I'm seeing a lot of good ideas here . . . but what I'm NOT seeing is a lot of good ideas for bad things that have greater influence on the LATE game than the EARLY game. Natural disasters, moisture-sensitive aquifer layers, burrowing creatures--these are all well & good, but all quite impartial to the age of a fortress. Even the disease idea is largely time-neutral, with the only difference being that older forts are more likely to have larger networks of friends & family, so there's arguably a greater risk of transmission.
I didn't say it directly, but I think the idea with natural disasters is to have them as rare enough events that you are unlikely to see them in your first couple of years, just because they are so uncommon. But yeah, a directly implemented "No Natural Disasters for 1st year" seems reasonable.
I believe I already came up with the point of percentage based chances which increased over time. Like a probability curve. For a catastrophic earthquake, the chances would start at or near zero, and gradually rise with the time. Then after awhile, the chances of it happening would rise faster and faster. When it finally happened, the chances would reset to zero and repeat the process. This would ensure that it wouldn't happen too soon, that it would be much more likely to happen late game, and that there would be a period of calm in between repeating disasters. I also stated that more severe forms would have a much lower inherent probability than less severe forms. I had given the example of a catastrophic quake being rare, but small rumblings being fairly common and with a much higher probability to happen. Same thing with illness. A severe plague could follow a catastrophic disaster probability track, while more mild illness might be more common. Like a severity/probability counter.
Although, there should be other disasters which are not based on the chance flow but certain conditions which can spike what would otherwise be a generally low and stagnant probability. I think this would add more variety to it. For example, there could be certain controllable conditions (like letting the rat population get out of control) which may spike the chance of a specific type of plague like disease to happen. But if it was kept under control then the chances would be next to none. That specific disaster's determinant would be entirely separate from the probability flow which would dictate other severe diseases and other catastrophes. Then there was my idea of seasonal disasters, like weather related ones. So they would be much more frequent than something like an earthquake, but only during certain times of the year. So during those times (seasons) they would be more likely to happen and the probability would spike, and the probability would be much less or even nothing during the rest of the year. Perhaps we could program in a few years calm years in the start so that severe whether gave you a chance to build shelter?
Anyway, the point is that I think that a probability curve was a pretty good way to balance it so that it happens later on and that there are breaks between catastrophes of the same kind. This makes most of the additional challenges have more influence late game.
I thought my earlier post about "I'm gonna achieve my goals, consequences be damned" post was very neatly lategame-only, and I'd never heard of anyone else suggesting such a thing before . . . but since only one other person reacted at all, obviously this was not the firebrand I hoped it might be. Which is okay, really, but I'm just wondering why no one else thought it was interesting. Was it because my aim of "something late-game" went TOO far into the late game? As in, a fort reaching the artifact cap is something that almost never happens, therefore this idea would have almost zero impact?
I think we had a couple of long posts, then we got into details about them, thus missing your post.
Let's see, to ensure that these happen late game with a realism component, it could be based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs). A dwarf most feel safe, happy, well-fed, etc. for x years (maybe 5 to 10, maybe adjustable by RAW tag or other personality traits) to begin pursuing self-actualization goals. The dwarfs basic goals+religious values+ideology values+groups alignments determine exactly what and how they pursue these goals. The pursuit of these goals would drive late game conflict within the fort. Because these behaviors would be triggered by long term satisfaction, they wouldn't happen to young forts or forts that are already getting their fair share of FUN! Isolating your fort could increase the odds of neurotic late game goals happening (either by direct personality modifier "hasn't talked to someone outside the fort in a long time", "is going stir-crazy" or by lacking home civ moderation in the form of liaisons, outside news, and nobles).
Hypothetical example: Your fort has hit ten years old and two of your original seven both begin pursuing their goals. Unfortunately, they worship opposing deities, and are both deeply religious. They both have a wide number of friends and are members of guilds and such. The fort was sealed off 5 years ago, so there are no outside influences (liasons, diplomats, travelers with world news) to moderate things or distract your dwarfs. Thus the fort is spontaneously divided into two factions. One of the original migrants desired to create a great work of art, so he starts making religious artwork that merely incites riots. The other migrant desired to become a great warrior, so he mobilizes an unauthorized militia and starts militarizing his religious faction. The player can manipulate things to seek conflict resolution, exacerbate the conflict, or favor victory of one side or the other (or try to prolong it 
).
Yeah this idea would be limited to players who get late game forts and then let things stabilize enough. Some of the min-maxing players would probably trigger minor conflicts just to stop these scenarios. It could also punish isolationist behavior.
I have mixed feelings one this one. On one hand, I really like the idea of self actualization goals. I think it adds more unique character and personality to the dwarves. It makes things interesting. And if there was anything that could punish an isolationist fort, the psychological angle would certainly make sense. I do also have a morbid fascination with tantrum spirals, civil wars, and the like. But this idea also comes with some significant concerns.
1. It seems to be punishing you for doing well more than punishing you for being an isolationist. Heck, I'm not sure it really threatens an isolationist. An isolationist (being the control freaks we tend to be) could just take away their beds for a bit, or purposely manage the food supply, or whatever for a brief period every so often so that the dwarfs were uncomfortable enough where this would never happen. It would take a bit of micromanaging, but it's quite doable. Or better yet, you could find ways to spread miasma to the fort on purpose. Then they would never be happy enough to worry about it. (In fact, I myself have experimented with controlled miasma labyrinths.) There wouldn't necessarily be a punishment for being isolated. Just for being healthy and happy. Yet at the same time, any fort (isolationist or not) which is doing really well is more prone to this because many of the dwarfs are happy and safe. So again, you wind up punishing me for doing well and not to turtle up and be secluded. I'm all for adding challenges, but punishing us just for doing well is way too artificial an approach for making it harder.
2. I like the idea of not having outside contact being a determining factor in increasing the chances.
And it seems to be the main thing which makes it more likely to be an issue for isolated forts. However, this factor seems especially chaotic and hard to control. Not every dwarf will have a need to contact the outside whether the fort is isolated or not. And what counts as outside contact? Traders? Who would need to meet them? Maybe just your trade dwarf and the occasional escort of soldiers to keep them safe. It seems that whether the fort was isolated or not, there would be plenty of dwarfs that would not even go to see traders. Maybe the migrants might count as an outside influence for a bit? But in a large fort, particularly one that has hit population cap, you may not have the need to receive migrants. And if migrants do come then how do you know they even interact with the other dwarfs in a large fort? First of all, I would need more clarification on what qualifies as outside contact. Then I would need to be sold on why all the dwarfs need to meet said outside contact, or at least how they might qualify for having done so. Here's an example of what worries me here. Say I have a dwarf whose role is to sit in the forge and craft metal things. He doesn't need to go outside and meet traders or whatever. His bed is nearby, there's a nearby dining facility so he doesn't have to go far to eat/drink, etc. His place is to eat, sleep, and forge metal and this is generally good for production. My hypothetical fort has armies which patrol the outside, deals with traders, has hunters and fishers, etc. Point is there is much outside contact and it is not an isolationist fort. There are plenty of people who go outside and make outside contact. But that dwarf has no need to. Would that dwarf be considered isolationist even in a non isolationist fort?
3. I sort of like the idea of this being made so that dwarfs have to feel happy and safe before they pursue the more extra curricular goals. It seems realistic that a dwarf who is worried about starving or fighting for his life would have less room to , where as an established dwarf might have the luxury to look at other things. So the happy and safe requirement makes a certain amount of sense. But at the same time, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How does this counterbalance the unhappiness factor? It seems like the idea is that you can avoid most of this for dwarfs that aren't safe and happy. Yet this is contrary everything. Generally, dwarfs cause trouble if they are made
unhappy. This is what typically causes tantrum spirals and incentivizes you to keep them happy. Now there's a problem with them being happy as well? How do I stop them from spiraling out of control just based on mood? Do we have to worry about exactly centering every single dwarfs happiness to unhappiness balance now? It seems like a little much. This brings me to my next point:
4. Do self actualization pursuits always have to be bad? The fact that this only happens to forts that have dwarves which are doing well and have nothing else to really worry about means I can't do too well without worrying about this. So again, you are punishing me for doing well and keeping my dwarfs safe and happy. And in some ways, this seems as bad or worse than a dwarf who throws a tantrum out of unhappiness. Maybe this idea would be better served if there were positive results from self actualized pursuits as well. Kind of like a mixed bag. Depending on their personality, trauma, outside influence, or whatever would dictate if some dwarfs were more prone to start trouble versus doing something good when they pursued self actualized goals. This way there is not only a new potential danger for a fort that is doing well, but the chances for something good to come out of it as well. I realize this is not in any way the original intent of this idea as a threat to late game isolationists, but it seems sub par for that to me anyway.
Don't misunderstand. I do like the idea overall. I just think the application of such an idea, particularly in the way it was described, wouldn't necessarily accomplish what it was meant to. It might do more harm than good.
Author
Topic: DF needs more LATE game challenges (with lots of examples of solutions) (Read 7167 times)