Print

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

[g2knee]

It would be cool if the entire fortress population received a happy thought when a siege is overcome -- on the flip side, it would be cool if dwarfs started getting unhappy thoughts when under siege for a prolonged period of time (like a year +).


The first would inspire confidence, feelings of safety (our military keeps us safe), or faith in the civilization or fortress government.  The latter would cause fear, trepidation, uncertainty.  Maybe it would affect some dwarfs more than others based on personality and experiences.

Just a thought.

[Ngosp Umbabok]

Yes this is a good idea.

Maybe once sieges become a regular thing end-game and the player has developed an automatic process for disposing of invaders without doing much then the morale bonus could decrease as a routine killing of invaders would eventually become tedious rather then inspiring.

[g2knee]

Oh yeah.  The main benefit of this would be to give the fortress a kind of "overall" feel, a sense of unity -- as opposed to just simply a collection of individual dwarf thoughts. 

The sum of individual thoughts and feelings are of course what matters most, but a touch of overall collective mentality would be good.  An overall feeling of the fortress.  "The dwarfs of Lanternpriced are in good spirits, even grumpy Urist McAlwaysWounded has been in higher spirits after the lift of the last siege."

[Waparius]

It should also apply (to a lesser extent) to megabeast attacks. It makes sense that having something horrible waiting in the caves would still affect the morale of the fortress even if those caves have been sealed. ("Why are the stairs to the cavern bricked up?" "We don't talk about it. Stay away from there.")

[Vrky]

Since this would make game a bit harder (or at least, sealing up a bit harder), I'm all for it. On the other side, it would also make aftermath of the victorious, bloody siege easier, with less tantrums, which is, again, a good thing

[bluephoenix]

I'm all for it, it makes sense and would definitely add to the game.

[Enchiridion]

I understand why winning a siege should result in a morale boost, but generally speaking, losing one results in death, death results in unhappy thoughts. So technically, losing a siege DOES lower morale... just sort of indirectly.

[Loyal]

I understand why winning a siege should result in a morale boost, but generally speaking, losing one results in death, death results in unhappy thoughts. So technically, losing a siege DOES lower morale... just sort of indirectly.

Losing a siege is not the trigger for a morale loss in this case. Failing to drive it off in a timely/decisive manner is, since they have you trapped and cut off from the rest of the world, and are fearful that your military is not up to the task.

[Vattic]

Slaughter is also not necessary when a siege succeeds. A bloodless surrender should lead to upset once that is possible. Is this not already possible in adventure mode?