Print

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

[Dirst]

They treat a human or an elf or another dwarf in exactly the same way as they would a goblin, provided that they come from that particular hostile civilization.

This is impossible and irrelevant until you explain to us how a dwarf has any idea what civilization a visitor is from aside from race in a split second from 30 yards away, when nobody wears identifying images on their clothing.

Large tattoos? Posturing? Maybe everyone in the DF universe is polite enough to announce their intent. Explain how they can tell a force composed entirely of abducted dwarves, humans, and/or elves is from a hostile goblin civilization?

The same way the player knows the given name of every Goblin invader the moment it steps onto the map.

In-game creatures don't really see each other in the way that real people see each other.  Another creature within the vision arc is simply a list of attributes, and the viewer's AI immediately digests all "visible" attributes to form a reaction.

When a creature is listed as "Slothblood Painwind is a member of the Blistering Silver" it indicates two attributes: name and affiliation.  These are as obvious to DF creatures as size or odor.  Unintelligent creatures are programmed to ignore a lot of that information, but the creature still sees it.

I'm not sure how easy it would be for Toady to revamp the AI to deal with unrevealed attributes, but that will be a key step in moving toward more realistic encounters... and aggregating that into more realistic cultural integration.

[GavJ]

They treat a human or an elf or another dwarf in exactly the same way as they would a goblin, provided that they come from that particular hostile civilization.

This is impossible and irrelevant until you explain to us how a dwarf has any idea what civilization a visitor is from aside from race in a split second from 30 yards away, when nobody wears identifying images on their clothing.

Large tattoos? Posturing? Maybe everyone in the DF universe is polite enough to announce their intent. Explain how they can tell a force composed entirely of abducted dwarves, humans, and/or elves is from a hostile goblin civilization?

First, you have to establish first that this ever actually happens to begin with (all abductees, none of whom are from your fort by the way) -- Toady might have controls set on how many abductees can be involved proportionally. If so, then you could always tell racially by their goblin compatriots or that it's your previously abducted colleague.

They don't have tattoos, cause it already describes their individual nose hairs pretty much, and that would be an absurd omission. Posture is possible, but is a much weaker explanation -- people getting hugged or slaughtered routinely based on whether they happen to be standing a slightly different way... would be a pretty dumb system when a much much more reliable racial cue is available. Why would you not use the most obvious information? (and note: if they use both at once, they're still being racist)

The same way the player knows the given name of every Goblin invader the moment it steps onto the map.

The player is not the same as creatures. I know that so-and-so is a vampire, for instance, it tells me when he is active, but my dwarves don't until he is witnessed and prosecuted. Nor do they know they've pathed right through a GCS until they get there. You cannot assume knowledge fromk one to the other.

So no, you need independent information to establish that this is how dwarves do it. And no, getting the C++ object passed does not count, if they are programmed to ignore it, then in game storyline terms, they don't know it at all / don't see it.

[Dirst]

The same way the player knows the given name of every Goblin invader the moment it steps onto the map.

The player is not the same as creatures. I know that so-and-so is a vampire, for instance, it tells me when he is active, but my dwarves don't until he is witnessed and prosecuted. Nor do they know they've pathed right through a GCS until they get there. You cannot assume knowledge fromk one to the other.

So no, you need independent information to establish that this is how dwarves do it. And no, getting the C++ object passed does not count, if they are programmed to ignore it, then in game storyline terms, they don't know it at all / don't see it.

Actually, I forgot about vampires.  So the AI already does have some ability to ignore hidden attributes, though it doesn't seem to have any ability to deal without attributes that are currently considered routine knowledge (unknown species, unknown civ, etc.).

A proper system would use Bayesian updating to construct the creature's beliefs, and a loss function crafted to guide the creature into gathering information before making irreversible actions.

So upon seeing a Goblin (not wearing some kind of uniform), the Dwarf might assign probabilities of civs based on proximity and number of Goblins in those civs.  If there's a reasonable chance that the Goblin is from a friendly civ, and thus immediate attack would give an unhealthy chance for a Diplomatic Incident, the AI should have the Dwarf gather more information.  "Halt, who goes there!" could be sufficient if the Goblin's accent is considered strong evidence of his civ.

But the key part is dealing with "known unknowns" in encounters.  Right now the civ is an integral part of the reaction code because other than personal reputation, the difference-in-ethics between the civs are the biggest driver of reactions.

[GavJ]

A proper system would use Bayesian updating to construct the creature's beliefs, and a loss function

That would be pretty epic. But also pretty laggy I would imagine. Not for invasions (once an attack occurs, you can stop calculating for everyone), but for caravans and things that don't reach criteria it might be.

A Bayesian system would still take into account race too, by the way, not just roll a weighted die based on nearby goblin civ populations. With 3 medium sized civs nearby one of which is a bit larger, the racial features give you maybe a 95% chance of guessing right (errors for immigrants, etc.), the latter would only guess right maybe 40% of the time. Prior to things like halt who goes there and such.

So I don't think it really resolves the current debate at all, but it's a great idea! Bayesian models are pretty easy to code up. Couple of hours to read about it and make one. Might be worth a try to see if it is indeed laggy or not! That's the sort of thing you can definitely brag about in interviews.

[Dirst]

A proper system would use Bayesian updating to construct the creature's beliefs, and a loss function

That would be pretty epic. But also pretty laggy I would imagine. Not for invasions (once an attack occurs, you can stop calculating for everyone), but for caravans and things that don't reach criteria it might be.

Actually, multiple members of a caravan would narrow down the odds pretty rapidly (what are the odds of five Dwarves coming from an Elven civ?) assuming that caravans don't immediately broadcast their civ anyway with flags or something.

A Bayesian system would still take into account race too, by the way, not just roll a weighted die based on nearby goblin civ populations. With 3 medium sized civs nearby one of which is a bit larger, the racial features give you maybe a 95% chance of guessing right (errors for immigrants, etc.), the latter would only guess right maybe 40% of the time. Prior to things like halt who goes there and such.

So I don't think it really resolves the current debate at all, but it's a great idea! Bayesian models are pretty easy to code up. Couple of hours to read about it and make one. Might be worth a try to see if it is indeed laggy or not! That's the sort of thing you can definitely brag about in interviews.

I mentioned race explicitly, since it's one attribute that should be fairly visible.  Of course it might not be obvious in a world with hybrids!  Even without hybrids, it might not be obvious what the species is for a fully-armored foe, and you get into likelihood functions based on size and availability of armor materials and eventually the whole game seizes up because Urist McHunter is trying to identify the political affiliations of each blade of grass.

There are two shortcuts that can be used with Bayes updating.  One is to use proportions instead of exact subjective probabilities (since calculating the denominator is often non-trivial) and the other is to use Naive Bayes (which simplifies the denominator by assuming all traits are independent of one another).  But even with shortcuts, it won't be feasible if we get too general about unknowns.

[GavJ]

If you just draw a cutoff at 5% or something to stop calculating further (stop considering attack), it might be a really helpful shortcut too.

[Dirst]

If you just draw a cutoff at 5% or something to stop calculating further (stop considering attack), it might be a really helpful shortcut too.

The problem is that calculating an exact probability (or determining it is under a threshold) requires calculating that denominator.  Without the denominator, you could state that the likelihood of X is twice the likelihood of Y, but it might be that both are incredibly unlikely events.

The area under the likelihood curve always sums to one, but there is no requirement that the curve itself be below one at any given point.  Some beta and gamma distributions, and all exponential distributions, have likelihood that races off to infinity at an asymptote.

[Bumber]

First, you have to establish first that this ever actually happens to begin with (all abductees, none of whom are from your fort by the way) -- Toady might have controls set on how many abductees can be involved proportionally. If so, then you could always tell racially by their goblin compatriots or that it's your previously abducted colleague.

They don't have tattoos, cause it already describes their individual nose hairs pretty much, and that would be an absurd omission. Posture is possible, but is a much weaker explanation -- people getting hugged or slaughtered routinely based on whether they happen to be standing a slightly different way... would be a pretty dumb system when a much much more reliable racial cue is available. Why would you not use the most obvious information? (and note: if they use both at once, they're still being racist)

My first and only* ambush in 0.40.01 consisted entirely of a few elves and a human.

Not the way they're standing, but the fact that they've got their weapons drawn and are marching/sneaking towards the fortress. I also think Toady posted an explanation in FotF with regards to adventure mode armies. Something about an image on their uniform.

*Due to pre-0.40.07 neighbor list bug.

Edit: Found the post:

It doesn't work with full uniforms of weapons and armor -- the uniforms have always just been little symbols or whatever.  They also don't have them available in stacks to hand out, so that whole old system is sort of on the backburner until I figure that part out.  It reminds me of those game quests where you have to go a few different places to get your new outfit.  It could turn out that way for all I know.

Basically, they wear little insignias.

[GavJ]

Except that if you're fighting a bunch of simpletons too thick to use your race as a meaningful piece of information, then WHY would you use little insignia? It wouldn't make any sense. You only stand to lose and will gain nothing by it, and it would be in fact extremely counterproductive.

It would be much more strategic to identify your own troops by race, then use no uniforms, and allow the politically correct dwarves to stand there scratching their heads wondering who you are and if you are a big enough threat and yelling at you to try and interpret your accent and whatever until you're at their doorstep and in the process of slitting their throats.

Advertising that you are in fact at war with them from a distance owuld be immensely stupid, no different than painting a giant banner that says "hey you guys! In case you didn't know, you should be shooting arrows at us and softening us up early on! Just a heads up! Please also take this opportunity to close your drawbridge in time!"

[Dirst]

Advertising that you are in fact at war with them from a distance owuld be immensely stupid, no different than painting a giant banner that says "hey you guys! In case you didn't know, you should be shooting arrows at us and softening us up early on! Just a heads up! Please also take this opportunity to close your drawbridge in time!"

Except that is precisely how armies behaved at the time.  With or without uniforms, maintaining order of battle in a large group involved lots of shouting and trumpets and drums and the occasional bagpipe.

A babysnatcher or thief, sure. But a stand-up military unit, no matter how green or irregular, would do their best to march in straight lines and act army-like to maintain their own troops' morale (aping the posture of Romans or Bushido or whoever was seen as the badasses of the land).

[GavJ]

With or without uniforms, maintaining order of battle in a large group involved lots of shouting and trumpets and drums and the occasional bagpipe.

...if you indeed have a large group, yes. Thousands of men, not the groups of 7-8 that independently acting DF invading squads use. They would all know each other extremely intimately, and be able to recognize members of the other squads personally, too. You would know the dents in your comrades' armor, and their specific types of clothing, etc. already as well as a uniform.

...and more relevant to this thread, if you're all the same species, then you might need the extra boost in recognition from insignia. AND you wouldn't therefore have any advantage over your enemy in recognition, either.

If however, you are in a small group and you are using race as a bonus, but your enemy is not using race, then you have a huge potential advantage by being the first one to use the obvious racial cue, and thus maintains just as much order of battle without uniforms while they lose theirs and suffer confusion. I.e., any time you have a bunch of race-blind civilizations, there's a huge "evolutionary" adaptation to using it firest (just behavioral though and easily learned, not actual evolution)

[Helari]

Basically it boils down to the fact that uniform, tactics and infiltration features need to be improved or introduced (like almost every other current or planned feature in DF).

[Dirst]

With or without uniforms, maintaining order of battle in a large group involved lots of shouting and trumpets and drums and the occasional bagpipe.

...if you indeed have a large group, yes. Thousands of men, not the groups of 7-8 that independently acting DF invading squads use. They would all know each other extremely intimately, and be able to recognize members of the other squads personally, too. You would know the dents in your comrades' armor, and their specific types of clothing, etc. already as well as a uniform.

...and more relevant to this thread, if you're all the same species, then you might need the extra boost in recognition from insignia. AND you wouldn't therefore have any advantage over your enemy in recognition, either.

If however, you are in a small group and you are using race as a bonus, but your enemy is not using race, then you have a huge potential advantage by being the first one to use the obvious racial cue, and thus maintains just as much order of battle without uniforms while they lose theirs and suffer confusion. I.e., any time you have a bunch of race-blind civilizations, there's a huge "evolutionary" adaptation to using it firest (just behavioral though and easily learned, not actual evolution)

The game as it is now bases reactions off of civ membership rather than species.  In a future version where civ membership isn't a flashing hologram hovering over your head, species and "race" and location and equipment would figure into the AI's attempt to categorize people.  In that future version, creatures may well harbor mistrust for specific species (or generally all out-groups) and combinations would be possible.

A mixed group of Humans and Dwarves is probably from a Human or Dwarf civ, though babysnatching adds an additional possibility.  If the game's AI gets a dose of game theory, the babysnatcher civ might intentionally field a squad of Dwarves in a false-flag type operation... but organized militaries of the medieval period weren't shy about who they were.  Skulking around was for cowards.

Of course, organized militaries of the medieval period also didn't send ten guys to "siege" a fortress.  These far-flung squads really out to be outriders for a much larger force.

[GavJ]

The game as it is now bases reactions off of civ membership rather than species.  In a future version where civ membership isn't a flashing hologram hovering over your head, species and "race" and location and equipment would figure into the AI's attempt to categorize people.  In that future version, creatures may well harbor mistrust for specific species (or generally all out-groups) and combinations would be possible.

Agreed. I guess I'm just saying that racial features like hybrids, prior to the game being at the stage you describe, are just meaningless window dressing. After, they have some really cool practical impacts, so it's something I would suggest for afterward, or an update doing both in a more monolithic toady style.

[Bumber]

If however, you are in a small group and you are using race as a bonus, but your enemy is not using race, then you have a huge potential advantage by being the first one to use the obvious racial cue, and thus maintains just as much order of battle without uniforms while they lose theirs and suffer confusion. I.e., any time you have a bunch of race-blind civilizations, there's a huge "evolutionary" adaptation to using it firest (just behavioral though and easily learned, not actual evolution)

Of course, you're going to look pretty silly if you fire upon the human caravan guards just because several of them were goblins (because they make intimidating body guards or something.) IDK if caravan guards use historical figs yet, but humans have no issue electing the descendants of goblin slaves into leadership positions. Race just isn't an issue in DF.