Print

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

[VislarRn]

If I remember correctly, Toady's plan was to tie player's decisions more to the dwarven nobles at some phase. Not sure how it's going to turn out yet.

In case of starting a war on behalf of your own civilization, I absolutely agree with GoblinCookie here. You should make sure that whatever central government you are bound to, not confronting your authorities is a must for good diplomatic relations. If you violate the agreements of your own civilization you should suffer hard consequences, including your own civilization turning all its forces against you.

So, if you are confined to some kind of strict jurisdiction, the trick would be to establish enough trust or claim the position of superior authority to yourself, before you start taking steps outside your bounds.

[FantasticDorf]

So, if you are confined to some kind of strict jurisdiction, the trick would be to establish enough trust or claim the position of superior authority to yourself, before you start taking steps outside your bounds.

Some fortresses are strong enough already to hold their own, even against the mountainhome.

> Send them a letter detailing your insurrection of authority that [player recommended dwarf] and hence forth all their decendents are now the royal blood of the [player made civilization name] of your site [sitename] ruled by [site government name] and weather out the dwarven army & loyalty flipping citizens incurred.

Yes i can agree with the sentiment that there should definitely be reprecussions, like being forced to fetch quest a mandate as a form of punishment to send out tribute but there's not a lot they can do besides some form of economic/monetary reparation at the given moment that's really meaningful.

[Mort Stroodle]

One thing that could be cool is the ability to request caravans from civs other than the one human, elf, and dwarf civ you get every year. The only problem is that you need checks on that, so you don't just contact literally every civ in your world for constant caravans and infinite money. You'd probably need to include a diplomacy system so you actually have to invest diplomatically in a civ before they'll trade with you, and at that point we're probably talking about stuff that we won't see until post-magic. I supposed there's also the matter of sheer time. With more than one caravan a season we're talking about making the player spend a whole lot of time micromanaging trading, which would get old real fast.

[Miles_Umbrae]

One thing that could be cool is the ability to request caravans from civs other than the one human, elf, and dwarf civ you get every year. The only problem is that you need checks on that, so you don't just contact literally every civ in your world for constant caravans and infinite money. You'd probably need to include a diplomacy system so you actually have to invest diplomatically in a civ before they'll trade with you, and at that point we're probably talking about stuff that we won't see until post-magic. I supposed there's also the matter of sheer time. With more than one caravan a season we're talking about making the player spend a whole lot of time micromanaging trading, which would get old real fast.

If the civ that you ask to trade with you either haven't heard of the players outpost/fort or doesn't consider the players available goods to be of interest/value then they shouldn't want to send a caravan to begin with.
So a system of renown needs to be used as a check to for one make such requests realistic and also to reduce abuse.

[GoblinCookie]

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

We still can't play both adventure mode *and* fortress mode at the same time. 

Some fortresses are strong enough already to hold their own, even against the mountainhome.

> Send them a letter detailing your insurrection of authority that [player recommended dwarf] and hence forth all their decendents are now the royal blood of the [player made civilization name] of your site [sitename] ruled by [site government name] and weather out the dwarven army & loyalty flipping citizens incurred.

Yes i can agree with the sentiment that there should definitely be reprecussions, like being forced to fetch quest a mandate as a form of punishment to send out tribute but there's not a lot they can do besides some form of economic/monetary reparation at the given moment that's really meaningful.

The problem is not that we cannot fight the mountainhome, it is that our dwarves might realistically simply refuse to do it.

[KittyTac]

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

We still can't play both adventure mode *and* fortress mode at the same time. 

I meant in a limited form. Such as controlling what orders they give and whatnot, and not movement to selected tiles. Sounds quite within the scope of fortress mode, there is no reason Toady won't be able to add this. Which is what this suggestion is all about, adding such control over monarchs.

[GoblinCookie]

I meant in a limited form. Such as controlling what orders they give and whatnot, and not movement to selected tiles. Sounds quite within the scope of fortress mode, there is no reason Toady won't be able to add this. Which is what this suggestion is all about, adding such control over monarchs.

Is it not an established fact that you cannot possess both an individual and a collective at the same time?  The monarch is an individual who is part of your collective, but also part of another collective that you do not control.  You cannot dictate what the other collective does, without controlling the individual in which case you would have to retire your fortress. 

[KittyTac]

I meant in a limited form. Such as controlling what orders they give and whatnot, and not movement to selected tiles. Sounds quite within the scope of fortress mode, there is no reason Toady won't be able to add this. Which is what this suggestion is all about, adding such control over monarchs.

Is it not an established fact that you cannot possess both an individual and a collective at the same time?  The monarch is an individual who is part of your collective, but also part of another collective that you do not control.  You cannot dictate what the other collective does, without controlling the individual in which case you would have to retire your fortress.

My question was: Why can't Toady add a special case for this? The spirit thing is fanon and not stated anywhere by Toady AFAIK, and not an "established fact".

[Starver]

For (additional) caravan requests, I'd say that using renown to judge if the requestee would honour the invite would then lead onto a trial caravan (sized according to the degree of said renown) whose return (and later size) is predicated upon how worthwhile the trip was, each time, so that loss-making trips would dial down enthusiasm and even lead to the cessation of visits.

(Might be worth making the 'traditional' three caravans, after the compulsory tentative stab at visiting the newly-(re)founded colony, respond more flexibly than currently. With the exception of who initiated them, they could have effectively the same susceptibility to altered enthusiasm as invited traders after a few years pass, for better or ill.)

With >4 caravans (or >3, assuming¹ still no winter one) two or more caravans could be arriving at the same time during (at least one) season, or at least with significant overlap. That would alter 'trader mood', too. Perceived lower utility might nark them, but (assuming simultaneous or parallel Depot visits) opportunities to inter-trade between themselves might be something their respective origins would be pleased with. If we changed from the Depot system (or added to it) by assigning a Trading Zone then a "Wagon Back Sale" could form, each wagon lining up on the designated site and forming a temporary 'shop' workshop to be frequented by all who pass by.

A seasonal market that becomes popular (e.g.) might gain an inertia of its own, beyond one's actual control, organised outwith your own diplomacy skills (and maybe producing other problems, like trader rivalries or cheaters and sneakers of various kinds, from within and without your base site civ, who need extra-cateful management before the fact and punishment after it). You'd be competing against other local hubs (as we've seen, market hubs are a worldgen thing now, just ripe for at least influencing in Fortress Mode site management and conscious improvement) and renown/inhospility in trading might influence other site factors (e.g. more/less sieges, according to various motive-hooks determined as armies march around).

Many possible things we could do. A lot of them probably needing a lot of complicated coding (or recoding) to accomplish. But so much flavour!


¹ A big assumption - Imagine a regular winter trading opportunity, even tied to the Trading Zone atop a frozen river...

[Bumber]

Is it not an established fact that you cannot possess both an individual and a collective at the same time?  The monarch is an individual who is part of your collective, but also part of another collective that you do not control.  You cannot dictate what the other collective does, without controlling the individual in which case you would have to retire your fortress.

Next update improves adventure mode parties. Kind of blurs the line when you can swap freely between individuals of the collective.

[KittyTac]

Is it not an established fact that you cannot possess both an individual and a collective at the same time?  The monarch is an individual who is part of your collective, but also part of another collective that you do not control.  You cannot dictate what the other collective does, without controlling the individual in which case you would have to retire your fortress.

Next update improves adventure mode parties. Kind of blurs the line when you can swap freely between individuals of the collective.

Also, it's fanon and not an established fact.

[Bumber]

Also, it's fanon and not an established fact.

It's Word of Toady that adventurers are being controlled against their will when they're forced to commit unspeakable acts.

[KittyTac]

Also, it's fanon and not an established fact.

It's Word of Toady that adventurers are being controlled against their will when they're forced to commit unspeakable acts.

But it isn't Word of Toady that the force can't control both a collective and an individual. Also, link?

[GoblinCookie]

Next update improves adventure mode parties. Kind of blurs the line when you can swap freely between individuals of the collective.

You are still controlling the individuals.........

[Bumber]

But it isn't Word of Toady that the force can't control both a collective and an individual. Also, link?

Gave up after an hour of looking for the quote. Google wasn't any help. Neither was manually searching through results of FotF, DFTalk, and Announcements for "adventurer". You'd think it would've been asked in FotF right after emotions were implemented back in Oct 25, 2014. In any case, I don't recall that he gave an exact answer, but possession of sorts was strongly implied.

What about the collective versus individual thing? Any link?
Edit: Misread "it isn't" as "isn't it".

You are still controlling the individuals...

What about when you have them build your camp?