Print

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

[Putnam]

There's already over 100 words. Some people are interested, some take pleasure instead; adding different words for the same emotion would be... probably pretty damn tedious, heh. Here's a list of all of 'em.

[Frogging101]

I'm a bit confused about world activation and how it is internally different from initial world generation. The latest update addressed an issue where attackers would always win whenever attempting to conquer a site in the activated world. As far as I can tell, this was an "intentional" workaround/stub because correctly determining the outcome wasn't implemented, and still isn't fully implemented. This struck me as odd because WG has been able to do this for a long time already.

So I'm wondering what internally is the difference between world generation and the activated world? Why can't they both implement the same ways of simulating things?

[cephalo]

In deciding victory or defeat by the attackers, is it purely random chance, or is there any way to engineer a greater chance for successful defense of a retired fort?

[Toady One]

(weapon skills are taken into consideration, and before retirement you might want to appoint skilled weapon people to official positions so they aren't as likely to move to your next fort)

[cephalo]

(weapon skills are taken into consideration, and before retirement you might want to appoint skilled weapon people to official positions so they aren't as likely to move to your next fort)

Nice! Ok so I think I can deduce that if weapon skills are taken into consideration, that numbers of troops must also be...

Right?

[Toady One]

(that is what makes it weird -- it doesn't look at the non-historical part of the army, due to some annoyances I couldn't iron out in the short time I had...  since your fortress is 100% historical, that gives you a significant advantage, and you already have the defensive bonus from being a fortress...  so you should be almost unstoppable against vanilla civs, which is better than always losing.  modded civs with strong historical critters will have roughly the same advantage they experience in world gen, in one-on-one combat)

[Frogging101]

(that is what makes it weird -- it doesn't look at the non-historical part of the army, due to some annoyances I couldn't iron out in the short time I had...  since your fortress is 100% historical, that gives you a significant advantage, and you already have the defensive bonus from being a fortress...  so you should be almost unstoppable against vanilla civs, which is better than always losing.  modded civs with strong historical critters will have roughly the same advantage they experience in world gen, in one-on-one combat)

What do you mean by non-historical? Isn't every named creature stored in history?

[Toady One]

(the attacking armies bring plenty of non-named entity pop critters along for the ride, and there are also non-named entity pops in the towns)

[Eric Blank]

Are defensive skills (shield and dodge) completely ignored for the purposes of determining victors of battles, then?

Is equipment available involved in any way? Eg one civ has access to steel and full coverage armor and the other to exclusively wood breastplates and spears?

And does the creature type matter in any way? eg; larger creatures getting an advantage over smaller ones, etc...

[Toady One]

(defensive skills and a few others also matter -- same ones as world gen, observer etc. -- equipment is not counted since it is all currently stuck on the disk, creature type matters as in world gen -- size, immunities and some other stuff like fire, and it also takes into consideration the relative pairing, so firebreathers don't get a bonus against fire-proof critters, though that isn't infallible)

[cephalo]

I agree that always winning is better than always losing when it comes to player forts. I can see that it would be a significant task to do this exactly right.

I wonder though if you could just gen up some temporary soldiers before the battle to fill out the population, and then purge them when it's over. If one serves with distinction maybe you could elevate them to historical.

EDIT: Ok, I have a question.

What happens to non-historical army pops after a failed attack? Are they all killed? Are none killed? Is the army destroyed or does it just go attack elsewhere?

[Sizik]

I'm a bit confused about world activation and how it is internally different from initial world generation. The latest update addressed an issue where attackers would always win whenever attempting to conquer a site in the activated world. As far as I can tell, this was an "intentional" workaround/stub because correctly determining the outcome wasn't implemented, and still isn't fully implemented. This struck me as odd because WG has been able to do this for a long time already.

So I'm wondering what internally is the difference between world generation and the activated world? Why can't they both implement the same ways of simulating things?

I'd speculate that the main difference is that post-worldgen simulation has to take into account the actions of the player. That includes both dealing with things the player has done (which are likely recorded in much more detail than happens in worldgen), and interacting with the player while they're currently playing (which happens in (semi) real-time).

[Dirst]

I agree that always winning is better than always losing when it comes to player forts. I can see that it would be a significant task to do this exactly right.

I wonder though if you could just gen up some temporary soldiers before the battle to fill out the population, and then purge them when it's over. If one serves with distinction maybe you could elevate them to historical.

EDIT: Ok, I have a question.

What happens to non-historical army pops after a failed attack? Are they all killed? Are none killed? Is the army destroyed or does it just go attack elsewhere?

From the Announcements thread:

Though the quirk of the system I mentioned in fotf (army pops not mattering) give defenders better odds in the abstract fights.  The army pops aren't killed, but they don't fight either, and if their commanders and other accompanying historical figures are killed they'll retreat back home.

[Rip0k]

I'm a bit confused about world activation and how it is internally different from initial world generation. The latest update addressed an issue where attackers would always win whenever attempting to conquer a site in the activated world. As far as I can tell, this was an "intentional" workaround/stub because correctly determining the outcome wasn't implemented, and still isn't fully implemented. This struck me as odd because WG has been able to do this for a long time already.

So I'm wondering what internally is the difference between world generation and the activated world? Why can't they both implement the same ways of simulating things?

I'd speculate that the main difference is that post-worldgen simulation has to take into account the actions of the player. That includes both dealing with things the player has done (which are likely recorded in much more detail than happens in worldgen), and interacting with the player while they're currently playing (which happens in (semi) real-time).

pretty much.. but let's not forget the time speed weirdness. That is: in-game time speed of Fortress mode vs Adventurer mode vs everything else

[Zarathustra30]

I feel Jubilation at the recent confirmation of the Tavern Arc.

Are there plans to change the mechanics of citizen mastication and potation? (i.e. Will dwarves use mugs?)

Edit: I was so excited about the Dev Page, i missed the DF Talk, which answered my question.