Print

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

[Casany]

Hello!

Something about world generation that has always bothered me is the proliferation of dwarven hillocks. And I don't mean them just forming around fortresses, nor would I ever be mad if dwarves took the world over, I mean how around year 110 (for me anyways) the dwarves always seem to just form hillocks EVERYWHERE. In half my worlds that I gen they end up killing themselves because they stretch themselves so thin. I'll post a screenshot later to show what I mean, but basically even if the dwarves are losing already they start just placing hillocks everywhere, sometimes across the entire map, next to dark fortresses with 10000+ goblins, or in the middle of a hostile elven civilization. The majority of these hillocks are killed within one to six years of their founding and taken by a hostile settlement.

Does this happen to anyone else or is it just RNG?

Thanks in advance!

[therahedwig]

I'm afraid it must be RNG, because I have little trouble genning worlds with healthy dwarf civs.

[sketchesofpayne]

Default or custom world gen settings?

In the 20 worlds I've generated in version 0.44 it is usually the elves that are the most prolific.  It is typical to see human civilizations wiped out and find dwarven civs that are half-full of humans.  I think the human civs are just more prone to getting leveled by titans.  Goblins have usually been in the minority.  As a note, I typically gen worlds for 300-500 years.

Messing with the number of civilizations and max population during world gen are the two settings that seem to have the most effect on how the civs shake out.  I got a more even distribution of sites and civs when I upped the number of civilizations and reduced the max population.  If you do the opposite then one race always seems to dominate the map.

[Casany]

I'm afraid it must be RNG, because I have little trouble genning worlds with healthy dwarf civs.

See, the problem is whenever they start doing this where they create sites everywhere they're usually dying, far from healthy. My most recent worldgen has one dwarven civ left rwith only 200 dwarves, 150 of which are in three sites and the other 50 spread out across 20~ sites. If I had access to my PC I'd show pics

And it only happens on small worlds, with both custom worldgens and basic worldgens. I usually go high savagery, low civs and high sites if that means anything.

[mightymushroom]

In my experience high site cap relative to world size will tend to cause any and all civs to spread wildly, including cozying up to probable enemies.

I'd guess that you've hit a spot in the algorithm where the history genner says, "We have X resources but only Y sites. We should start another one." They won't care whether it means trekking across the continent into the heart of enemy territory. In your posts you describe them as "dying, far from healthy" civs whose hillocks quickly fall, but I'm fairly sure nobody in worldgen has the ability to make that value judgment. Inside the simulation they still measure themselves as "ready to expand (again)."

(Start thinking of them as scrappy perpetual optimists. They start that next hillock because the only certain failure is never to try. Or, if you must be dark and pessimistic, because they have to keep on the move before the evil empire catches up with them. Either way, the last thing they want to do is stop.)

Why do you feel like it's always dwarves? The other settings could influence that: low # of civs and smaller worlds both tend to exacerbate the winner/loser perception because there are few (or zero) alternatives of the same race to succeed when one of their civs suffers. Add to that, dwarves suffer a distinct bias in Forgotten Beast attacks. So your dwarves may hit this spot where they have fewer sites/population than "desired" more easily, yet so long as they are not knocked out completely they will attempt to expand. Meanwhile, the elves (as an example) may hold the advantage in a centuries-long running war against the dwarves; their initial settled retreats prosper; they command dozens of conquered sites besides; and either don't feel the same pressure to found new sites so quickly or you don't notice because the ones they do start aren't "failing" in the same way.

[Fleeting Frames]

Personally, I have noticed first dwarven mountainhome always falling to forgotten beasts UNLESS they have support from at least 1 hillock for repopulation. Thus, when I want healthy dwarf civs I place their mountains next to plains even though I don't have to.

I also use the "expand into enemy range" to have a timer for starting a war, so that there's more mortals dying. I don't think expanding means they're dying - I take that from sites being ruined or conquered and the capital struggling and losing population.

[sketchesofpayne]

I usually go high savagery, low civs and high sites if that means anything.

That sounds like it would cause exactly the behavior you are describing.  A few civs with a population spread out among a lot of sites in a savage land.  When the major sites get attacked by titans or forgotten beasts all that is left is a bunch of hillocks.