Print

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

[Xen0n]

Apologies in advance as I'm not quite sure if this belongs here or as a possible bug report?  It also is based on several assumptions of how the recent game versions work, which just plain may be incorrect.  Please let me know if I'm wrong about something!

Some background:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Essentially I've been coming across several users claiming to be wholly incapable of encountering even a single siege, even in versions 0.40.23 and 0.40.24 (while others say they have no issue, which makes me wonder if it's related to worldgen settings?).  Supposedly there are no current uploaded saves of this bug, which I find worrying on the off-chance there is actually a bug.  This has coaxed me out of my hermitage in 0.34.07 solely for the purpose of attempting to confirm whether I can encounter this bug, and if so, upload a save of it.

At any rate I do seem to come across even more claims that in 0.40.xx sieges in general come later, less frequently, and have fewer numbers than previous versions.  So far my forays in 0.40.24 seem to confirm this, as even though my fort was set in the midst of a cluster of goblin sites and has been churning out tons of stone instruments for the caravans to take away, I didn't see a single goblin until partway through year 3, and it was only a group of less than a dozen.

Assuming that this is the case, where goblin sieges are coming later, less frequently, in smaller numbers, and in some cases not at all, it seems to unbalance the core idea of Kingdom Worth being a balancing mechanic in tandem with Migrants and Sieges.  In past versions the idea was that it is a trade off: make lots of fancy weapons & armor now, which helps fight enemies and ups Kingdom Worth, thereby attracting more useful migrants, or play conservatively for a longer period, hoping to delay sieges but taking a different risk by having fewer, poorly equipped dwarves over a long period.

I am admittedly no expert on the inner working of Dwarf Fortress or its design decisions, but off the top of my head I am wondering if the balance of Kingdom Worth is a bit off now in 0.40.xx due to how world activation affects (or doesn't affect) goblins sieges and dwarf migrants?  Now that goblin armies obey all the rules set forth with world activation, traveling across the map, and making an opportunity cost for the goblin tower sending them, it seems they have many hoops and hurdles to get through to end up at your fort's door.  Migrants, at least to my untrained eye, don't seem to be quite so restricted, as I've been getting copious amounts of migrants, multiple seasons each year, even despite my civ going extinct a year or to into my fort. 

Basically I am wondering if all the traveling and checks that goblin sieges must go through, but apparently migrants don't, has ticked the balance of power in favor of the player?  If this is the case, consider that:

• The 'average time before a goblin siege' has been increased greatly, to the point where almost all players will be more than well equipped to fend them off by the time they arrive in a 'natural fort's' lifespan.
• Since goblins take such a long time to arrive at your fort, you no longer have such a disincentive to produce tons of armor / weapons, as by the time the siege arrived due to your increased Kingdom Worth, you will be quite prepared/trained for it.  Also you will have attracted several large waves of migrants in the mean time to shore up your production / army.
• Also I hear that with the new system in world activation, there simply is a chance that the goblins choose to ignore your fort based on what other things they are busy with, regardless of its map position or Kingdom Worth.  I suppose that makes sense from a simulation sense, but it's a sore comfort if you generate a world, choose an embark, then spend several in-game years building a fort only to eventually realize that no goblins will ever come.  A little consistency, or at least some way to predict rough behaviour before embarking would be nice.

There are tons of possible ideas for how sieges / kingdom worth could eventually work, but it's my hope that something quick & easy could be done to at least tip the balance back in a more fair & challenging direction, perhaps more like previous versions.

Again, I don't really know how DF works, but some possible ideas of things which could be tweaked to restore the siege balance:

• Add some multiplier to the player's fortress site to make goblin civs more likely to target / attack it relative to other worldgen sites.
• Have an indicator when looking at the CIVs tab during embark site choosing showing what the relative 'hostility towards player site' would be for that spot, taking into account how many other enemies that civ has.  Or maybe just list what civs / groups a given civ is currently at war with.  E.G. when looking at the civs tab, instead of just a red line to indicate that Goblins will be at war with you in that site, have a way to list what other civs / groups those goblins are also at war with, or how likely they will be to send some soldiers / sieges at you instead of their other enemies.
• Some way to adjust during worldgen how hostile goblins will be towards your parent civ / site.
• Either make migrants have to jump through all the same hoops / hurdles as goblin sieges (such as travelling across the world map, or choosing to go to other sites), or give goblin sieges some of the same shortcuts that migrants do (make all nearby goblins sites ALWAYS target you, or already have some scouts on their way as soon as you embark, as the initial migrant wave / caravan appears to be).  Basically don't make it so easy to get lots of migrants but so hard to get any sieges. 
• EDIT: As mentioned below, perhaps have a toggleable init / worldgen option for goblin sieges to behave as in passt versions, just 'teleporting' to your map once the various criteria of nearby civ, Kingdom worth, etc. are satisfied.  Possibly even just porting some of the old goblin siege code in?

Basically just some way to either consistently get sieges earlier so as the bring the Kingdom Worth > Migrants > Sieges trifecta back into balance, or a way to predict during embark choosing whether you will be likely to get sieged or not.  For a lot of people, goblins are a major source of fun for the game and it's a shame that they are so fickle now.[/list][/list][/list]

[CaptainLambcake]

haven't seen any enemies except kobold thieves and a weremoose.

[Deboche]

I've had a puny goblin siege after my fortress broke 1 mil. No kobolds or snatchers before that. It's definitely a problem and very likely not intended by Toady.

It seems that in an attempt to make armies and other civs act more realistically in a worldwide sense, he inadvertently messed up sieges. We all knew sieges weren't gonna remain like they were in the previous version and we know they're not gonna remain as they are now.

It's too bad he moved on from .40. I remember after the update that fixed the "no sieges bug", sieges worked very well.

[nomad_delta]

All I can say is I really miss having ambushes and sieges early and often.  I was kinda hoping we'd get *more* attacks in 0.40.xx, certainly not fewer.

Toady, if you're reading this, please bring back the goblins! It's so sad training and equipping an awesome dwarven army that just sits around because there's nothing to fight.

--nomad_delta

(PS: also if you could make training ammo vs combat ammo for marksdwarves work properly I would do a little dance)

[Sirbug]

I think we could use some "let them cheat history" parameter. To toggle between goblins behaving normally according to worldgen and giving goblins free reenforcements and clear path so they could attack your fort.

Simulation is fun, but real fun is in losing.

[bluephoenix]

I quiet welcome the change to sieges in .40.xx.
The game doesn't act like the players fort is the only fort in existence anymore and not being sieged every 2 months is quiet refreshing and lets me focus on other things.
Dwarf fortress is not a tower defence game so a bit more realistic simulation like this is nice. Once we can send our own armies I'm sure all the bloodthristy people here should be content again, until then we could just create a toggle "siege the players fort every other month" I guess.

[Xen0n]

I think we could use some "let them cheat history" parameter. To toggle between goblins behaving normally according to worldgen and giving goblins free reenforcements and clear path so they could attack your fort.

Simulation is fun, but real fun is in losing.

I quiet welcome the change to sieges in .40.xx.
The game doesn't act like the players fort is the only fort in existence anymore and not being sieged every 2 months is quiet refreshing and lets me focus on other things.
Dwarf fortress is not a tower defence game so a bit more realistic simulation like this is nice. Once we can send our own armies I'm sure all the bloodthristy people here should be content again, until then we could just create a toggle "siege the players fort every other month" I guess.

That's actually a nice idea which (hopefully) could be easier to quickly implement; ideally the old code for magical teleporting goblins to your map edge could just be copied over as a toggleable init option (I have no idea how code works). 

And I definitely do appreciate the increased immersion / realism with the present system (assuming it actually is working as intended, DF is very... complicated).  However, for the subset of users who primarily play for the combat / fort defense / Kingdom Worth strategy (and I believe it is a substantial subset), I feel most would trade the realism away back for the combat & sieges if given the chance.  Ideally in the end we will have a way to do both, possibly with starting scenarios and other features, but my hope is that we can just get the basic functionality back as an option until then, if it can be done quickly & easily.

Incidentally, is this the correct place to be bringing this up, or would I be better served creating some sort of bug report, assuming the current sparse sieges are not intended?

[Deboche]

I think bringing back the old sieges is a bad idea. It's a step backwards even though it was probably closer to what sieges will eventually be like in the mythical final version. In my opinion the best way out is through even if we have to suffer with weak infrequent sieges in the meantime.

Incidentally, is this the correct place to be bringing this up, or would I be better served creating some sort of bug report, assuming the current sparse sieges are not intended?

Can't hurt.

[Magistrum]

I would like to point out that the size of your civilization seems to matter when being attacked, embarking at a considerable distance(Kissing the distance limit for sieges to be exact) with a big parent civilization but being one of the only two accessible forts for them to attack rendered me a siege in the first year and twice every year from them on.

[Dyret]

Yeah, I got no sieges for years then the gobbos knocked over a couple of other settlements and now I'm drowning in them. Literally, I can't haul corpses to the lava sea quickly enough. I imagine starting scenarios will have you covered if you want more action from the start, like legit frontline dwarf fortresses and such.

[Xen0n]

I would like to point out that the size of your civilization seems to matter when being attacked, embarking at a considerable distance(Kissing the distance limit for sieges to be exact) with a big parent civilization but being one of the only two accessible forts for them to attack rendered me a siege in the first year and twice every year from them on.

Yeah, I got no sieges for years then the gobbos knocked over a couple of other settlements and now I'm drowning in them. Literally, I can't haul corpses to the lava sea quickly enough. I imagine starting scenarios will have you covered if you want more action from the start, like legit frontline dwarf fortresses and such.

Oh wow, thank you guys, this is big news, at least for me!  And this is the kind of thing I was possibly hinging about; perhaps when selecting your parent civ at at embark it not only shows you the region your parent civ covers (as it does currently), but tells you what / how many enemies your civ has etc. so you can get a better idea beforehand how likely you are to be attacked.

[Magistrum]

That would be ideal, tough for now we can always check the legends mode.

[San-A]

I would like to point out that the size of your civilization seems to matter when being attacked, embarking at a considerable distance(Kissing the distance limit for sieges to be exact) with a big parent civilization but being one of the only two accessible forts for them to attack rendered me a siege in the first year and twice every year from them on.

Sorry for this stupid question: how can you know if an embark site is one of the only accessible site for Goblins?

[vjmdhzgr]

I would like to point out that the size of your civilization seems to matter when being attacked, embarking at a considerable distance(Kissing the distance limit for sieges to be exact) with a big parent civilization but being one of the only two accessible forts for them to attack rendered me a siege in the first year and twice every year from them on.

Sorry for this stupid question: how can you know if an embark site is one of the only accessible site for Goblins?

When looking at the civilization sleection screen in embark you can see where your civilization is and then just compare where they are to where your goblins are.

[GoblinCookie]

I like the way things work at the moment.  I do not agree with forcing the game world to revolve around your fortress so you get goblins to order.