every language.

[Robsoie]

Question about wars  : is there a way to remove "offer of peace" or at least prevent any "offer of peace" to be accepted so ongoing wars either never end or end only with the destruction of one of the sides involved ?

I thought it was linked to diplomats, but from checking i noticed goblins civs sending offer of peace to other civs at war with them, ending effectively their wars, despite they have no defined diplomats in their entity file.

[Eldin00]

Goblins have [VARIABLE_POSITIONS:ALL] and [SITE_VARIABLE_POSITIONS:ALL] in their entity, so during worldgen their civilizations can generate noble positions to fill any needed responsibility. I haven't tried making a civ with neither variable positions nor a position with [RESPONSIBILITY:MAKE_PEACE_AGREEMENTS], so I'm uncertain if doing so would acomplish a civ which is unable to end any wars it gets into.

[Dirst]

Goblins have [VARIABLE_POSITIONS:ALL] and [SITE_VARIABLE_POSITIONS:ALL] in their entity, so during worldgen their civilizations can generate noble positions to fill any needed responsibility. I haven't tried making a civ with neither variable positions nor a position with [RESPONSIBILITY:MAKE_PEACE_AGREEMENTS], so I'm uncertain if doing so would acomplish a civ which is unable to end any wars it gets into.

Doesn't [UTTERANCES] accomplish the same thing?  Though that could break all international relations like trading.

[BlackFlyme]

Yea, not being able to speak intelligibly kind of impedes negotiations.

Just having them not speak at all accomplishes the same thing.

[Dirst]

Yea, not being able to speak intelligibly kind of impedes negotiations.

Just having them not speak at all accomplishes the same thing.

Darmok and Gilad at Tenagra.

[KingKaol]

Is there a way to change the tiles used for dirt vs rough stone floors? Currently with varied tiles turned off they are both `.` period, but I was wondering if there was a way to change say rough stone to be a different tile, like `,` comma?

Not with normal modding, but with Twbt (Text will be Text, by mifki, a dfhack plugin) you can change them by using override tiles.

thanks, nice and simple:

data/init/overrides.txt

Code: [Select]

[OVERRIDE:46:T:SoilFloor1:text:44:]
[OVERRIDE:46:T:SoilFloor2:text:44:]
[OVERRIDE:46:T:SoilFloor3:text:44:]
[OVERRIDE:46:T:SoilFloor4:text:44:]

[Robsoie]

Thank you guys , i'll give a try with those tokens to help breaking those peace negocations.

edit : generated a small region for 120 years with 40 civs made of the default species + several custom ones and gave [UTTERANCES] to each of them (in their creature files, as [UTTERANCES] is not an entity token), even the default species.

... and unfortunately it does not stop the peace offer, as i see many wars ended with "peace accepted" :/
I'll have to try with the and only assign position manually like for the dwarven entities.

edit 2 :

I am wondering if the reason [UTTERANCES] does not prevent peace to be made could be that some abducted/migrant from other species joined and were given diplomat position, allowing then a peace negociation to be made as they would speak the same language as their possible enemy.

I will have to try with the position assignement, removing those [VARIABLE_POSITIONS:ALL] and assign them manually without adding a diplomat

[Robsoie]

Some good and some bad about having wars that do not stop with peace negociation until an opponent defeat.

What i did :
- every creature standards involved, both from creature_standard.txt and my own creature_anti.txt have an [UTTERANCE] tag to avoid those main species understanding each other and getting to possible peace

- added [BABYSNATCHERS] to every entities, both from entity_default.txt and my own entity_anti.txt in order to make war happening more often between each entities

- with all the abductions [UTTERANCE] wasn't stopping peace negociation anymore as i guess abducted people growing up into their enemy entities would then be able to negociate peace with their former entities due to sharing same utterance

- removed all the [RESPONSIBILITY:MAKE_PEACE_AGREEMENTS] from diplomat position in both entity_default.txt and my own entity_anti.txt to avoid diplomats being able to negociate peace, but i didn't removed the diplomat position in case it's needed by the game code for war declaration

- removed all the [VARIABLE_POSITIONS:ALL] and [SITE_VARIABLE_POSITIONS:ALL] from entities featuring it (humans , goblin and the additional entities i made) and replaced those by copy of the actual positions from dwarf and elf entities (just changed their display name to fit)

- removed all the [CHAT_WORTHY] tokens from positions having it as i remember some people mentionning it can crash worldgen in some conditions, but that shouldn't impact wars

After testing with a 130 years old worldgen on small and smaller regions edited to have 30 civs starting in them i noticed :

- wars are always ongoing, that's a success on this, they never stop.
But it seems DF does not mention that a civilisation is destroyed anywhere in legends as there are now civs that have no more member resulting of war but it's mentionned nowhere, there are just mention of new government in conquered sites but nothing mention the war being ended with one of the civ being entirely conquered (all its sites)

- much more of an annoyance and a problem for world and civs dynamics : it seems to be -extremely- rare that civs make war against more than 1 other civ at the same time now that war never end, in all my tests, i observed only twice a civ being at war with 2 other civs !

- and another annoyance very likely responsible of the previous one : war is very rare despite the modification should make it actually more present (i edited lots of ethics to help make some opposition there), on every of my worldgen with the endless wars setting on 30 civs maybe 5 or 6 are at war
Maybe distance play, but even on smaller worlds that are rather small ?

I'll have to give a try with 34.11 to see if the global AI passivity of 40.x is part of the problem.

edit : removed all the start/exclusive/support biome for every entities and replaced with
   [START_BIOME:ANY_LAND]
   [SETTLEMENT_BIOME:ANY_LAND]
   [BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_LAND:5]
to spice things up and see if it could work around possible distance problems, while it's working nicely and civs are spawning all over the map without restrictions like before, war is still extremely rare.

[scamtank]

No wonder. Two civilizations that both have [BABYSNATCHER] understand each other just fine. They're part of the same alignment.

The four alignments are BABYSNATCHER, ITEM_THIEF, both at the same time and none of the above. Different alignments can't play nice.

[Robsoie]

Thanks, i wasn't aware of those 4 "alignements" as i really didn't thought civs snatching each other babies would be going along just fine instead of trying to get vengeance constantly :/

Unfortunately it does not seem to go very well, my 8 civs are defined like that
1 nothing
1 babysnatcher
1 item thief
1 babysnatcher+item thief
1 nothing
1 babysnatcher
1 item thief
1 babysnatcher+item thief
(all of them are active at every seasons)

In the "Smaller Region" world there's a total of 30 civs from those 8 entities.
After a 120 years worldgen

9 civs have item thief and only 2 of them is at war (both vs civ from the babysnatcher+item thief)
9 civs have nothing and only 1 of them is at war (vs a civ from the babysnatcher+item thief)
8 civs have babysnatcher and only 1 of them is at war (vs a civ from the babysnatcher+item thief)
4 civs have babysnatcher+item thief and all 4 are at war (the one already mentionned)

So in total on 120 years only 8 out of 30 civs have made a war.
The babysnatcher+item thief civs are the ones i made using the goblin entity as a template (changing the ethics tough) , i'll have to look more closely to what is that different to make them all go at war while the others do not apparently

[Robsoie]

After trying so many things and change in tokens and ethics and found out that elf/human/dwarf template-based entities nearly never go at war with elf/human/dwarf entities and only the goblin based ones do, i decided to experiment.

I changed 2 entries for my 2 entities that were based on the goblins
   [DEFAULT_SITE_TYPE:DARK_FORTRESS]
   [LIKES_SITE:DARK_FORTRESS]

replaced by
   [DEFAULT_SITE_TYPE:CITY]
   [LIKES_SITE:CITY]

One think this shouldn't make any difference in the willingness to go at war ?
... And you would be wrong, suddenly both entities based on goblin template decided to ... never go at war with anyone at worldgen, managed to generate 4 worlds on a row in which there was no war in 120 years, while just before i made that change, those 2 were the only entities that -always- had their civs making war with the other entities.

Oh well, it's not making any sense to me, unless there's something hardcoded to dark fortress, that could explain why nothing i change seems to make any actual change in the war willingness of the entities that aren't liking/defaulting to dark fortress,

[Robsoie]

Still on my tinkerings, i decided to give another test, i removed all the manually made positions in every of my 8 entities and replace them by
[VARIABLE_POSITIONS:ALL]
[SITE_VARIABLE_POSITIONS:ALL]

And now instead of only the 2 civs that were made from goblin templates, every civs are now going at war.
It's odd, because i had previously replaced those from the 2 goblin-like entities by positions i copied from the elves ones , while the 2 other civs that were using elves position never went at war against anyone else in dozen after dozen of worldgen (despite ethic + alignements were opposite to a few of the other civs).

Now that everyone has no more manually setup position but is using
   [VARIABLE_POSITIONS:ALL]
   [SITE_VARIABLE_POSITIONS:ALL]
Everyone go at war, the unfortunate side effect is that they're negociating peace sometime again, but i wonder why war is now triggered again by just doing that.

That's getting very complicated, if i manage to get the civs to never stop war (no peace accepted) thanks to having manually inserted positions that do not have any peace agreement responsabilities, most of those civs will never go at war , but if i remove all those manually inserted position and let the game assign the variable ones on its own, suddenly everyone is very willing to go at war
*scratch head*

Oh well, at least with how it is now, it's a great population control for adventure mode, on the many worldgen i did while testing with variable position, i never had anything overpopulated anymore, some good fun for exploring without unplayable framerate i guess