Print

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

[GoblinCookie]

At the moment our settlement enjoy a certain surflait of political stability.  We have our ruling party and it manages to stay in power forever unless it is overthrown from without.  I think the game could add in greater political instability in the following manner.

Each dwarf has a loyalty value, alongside their happiness value.  Happy dwarves are generally loyal and the other way around, but the former changes more slowly than the latter AND is also affected by their personal opinion of key nobles including particularly your settlement leader. 

Disloyal dwarves are inclined to leave your fortress's ruling party and create a named rebel party.  You can only control dwarves that belong to your own party, rebel dwarves are instead controlled by an AI that goes about giving them work orders and generally doing stuff entirely autonomously.  They also cannot become nobles, be appointed nobles and if they were nobles before joining the rebel party they resign their posts. 

When the rebel party becomes strong enough, they will apoint a secret shadow bunch of nobles based upon their own members proficiancies.  They will then rebel and try to take over the settlement, the rebellion can only be crushed violently with the death of all the secret nobles in the rebel party.  They try and kill off or force into exile all remaining government party members.  When you have no nobles left in your settement, you lose the game and the rebels party become the new ruling party of the settlement.

As the settlement is still inhabited, you will not be able to reclaim it. 

[Gamermaster]

Eh, this isn't Tropico, the player isn't really supposed to be the government itself, but some kind of unseen authority. I think the game should only end when every single dorf is dead. Instead, I think that when a rebel group overthrows the ruling regime, that rebel group's particular demands (Independence,a different noble dynasty, a mandatory state religion, severing all ties with the elves, etc.) will be enforced, for good or for ill. People who worked or collaborated with the old regime could be imprisoned, put to death, or banished, causing the loss of some very useful workers and some less then useful workers nobles. The revolution would cause instability and possible result in some forms of retaliation (The ruling Mountainhome sends an army to destroy the independence rebels, the old dynasty might start it's own rebel movement or hire mercenaries to take back the land, people of different faiths could start some kind of Holy War and the capital mountainhome may send soldiers if the religion conflicts it's rulers beliefs, Elves could lay siege, etc.)

[GoblinCookie]

Eh, this isn't Tropico, the player isn't really supposed to be the government itself, but some kind of unseen authority. I think the game should only end when every single dorf is dead. Instead, I think that when a rebel group overthrows the ruling regime, that rebel group's particular demands (Independence,a different noble dynasty, a mandatory state religion, severing all ties with the elves, etc.) will be enforced, for good or for ill. People who worked or collaborated with the old regime could be imprisoned, put to death, or banished, causing the loss of some very useful workers and some less then useful workers nobles. The revolution would cause instability and possible result in some forms of retaliation (The ruling Mountainhome sends an army to destroy the independence rebels, the old dynasty might start it's own rebel movement or hire mercenaries to take back the land, people of different faiths could start some kind of Holy War and the capital mountainhome may send soldiers if the religion conflicts it's rulers beliefs, Elves could lay siege, etc.)

You are the one making the political decisions in the game.  Therefore it makes sense that you (the player) should be the one getting the chop, afterall it is your inept policies that led to the crisis.  Whatever you actually are, you are working through the government so if the government goes so would you.

Your ideas by contrast with mine, while certainly detailed and interesting are also far more complex.  While it would be cool to see the aftermath play out in legends mode, it is not probably not worth it to play it all out in fortress mode because only inept players would get a significant number of dwarves unhappy in the first place. 

It is meant as an alternative way of losing the game that forces you to take care of your dwarves to a certain degree.  Basically a punishment for slave-driving dwarves, working them hard for every ounce of wealth and not giving them anything.

[Alev]

So you would just want the game to end once a new group takes over? That would be boring, rather than just continuing and enforcing the new group's policies. After all, you aren't an actual dorf, just some sort of all-knowing force.

[GoblinCookie]

So you would just want the game to end once a new group takes over? That would be boring, rather than just continuing and enforcing the new group's policies. After all, you aren't an actual dorf, just some sort of all-knowing force.

If that is the case why can you not take over any settlement you feel like? Obviously only 'your' governments are available for you to 'use', why would the rebels that afterall are your bitter enemies be available to command?

[Alev]

So you would just want the game to end once a new group takes over? That would be boring, rather than just continuing and enforcing the new group's policies. After all, you aren't an actual dorf, just some sort of all-knowing force.

If that is the case why can you not take over any settlement you feel like? Obviously only 'your' governments are available for you to 'use', why would the rebels that afterall are your bitter enemies be available to command.

To answer the first part, it is called DWARF Fortress, if that's what you meant.

[Cerapter]

Why shouldn't you control the rebels?
Parabola of Revolution and everything. A revolution loses revolutionary zeal and just repeats the pre-revolution business as usual, via bureaucratic inertia. Names and rhetoric change, the injustices stay the same, as says TvTropes.
And, well, Pierre-Simon de Laplace.

I suggest that when the new group takes over, you get to rename the Fortress and the Group that controls it, and that's all.

[GoblinCookie]

Why shouldn't you control the rebels?
Parabola of Revolution and everything. A revolution loses revolutionary zeal and just repeats the pre-revolution business as usual, via bureaucratic inertia. Names and rhetoric change, the injustices stay the same, as says TvTropes.
And, well, Pierre-Simon de Laplace.

I suggest that when the new group takes over, you get to rename the Fortress and the Group that controls it, and that's all.

Well the question is why would anyone bother to keep their dwarves happy if they can continue the status quo under a new name? Do they care about the randomly generated party name their fortress dwarves have?

The question is not an abstract one about the utility or otherwise of revolutions in affecting change in real-life OR dwarf fortress.  It is solely about genuinely punishing the player for his ineptitude in keeping his dwarves happy. 

Just like goblin invasions are to punish the player for neglecting militery matters.......

[Cerapter]

I don't think punishing the players for losing is a good idea in a game where the only winning move is losing.

[GoblinCookie]

I don't think punishing the players for losing is a good idea in a game where the only winning move is losing.

We already punish the player for being stupid so why should we not punish them for being politically stupid?

[Getix Kain]

So you would just want the game to end once a new group takes over? That would be boring, rather than just continuing and enforcing the new group's policies. After all, you aren't an actual dorf, just some sort of all-knowing force.

Agreed.

It would be nice to play as the "rebel faction".. Maybe with Dwarves Sieges in Autumn or .. well, we would even become friends with the treehuggers.

[GoblinCookie]

So you would just want the game to end once a new group takes over? That would be boring, rather than just continuing and enforcing the new group's policies. After all, you aren't an actual dorf, just some sort of all-knowing force.

Agreed.

It would be nice to play as the "rebel faction".. Maybe with Dwarves Sieges in Autumn or .. well, we would even become friends with the treehuggers.

Okay, since it seems to be the majority opinion I will suggests that perhaps players should be able to reclaim settlements that are overthrown, but they still lose the initial save game. 

But this would have to come with special challenges.  Perhaps the original government tries to get other settlements to press their claim and restore them to power?  You would have to fight those outsiders that refuse to recognise your legitimacy.