Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5

Author Topic: Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode  (Read 12516 times)

ToXey

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode
« on: February 04, 2018, 02:08:40 pm »

There could be multiple stances on civil weapons. For example, if it's illegal in a fortress to own a knife or if it's mandatory to keep a knife to protect against dangers from the outside or against criminals.

This ties into the larger question: Laws in Fortress mode, instead of just settings? Because it could be easy to just make a civilian outfit that has whatever added tools you need. I could suggest using the military function to create "civil law enforcers".
Logged
-I slew Zolak! -It was inevitable.
-Any troubles? -Bandit Zolak is harassing our hamlet!
-Tell me about Zolak. -Zolak is dead.
-What do you think about me? -You are killer. You are also unhinged. You have perpetrated a violent attack upon Zolak.

ToXey

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2018, 02:10:10 pm »

Right now, the enforcers are nobles. But the civilians can have duties too. Such as guarding a stockpile while the real soldiers are sparring for the upcoming invasion. This is, as you can expect, just a speculation in whether or not to wear a knife. Adventure mode starts you out with a knife no matter what you choose, so why don't the dwarves carry knives?

One short way of answering this is that: Hey, it's dwarf fortress, and it's FUN.

The longer answer is: There is already nobles and military... And dwarves are supposed to be inherently randomly dying to random shortcomings that the game has.

« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 02:14:06 pm by ToXey »
Logged
-I slew Zolak! -It was inevitable.
-Any troubles? -Bandit Zolak is harassing our hamlet!
-Tell me about Zolak. -Zolak is dead.
-What do you think about me? -You are killer. You are also unhinged. You have perpetrated a violent attack upon Zolak.

ToXey

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2018, 02:16:20 pm »

The lack of military strength reminds me of when I was playing pre-2007 dwarf fortress. There was no Z-levels. There was elephants and carps. There was gorillas and hospitals... there was chaos. Then again, it wasn't the gameplay that made me play the game, but the seemingly endless source of random things that happen.

addition for avoiding self-bumping: But the game has gained and lost... now it's somewhere but I don't know where. Dwarf Fortress always changes a little bit at a time. So it would not be strange if citizens carried concealed weapons.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 02:21:20 pm by ToXey »
Logged
-I slew Zolak! -It was inevitable.
-Any troubles? -Bandit Zolak is harassing our hamlet!
-Tell me about Zolak. -Zolak is dead.
-What do you think about me? -You are killer. You are also unhinged. You have perpetrated a violent attack upon Zolak.

KittyTac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Impending Catsplosion. [PREFSTRING:aloofness]
    • View Profile
Re: Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2018, 08:16:10 am »

Laws and customs. 5-6 years into the future.
Logged
Don't trust this toaster that much, it could be a villain in disguise.
Mostly phone-posting, sorry for any typos or autocorrect hijinks.

GoblinCookie

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2018, 02:40:35 pm »

Why would waste our time producing 200 knives to pointlessly arm civilians when we could be arming 50 extra warriors with all that metal and labour-power?
Logged

catoblepas

  • Bay Watcher
  • Likes catoblepi for their haunting moos
    • View Profile
Re: Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2018, 03:21:21 pm »

Daggers wouldn't be so bad as defense weapons if they didn't use the same amount of metal to make as a shortsword etc. Ammunition made at forges already comes out in batches of 25 per bar, perhaps daggers could be manufactured in batches of two?

Another possibility could be wooden cudgels as a cheaper defense option. obviously not going to be as good as a metal mace, but wood is significantly more common, so it would be fairly easy to equip all of your civilians with some clubs to whack hoary marmots etc they might encounter with.
Logged

Splint

  • Bay Watcher
  • War is a valid form of diplomacy.
    • View Profile
Re: Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2018, 08:20:29 pm »

Why would waste our time producing 200 knives to pointlessly arm civilians when we could be arming 50 extra warriors with all that metal and labour-power?

I know I'm opening a can of worms, but...

Have you considered that the militia and fortress guard can't be everywhere at once? That's like asking why a private arms industry exists in the United States - people arm themselves if they don't feel safe and that local law enforcement or military is unable or unwilling to protect them.

It saves us from having to manage a massive number of ten man squads all jockeying for equipment, and allows dwarves to defend themselves more effectively, perhaps even averting the need to send in the militia to rescue someone, or allowing them to inflict meaningful damage on an attacker before they die, if nothing else. Plus unlike squads, civilian dwarves have the option to decide for themselves if they should fight or not - One incident might see an armed mob successfully kill a jabberer with no casualties while another has only two or three suicidally brave dwarves try to fight a cave bear while everyone else fucked right off to nopeville because it's a damned cave bear and they only have clubs, knives, and maybe the one well off guy has a sword.

It makes the dwarves seem a little more realistic, especially fisherdwarves and weavers, who might get forgotten about (unless I'm the weirdo who often forgets about these two classes simply because they're out of sight and out of mind usually :P ,) or travel to less patrolled areas as part of their jobs and thus have a reason to carry a spear or hatchet with them for self defense. Plus it very slightly reduces some of the needed oversight on our part, adds a nice layer of potential carnage to bar fights and the now-rare tantrum, and making knives, clubs, and whatnot could be a good means of keeping your smiths and such busy when you don't have a terribly great need for a full dwarven steel and iron BDU.

Plus, that armed mob could become a fertile recruitment ground for actual professionals down the line if they live in a dangerous enough area, and the availability of personal defense weapons might even have some more paranoid, militaristic minded, and/or high strung dwarves to gain a bit of stress due to concern for thier own safety or that of their loved ones, and get a periodic destresser (say once a season,)  because being armed makes them feel safer, especially if there's been a wave of deaths such as from a vampire. This could also factor into discovering one by way of a failed "sneak roll" when going after a sleeping dwarf, causing them to wake up and possibly attack the  offending night creature with their personal implements (giving us a combat log and possibly injuries on the vampire and the intended victim, narrowing things down to two suspects without having to do all the profile screen searching.

Plus miners, lumberjacks, and hunters are already armed at all times, and are often more than happy to use their tools to defend themselves and others if the need/opportunity arises.

Daggers wouldn't be so bad as defense weapons if they didn't use the same amount of metal to make as a shortsword etc. Ammunition made at forges already comes out in batches of 25 per bar, perhaps daggers could be manufactured in batches of two?

Another possibility could be wooden cudgels as a cheaper defense option. obviously not going to be as good as a metal mace, but wood is significantly more common, so it would be fairly easy to equip all of your civilians with some clubs to whack hoary marmots etc they might encounter with.

I like the idea of daggers being made in small batches, and I'm kinda surprised we can't make simple weapons from wood or rock already - and training weapons don't count. Might mod in some simple stone hammers, clubs, and sharpened sticks for barebones starts...

LMeire

  • Bay Watcher
  • Likes Troglodytes for their horradorability.
    • View Profile
Re: Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2018, 08:48:29 pm »

Knives aren't just weapons, they're also some of the most versatile tools, useful in just about any profession and hobby that a peasant might have. They can be used to more easily cook and eat food, make small crafts, harvest crops, clean and butcher corpses, etc. The various jobs all make more sense with the assumption that dwarves all have trusty knives instead of grinding boulders down into earrings with their bare hands.
Logged
"☼Perfection☼ in the job puts pleasure in the work." - Uristotle

GoblinCookie

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2018, 07:30:51 am »

I know I'm opening a can of worms, but...

Have you considered that the militia and fortress guard can't be everywhere at once? That's like asking why a private arms industry exists in the United States - people arm themselves if they don't feel safe and that local law enforcement or military is unable or unwilling to protect them.

If there is a shortage of military, you would be spending all that metal to make more of them, not arming civilians to exist without them.  The private arms industry in the United States is basically built on a self-perpetuating anti-social mass-delusion, this is why the thread amounts to essentially asking the devs to add in new mechanics for the player to be stupid.  We are not really talking here about making civilian self-defense illegal, but rather not wasting resources on it; it's less a 'if you have a gun you go to prison' than 'yes you can have a gun but good luck getting one'

Being poorly armed is basically worse than being unarmed, if you are unarmed an armed person has a pretty good probability of ignoring you and pursuing whatever cause it is they are actually interested in, (you are out of luck if your death is what they want) but if you are poorly armed then a better armed person has to engage you in combat but you will probably lose.  An armed criminal robs an unarmed person and he can just take what he wants without hurting the victim, but if an armed criminal takes on an armed victim he has no choice but to shoot the victim and take their valuables.

It gets worse.  A large group of poorly armed folks can by weight of numbers overpower a smaller number of better armed opponents.  This means that an armed populace actively undermines law enforcement, an unarmed population means you do not need as many law-enforcers because you do not have to worry so much about a mob of criminals/rebels/dissidents actually being able to ambush and kill the law enforcers.  An armed population means you have to maintain a larger military in order to control it, all the while the weapons that the populace have are not available to arm said military.  In effect an armed population means that every action carry out by law enforcement has to be essentially a military operation, that is to say it has to actually has to involve the possibility of facing organized armed resistance. 
Logged

Helari

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2018, 09:57:34 am »

let's try to not project modern laws and practices concerning weapons onto a medieval fantasy game. In medieval times peasants usually were the military and they were, rather than allowed to, required to arm themselves so that their lord could levy an army from among the peasants when needed. A DF style standing military would be either an extremely expensive mercenary force or a very limited group of a lords retainers, probably nobles themselves.
Logged

catoblepas

  • Bay Watcher
  • Likes catoblepi for their haunting moos
    • View Profile
Re: Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2018, 08:22:32 pm »

Other 'self-defense' weapons & work tools that could be used as such could be mallets for masons and carpenters, hammers for carpenters/masons & smith, sickles for herbalists and farmers, and perhaps whips for animal trainers. Sickles and hammers of course would have to be fashioned from metal, but could use the 'two items from one bar' idea that I floated earlier, and mallets could be made out of wood as well as metal, while whips would be made from leather (really, they should be made out of leather already) Daggers and cudgels as a sort 'general purpose' self defense item.
Logged

Splint

  • Bay Watcher
  • War is a valid form of diplomacy.
    • View Profile
Re: Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2018, 08:28:58 pm »

let's try to not project modern laws and practices concerning weapons onto a medieval fantasy game.

I just used that as an example - people carry personal weapons because they can't rely on law enforcement to be everywhere to protect them from physical danger. Or they're a bit out there and have a stockpile of foil to line their hat with.

Quote
In medieval times peasants usually were the military and they were, rather than allowed to, required to arm themselves so that their lord could levy an army from among the peasants when needed. A DF style standing military would be either an extremely expensive mercenary force or a very limited group of a lords retainers, probably nobles themselves.

Which is essentially what we currently treat out militias as - Standing armies made of a small number of professional soldiers, and generally more than sufficient to deal with a given threat if properly armed and equipped, they just physically can't be guaranteed to be able to respond to every single threat or waste their time  escorting every single dwarf who has to go to dangerous territory.

That also ties in nicely to what i said before - an armed populace could very well become a good recruitment ground for the professional defense force, pulling the bravest dwarves who either continually chose to put themselves in danger or show an astonishing degree of adeptness and/or luck in conflicts with wildlife and such. A means of semi-autonomously finding the best-suited beards for line duty.



I know I'm opening a can of worms, but...

Have you considered that the militia and fortress guard can't be everywhere at once? That's like asking why a private arms industry exists in the United States - people arm themselves if they don't feel safe and that local law enforcement or military is unable or unwilling to protect them.

If there is a shortage of military, you would be spending all that metal to make more of them, not arming civilians to exist without them.

A shortage of soldiers can be due to attrition or too much ground to cover. Your militia (which most of us treat as a professional army, let's face it,) can't physically escort everyone with a dangerous job (weavers, fishers, herbalists, and other "outside" work generally,) patrol the whole of the map's countryside, patrol the whole of the caverns, man/patrol the general perimeter of say, an overland keep, and help escort a caravan into the fort all at the same time, not without taking up a huge portion of the population unless you really use them as a militia - that is a part-time military force.

Quote
The private arms industry in the United States is basically built on a self-perpetuating anti-social mass-delusion, this is why the thread amounts to essentially asking the devs to add in new mechanics for the player to be stupid.  We are not really talking here about making civilian self-defense illegal, but rather not wasting resources on it; it's less a 'if you have a gun you go to prison' than 'yes you can have a gun but good luck getting one'


I just used that as an example, chill dude. The reason is the same - some dwarves would want them for one reason or another, and this could actually affect them via the emotions/stress system.

Say a vampire gobbled up four dwarves and left many nearly dead - the population should be concerned for their own safety, especially if you haven't found the culprit yet (or perhaps have it come after it hasn't been solved for several seasons.) To them, it means the fortress guard is unwilling or unable to protect them, so they'll take matters into their own hands and arm themselves accordingly.

Others may simply purchase weapons and go to the barracks to watch the troops train of their own volition, their ownership of personal weapons being so that they can join if the need arises, or to protect their fellow dwarves if the militia is unavailable (while slao plainly showing who would make for a good militia recruit if needed.) This could affect different personality types as well - cowardly dwarves will have a slight stress reduction because someone is armed nearby to protect them or at least keep something busy while they run away, while ones who are more on the power hungry or pacifistic might be annoyed or agitated by it.

Urist McParanoid was concerned about the poor access to private weapons due to unsolved murders/ Urist McParanoid is Frightened/Felt safer with armed dwarves nearby.
Urist McMartialMinded was annoyed by a lack of personal weapons/lack of quality weapons.
Urist McWorried was reassured  of their family's/friends'/ their own safety by having a weapon on hand.
Urist McGoblinInside was angered by the presence of other armed dwarves/ Urist McGoblinInside was contented at the fact he was the only armed dwarf in the room.
Urist McHippy felt annoyed by the armed dwarves near him recently.

Quote
Being poorly armed is basically worse than being unarmed, if you are unarmed an armed person has a pretty good probability of ignoring you and pursuing whatever cause it is they are actually interested in, (you are out of luck if your death is what they want) but if you are poorly armed then a better armed person has to engage you in combat but you will probably lose.  An armed criminal robs an unarmed person and he can just take what he wants without hurting the victim, but if an armed criminal takes on an armed victim he has no choice but to shoot the victim and take their valuables.

In DF most things tend to want to kill you. A bandit deciding to kill someone because they hesitated to drop their weapon and coin pouch would be entirely reasonable within context, but now that victim being armed and this likely being close combat, now puts the bandit at significant risk of serious injury as well. Plus if they try to mug a dwarf who went to the militia on their own to observe and learn, they might even put up a better fight than expected, or even kill the bandit instead due to the game's semi-random nature in combat (That planter just stabbed you in the leg with his work knife, so now you're fighting with greatly reduced agility on the ground and he's still moving at full capacity, and may try to finish you or run to get help.)

Quote
It gets worse.  A large group of poorly armed folks can by weight of numbers overpower a smaller number of better armed opponents. 

If anything this is actually kind of a point in favor of this, as an armed mob might be able to overpower an enemy invasion, albeit potentially with serious casualties. If anything, this could be a good source of FUN because your bravest citizens opt to form an ad hoc militia to assist your soldiers and follow the milita commander's squad into battle (perhaps complete with a little announcement of this event! :)
 "Urist McStupidlyBrave has rallied an armed mob to assist the militia, and will follow Militia Commander Urist McMurdersmith until the invaders are driven off!" and I put that in yellow cause this could actually be helpful or a serious issue, depending on your militia's condition.)

Quote
This means that an armed populace actively undermines law enforcement,
Dwarves believe in the rule of law generally, so for them it'd be far less of an issue. Plus at present the police for a fortress only ever has at most ten dwarves, and seldom would anyone ever need more than that to enforce the law. Cause really, come on. if you need more than that to keep a lid on things, is your fort even gonna be standing much longer?

Quote
an unarmed population means you do not need as many law-enforcers because you do not have to worry so much about a mob of criminals/rebels/dissidents actually being able to ambush and kill the law enforcers.  An armed population means you have to maintain a larger military in order to control it, all the while the weapons that the populace have are not available to arm said military.  In effect an armed population means that every action carry out by law enforcement has to be essentially a military operation, that is to say it has to actually has to involve the possibility of facing organized armed resistance. 

Dwarves as said are unlikely to have this issue due to a general belief in the rule of law, including dwarves sorting out how to handle the sudden loss of primary leadership without force. Power-hungry and generally ill-thinking of the law dwarves appear to head for the hills and turn bandit, which basically gets them marked for death for murder/treason anyway since they'll inevitably end up killing someone. Additionally, perhaps this could give titles a purpose besides showing prowess in general - titled dwarves nearby could greatly reduce the chances anyone is willing to do something uncivil, because that dwarf has killed at least five noteworthy foes, and wouldn't be afraid to add them to that body count - which also encourages us to bloody the fortress guard a bit, because having hardened combat veterans as part of the fortress guard would make them more effective at their job.

And besides that, who said we were gonna give the citizens access to the good shit? Wealthier dwarves or those with a certain amount of respect in the community maybe, but in general most will suffice with knives, sickles, fishing spears, clubs and such, rather than those masterwork iron spears and steel swords you had made for the militia to replace those junky copper ones.

Elves likewise simply apply social pressure to keep dissent in check (and kill and eat those who pose an external threat to the community as legends shows us when they eat enemy soldiers - threats to the community - after killing them.) This includes exiling internal threats altogether, forcibly removing them from the community and making this a non-issue. They are also not very likely to come into conlfict with most things our civilian dwarves might have to fend off, being at peace with wildlife.

Humans could have a serious issue with this, due to their wildly varying values, and goblins are virtually guaranteed to have regular infighting between two armed mobs squabbling for authority. It could be the norm on some worlds for humans to be comprised of many city states that all broke apart from an original central government while many goblin sites simply can't wage external wars very often because they're too focused on suppressing internal threats.

Plus, now if needed we can potentially supplement the militia via mercenaries, who typically bring their own weapons.


Also, it's kinda fun to imagine how having this could affect gameplay - a band of unruly outcasts or armed refugees show up, and your piddling militia gets backed up by the miners and woodcutters of their own accord instead of having to draft them (and bypassing the issue with conflicting uniforms,) turning the tide their your side's favor.

Maybe one dwarf who was already on edge assumes a dude who bought an old sword recently is there to kill him and attacks him with a kitchen knife and it turns into a riot as both sides' friends try to break up the fight before the fortress guard can respond? (Urist McStressedTheFuckOut is violently lashing out at Urist McNewPurchase in fear!)

Two drunken idiots in the tavern get into an argument and the chisel and hatchet come out and the two come to blows - and one goes to the hammering block because he slammed his chisel in the other dwarf's skull. (Urist McMurderer has felt absolutely depressed due to murdering someone in a rage. Urist McMurderer is is experiencing mortal fear due to his sentence.)

Of course, the way to appease both camps is via decrees from a noble (mayor or baron+) banning dwarves from owning personal weapons (resulting in confiscation and return of the weapons to the militia/Fortress's stocks,) or from forming unsanctioned militias (with offenders being jailed for a time afterwards,) or via a setting we can turn on or off at will in the int settings.

For example, a decree screen with one decree mandating civilians arm themselves, a decree banning unsanctioned possession of personal arms and a choice of punishments (beating or jail time and duration of the latter,) or simply lifting the decree, allowing dwarves to chose if they arm themselves or not.

Iunno, food for thought

Other 'self-defense' weapons & work tools that could be used as such could be mallets for masons and carpenters, hammers for carpenters/masons & smith, sickles for herbalists and farmers, and perhaps whips for animal trainers. Sickles and hammers of course would have to be fashioned from metal, but could use the 'two items from one bar' idea that I floated earlier, and mallets could be made out of wood as well as metal, while whips would be made from leather (really, they should be made out of leather already) Daggers and cudgels as a sort 'general purpose' self defense item.

Staves too, particularly for humans and elves.

GoblinCookie

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode
« Reply #12 on: February 10, 2018, 10:15:52 am »

A shortage of soldiers can be due to attrition or too much ground to cover. Your militia (which most of us treat as a professional army, let's face it,) can't physically escort everyone with a dangerous job (weavers, fishers, herbalists, and other "outside" work generally,) patrol the whole of the map's countryside, patrol the whole of the caverns, man/patrol the general perimeter of say, an overland keep, and help escort a caravan into the fort all at the same time, not without taking up a huge portion of the population unless you really use them as a militia - that is a part-time military force.

The answer in any case is more soldiers.  The civilians are as already discussed not better off for being badly armed as they are from being unarmed, but the act of arming them when there is a shortage of weapons for soldiers makes the situation worse. 

I just used that as an example, chill dude. The reason is the same - some dwarves would want them for one reason or another, and this could actually affect them via the emotions/stress system.

Say a vampire gobbled up four dwarves and left many nearly dead - the population should be concerned for their own safety, especially if you haven't found the culprit yet (or perhaps have it come after it hasn't been solved for several seasons.) To them, it means the fortress guard is unwilling or unable to protect them, so they'll take matters into their own hands and arm themselves accordingly.

Others may simply purchase weapons and go to the barracks to watch the troops train of their own volition, their ownership of personal weapons being so that they can join if the need arises, or to protect their fellow dwarves if the militia is unavailable (while slao plainly showing who would make for a good militia recruit if needed.) This could affect different personality types as well - cowardly dwarves will have a slight stress reduction because someone is armed nearby to protect them or at least keep something busy while they run away, while ones who are more on the power hungry or pacifistic might be annoyed or agitated by it.

Urist McParanoid was concerned about the poor access to private weapons due to unsolved murders/ Urist McParanoid is Frightened/Felt safer with armed dwarves nearby.
Urist McMartialMinded was annoyed by a lack of personal weapons/lack of quality weapons.
Urist McWorried was reassured  of their family's/friends'/ their own safety by having a weapon on hand.
Urist McGoblinInside was angered by the presence of other armed dwarves/ Urist McGoblinInside was contented at the fact he was the only armed dwarf in the room.
Urist McHippy felt annoyed by the armed dwarves near him recently.

As I said, it is a delusion because arming all the civilians does not make anyone safer; it is a statement not a sign of my emotional state.  The only question here is how far should we go down the route of generating delusional beliefs in the game, the delusion in this being that civilian arms protect them rather than endangering them. 

In DF most things tend to want to kill you. A bandit deciding to kill someone because they hesitated to drop their weapon and coin pouch would be entirely reasonable within context, but now that victim being armed and this likely being close combat, now puts the bandit at significant risk of serious injury as well. Plus if they try to mug a dwarf who went to the militia on their own to observe and learn, they might even put up a better fight than expected, or even kill the bandit instead due to the game's semi-random nature in combat (That planter just stabbed you in the leg with his work knife, so now you're fighting with greatly reduced agility on the ground and he's still moving at full capacity, and may try to finish you or run to get help.)

Most of that is down the undeveloped nature of the AI, it is just the civilians do not know how to behave and nor do the attackers in a lot of cases.  Running away is generally a better bet for civilians, it is just they are not presently very good at it and attackers are not very good at ignoring fleeing opponents to pursue their actual goals, which is very annoying with companions in adventure mode.  In any case arming civilians is still inefficient. 

If anything this is actually kind of a point in favor of this, as an armed mob might be able to overpower an enemy invasion, albeit potentially with serious casualties. If anything, this could be a good source of FUN because your bravest citizens opt to form an ad hoc militia to assist your soldiers and follow the milita commander's squad into battle (perhaps complete with a little announcement of this event! :)
 "Urist McStupidlyBrave has rallied an armed mob to assist the militia, and will follow Militia Commander Urist McMurdersmith until the invaders are driven off!" and I put that in yellow cause this could actually be helpful or a serious issue, depending on your militia's condition.)

It seems to be a point in favour but it really what makes the situation worse.  The key thing here is organization not weapons, the attackers move in an organized way as a formation which means they can easily dispatch armed civilians which not being organized as a military formation (in which case they are not really armed civilians).  A larger formation tends to defeat a smaller formation if they are equally well organized, even if the individual members of the smaller formation are better equipped.

The civilians may have weapons, but on account on being civilians they have no military organization.  What makes it worse is this situation will however if they are left alone potentially be rectified as the civilians organize into a mob to overpower the attackers and because they outnumber them they would prevail.  What this means is that attackers who would rather leave the civilians alone focus on their actual purpose will be forced to massacre all the poorly armed civilians while they have the organizational advantage.  The civilians will not do any substantial damage to the attackers because they are armed, since they all die as individuals. 

As I said, being badly armed is worse than being unarmed because if you are unarmed then attackers will likely ignore you if you stay out of their way.  If you are poorly armed you pose just enough threat to not be ignored but not enough to actual prevail in a fight.  The fact that initially scattered armed civilians can organize into ad-hoc militias, means it is now best for the attacker to kill them all before this happens. 

Dwarves believe in the rule of law generally, so for them it'd be far less of an issue. Plus at present the police for a fortress only ever has at most ten dwarves, and seldom would anyone ever need more than that to enforce the law. Cause really, come on. if you need more than that to keep a lid on things, is your fort even gonna be standing much longer?

Why do they even need law enforcement if everybody follows the law?  In any case, you were arguing that they cannot always rely on law enforcement, but with such a surplus of law enforcers per head (one for every 20 people) they actually can.
Logged

Bumber

  • Bay Watcher
  • REMOVE KOBOLD
    • View Profile
Re: Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2018, 12:16:21 pm »

As I said, being badly armed is worse than being unarmed because if you are unarmed then attackers will likely ignore you if you stay out of their way.
Wild beasts share no such sentiments.
Logged
Reading his name would trigger it. Thinking of him would trigger it. No other circumstances would trigger it- it was strictly related to the concept of Bill Clinton entering the conscious mind.

THE xTROLL FUR SOCKx RUSE WAS A........... DISTACTION        the carp HAVE the wagon

A wizard has turned you into a wagon. This was inevitable (Y/y)?

Splint

  • Bay Watcher
  • War is a valid form of diplomacy.
    • View Profile
Re: Self Defense for non-military Dwarves in Fortress Mode
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2018, 07:21:12 pm »

The answer in any case is more soldiers.  The civilians are as already discussed not better off for being badly armed as they are from being unarmed, but the act of arming them when there is a shortage of weapons for soldiers makes the situation worse. 

My point is that professional troops and the fortress guard physically cannot be everywhere. The issue is that the soldiers unless they happen to be nearby, will always be unable to respond to something attacking someone in a timely manner - the civilian's option is to either fight or flee, and in many cases, particularly with cavern creatures, they simply can't outrun them. Better to have a knife or second-hand sword or axe than your bare hands when faced with a horde of crundles or a reacher out for your blood.

Plus, well, sometimes you simply can't make more proper soldiers without potentially crippling your operations, as you might find yourself short on haulers or builders at the wrong time - for example if you call up the militia when caravan season comes, all those part timers aren't able to help haul trade goods up because you need them on the walls, or you might not have enough harvesters when a harvest comes in, which could cripple your booze supply.

Quote
As I said, it is a delusion because arming all the civilians does not make anyone safer; it is a statement not a sign of my emotional state.  The only question here is how far should we go down the route of generating delusional beliefs in the game, the delusion in this being that civilian arms protect them rather than endangering them. 

In this case it's not a delusional belief that a vampire might come after you after four people are found drained of blood, or that you could be attacked by an undead wolf while you're gathering plants. This isn't our world where you could argue such a thing (because even as a gun owner, I think it's entirely reasonable to have that debate and try to find the middle ground,) this is a game setting where half of all living things and most undead seem to actively want to murder your people if they happen to be in their general vicinity, with or without provocation, and dwarves or whatever you happen to be playing simply can't flee from all of them (or put themselves in danger of worse injury/equal chances of dying if they try to climb to safety,) and many will outright refuse to flee and try to fight them barehanded.

Our midgets have far worse to potentially deal with than some braindead burglar or a mugger on the streets, and DF players being who they are, that means they are all but guarnteed to need to defend themselves without the benefit of the militia at some point (Hell, I had my fisherdwarves all decide to attack a horde of zombie dark gnomes and that shit left one of them hospitalized and the rest with varying degrees of moderate to severe brusing in a fort I'm play at present. If they'd had knives or fishing spears, none of them would have likely been seriously hurt.)

Quote
Most of that is down the undeveloped nature of the AI, it is just the civilians do not know how to behave and nor do the attackers in a lot of cases.  Running away is generally a better bet for civilians, it is just they are not presently very good at it and attackers are not very good at ignoring fleeing opponents to pursue their actual goals, which is very annoying with companions in adventure mode.  In any case arming civilians is still inefficient.

If your shit is their goal, then you are mostly likely going to be killed for it. Goblins and virtually any other invader likewise have no reason to ignore any of your dwarves or livestock, and won't. They'll kill soldiers, animals, and civilians alike with absolutely zero fucks given beyond forcing you to surrender via the succumb to invasion menu option or killing everyone.

Quote
If anything this is actually kind of a point in favor of this, as an armed mob might be able to overpower an enemy invasion, albeit potentially with serious casualties. If anything, this could be a good source of FUN because your bravest citizens opt to form an ad hoc militia to assist your soldiers and follow the milita commander's squad into battle (perhaps complete with a little announcement of this event! :)
 "Urist McStupidlyBrave has rallied an armed mob to assist the militia, and will follow Militia Commander Urist McMurdersmith until the invaders are driven off!" and I put that in yellow cause this could actually be helpful or a serious issue, depending on your militia's condition.)

It seems to be a point in favour but it really what makes the situation worse. 
That was literally the point of my statement. If your militia was badly mangled and you haven't had time to train your replacements, fix your gate, and rearm your traps, the civilians gathering round and following the militia commander to help might help as they may add the sheer weight of numbers you need without everyone running around having equipment mismatches trying to gather weapons and armor (as they're bringing their own weapons instead of using the site government's stocks,) but they might also get in the way and make the situation substantially worse for you.

Quote
[organization]

Currently organization is irrelevant and likely will be for some time, as we can alter the battlefields around and in our fortresses to make formation fighting impractical at best and impossible at worst barring tunnel fighting where it would come down to who has the better men up front to mulch the other side. In this instance the "organization" would consist of the scratch militia forming up in a meeting place closest to the militia commander or in the nearest barracks and then following the Militia commander like his regular squad already does.



Quote
As I said, being badly armed is worse than being unarmed because if you are unarmed then attackers will likely ignore you if you stay out of their way.  If you are poorly armed you pose just enough threat to not be ignored but not enough to actual prevail in a fight.  The fact that initially scattered armed civilians can organize into ad-hoc militias, means it is now best for the attacker to kill them all before this happens. 
Are miners and woodcutters worse off if they get attacked by something? No, because they're always armed by virtue of their profession, and these are also often the first dwarves formed up into emergency defense forces in forts low on professional soldiers or in dire straights, because they're able to essentially be told to use their tool class as a weapon and they'll only take a few ticks to "rearm" themselves with their own pick or axe, and if attacked while undrafted, they'll fight back (or attack) perceived threats with the same tools anyway.

And attackers who spot your civvies are going to kill them anyway regardles sof if they try to run or not - they're locals and therefore part of the "defense" and will be put to the sword all the same, unless they manage to get behind a door or gate before a beak dog or bear clamps down on their fingers or something.

Quote
Dwarves believe in the rule of law generally, so for them it'd be far less of an issue. Plus at present the police for a fortress only ever has at most ten dwarves, and seldom would anyone ever need more than that to enforce the law. Cause really, come on. if you need more than that to keep a lid on things, is your fort even gonna be standing much longer?

Why do they even need law enforcement if everybody follows the law?  In any case, you were arguing that they cannot always rely on law enforcement, but with such a surplus of law enforcers per head (one for every 20 people) they actually can.

Every single civ has outliers, just like even the most peaceful 1st world nations need at least a small police force to deal with the odd thief, car accident, or bar fight. For example, it's supposed that if you put a shitball in charge of a militia squad, they'll potentially go bandit if you abandon the fort. And it's not unsual to find dwarves who personally either hold the law in disdain or are neutral to it, rather than having a strong general belief; but most dwarves are simply fairly lawful as a rule.

Additionally, the militia doesn't count as law enforcement. Only the Fortress Guard does, and while under normal operation 10 men is more than enough to handle an occasional bar murder, workplace assault, berserker, or production deadline slip.... Well,  if things get ugly, the sheer number of complaints, murders, witness reports, and assaults very well might overwhelm them because they have to physically chase everyone down individually to lock up or met out punishment, which can further clog up the gears of justice.

It should also be noted at least in the early v40 versions, the Militia would circumvent the justice system entirely if they witnessed serious crimes (murder and assault) while on duty, killing the offending party outright. Had a riot get worse because the Militiadwarves I guess decided the fortress guard hadn't been doing their jobs well enough (which they weren't, to be fair; the Watch Captain wanted to do his solo drills instead of take complaints and witness reports.) So your own fortress guard being lax due to poor choices (or just bad luck,) could also make law enforcement unreliable.


As I said, being badly armed is worse than being unarmed because if you are unarmed then attackers will likely ignore you if you stay out of their way.
Wild beasts share no such sentiments.

And undead even less so. Plus we don't need as many full-time soldiers if the civilians can kill or scare off minor threats like badgers and the like if they have a sufficiently sharp rock or a club or something. Anything is better than the stupidly brave ones having only their bare hands.

Plus if you have a surplus of resources and are sick of having to keep a close eye on everyone and shuffle the militia around to keep them safe from minor things, then this offers a potential solution besides guard dogs for everyone.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5