Print

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

[Shonai_Dweller]

Another question about alliances, as I realised the second part of my question on them back in May wasn't clarified (answer focused on who people would form alliances against).

Which civs will form alliances with each other? And, for modding reference, how is this determined? Does it take into account Babysnatcher/Item_Thief tags, current states of war, ethics?
I play with a mod which uses these tags to divide up the many different civs in my world so would be nice to know who's likely to be teaming up when the zombie apocalypse strikes.

Pretty sure the original devlog from way back in the day mentioned "required killing of neutrals" as an alliance deal-breaker, at least as I remember it.

The Devlog was talking about who people form alliances against (ie necromancers and goblins) and the fotf question in May seemed to be just confirming the same thing.

That whole post with it's various replies and final Toady answer is kind of confusing and based on work which hadn't been completed at that point. So thought I'd clarify.

Devblog:

"When civilizations are feeling set upon by the more evil threats (any group that requires the killing of neutrals, like gobs and the undead), they can join up now..."

[voliol]

From the June FotF reply:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Will civs form alliances against anyone threatening to take over the world? (Mostly goblins, but elves get a lucky rng break every so often, and of course all those delightfully OP civs added by modders) or is it solely for zombie threats?  Or perhaps "supernatural threats" if that's a defined thing now?

Will "natural enemies" (Babysnatcher civ and non-babysnatcher civ, etc) join alliances together if threatened, or do they stick to their own?

Do distant in far away lands or normally hostile (see shonai's quoted green question on goblin allies) allies trade with your site or alter their behaviour after signing a agreement?

Because beside poking them with a raid or summoning caravans with DFhack (as the masterwork mod does, though thats not applicable here) you'd normally require to embark closer to them. Goblins can't trade but not ruling out peddlers in the future, it could afford us some respite from babysnatchers while the alliance (/truce?) is up.

Right now im pretty sure the only way you can get goblin instruments (cave croc bone drum has pride of place in my tavern) and miscellaneous things is by exorted tribute or looting.

Toady, do enemy civs ally together in response to player aggressiveness trying to scoop up settlements forcefully to eventually reach nobility targets like baron, duke and count? it seems like it'd be either too much of a deterrant going that path or a easy way to incur fun if you are the percieved world ending threat of a conquerer.

Going off of the latest dev log, would it be correct to assume that forming alliances as a response to a particularly evil threat will also occur in response to modded in entities that fit that criteria as well? I do hope it is, it'd immerse modded in entities much more into modded worlds if they can interact just like the vanilla entities can with the new update.

It sounds like folks only form alliances against those who are Kill Neutral Required.  Does that mean that goblins will never ally with other races to stop the zombie invasion because goblin civs will not ally with other races to stop another goblin civilization taking over the world? Would two goblin civilizations ally against a zombie invasion?

Hi, just to clarify, by "requires the killing of neutrals", did you mean civs (including zombies) which have the tag "Ethic:Kill_Neutral:Required" or something else?

FantasticDorf: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg7970270#msg7970270
voliol: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg7973363#msg7973363
therahedwig: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg7973413#msg7973413
Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg7973624#msg7973624
Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg7974023#msg7974023
FantasticDorf: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg7974767#msg7974767
Shonai_Dweller: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg7974891#msg7974891

Yeah, it is limited currently, by the ethic setting.  That may or may not change before the release, but the current setup accomplishes what we needed.  I'm not sure it'll be easy to extend with the time we have left, though simple strength comparisons merged with the love/hate numbers might be enough to make them act vaguely plausibly in broader situations.

Still, as Shonai_Dweller said, it might be useful to get a current status report.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Yes, that is the fotf question I'm talking about. And, again, the question is who can form an alliance. Not who do people form alliances against. That's not answered here. Irrelevant in vanilla perhaps, but when working with mods it's good to know how these things are determined.

[EternalCaveDragon]

Yes, that is the fotf question I'm talking about. And, again, the question is who can form an alliance. Not who do people form alliances against. That's not answered here. Irrelevant in vanilla perhaps, but when working with mods it's good to know how these things are determined.

I'd like to know the answer to this as well, especially considering who alliances are formed against is covered by ethics. An alliance between dwarves, elves, and humans (depending on the ethics of the latter) would definitely fall apart after the war is over due to ethical friction between the two/three. How long an alliance might last due to the differing viewpoints involved could also perhaps be a consideration when forming one. Although, given the description of how the alliances work, them being temporary may be the point, given they're an, "okay, we'll stop squabbling to deal with this existential threat, but after that we'll go back to killing/glaring at each other," type of alliance.

[tpssurvivor]

Question about relationships.
As for now, if I'm not mistaken the dwarves only seem to build relationship with others when they are at a meeting hall or tavern, under the "Socialize" job. With the upcoming villain update and the rewrite of social interactions, will dwarves (or whatever race you are playing fort mode) be able to "chit chat" or interact with others while doing other stuff? (e.g. Hauling objects; building stuff; comming across others while going somewhere; While they raid sites; Train in the squads).

[PatrikLundell]

Question about relationships.
As for now, if I'm not mistaken the dwarves only seem to build relationship with others when they are at a meeting hall or tavern, under the "Socialize" job. With the upcoming villain update and the rewrite of social interactions, will dwarves (or whatever race you are playing fort mode) be able to "chit chat" or interact with others while doing other stuff? (e.g. Hauling objects; building stuff; comming across others while going somewhere; While they raid sites; Train in the squads).

They're supposed to exchange words outside of dedicated socializing, but my guess is that it isn't sufficiently sustained to count towards building relationships. While it was a few versions back, I've had dorfs get into fights with merchants at the trade depot, and as far as I could determine it was initiated by the exchange of words.

I doubt they'll chat while or raids, as they're offloaded from the fortress (causing mess and corruption when reloaded on return), but one might hope the Villain requirement to actually seek out specific contacts for nefarious purposes in fortresses might rub off on dorfs with needs to see friends and/or family (as well as to seek out potential partners to form families in the first place).

If fortress plotters would be as inept at seeking out contacts as fortress dorfs are currently, there will be no need to fear any plots will progress anywhere...

[Cruxador]

Organized religions, craft guilds, and more formal clans/families are something that I've been wanting for a long time. At this point, aside from the huge things that will each require multiple years, and things that have already been added, it's the thing I want the most. Certainly more than the villain stuff; although it's cool in some respects, the groups being added to Fort mode provides a social structure that has been one of the biggest omissions with regards to simulating a realistic community. If they also can have or claim rooms jointly (offices and meeting halls, including places of worship for religions, and perhaps workshops or other means of production for guilds) then that will do a ton to make the forts more believably alive, and perhaps even encourage more organic layouts. What's more, it can add an aspect of managing different factions to the game, on top of just building infrastructure, and will make individuals more distinct and notable.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Organized religions, craft guilds, and more formal clans/families are something that I've been wanting for a long time. At this point, aside from the huge things that will each require multiple years, and things that have already been added, it's the thing I want the most. Certainly more than the villain stuff; although it's cool in some respects, the groups being added to Fort mode provides a social structure that has been one of the biggest omissions with regards to simulating a realistic community. If they also can have or claim rooms jointly (offices and meeting halls, including places of worship for religions, and perhaps workshops or other means of production for guilds) then that will do a ton to make the forts more believably alive, and perhaps even encourage more organic layouts. What's more, it can add an aspect of managing different factions to the game, on top of just building infrastructure, and will make individuals more distinct and notable.

Remember there 's a whole development arc dedicated to these things coming up after the Mythgen releases, so while we may see something, don' t get your hopes up too much for anything more than bare-bones representation.

[Eric Blank]

Latest devlog (10/24/2019) again mentions the possibility of losing because officials are corrupted. Do you intend for that to be a hard "game over" type lose? For instance, I could still run the fort if those corrupted officials stick to only stealing away things occasionally but still follow my orders re; posting militia to keep goblins out. Say, they're only ignoring part of my orders, those that are counter to their own objectives. That would still be playable, theyd basically just be slightly more obstinate than usual.

[PatrikLundell]

Latest devlog (10/24/2019) again mentions the possibility of losing because officials are corrupted. Do you intend for that to be a hard "game over" type lose? For instance, I could still run the fort if those corrupted officials stick to only stealing away things occasionally but still follow my orders re; posting militia to keep goblins out. Say, they're only ignoring part of my orders, those that are counter to their own objectives. That would still be playable, theyd basically just be slightly more obstinate than usual.

As far as I understood from that dev log, Toady was considering means by which you could wrest control of the fortress back, such as e.g. through an uprising, so the issue is under consideration. I wouldn't expect any specific answers to what you'd be able to do until development reaches that issue, though.

Note that there are different kinds of "corruption". Criminal embezzlement may well become visible through things you'd ordered disappearing and whatnot, i.e. the "obstinate" version, but a goblin overlord or a vampire schemer would probably not stop at that level, but would continue until they've gotten full control of the fortress, as that's probably their goal (for the fortress: there's a whole world out there to deal with, one settlement at a time, although a vampire may well settle with a fortress full of food).

[PlumpHelmetMan]

I know the adventure mode party work for this release is more-or-less done, but here's something I never thought to ask that just occurred to me:

Are the pets in custom adventuring parties directly controllable? Or are they restricted to just following the P.C.s?

[Death Dragon]

Can you explain what you meant with:
"The first part was to add some new per-character variables to every conversation - how much a person wants to stay, whether they are pleased with things, and how confident/dominant/composed they are feeling"
Does that maybe mean there will be less "it was inevitable/ it is terrifying" and more actual emotion in people's reactions while talking?

[Weirdsound]

With artifact theft plots coming to Fortress Mode, will we get more options on how we store, protect, manage and/or display our artifacts? Right now it is easy to choose where in the fortress your artifact bed or mechanism lives, but a pain in the ass to get an artifact sock or toy axe exactly where you want it.

[therahedwig]

Can you explain what you meant with:
"The first part was to add some new per-character variables to every conversation - how much a person wants to stay, whether they are pleased with things, and how confident/dominant/composed they are feeling"
Does that maybe mean there will be less "it was inevitable/ it is terrifying" and more actual emotion in people's reactions while talking?

Probably not, because, based on what I know about adventure mode characters, a lot of that is caused by histfigs having no clue what you are talking about. Like, even thought they can tell you about the dragon in a cave on the other side of the world, they won't actually know about the dragon in a cave on the other side of the world until you tell them the same rumour back, and even then they don't know what a dragon is. So hence the 'it was inevitable/terrifying' reply. I personally suspect a lot of that is going to wait for the entity rework in the law and customs arc, as it is very related to how a brand new histfig relates to the entities it is part of.

I had a case where I discovered someone was a bandit lieutenant because they thought it was terrifying I beat up their boss, while everyone else thought I did good, so when it works it works, but it does depend on histfigs knowing what you're on about.

Weirdsound, you do know pedestals and display-cases are a thing nowadays?

Edit:
So, I know creatures with a nature loving trait get a happy thought from seeing an animal, but do you think you have the time to let dwarves pet their animals? In general, a key characteristic of villains is that they cause a lot of stress in others. Is there any kind of balancing in terms of destressors you guys are planning?

[Beag]

1. How much more do you think you will develop organizations such as religious orders, merchant companies and mercenary companies before the next release? To clarify will they have activities they do besides simply existing? And if so would these activities be seen in fortress mode only or also in adventure mode to some degree?
2. You mentioned modifiers such as loyalty and love in how interrogation will work, does this mean our adventurers will finally be able to have friends and romantic interests to sate their needs for such things since those modifiers imply such relations will be possible?
3. With how easy it is to just loot valuables from warehouses in adventure mode in mind how effective do you think bribing NPCs to talk will be? I ask this as less scrupulous adventurers can easily procure a supply of goods to bribe people with from warehouses.
4. If our adventurer's use violence in interrogation in a town and word got out of that would they be penalized with a violent reputation still?