Print

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

[FantasticDorf]

Right now despite being new i think messengers are very under-utilised fetchers for people and don't actually convey messages, their role to be chosen for their social skills and discretion for holding meetings with local leaders the same way the outpost liason meets with us.

(Treasure Hunter(First contact)):

• If you are exotic enough, leader might be interested in speaking to you even if you are a stranger

• Might be able to exchange gifts between civ leaders and accept and give gifts yourself

(Fortress Starting Scenarios)Hill Dwarves)): "Relationship with surrounding dwarves"

So using messengers would be a way to achieve these goals, by sending them out to meet with relevant positions in other civs like royalty and local level leaders either appointed by you as puppets (via conquering the site and leaving a occupation force with the [SITE_FORCED] tag) or economically linked by baronies.


Insults and mistakes

In DF its pretty easy to step on people's toes, whether you intended to or not, which is really when you're out to meet unknown (and for the big wait, procedurally generated or variable humans) civilizations you really want to bring a gift and someone gifted with a gentle and friendly temprement so that things don't go south fast.

> Sending out a terrible talker to make a diplomatic faux pas or bring out a artifact wooden bed as a gift for a elven civ is as problematic as it can get, next to having to clumsily be called upon to explain why you raided one of their towns.

*This is a masterfully depicted rendition of Evieth ShadowSong the elf queen rolling in muck, she is surrounded by 2 Sow's, it is written on a exceptional pig tail quire*

Quite a rude thing to send someone through the post in dwarven pictographic language, but if your intent is to sour relations it helps direct the point across. The obvious option to insult them at will (possibly to please or on request of others) and declare war for a reason (choose your own) without making the first move being open options.

But on the other hand sending them with tribute might help be able to improve relations & pay their way out of being captured when sending them to a enemy civ to say hello, discuss opening a trade treaty, declare war, insult and praise (mixed results)

> Like the previous raiding example, when they ask for a messenger to ask what happened, a especially good liar or negotiator may be able to save the relationship by softening the steep relations hit and hoping that they forget what happened.

Alliances

Once a managable way to scale your rate of interaction & their opinion of you is put in place, doing particular actions with messengers such as sending out trained flatterers to praise the leader & offering enough tribute may improve relatons enough to successfully create a alliance between your civilization and theirs with benefits.

> In a conflict, both of your civs will be declared upon meaning that some civilizations may have a early advantage over others depending on how diplomatic their leaders are. Allies will intervene on sieges by arriving with a friendly force, but will ask for tribute afterwards if they are successful for their contribution.

> When attacking a site in a raid, the reprecussions of enemy alllies will be shown to you.

[GoblinCookie]

I don't know if we actually have the authority to really engage in diplomacy as a mere site government.

[KittyTac]

I don't know if we actually have the authority to really engage in diplomacy as a mere site government.

What if you're a mountainhome? You can become one once the king/queen moves in.

[FantasticDorf]

I don't know if we actually have the authority to really engage in diplomacy as a mere site government.

As a barony you'd be personally liable (baron through to you) for what happens, and with the whole 'strings attached' you could suffer a malus with your own civ for starting a war they think is unfavourable or unwanted. Drop a few relationship points then butter them back up again with tribute and poitive diplomatic interactions later if you haven't hurt the relationship too much.

What if you're a mountainhome? You can become one once the king/queen moves in.

At that point you still have to talk to your barons and site nobles, but maybe you could ask more fealty via diplomatic action to broaden the scope of requests other than to headhunt? The Monarch demands tribute from their subjects since they implicitly but not explicitly control all of them. Stay a independent mayor lead state and you'll not be subject to your lieges whim.

> Summon all your subjects to a feast held in your monarchs throne room to raise relations as a visitor activity.

King Haralaus of M&BW fame would be proud for the finest masterwork butter dwarves can produce is on show.

[GoblinCookie]

What if you're a mountainhome? You can become one once the king/queen moves in.

I was of the understanding that was more of a Mayor of London situation.  The central government remains separate from that of your site, even though it is resident *in* your site. 

As a barony you'd be personally liable (baron through to you) for what happens, and with the whole 'strings attached' you could suffer a malus with your own civ for starting a war they think is unfavourable or unwanted. Drop a few relationship points then butter them back up again with tribute and poitive diplomatic interactions later if you haven't hurt the relationship too much.

Unless you are attacking someone they really hate *and* is weak, the consequences for starting a war should be far more severe.  The central government should send a new baron and mayor, deposing your regime and causing you to lose the game and the citizenry should not generally be prepared to resist.  Or is realism only for metals and rocks?

[KittyTac]

I thought that the player represented the dwarves of the fortress as a collective and not an actual character.

[Dorsidwarf]

What if you're a mountainhome? You can become one once the king/queen moves in.

I was of the understanding that was more of a Mayor of London situation.  The central government remains separate from that of your site, even though it is resident *in* your site. 

As a barony you'd be personally liable (baron through to you) for what happens, and with the whole 'strings attached' you could suffer a malus with your own civ for starting a war they think is unfavourable or unwanted. Drop a few relationship points then butter them back up again with tribute and poitive diplomatic interactions later if you haven't hurt the relationship too much.

Unless you are attacking someone they really hate *and* is weak, the consequences for starting a war should be far more severe.  The central government should send a new baron and mayor, deposing your regime and causing you to lose the game and the citizenry should not generally be prepared to resist.  Or is realism only for metals and rocks?

Why would you lose? Barons and mayors are dime a dozen, many players kill theirs if they’re a mild nuisance. You don’t play as a government entity, you play as an abstract guiding force for the fortress (as shown by the dwarves “coming back to their senses” in site history when you retire.

Similarly, what do you mean that the site government remains separate? The friggin monarch arrives and starts handing out orders.

[GoblinCookie]

I thought that the player represented the dwarves of the fortress as a collective and not an actual character.

The player represents a spirit that possesses a collective *or* a specific individual.  That creates a problem, how does the world deal with the player.

Why would you lose? Barons and mayors are dime a dozen, many players kill theirs if they’re a mild nuisance. You don’t play as a government entity, you play as an abstract guiding force for the fortress (as shown by the dwarves “coming back to their senses” in site history when you retire.

Similarly, what do you mean that the site government remains separate? The friggin monarch arrives and starts handing out orders.

Because the barons and mayors and so that are on controlling your site are no longer 'on site'.  Or the central government has formerly stripped you of your autonomy in key areas, so that you now no longer have the legal right to say deploy troops offsite.  The latter avoids us having to lose the game outright, which is an unpopular idea for some reason unless goblins are involved, while still allowing the central government to behave realistically if they have sites that are putting the continued survival of their civilization in jeopardy.  We could start by depriving the player of autonomy but if the player then continues to manage make a nuisance despite his loss of autonomy then they player should then lose the game. 

The monarch does not hand out orders, he/she makes mandates and nothing else I am aware of.  Your site is already in any case subordinate to the monarch so it is a mute point.  The point I was making is that the central government frequently does not directly control their capital city.  If you are the mountainhome you are the equivilant of the Mayor of London, I thought the analogy was obvious, you are running the capital city government, you are not running the civilization's government, which remains separate.  The player is the Mayor of London, not the King even if the King lives in London.  If anything being the capital city should give you less autonomy and mean your actions are more scrutinized because your fate is of greater interest to the King that than of some minor frontier outpost. 

[KittyTac]

I thought that the player represented the dwarves of the fortress as a collective and not an actual character.

The player represents a spirit that possesses a collective *or* a specific individual.  That creates a problem, how does the world deal with the player.

But then shouldn't the spirit's influence spread onto the monarch's decision-making? It just feels like an incomplete  feature rather than an intentional omission to me.

[Dorsidwarf]

Why does your “avatarness” transfer into the baron when he is made, but not into the king when she inherits/arrives? It’s just inconsistent mess, and there’s no reason either by realism or gameplay to not allow players who are the Mountainhome to do these things.

[KittyTac]

Why does your “avatarness” transfer into the baron when he is made, but not into the king when she inherits/arrives? It’s just inconsistent mess, and there’s no reason either by realism or gameplay to not allow players who are the Mountainhome to do these things.

Exactly my point.

[GoblinCookie]

But then shouldn't the spirit's influence spread onto the monarch's decision-making? It just feels like an incomplete  feature rather than an intentional omission to me.

The monarch is a historical character, so the spirit does not have the ability to possess the monarch, obviously.  Thing is that the spirit is bound either to a previously non-historical individual or to a previously non-existant collective entity.  If the collective entity *of* the civilization is seperate from the collective entity that controls the site, the spirit does not control the individuals but only the collective entity itself. 

Why does your “avatarness” transfer into the baron when he is made, but not into the king when she inherits/arrives? It’s just inconsistent mess, and there’s no reason either by realism or gameplay to not allow players who are the Mountainhome to do these things.

Same reason we are not allowed to control historical characters, something needs to check the player's influence. 

[KittyTac]

What if Toady adds the ability to control monarchs and such that arrive at your fortress?

[Miles_Umbrae]

Someone with more insight into development-plans can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the on-site nobles mandates and hizzy-fits just a placeholder?

[Dorsidwarf]

But then shouldn't the spirit's influence spread onto the monarch's decision-making? It just feels like an incomplete  feature rather than an intentional omission to me.

The monarch is a historical character, so the spirit does not have the ability to possess the monarch, obviously.  Thing is that the spirit is bound either to a previously non-historical individual or to a previously non-existant collective entity.  If the collective entity *of* the civilization is seperate from the collective entity that controls the site, the spirit does not control the individuals but only the collective entity itself. 

Why does your “avatarness” transfer into the baron when he is made, but not into the king when she inherits/arrives? It’s just inconsistent mess, and there’s no reason either by realism or gameplay to not allow players who are the Mountainhome to do these things.

Same reason we are not allowed to control historical characters, something needs to check the player's influence.

There's no reason your baron can't be a historical figure either, GC. if zod the ex-explorer settles in your fort he can be promoted to baron just like any of the "void dwarves" that are spawned from the ether/non-historical populations