Print

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

[falcc]

Dwarves should want stuff in a "Demands lite" kind of way and relate those desires to whatever noble they consider to be responsible for it. So if half of your Dwarves don't have bedrooms they complain to the Baron about their conditions, and then the Baron noble's personality gets weighed and either you get a demand on the noble screen that's like "the Baron demands you make X number of bedrooms" or you get a demand under sort of a "general people" category and it just says "X people have requested bedrooms." So if the noble actually cares and you don't make bedrooms the noble is mad, but the people that demand stuff will get mad at the noble either way if you don't deliver and form grudges that lead to whatever retribution can be programmed in, peasant uprisings kind of stuff, work shut-offs. Things that make it important to attend to large numbers of Dwarves being unhappy about things in your fortress but have a story element to them that makes noble personalities more interesting for the Dwarves themselves.

Dwarves also shouldn't be able to demand things as specifically as their nobles do, to keep this from becoming ridiculous. They'll want to have a place to sleep, food to eat, maybe sort of a generic better or more diverse foods or alcohol demand, clothes if there are none available, maybe some sort of general utility things like a well or supplies for the hospital. Once more economy stuff is in this could be kind of understood as "oh, that evil baron didn't call for more pants creation so it's impossible to buy pants" with the presumption Dwarves won't just start stealing supplies and making them (which could be cool to, other ways to lash out at nobles they feel spurned by) or possibly they burn crops if the only thing to eat in their burrow for a year is uncooked plump helmets and the Mayor refuses to acknowledge their demands for something with a quality modifier. Individual Dwarves already kind of have demands in that they will have bad moods from not having bedrooms or clothes or eating very plain meals all the time. This would just provide some kind of trackable alert when people don't have stuff without needing to check every individual Dwarf, and it would create much more diverse interactions with Nobles. There should also be sort of extenuating demands in situations like kidnappings where a Dwarf demands someone be sent out to this Kobold cave or that Night Troll cave to get back a missing loved one. Migrants could even come in with these, and maybe stomp off if their demand isn't met.

Nobles should also approach their end of this interaction differently depending on personality. There should be the possibility  nobles won't care for anyone but themselves and won't support a demand from common Dwarves, or they will only demand something if a legendary craftsdwarf supports it and they value craftsdwarfship, or only if a certain number of Dwarves demand something. Also there needs to be the chance you got stuck with a goodie-two-shoes that is willing to tantrum for any Dwarf without a bedroom if the need isn't met quickly. Those different interactions should also be responded to by Dwarves with good of bad mood associations. "X Noble got me a bedroom"/"X noble failed to get me a bedroom again this month" and create friendships that lead to nobler nobles being voted into office for positions that have voting. Nobles would also interact with each other in a way that seems logical for hierarchical structures (if they exist in the society) so whoever is at the top of the chain or whoever cared about it the least eventually gets the flack. Maybe Mayors get mad at Barons instead of just self-destructing when a demand isn't met, or the Captain of the Guard supports all the Dwarves that demand justice over a theft but you don't want your legendary armorer hammered for a drunken mistake so you pardon and the Captain of the Guard sides with the people against the King who she sees as ultimately responsible (even if your king is also throwing a tantrum because you didn't fulfill a demand he supported). There are all kinds of great dynamics this leads into, it's relatively easy to solve as long as the demands are generic enough. And if only one or two people are mad enough over something to plot a coup it's not going to guarantee fort meltdown (unless they're master swordsdwarves, but maybe that should be at least enough of a risk for even really corrupt authorities to support demands by military class Dwarves).

[GoblinCookie]

Why not cut out the middleman and have them demand stuff of the player directly?

[falcc]

Why not cut out the middleman and have them demand stuff of the player directly?

Because the player is kind of a nebulous presence for the Dwarves, really. I think mostly what this suggestion is about is having Dwarves react to the conditions of your fort by blaming someone in the fort itself and forming a response. It's silly that the Dwarves would ever get really mad and just start punching everyone they know, when they should be getting really mad at whoever (in their minds) is responsible for whatever got them mad. Who it is is kind of arbitrary, since really the player is at fault, so having nobles complain at each other just builds tension for the player to listen to demands that seem like they could lead to a lot of havoc. Or not to, and to get to watch as Dwarves respond to bad conditions with riots and nobles try to lock themselves in their quarters or sic the guards on the rioters. Once the family definitions and ethics overhaul is in guards could even weigh whether they would want to follow those orders.

It'd just generally make the fortress more dynamic to give Dwarves an outlet to express that they're feeling EXCITED to be around so many legendary chairs or ENRAGED to not have anywhere to sit after two years of waiting. And they can't express that at we players through play in any meaningful way. They punch their best friend and now you've got to deal with them, but it doesn't seem like it happened for a good reason.

[That Wolf]

Yes.
Yes.
Yes to this idea.
Its one of the genuine suggestions that will make the game hard again making tantrum spirals actualy achiveable if you arnt a complete neglectful socio that doesnt seem to know how to make a working society. Ive never had a spiral... ever.
Ive only had enraged after moods (civ started without anvil, yeah i know wtf) and darm meloncauliflower.
And even more reasons to kill the nobles.
Oskar restlesssleep felt happy after noble mcnobedsmandate got the dwarven guillotine spa package... Super fun time!

[GoblinCookie]

Because the player is kind of a nebulous presence for the Dwarves, really. I think mostly what this suggestion is about is having Dwarves react to the conditions of your fort by blaming someone in the fort itself and forming a response. It's silly that the Dwarves would ever get really mad and just start punching everyone they know, when they should be getting really mad at whoever (in their minds) is responsible for whatever got them mad. Who it is is kind of arbitrary, since really the player is at fault, so having nobles complain at each other just builds tension for the player to listen to demands that seem like they could lead to a lot of havoc. Or not to, and to get to watch as Dwarves respond to bad conditions with riots and nobles try to lock themselves in their quarters or sic the guards on the rioters. Once the family definitions and ethics overhaul is in guards could even weigh whether they would want to follow those orders.

It'd just generally make the fortress more dynamic to give Dwarves an outlet to express that they're feeling EXCITED to be around so many legendary chairs or ENRAGED to not have anywhere to sit after two years of waiting. And they can't express that at we players through play in any meaningful way. They punch their best friend and now you've got to deal with them, but it doesn't seem like it happened for a good reason.

Dwarves already get unhappy and riot already.  Therefore all we need to model your idea is to have unhappy dwarves attack specific nobles that they blame for (your) failure to keep them happy.  These nobles are either killed or driven into exile and new nobles are appointed to take their place that are beyond the player's control, that is they cannot be replaced.  Any successors that they have are also beyond your control, hence you cannot murder the problem away. 

The only way to bring the positions back under control is to meet the pacification demands for the 'rebel' nobles that represent a mixture of their own preferences and the unmet needs of your settlement.  Rebel nobles are never targets for unhappy dwarves and if you lose all your loyal nobles then your settlement is forcibly retired and becomes unplayable. 

[falcc]

Because the player is kind of a nebulous presence for the Dwarves, really. I think mostly what this suggestion is about is having Dwarves react to the conditions of your fort by blaming someone in the fort itself and forming a response. It's silly that the Dwarves would ever get really mad and just start punching everyone they know, when they should be getting really mad at whoever (in their minds) is responsible for whatever got them mad. Who it is is kind of arbitrary, since really the player is at fault, so having nobles complain at each other just builds tension for the player to listen to demands that seem like they could lead to a lot of havoc. Or not to, and to get to watch as Dwarves respond to bad conditions with riots and nobles try to lock themselves in their quarters or sic the guards on the rioters. Once the family definitions and ethics overhaul is in guards could even weigh whether they would want to follow those orders.

It'd just generally make the fortress more dynamic to give Dwarves an outlet to express that they're feeling EXCITED to be around so many legendary chairs or ENRAGED to not have anywhere to sit after two years of waiting. And they can't express that at we players through play in any meaningful way. They punch their best friend and now you've got to deal with them, but it doesn't seem like it happened for a good reason.

Dwarves already get unhappy and riot already.  Therefore all we need to model your idea is to have unhappy dwarves attack specific nobles that they blame for (your) failure to keep them happy.  These nobles are either killed or driven into exile and new nobles are appointed to take their place that are beyond the player's control, that is they cannot be replaced.  Any successors that they have are also beyond your control, hence you cannot murder the problem away. 

The only way to bring the positions back under control is to meet the pacification demands for the 'rebel' nobles that represent a mixture of their own preferences and the unmet needs of your settlement.  Rebel nobles are never targets for unhappy dwarves and if you lose all your loyal nobles then your settlement is forcibly retired and becomes unplayable.

I think the rebel government idea could be done by unhappy Dwarves conspiring together to developing their own small entity groups that kind of represent "the rebellion"  (like secret cult entitites Toady has talked about making). There'd need to be long periods of persistant unrest depending on Dwarves personalities before they'd consider rebelling, maybe a counter like for artifacts, or it'd be a lot to track. But yeah, they could form an additional entity and try to overthrow the fort. Maybe not even violently right away, like instead they make ridiculing poems about the noble they blame for their conditions, build embaressing statues, make agreements with guilds or religions or convert individuals to their cause. They create a history to fill in the feelings of the new entity so there's all this content it creates.

And maybe they still work for a while but then they refuse to work when their new entity overpowers their old one, but if they're still mostly cowards they might not start anything unless guards hassle them to get back to work and then they get sick of it. If they dropped their ruling civ tag entirely and kill the nobles and loyalists their new entity should be added to the playable list too. Then you can reclaim the fort playing the rebels but they need to fight off the old civilization, and maybe they get used to killing nobles so more nobles back their demands than before.

[GoblinCookie]

I think the rebel government idea could be done by unhappy Dwarves conspiring together to developing their own small entity groups that kind of represent "the rebellion"  (like secret cult entities Toady has talked about making). There'd need to be long periods of persistent unrest depending on Dwarves personalities before they'd consider rebelling, maybe a counter like for artefacts, or it'd be a lot to track. But yeah, they could form an additional entity and try to overthrow the fort. Maybe not even violently right away, like instead they make ridiculing poems about the noble they blame for their conditions, build embarrassing statues, make agreements with guilds or religions or convert individuals to their cause. They create a history to fill in the feelings of the new entity so there's all this content it creates.

Actually a better way to do it would be to have it so that popular dwarves with lots of friends automatically create their own factions, provided they are not themselves nobles and these factions are either happy or unhappy.  These factions always stand for election if their leader has no position already and unless there are no factions in your fort it is the faction with the most members that wins the election.  Faction leaders recruit people into their faction if they are non-faction members but if the faction leader dies the faction member with the most in-faction friends takes over and relations with that faction worsen if the former leader did not die a natural death from old age (same to a lesser degree with all unnatural deaths of faction members). 

Faction leaders contact nobles and by this means they periodically make demands to the player, based upon the personal likes/dislikes of the faction leader and their friends.  They function rather like mandates in that they have a deadline and if the demand is not completed within the deadline it hurts relations, while if it is carried out swiftly relations are improved.  A factions happiness cannot rise above the average personal happiness of it's members but importantly it can fall below.

Appointing faction members to noble positions makes the faction happy while dismissing members from noble positions makes them angry, more angry than appointing them to the office in the first place (squad leadership counts as an office).  Nobles that are personally happy are disinclined to form factions or join them but will maintain faction loyalties from before they were appointed. 

And maybe they still work for a while but then they refuse to work when their new entity overpowers their old one, but if they're still mostly cowards they might not start anything unless guards hassle them to get back to work and then they get sick of it. If they dropped their ruling civ tag entirely and kill the nobles and loyalists their new entity should be added to the playable list too. Then you can reclaim the fort playing the rebels but they need to fight off the old civilization, and maybe they get used to killing nobles so more nobles back their demands than before.

You should not be able to play the rebels any more than you should be able to play as the goblins that invaded your fortress! Dwarf Fortress is supposed to be a rogue-like, it is not supposed to be a game where if you lose you keep on playing as if nothing happened.  You lost the game dammit, nobody is going to care about maintaining happiness if all that a revolution means is that the name of your site government changes and you have to come back in a fortnight's time.

The way that rebellion works goes back to how factions have a relations with your government.  If a faction's relations go sufficiently low, say 0% then the faction goes into rebellion.  Rebel faction members deactivate non-essential labours and are controlled by a basic AI that does certain things. 

Rebels will always continue to do the following labours which are defined as essential.  This ensures that a fort will not starve to death as a result of a rebellion.

Hauling.
Growing.
Butchery.
Milking.
Bee-keeping.
Hunting.
Cheese-making.
Animal Care.
Brewing.
Medical Jobs.
Herbalism.
Fishing.
Fish Cleaning.
Milling.

Rebel soldiers however refuse to do civilian work and automatically activate but refuse to follow orders.  This keeps weaponry and armour in their hands as well as ensuring that they will be well trained.  They cannot be dismissed from their squads and if the squad leader is a rebel then you cannot appoint new members to that squad.  Empty slots within squads are liable to be filled by rebel faction members selected by the AI, giving priority to those who already have weapon skills and using a default uniform. 

The rebel AI does not respect burrows but instead creates it's own secret burrow whenever a hostile entity or mega-beast enters the map, it avoids being on the same Z-Level outside/inside as the threat if it can.  That is if the threat is outside particular level the rebels will flee the outside of that level and head either inside on that level or to a level below or above it.

During the rebellion, all rebel faction members actively try to recruit new members from among those who are not part of a rebelling faction, using their social skills.  Unhappy dwarves and dwarves with little regard for law or authority are easy targets for recruitment, as are those who personally are on very good terms with the recruiter. 

Rebellions do have a time-limit however, randomly set in advance.  If the demands of the rebellion are not met before the end of the time-limit then things can escalate into either a violent or peaceful revolution.  If members of the faction come to unnatural deaths during the time period then things have a chance of turning into a violent revolution before the time-limit is up.  In a violent revolution the rebel squad members try to kill all loyalist forces and loyalist nobles or drive them out.  In this form of revolution all civilian rebels that are able to grasp and walk are formed into squads when the violent revolution breaks out.

A violent revolution ends in victory for the government in a similar fashion to the way that sieges are ended, if the loyalist forces have an overwhelming advantage AND the rebel leader is dead then the squads disband and the rebellion is over, though the rebel faction will continue to exist under it's new leader.  If the rebel leader is not dead then the rebel faction will leave the map and become bandits. 

A peaceful revolution on the other hand has the rebels appoint a rebel alternative to a particular loyalist noble, they will then carry out actions to undermine his authority depending on profession, such as engraving the walls with insulting graffiti.  Each of those actions has a government response, you can remove the graffiti with your loyalist stone detailers as their stone details carve it into the wall.  When a peaceful revolution starts all loyalist nobles are given a authority score, they start with a score of 100% while the rebel alternative starts off with 0%.  If the rebel alternative ends up with a high authority that your own noble then he automatically replaces your noble and cannot be replaced as long as he remains part of the rebelling faction. 

A peaceful revolution has no time frame but can turn into a violent revolution if bad things keep happening to the rebel faction members.  You can only end it by raising their faction happiness, which can be done by appointing members of a faction into offices; a wise player would appoint rebel members into offices whose holders are about to lose them due to authority erosion anyway. 

If all nobles in your fortress are part of a faction and that faction goes into rebellion then you lose the game automatically and you lose the function of all nobles that are rebels. 

[kemoT]

I love these ideas, especially the "revolutionary" ones. I think that such "revolution" should also happen if you don't give a temple to some very big group of worshipers of some god. They would organize together and demand creation of such temple and would behave exactly like Goblin Cookie suggested.

[Bumber]

Unless the revolutionaries end up going to war against the mountainhomes, I don't think a revolution should be a lose condition. Given dwarven familial ties, I doubt it's something that would typically be a consequence of overthrowing a few local elected officials.

Having skilled dwarves driven off is sufficiently bad, IMO. In the case that they do go to war, I think that they should be selectable as their own civilization and treated as their own mountainhome.

[GoblinCookie]

Unless the revolutionaries end up going to war against the mountainhomes, I don't think a revolution should be a lose condition. Given dwarven familial ties, I doubt it's something that would typically be a consequence of overthrowing a few local elected officials.

Having skilled dwarves driven off is sufficiently bad, IMO. In the case that they do go to war, I think that they should be selectable as their own civilization and treated as their own mountainhome.

Yes revolution MUST be a lose condition.  I cannot stress this enough and there is a very good reason for this.

If you are able to reclaim sites that rebelled then you get to keep the goods and capital that you created while you were slave driving your dwarves and ignoring their needs.  Having skilled dwarves driven off is not sufficiantly bad because they will only be driven off if they are not themselves rebels.

If we allow rebelling sites to be reclaimed, not only is this unrealistic (WTF did they rebel for if not against the policies of you the player) but it creates a strategy by which players completely ignore the needs of their dwarves in order to accumalate capital and goods knowing that each successive revolution they create will simply leave them with everything that they previously created while ignoring their dwarves needs.

[falcc]

Unless the revolutionaries end up going to war against the mountainhomes, I don't think a revolution should be a lose condition. Given dwarven familial ties, I doubt it's something that would typically be a consequence of overthrowing a few local elected officials.

Having skilled dwarves driven off is sufficiently bad, IMO. In the case that they do go to war, I think that they should be selectable as their own civilization and treated as their own mountainhome.

Yes revolution MUST be a lose condition.  I cannot stress this enough and there is a very good reason for this.

If you are able to reclaim sites that rebelled then you get to keep the goods and capital that you created while you were slave driving your dwarves and ignoring their needs.  Having skilled dwarves driven off is not sufficiantly bad because they will only be driven off if they are not themselves rebels.

If we allow rebelling sites to be reclaimed, not only is this unrealistic (WTF did they rebel for if not against the policies of you the player) but it creates a strategy by which players completely ignore the needs of their dwarves in order to accumalate capital and goods knowing that each successive revolution they create will simply leave them with everything that they previously created while ignoring their dwarves needs.

I think it should consider the fort abandoned by the civ you were playing but give you access to play the new rebel civ. Half the fort dead and Dwarven armies marching from your old civ's capital every season is certainly not a more efficient way to produce stuff than just.  meeting your Dwarves' needs. There should be a reclaim option if you try to enter as your old civ and you can take an army and put down the rebels, or you could try to pull together the rebels to fight off the old civ with whatever knowledge and skills their new entity has compared to the last one.

This wouldn't be just an easy continuation of the game,  it would have to be a radically changed play than the previous one. Maybe all your old civs allies are against the new civ but they decide to ally with local goblins, sell all the old noble's children off in exchange for help. Maybe the local hill Dwarves hate you and every month you get an ambush to fend off. I think there are lots of opportunities for emergent play this way. Maybe you even start a new Dwarven empire as people from other civs gradually see your broken fortress repaired and functioning better than the old civ.

[Bumber]

Unless the revolutionaries end up going to war against the mountainhomes, I don't think a revolution should be a lose condition. Given dwarven familial ties, I doubt it's something that would typically be a consequence of overthrowing a few local elected officials.

Having skilled dwarves driven off is sufficiently bad, IMO. In the case that they do go to war, I think that they should be selectable as their own civilization and treated as their own mountainhome.

Yes revolution MUST be a lose condition.  I cannot stress this enough and there is a very good reason for this.

If you are able to reclaim sites that rebelled then you get to keep the goods and capital that you created while you were slave driving your dwarves and ignoring their needs.  Having skilled dwarves driven off is not sufficiantly bad because they will only be driven off if they are not themselves rebels.

If we allow rebelling sites to be reclaimed, not only is this unrealistic (WTF did they rebel for if not against the policies of you the player) but it creates a strategy by which players completely ignore the needs of their dwarves in order to accumalate capital and goods knowing that each successive revolution they create will simply leave them with everything that they previously created while ignoring their dwarves needs.

If the rebellion fails, the rebel dwarves are likely to meet the hammerer or be exiled. If it succeeds, same thing to the loyalist dwarves. You lose dwarves either way. If I just wanted the goods and capitol, I'd drown off the entire fort save a few loyalist dwarves (who don't care about anything anymore.) An unfortunate accident of epic proportions.

The player isn't tangible to the dwarves, so how can realism factor in? All they know is that things aren't getting done, and the current nobles are convenient scapegoats. If the problem continues, well, you've got an entire fort consisting of unhappy, stressed dwarves who have just driven off friends and family for naught. Tantrum spiral, go.

[GoblinCookie]

I think it should consider the fort abandoned by the civ you were playing but give you access to play the new rebel civ. Half the fort dead and Dwarven armies marching from your old civ's capital every season is certainly not a more efficient way to produce stuff than just.  meeting your Dwarves' needs. There should be a reclaim option if you try to enter as your old civ and you can take an army and put down the rebels, or you could try to pull together the rebels to fight off the old civ with whatever knowledge and skills their new entity has compared to the last one.

This wouldn't be just an easy continuation of the game,  it would have to be a radically changed play than the previous one. Maybe all your old civs allies are against the new civ but they decide to ally with local goblins, sell all the old noble's children off in exchange for help. Maybe the local hill Dwarves hate you and every month you get an ambush to fend off. I think there are lots of opportunities for emergent play this way. Maybe you even start a new Dwarven empire as people from other civs gradually see your broken fortress repaired and functioning better than the old civ.

All those ideas are extremely complicated and not worth implementing IF the only reason we are implementing is to make rebellions have serious and unavoidable effects on the player EXCEPT for the idea of having an option to play on as the government at another location. 

The reason why rebellion should be losing the game is as I said before the following. 

Say a player neglects the welfare of his dwarves early in his game in order to obessively focus on creating a enormous portait of himself across the entire dimensions of the game map.  There is a rebellion but the portait has not gone anywhere and say the player does manage to finish 30% of the portrait when the dwarves rebel.  If he can then immediately reclaim the site then he will be able to finish 60% and then 90%, then finally on the fifth government he has a finished statue but never did he ever need to learn how to keep his dwarves happy. 

If the rebellion fails, the rebel dwarves are likely to meet the hammerer or be exiled. If it succeeds, same thing to the loyalist dwarves. You lose dwarves either way. If I just wanted the goods and capitol, I'd drown off the entire fort save a few loyalist dwarves (who don't care about anything anymore.) An unfortunate accident of epic proportions.

The player isn't tangible to the dwarves, so how can realism factor in? All they know is that things aren't getting done, and the current nobles are convenient scapegoats. If the problem continues, well, you've got an entire fort consisting of unhappy, stressed dwarves who have just driven off friends and family for naught. Tantrum spiral, go.

If you manage to drive everyone to rebel then nobody meets the hammer.  The perverse incentive is not to try and make dwarves happy if there is a rebellion, it is to piss off everybody at once so that when you reclaim the fort you lose nobody at all as there are no loyalists to kill and can keep on following the same policies as before (repeat ad nauseum).  It is not for nothing that I stress that rebelling forts MUST be unreclaimable. 

Yes the player is not tangible to the dwarves but neither are governments tangible in RL, does not stop tangible people rebelling against them and overthowing them.  You cannot order about goblin invaders, wild animals, people on strange moods and rebelling dwarves in this case.  The dwarves did not stop being uncontrollable rebel dwarves when they took over your fortress, any more than uncontrollable goblins become controllable simply because they overran your fort. 

They do not think, hey we won now we can dismantle the Anti-Player shields that meant that the player could not end the rebellion by decreeing Rebel Not.  So not only is the players reclaiming fortress idea totally riddled with all manner of perverse incentives it is also deeply unrealistic.  Sure you could also drown the whole fortress except but as I have pointed out, unnatural deaths reduce the loyalty of dwarves. 

If you killed everyone but 5 loyalist dwarves then those loyalist dwarves would turn into 5 rebel dwarves.  The next time round the rebellion will insta-win because there will be no loyalist dwarves left. 

[kemoT]

What if you had to choose your side when the rebellion starts? If you chose loyalists and was defeated then you cannot reclaim, but if you chose rebels and defeated your own loyal militia you could continue, but you will have to face your previous civ.

[falcc]

I think it should consider the fort abandoned by the civ you were playing but give you access to play the new rebel civ. Half the fort dead and Dwarven armies marching from your old civ's capital every season is certainly not a more efficient way to produce stuff than just.  meeting your Dwarves' needs. There should be a reclaim option if you try to enter as your old civ and you can take an army and put down the rebels, or you could try to pull together the rebels to fight off the old civ with whatever knowledge and skills their new entity has compared to the last one.

This wouldn't be just an easy continuation of the game,  it would have to be a radically changed play than the previous one. Maybe all your old civs allies are against the new civ but they decide to ally with local goblins, sell all the old noble's children off in exchange for help. Maybe the local hill Dwarves hate you and every month you get an ambush to fend off. I think there are lots of opportunities for emergent play this way. Maybe you even start a new Dwarven empire as people from other civs gradually see your broken fortress repaired and functioning better than the old civ.

All those ideas are extremely complicated and not worth implementing IF the only reason we are implementing is to make rebellions have serious and unavoidable effects on the player EXCEPT for the idea of having an option to play on as the government at another location. 

The reason why rebellion should be losing the game is as I said before the following. 

Say a player neglects the welfare of his dwarves early in his game in order to obessively focus on creating a enormous portait of himself across the entire dimensions of the game map.  There is a rebellion but the portait has not gone anywhere and say the player does manage to finish 30% of the portrait when the dwarves rebel.  If he can then immediately reclaim the site then he will be able to finish 60% and then 90%, then finally on the fifth government he has a finished statue but never did he ever need to learn how to keep his dwarves happy. 

Ah, gotcha. You mean for mega-projects and things. It didn't occur to me to factor those in because they're a meta-game. I wouldn't want a game mechanic to destroy someone's mega-project in the first place because they're playing for a different reason, and Dwarf behaviors would essentially be wasting their time. Nobody that wants to build a computer in Dwarf Fortress is going to enjoy being locked completely out of their fort because they were.. you know.. making a computer instead of what the game would otherwise be. This suggest allows for people doing mega-projects not to be punished for playing a different game but punishes people trying to run an actual fort if they run it poorly.

I don't see any of this as being complex at all either. It takes three or four button presses to change civilizations on the embark screen, there's nothing complex about unretiring a fortress as the group currently living in it and then facing the civs they're at war with, that's already possible in the game. Fort destroying tantrums have already been a thing in the game. All I want is for tiny story elements so stuff that already happens in the fort looks more emergent, and an additional demand alert so there's an easier way to keep track of when Dwarves don't have beds. By the time the Army Arc hits and Dwarves are sending out armies for reasons nearly all of this code is likely to be in the game anyway, it's just some interface changes and a thematic change.