Print

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

?

!

...

[Timeless Bob]

Caravan bid (Pickmuscles)
Fruit (100 of any edible type)
Stone (10 marble boulders)

Payment: 1,000db to the first caravan to bring us these supplies.

[Timeless Bob]

I was going to say it when I grab the save. It's going to be a random dwarfy name I'll generate when making my first embark. Wait a few minutes and I'll post it.
Should I grab the one from your post or from megaman's?
EDIT: The one from Megaman has the later creation hour. I'm assuming it's the right one.

Hold a minute and I'll post my "Turn 3" save.  (I'm right after Megaman already, but that doesn't mean much this early in the game.
OK, save file is updated.  Go for it.

[zlob]

Damn, forgive me but I didn't notice that the second page was created. Anyway, my group is The Hands of Gods.
Embark value is gonna be the same. Just let me recreate the fortress.
Now that I am embarking again, is northwest considered adjacent or I have to go for either north or west?

[Timeless Bob]

Damn, forgive me but I didn't notice that the second page was created. Anyway, my group is The Hands of Gods.
Embark value is gonna be the same. Just let me recreate the fortress.

The enthusiasm is nice though.

[zlob]

So, to sum up;
Embark - Steelwalled
Guild - The Hands of Gods
Save - here
Embark value - 5470db
Please check if everything works correctly, because I had to copy some files over from a folder to another folder.

[Timeless Bob]

Once the trade deals start being made i am assuming that there will be quite a few failed runs with dead adventurers and such, is there going to be a cost to "hiring adventurers" with demigods being expensive, heroes being costly and peasants being cheap?
i suggest that hiring a demigod is the equivelant of owning a baron, a hero is the same as owning a sherif, and a peasant is the same price as a married couple

Do you think the cost to hire these adventurers would be recouped if they made it back successfully?  Would somehow taking these guys hostage (such as possibly hiring one as a companion then re-retiring them in a fortified prison) allow them to be ransomed for that amount at a later date (and would that also add the element of "a daring escape" or even "a secret rescue" to the adventure-mode game?)

These are some of the things I've been thinking about after reading your idea earlier.  It merits further discussion.

[zlob]

Do you think the cost to hire these adventurers would be recouped if they made it back successfully?  Would somehow taking these guys hostage (such as possibly hiring one as a companion then re-retiring them in a fortified prison) allow them to be ransomed for that amount at a later date (and would that also add the element of "a daring escape" or even "a secret rescue" to the adventure-mode game?)

These are some of the things I've been thinking about after reading your idea earlier.  It merits further discussion.

That would be FUN!
I agree that adventurer's cost should vary depending on their skills - a demigod will charge more for their services than a weak peasant.
IF they are going to cost anything, that is.

[Megaman_zx]

my other idea was a sort of monthly payment system where you could hire a single adventurer for free, but each season/month he/she would cost your guild a certain amount of gold... If the players keep track of how much gold their heroes have, then kidnapping and ransoming could become a pretty profitable practice, and if it drew from their salary and not your guild coffers it would be easier to abandon the useless peasant/dummy adventurers, and spend time and db to rescue your veteran caravan leader

also.... that elusive second page

In regards to the poll, perhaps each person is given a season to do one of the four options, the difficult thing with allowing multiple actions over 1 in game time period is that a month in fortress mode is very short, but in adventure mode is extremely long, so perhaps give time period increments to each turn action. ex. 1 or two seasons of fort building, or an embark and retire, for adventurers i was thinking that accepting a contract would get you a maximum of four hired adventurers each with a week of in game adventuring, so that the caravan would take multiple turns and losing a single leader, although costly wouldn't mean a failed caravan

[Timeless Bob]

my other idea was a sort of monthly payment system where you could hire a single adventurer for free, but each season/month he/she would cost your guild a certain amount of gold... If the players keep track of how much gold their heroes have, then kidnapping and ransoming could become a pretty profitable practice, and if it drew from their salary and not your guild coffers it would be easier to abandon the useless peasant/dummy adventurers, and spend time and db to rescue your veteran caravan leader
The idea that the dorfbucks are real currency is part of the game, so maybe we could set this up like fishing boats, with each companion getting a certain share of the "take", the caravan master getting a greater share and the fishing company getting the lion's share (80% to the company, 10% to the caravan master and the other 10% split up among the various companions.)  On top of the riches they get for completing a run are any "spoils" picked up along the way.  Perhaps "peasant" adventurers could be given armor in lieu of payment with the promise of a percent of the "take" when they return, while "Heroes" would get a Masterwork item or something and Demi-gods would be the ones requiring artifact items in payment.  Also, adventurers could be lords in their own right, with little private hillocks to retire in between appointments too.

In regards to the poll, perhaps each person is given a season to do one of the four options, the difficult thing with allowing multiple actions over 1 in game time period is that a month in fortress mode is very short, but in adventure mode is extremely long, so perhaps give time period increments to each turn action. ex. 1 or two seasons of fort building, or an embark and retire, for adventurers i was thinking that accepting a contract would get you a maximum of four hired adventurers each with a week of in game adventuring, so that the caravan would take multiple turns and losing a single leader, although costly wouldn't mean a failed caravan
I think I need to do some !!Science!! to see how long it takes an adventurer to travel from one side of the continent to the other.

[Megaman_zx]

with alot of personal experience, i think 1 week would be difficult to set up a good adventurer, especially starting from peasant or hero status. If you are allowed to create up to four heroes and have 1 week with each then, that would take a total of 12 weeks (2 in worldgen upon creation and 1 of gameplay) that is approaximately 3 months or 1 season. Do some science to make sure a week isn't too long, but that's my thought process.

The problem with rewarding adventurers with items created inside the fortress in lieu of db payment, i am conflicted. It makes sense, but it seems if you have a military fort, you could get free runners by having them stop by ur fort for free gear.

i don't know how well my seasonal payment idea was explained, but let me give it another try to make sure u understand it.
Every season you would pay a predetermined amount, based on the hiring status of your guild employed adventurers. (peasant 50db/month, hero 250, demigod 1000) This money would go into a separate inaccessible stash (this could be the adventurer's family or bank). If your adventurer is returning from a successful run with the db, and is captured (or killed) before returning it to his emplyer. The offending party has access to the db on his person. If he is captured as opposed to killed (not quite sure how you would do this, so there would definitely need to be some creativity involved) you could ransom him/her back to their families for a portion of the stash monthly payments. After completing monthly payment, a guild could decide to fire/retire an adventurer if they are too wounded or far away to complete a run. Rehiring a retired adventurer would cost a month's payment up front as opposed to the free month you would get from hiring a new adventurer. (as a side note, the stash could possibly be split among the companions so that if you manage to capture 1 runner in a group of 5 which had a stash of 1000, you could ransom the 1 for 200db)

[Timeless Bob]

with a lot of personal experience, I think 1 week would be difficult to set up a good adventurer, especially starting from peasant or hero status. If you are allowed to create up to four heroes and have 1 week with each then, that would take a total of 12 weeks (2 in worldgen upon creation and 1 of gameplay) that is approximately 3 months or 1 season. Do some science to make sure a week isn't too long, but that's my thought process.

The problem with rewarding adventurers with items created inside the fortress in lieu of db payment, I am conflicted. It makes sense, but it seems if you have a military fort, you could get free runners by having them stop by your fort for free gear.

Lets think this through: If one of your own adventurers makes a supply run at a military fort, then the next time that fort is renewed, its imported wealth would be that much less so you as a Player would be gambling that the runner doesn't get caught/killed so you won't be losing all the dorfbucks of items.  OK, but how about if another civ sends a runner to steal from your military fortress?  That one thief makes off with some loot, but the moment he's seen or gets in a fight, he'll be considered "an enemy of" your civ, and as we well know, that means your entire civ will find out about that soon enough and the thieving Player's civ will be considered an enemy as well.  (This needs more research, but I think that's how that happens...)

Both options are risky and besides, that fortress's military would have less gear to defend it from invader races like the elves, gobbos and humans too.

i don't know how well my seasonal payment idea was explained, but let me give it another try to make sure u understand it.
Every season you would pay a predetermined amount, based on the hiring status of your guild employed adventurers. (peasant 50db/month, hero 250, demigod 1000) This money would go into a separate inaccessible stash (this could be the adventurer's family or bank). If your adventurer is returning from a successful run with the db, and is captured (or killed) before returning it to his employer. The offending party has access to the db on his person. If he is captured as opposed to killed (not quite sure how you would do this, so there would definitely need to be some creativity involved) you could ransom him/her back to their families for a portion of the stash monthly payments. After completing monthly payment, a guild could decide to fire/retire an adventurer if they are too wounded or far away to complete a run. Rehiring a retired adventurer would cost a month's payment up front as opposed to the free month you would get from hiring a new adventurer. (as a side note, the stash could possibly be split among the companions so that if you manage to capture 1 runner in a group of 5 which had a stash of 1000, you could ransom the 1 for 200db)
I like this idea.  I'll think about it over the weekend, and probably getting it put into the first page around Monday.  Here's a thought: Each level of a skill costs more than the last one, and an adventurer's total skill set would determine their "seasonal stipend"

[Megaman_zx]

Lets think this through: If one of your own adventurers makes a supply run at a military fort, then the next time that fort is renewed, its imported wealth would be that much less so you as a Player would be gambling that the runner doesn't get caught/killed so you won't be losing all the dorfbucks of items.  OK, but how about if another civ sends a runner to steal from your military fortress?  That one thief makes off with some loot, but the moment he's seen or gets in a fight, he'll be considered "an enemy of" your civ, and as we well know, that means your entire civ will find out about that soon enough and the thieving Player's civ will be considered an enemy as well.  (This needs more research, but I think that's how that happens...)

I play a lot of adventure mode, and when i do play fort mode, i don't usually monitor my wealth because it mostly impacts trade caravans and it's pretty easy (this is my strategy at least) to just turn all your useless bones and gems into masterwork crafts (i do this with gold sometimes too). Basically i don't know how the wealth system works exactly, so i have been unsure about how taking an item from your fort in adventure mode would effect the wealth score. But i do know that with the new update stealing and all the other various crimes are really easy to get away with. I guess i could do some science to test how looting one's own fortress would affect your civilized alignment (would your nation consider that stealing) and try to find a way to link your traderunner to your fortress, so that if you did kill a local human and brought a bunch of armor and weapons to your fortress to be melted down and reforged for your adventurers, you would also risk human sieges toppling your fortress.

that was pretty rambly... but hopefully once the science is done, i'll have a more coherent report.

i did a few tests and so far the results are inconclusive (because i loaded the wrong save) i have discovered some interesting stuff about dwarven politics (which i will reveal once i am able to duplicate it). My only concern right now is that since it is relatively early in worldgen and we are playing on a large world, i doubt we will get any sieges if we piss off another guild/nation because they are too far away (of course that means that just getting there in the first place will be difficult enough)

[Timeless Bob]

Lets think this through: If one of your own adventurers makes a supply run at a military fort, then the next time that fort is renewed, its imported wealth would be that much less so you as a Player would be gambling that the runner doesn't get caught/killed so you won't be losing all the dorfbucks of items.  OK, but how about if another civ sends a runner to steal from your military fortress?  That one thief makes off with some loot, but the moment he's seen or gets in a fight, he'll be considered "an enemy of" your civ, and as we well know, that means your entire civ will find out about that soon enough and the thieving Player's civ will be considered an enemy as well.  (This needs more research, but I think that's how that happens...)

I play a lot of adventure mode, and when i do play fort mode, i don't usually monitor my wealth because it mostly impacts trade caravans and it's pretty easy (this is my strategy at least) to just turn all your useless bones and gems into masterwork crafts (i do this with gold sometimes too). Basically i don't know how the wealth system works exactly, so i have been unsure about how taking an item from your fort in adventure mode would effect the wealth score. But i do know that with the new update stealing and all the other various crimes are really easy to get away with. I guess i could do some science to test how looting one's own fortress would affect your civilized alignment (would your nation consider that stealing) and try to find a way to link your traderunner to your fortress, so that if you did kill a local human and brought a bunch of armor and weapons to your fortress to be melted down and reforged for your adventurers, you would also risk human sieges toppling your fortress.

that was pretty rambly... but hopefully once the science is done, i'll have a more coherent report.

I get what you're saying, I'm just thinking that the trade value of any armor or weapons won't be counted as part of the fortress any more, so that's the amount that would disappear from the "imported wealth" amount.  I imagine stealing a bunch of stuff from the Humans would be easy enough, but eventually they'd not have anything to steal, and without weapons or armor would be pretty easy pickings for another civ to come along and conquer - like fishman criminals or the damn elves.  Of course, if your civ just claimed the site anyway, all the other Player civs would be stealing from you if they took your stuff (including claiming the site for themselves...  It could get pretty complicated.

[Megaman_zx]

i imagine it will get quite confusing as the game progresses, but we'll jump that hurdle when it arrives

test results... i couldn't get my adventurer to be an official member of fishnation... i was able to create a fish nation bandit group completely unassociated with the fortress which i assume could be duplicated, and possibly used to mark which adventurers are a part of which guild, but also made legends viewing a pain.

could this be the curse of the illusive 3rd page?

[Timeless Bob]

In what way did it make legends viewing a pain?