Print

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

[GoblinCookie]

Having a safe site does not protect caravans through unsafe lands.

That is irrelevant since the safer site can deploy more soldiers to guard said caravans against threats in a given area.  The danger to caravans in general simply shifts things even more towards the safer sites. 

If.

The problem is that your model for creating caravans results in that if coming true far more readily than mine. 

I'm not talking about surplus value, I'm talking about surplus labor and logistics. A mountain of trinkets is worthless if you can't facilitate its safe delivery.

They are the same thing.  If a small number of dwarves can produce a surplus of goods, that frees up the other dwarves to cart said goods around, guard the goods and so on.  If all the dwarves in the fortress are freed up to do that, then the second problem is solved by the first problem.  If the fortress has no surplus value, then all dwarves are engaged in directly producing goods and none are left over to cart the goods around so there is no trade. 

No surplus value = No Trade.  The same thing applies to the adventurer

What mercenaries are you talking about? They don't exist until the next version. I don't know what causes some dwarves to be more willing than others, but I suspect it's tied to personality and skills.

I take it you do not play adventure mode much.  I am talking about the ones that hang about at sites saying "I have sought my fortune by offering my skill at arms at site X for X number of years".  While ordinary soldiers refuse to sign up as companions, these mercenaries are recruitable. 

Think about why mercenaries exist IRL. Keep in mind your militia dwarves will also need pay once the economy rolls out. Think about coffins, families, and tantrum spirals.

Paying fortress dwarves does not to alter the fundamental situation one bit.  The value of a mercenary is still equal to that of a fortress dwarf, so why have them at all as a separate defined group?  We need something for mercenaries specifically to do that ordinary fortress dwarves cannot do to the same extent and guarding long-distance caravans gives them something to do. 

You can't control your militia dwarves in combat, you can only point them to the enemy. You can't do any personal roleplaying as them.

That isn't what control means.  Roleplaying is in the mind anyhow. 

They can't all be demigods, you know.

How skilled they are merely exacerbates the situation, a fortress may care a little bit if a peasant-level adventurer leaves but they are going to be livid if a demigod-level adventurer leaves.  Fact is that unless we constrain what fortress dwarves can do in the wider world, having their dwarves become adventurers is something they will do everything in their power to avoid. 

[Bumber]

Having a safe site does not protect caravans through unsafe lands.

That is irrelevant since the safer site can deploy more soldiers to guard said caravans against threats in a given area.  The danger to caravans in general simply shifts things even more towards the safer sites.

That still in no way makes attempting to control the entire world's trade a sound investment. They have extra manpower but not the proximity, nor the lay of the land (we'll ignore this,) nor practical combat experience, nor the incentive of those in the danger zone.

The problem is that your model for creating caravans results in that if coming true far more readily than mine.

Doesn't matter if it doesn't happen in the first place. Your method is too gamey for my standards, while failing to solve the issue for any other professions.

I'm not talking about surplus value, I'm talking about surplus labor and logistics. A mountain of trinkets is worthless if you can't facilitate its safe delivery.

They are the same thing.  If a small number of dwarves can produce a surplus of goods, that frees up the other dwarves to cart said goods around, guard the goods and so on.  If all the dwarves in the fortress are freed up to do that, then the second problem is solved by the first problem. If the fortress has no surplus value, then all dwarves are engaged in directly producing goods and none are left over to cart the goods around so there is no trade.

No surplus value = No Trade.  The same thing applies to the adventurer

You can't go on about the wonders of surplus value, then turn around and say the fortress doesn't want the adventurer's labor. That's an illogical double standard. The adventurer frees up dwarves just like everyone else, so why wouldn't they hire him?

What mercenaries are you talking about? They don't exist until the next version. I don't know what causes some dwarves to be more willing than others, but I suspect it's tied to personality and skills.

I take it you do not play adventure mode much. I am talking about the ones that hang about at sites saying "I have sought my fortune by offering my skill at arms at site X for X number of years". While ordinary soldiers refuse to sign up as companions, these mercenaries are recruitable.

I haven't done much adventuring in DF2014 due to the broken quest system, but I'm not entirely convinced those aren't just normal soldiers willing to seek adventure. It doesn't matter anyway, because it would still demonstrate that obviously somebody cares that mercenaries exist.

Think about why mercenaries exist IRL. Keep in mind your militia dwarves will also need pay once the economy rolls out. Think about coffins, families, and tantrum spirals.

Paying fortress dwarves does not to alter the fundamental situation one bit.  The value of a mercenary is still equal to that of a fortress dwarf, so why have them at all as a separate defined group? We need something for mercenaries specifically to do that ordinary fortress dwarves cannot do to the same extent and guarding long-distance caravans gives them something to do.

You ignored the rest. Mercenaries are a non-permanent, liability-free fighting force.

You can't control your militia dwarves in combat, you can only point them to the enemy. You can't do any personal roleplaying as them.

That isn't what control means. Roleplaying is in the mind anyhow.

Don't argue semantics. It does, and that's what it means in the context of my post. You put into question what the player can do with adventurers that they can't with fort dwarves. Complete control over the individual's will is the thing. Your roleplaying options suffer if your character disobeys orders and you can't do the small things like walk up to an arbitrary dwarf and throw a plump helmet at him.

They can't all be demigods, you know.

How skilled they are merely exacerbates the situation, a fortress may care a little bit if a peasant-level adventurer leaves but they are going to be livid if a demigod-level adventurer leaves.  Fact is that unless we constrain what fortress dwarves can do in the wider world, having their dwarves become adventurers is something they will do everything in their power to avoid.

Not if the fortress values independence and the continued honing of skills. If the fort (or hamlet under the protection of a fort) is sufficiently defended, they have no cause to detain the adventurer. If they lack the manpower, they have no means to prevent the adventurer from leaving. (Maybe they could hire some mercenaries, eh?)

[cochramd]

That still in no way makes attempting to control the entire world's trade a sound investment. They have extra manpower but not the proximity, nor the lay of the land (we'll ignore this,) nor practical combat experience, nor the incentive of those in the danger zone.

Britain called, and he sounds indignant; he said something about "East India" and "Hudson Bay"....

Let me be serious with you, though. I agree that global trade domination is something far beyond the grasp of a single fortress. However, the key word in that sentence is single. You've gotten me thinking; what if one were to establish a series of fortresses with the intent of achieving a global trade network for their civilization? You'd have some sites that were placed to make sure your civilization had access to every kind of plant and animal (well, their products, anyways), some sites that exist to teach the locals to fear dwarvenkind and keep them from attacking caravans, some sites that were placed as pit stops on the great dwarven highway and at least one big site that pumps out all the expensive trinkets and probably functions as your capital. Yeah, it would be a lot of work, but megaprojects are a lot of work too and people do those for fun.

[Bumber]

That still in no way makes attempting to control the entire world's trade a sound investment. They have extra manpower but not the proximity, nor the lay of the land (we'll ignore this,) nor practical combat experience, nor the incentive of those in the danger zone.

Britain called, and he sounds indignant; he said something about "East India" and "Hudson Bay"....

Britain didn't have to contend with sea monsters. They could wreck your ship from below, and there's nothing you could do. Every trade shipment would be an Odyssey.

Also, they British had cannons to defend themselves with. Dwarves get... crossbows. You've already been boarded by pirates before you can utilize those. Nevermind, dwarves have ballistae. The previous point still stands.

[cochramd]

Britain didn't have to contend with sea monsters. They could wreck your ship from below, and there's nothing you could do. Every trade shipment would be an Odyssey.

Well, they're pretty few in number. You could just hunt them to extinction.