Print

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

[FantasticDorf]

One way of looking at it is that the bodyguard will always be a interesting agent in villian schemes depending on how easily they could be swayed to ignore or even attempt a asssasination attempt upon the person they are meant to be protecting, or form a obstacle.

Plus additionally, mercenaries are ready-made bodyguards you could probably use off the bat for these kind of roles rather than spare the important lives of your militia dwarves.

[GoblinCookie]

This really is an objectively wrong point. If you deploy your troops from a central location, then by the time they reach the incident your king/legendary craftsdwarf has been beaten to death in the tavern by a tantrumming dwarf who went mad from brooding over rain or whatever. Or shanked fatally by a random goblin snatcher with a knife he bumped into by mistake while standing outside. Or eaten by a cavern fauna that sneaked in behind a monster hunter or any one of a million different ways that unarmed people get killed in dwarf fortress. Whereas if you have a couple of guards following them around, they're far less likely to meet these sticky ends.

All those things have no greater chance of happening to said dwarf than to anyone else.  But giving them guards divides your forces and reduces the overall security of your entire fortress.

[FantasticDorf]

Nobody is saying its a pernament assignment, like having a war-pet following people around everywhere you can just leave in a pasture when it's off duty. (inverse parallel obviously)

[GoblinCookie]

Nobody is saying its a pernament assignment, like having a war-pet following people around everywhere you can just leave in a pasture when it's off duty. (inverse parallel obviously)

Assigning civilians to guards sounds like a better option that the reverse.  I guess we could just conscript them into their squad, but that has the disadvantage that they think they are soldiers, being able to attach civilians to squads would be useful if they are presently in danger, the civilian runs to the squad and then the squad can deal with the threat as the civilian stays out of the fight. 

[Dorsidwarf]

This really is an objectively wrong point. If you deploy your troops from a central location, then by the time they reach the incident your king/legendary craftsdwarf has been beaten to death in the tavern by a tantrumming dwarf who went mad from brooding over rain or whatever. Or shanked fatally by a random goblin snatcher with a knife he bumped into by mistake while standing outside. Or eaten by a cavern fauna that sneaked in behind a monster hunter or any one of a million different ways that unarmed people get killed in dwarf fortress. Whereas if you have a couple of guards following them around, they're far less likely to meet these sticky ends.

All those things have no greater chance of happening to said dwarf than to anyone else.  But giving them guards divides your forces and reduces the overall security of your entire fortress.

Are you really so fanatically obsessed with never, ever admitting that you might not be right that you're continuing to insist that there is no benefit to keeping a guard on your most valued dwarves?
Flat-out ignoring all the points being made against you to dully repeat the same mantra of "its bad its bad its bad its bad"?

All those things have no greater chance of happening to said dwarf than to anyone else. 

Yes. But you don't care if peasant hauler #32 dies. Or at least, not as much as if your only armoursmith dies right when you're about to make an order for twenty masterpiece adamantine breastplates.

But giving them guards divides your forces and reduces the overall security of your entire fortress.

As said in the post you quoted (proving you either didn't read it or didn't understand it), centralising your entire millitia means that while they will take the same time to respond to any location in the fortress, they will be too late to save many of the dwarves you want to protect. And if your fortress defense is somehow set up in such a way that keeping one or two dwarves to guard the king will irreparably sabotage the defenses, don't use the bodyguard system

[eerr]

<>

This really is an objectively wrong point. If you deploy your troops from a central location, then by the time they reach the incident your king/legendary craftsdwarf has been beaten to death in the tavern by a tantrumming dwarf who went mad from brooding over rain or whatever. Or shanked fatally by a random goblin snatcher with a knife he bumped into by mistake while standing outside. Or eaten by a cavern fauna that sneaked in behind a monster hunter or any one of a million different ways that unarmed people get killed in dwarf fortress. Whereas if you have a couple of guards following them around, they're far less likely to meet these sticky ends.

It should be noted that most fatal goblin stabbings are a one-hit, one-kill sort of deal. One guy happens to be unlucky and the goblin just shanks his guts.

In the meantime, I know it doesn't cover the problem as stated,(I support the idea of guards) fortress guards will proactively attack known monsters that are in burrows.

In fact, assigning members of the fortress guard to nobles/legendaries, might work. But a more flexible system would be really cool.

[GoblinCookie]

Are you really so fanatically obsessed with never, ever admitting that you might not be right that you're continuing to insist that there is no benefit to keeping a guard on your most valued dwarves?
Flat-out ignoring all the points being made against you to dully repeat the same mantra of "its bad its bad its bad its bad"?

No it's bad for specific reasons I keep explaining again and again.  The reasons are those of basic military strategy, which people seem not to comprehend. 

Yes. But you don't care if peasant hauler #32 dies. Or at least, not as much as if your only armoursmith dies right when you're about to make an order for twenty masterpiece adamantine breastplates.

All dwarves in your fortress can be set to make armour and there is seldom not multiple individuals with high levels of the same skill.  Plus one of the next immigrant waves will likely contain a decent armorsmith anyway.  In any case it is fairly stupid to lose your fortress in order to save an armoursmith against who will then die anyway. 

As said in the post you quoted (proving you either didn't read it or didn't understand it), centralising your entire millitia means that while they will take the same time to respond to any location in the fortress, they will be too late to save many of the dwarves you want to protect. And if your fortress defense is somehow set up in such a way that keeping one or two dwarves to guard the king will irreparably sabotage the defenses, don't use the bodyguard system

It is exists people will conclude from the bodyguard system that there is some point in using it. 

You are correct that against certain types of threat, centralizing your entire militia is a bad idea.  But in those cases patrolling general areas around the perimeter is the way to go, not guarding specific individuals who after-all will be spending a lot of time in areas that are safe 'behind' the patrols. 

Threats come in two kinds, centralised (like goblin invasions) or decentralised (like wild animals).  In the latter instance bodyguards means fewer patrols, which also undermines the security of the fortress.

[Azerty]

We could see some positions having bodyguards.

[Ninjabread]

It seems bizarre to me that anyone would argue against bodyguards being a thing, GC, if you find yourself lacking in military dwarves for fortress defence, just assign more, you can make as many squads as you like. If you have so many dwarves that the loss of legendary craftsdwarves is a trivial matter, you can afford to conscript a few extra peasants to get between your favourite dwarves and a snatcher's knife. Bonus if you actually arm and armour them rather than just leaving them to die in the other dwarf's stead.

[Strik3r]

We could see some positions having bodyguards.

And some would probably demand it. Royalty, for example.

It seems bizarre to me that anyone would argue against bodyguards being a thing

Same, bodyguards are a given for anyone important enough.


To add to this thread: Honestly, general standing orders should be a thing. Like "watch this spot", "protect this guy", "patrol this burrow" or "guard this door, room or item".

[GoblinCookie]

It seems bizarre to me that anyone would argue against bodyguards being a thing, GC, if you find yourself lacking in military dwarves for fortress defence, just assign more, you can make as many squads as you like. If you have so many dwarves that the loss of legendary craftsdwarves is a trivial matter, you can afford to conscript a few extra peasants to get between your favourite dwarves and a snatcher's knife. Bonus if you actually arm and armour them rather than just leaving them to die in the other dwarf's stead.

I wasn't arguing against bodyguards being a thing, I was arguing that they should only be introduced alongside assassins, because otherwise bodyguards don't make any strategic sense.  Admittedly you might be so overmanned that it doesn't matter, but by that token why isn't everyone so safe in general as to not require bodyguards at all?  Patrols can deal with general threats, like snatchers but patrols are also lacking in the game at the moment. 

Bodyguards and by extension all guards for specific points are a strategic weakness because they divide your forces.  The point of assassinations and indeed all covert guerilla operations is precisely to force the enemy to guard key installations and personnel, which causes his forces to be divided and prevents him from being able to deploy his strength efficiently against you.  Even small advantages in numbers matter in warfare, so the few guards protecting your king that you thought did not matter actually did matter.  Come to think about it that is probably why medieval kings tended to fight personally on the battlefield, because otherwise their bodyguards would not be able to fight in the battle and small advantages in numbers matter. 

It seems bizarre to me that anyone would argue against bodyguards being a thing

Same, bodyguards are a given for anyone important enough.


To add to this thread: Honestly, general standing orders should be a thing. Like "watch this spot", "protect this guy", "patrol this burrow" or "guard this door, room or item".

Unlike with bodyguards there is some marginal benefit to having patrol routes in the game for guards, though it would increase with more tactical flexibility for enemies than simply mass a huge force and head into the trap-lined tunnel to die. 

[Strik3r]

I was arguing that they should only be introduced alongside assassins, because otherwise bodyguards don't make any strategic sense.

There's plenty of reasons already you might want to protect someone, plenty of potential freak accidents that could happen that could be avoided with a few armored soldiers.
Werebeasts for one, there's always a chance they'll have to wander out of the fort for w/e reason and get caught with their pants down, so to speak. Then they either get ripped to shreds or end up being infected.
Also, would you be okay with the risk of your child being taken by a snatcher? if i was a king, i sure as hell would not be.

But if you want to view all of your dwarves as disposable RTS units, then that's your choice.
Yes yes, "Dividing my forces blah blah blah", if they aren't currently either engaging a siege or training, i don't see why some of them couldn't run guard duty? i mean if they're off-duty, they'll be scattered all over the fort anyway.

[Bumber]

It would be practical to assign a bodyguard to a web-gatherer. Don't need to patrol the whole caverns that way.

[Ninjabread]

I wasn't arguing against bodyguards being a thing, I was arguing that they should only be introduced alongside assassins, because otherwise bodyguards don't make any strategic sense.  Admittedly you might be so overmanned that it doesn't matter, but by that token why isn't everyone so safe in general as to not require bodyguards at all?  Patrols can deal with general threats, like snatchers but patrols are also lacking in the game at the moment.

Patrols don't protect against internal threats like berserk dwarves, vampires, or tamed animals reverting to wildness. I speak from experience, because patrols are implemented. You know the notes system? You can use the notes as points on a patrol route. Hit r when you're in the Notes menu, and then add a route, name it appropriately, then edit it, and add the notes you want to use as waypoints and presto! you have a route ready to be patrolled. To get dwarves to partol along them all you need to do is put it in their squad's schedule, once you've made the route it should show up as an option for scheduled activities.

Bodyguards and by extension all guards for specific points are a strategic weakness because they divide your forces.  The point of assassinations and indeed all covert guerilla operations is precisely to force the enemy to guard key installations and personnel, which causes his forces to be divided and prevents him from being able to deploy his strength efficiently against you.  Even small advantages in numbers matter in warfare, so the few guards protecting your king that you thought did not matter actually did matter.  Come to think about it that is probably why medieval kings tended to fight personally on the battlefield, because otherwise their bodyguards would not be able to fight in the battle and small advantages in numbers matter. 

Guarding a strategic asset from hidden and internal dangers is not a strategic weakness. Vampires almost perfectly fill the same role as assassins, just with a different goal, namely to drink people, and they're already in-game. Yeah, in Europe kings generally took part in war for sure, but I highly doubt it was to add his bodyguard to the army since it'd usually be just one or two guys who still stick near him during the battle anyways, it was likely as a display of confidence (and possibly divine will?) to boost troop morale, and to offer the strong leadership that kings were supposed to possess.

[Dorsidwarf]

The idea that the point of assassins was to force opponents to waste manpower on defense fills my brain with fuck. The point of assassins is to kill the enemy leadership.