Print

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

[compsognathus]

I was enjoying to see "legends viewer" result and i thought: why not insert a real reason for every wars?

Some could be:

Conquest of resources: forests, coast(in late age), water, rivers, metals (after spying on a fortress), area inhabited by riding animals (or rich of easy animal leather but need different hardness leather)

Civilization goal: make empire->conquer other civilizations or control them. After the conquest, generate the emperor.

Religious crusades

Wars of succession death of king, internal wars

Racial hatred

[therahedwig]

A lot of this stuff is proly coming, but it requires the worldgen ai to be able to go through these motions first and we're going to see myth/magic and starting scenarios before worldgen ai is smart enough to even conceive of things like resources. Though, with a bit of luck we may see the conquering happen this release.

[Azerty]

It might first entail work on economics and politics.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Each war currently has a reason you can read in Legends Mode. My current world has wars which began due to "A dispute over truthfulness, Dispute over the display of war and hunting trophies, Dispute over the devouring of sapient beings...".

And that's not even random, wars (almost always) start based on ethics right now, so each war info page is giving the "real reason" for the war. Is just that right now, that's all there is. When more reasons are available to the world's warmongers (politics, religious laws, border disputes, etc as mentioned), they'll all be displayed in the same way.

[Knight Otu]

Last I checked, those war reasons were largely "fake". Instead of being generated at the time the war starts, the reason is generate when you access the war's legend mode page, based on the differences in ethics of the participants (which is why don't seem random). The same war may be a dispute because of the treatment of animals and the next time you look at it, because of eating dead sapients.

There are a few exceptions. One is if one side can't speak. I believe worship of opposed spheres is another.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Last I checked, those war reasons were largely "fake". Instead of being generated at the time the war starts, the reason is generate when you access the war's legend mode page, based on the differences in ethics of the participants (which is why don't seem random). The same war may be a dispute because of the treatment of animals and the next time you look at it, because of eating dead sapients.

There are a few exceptions. One is if one side can't speak. I believe worship of opposed spheres is another.

So, if I open Legends again, it will change?
A war reason won't change from "clash of ethics"  to some other reason though (opposing spheres), will it?

[Knight Otu]

It should only change from one ethics conflict to another, and it should be sufficient to leave the page of the war in question and then go back in a few times to see it happen if it still does.

[Shonai_Dweller]

It should only change from one ethics conflict to another, and it should be sufficient to leave the page of the war in question and then go back in a few times to see it happen if it still does.

Yes, you're right. My war caused by a dispute over the display of hunting trophies changed to a war caused by a dispute over the treatment of animals. It switches between the two, presumably those being the two main ethical differences between the sides.

--
Now very interested to know why a duel between two people is listed as being part of an abduction featuring two completely different people. Ain't Legends Mode great.

[compsognathus]

It might first entail work on economics and politics.

Little change in politics will be needed and no one in the economy for now, the barter is good.

I think that the barter must remain even after the introduction of the economy with money.

Now very interested to know why a duel between two people is listed as being part of an abduction featuring two completely different people. Ain't Legends Mode great.

Try to report it as bug
Once i saw a wrong in genealogical tree

[Shonai_Dweller]

It might first entail work on economics and politics.

Little change in politics will be needed and no one in the economy for now, the barter is good.

I think that the barter must remain even after the introduction of the economy with money.

Now very interested to know why a duel between two people is listed as being part of an abduction featuring two completely different people. Ain't Legends Mode great.

Try to report it as bug
Once i saw a wrong in genealogical tree

I seem to have a theft involving duels too. Will look into it further. It might be like in fortress mode where a thief/snatcher is accompanied by a few soldiers causing duels to take place.

[GoblinCookie]

It might first entail work on economics and politics.

Little change in politics will be needed and no one in the economy for now, the barter is good.

I think that the barter must remain even after the introduction of the economy with money.

The economy is not the same thing as simply using money.  Adding the economy means that economic values change after World-Gen is completed, presently these are frozen.  It does not simply mean that use more money in either adventure mode or fortress mode. 

The main economy problem for wars is the absolutism of ownership over resources caused to the way that settlements are 'islands in the wilderness'.  Resources therefore are either obviously owned because a settlement is on top of them, or they are common resources in the wilderness.  Wars over resources cannot really happen on that basis, since everyone is clear as to the ownership all all resources, we can't really fight over them. 

Realistic wars over resources require that settlements lay exclusive claim to areas beyond their universally recognized formal boundaries.  This is where the economy is related, the settlements need to know how valuable an area actually is in resource terms in order to determine how willing they are to fight for it.  Adding the resource war mechanics in at the moment would involve very extensive placeholder mechanics to simulate the value of those regions to the various factions. 

[compsognathus]

The economy is not the same thing as simply using money.  Adding the economy means that economic values change after World-Gen is completed, presently these are frozen.  It does not simply mean that use more money in either adventure mode or fortress mode.   

_{Little change in politics will be needed and} no one in the economy for now, the barter is good.

The main economy problem for wars is the absolutism of ownership over resources caused to the way that settlements are 'islands in the wilderness'.  Resources therefore are either obviously owned because a settlement is on top of them, or they are common resources in the wilderness.  Wars over resources cannot really happen on that basis, since everyone is clear as to the ownership all all resources, we can't really fight over them. 

Realistic wars over resources require that settlements lay exclusive claim to areas beyond their universally recognized formal boundaries.  This is where the economy is related, the settlements need to know how valuable an area actually is in resource terms in order to determine how willing they are to fight for it.  Adding the resource war mechanics in at the moment would involve very extensive placeholder mechanics to simulate the value of those regions to the various factions.

Conquest of resources: forests, coast(in late age), water, rivers, metals (after spying on a fortress), area inhabited by riding animals (or rich of easy animal leather but need different hardness leather)

it my suggestion: to add claim areas. Some areas are already existing, see legends viewer,but are not claimed.  There is a need for a small change in the management of the militias.

[GoblinCookie]

it my suggestion: to add claim areas. Some areas are already existing, see legends viewer,but are not claimed.  There is a need for a small change in the management of the militias.

Problem is we need to know how valuable the claim areas are, which needs the economy to exist. 

[thompson]

it my suggestion: to add claim areas. Some areas are already existing, see legends viewer,but are not claimed.  There is a need for a small change in the management of the militias.

Problem is we need to know how valuable the claim areas are, which needs the economy to exist.

Do we though? If our monarchs area all perfectly rational Adam Smiths, then yes. But real monarchs? All they really need to know is that expanding their borders increases their wealth. You then factor in diplomatic relations and the relative strengths of the two sides, throw in the monarch's personality and maybe some strategic thinking (control chokepoints, bridges, harbours, etc) and make decisions accordingly. Economic thinking could be added to that framework.

While it is possible conceptually to frame everything in economic terms, that doesn't lend itself to an elegant implementation in game as you'll need to have some way of transforming the "value" of certain actions to not-necessarily rational actors who may make sub-optimal decisions. Treating"Ethical disagreement", "Historical animosity", "Territory expansion", "Strategic geopolitics", and "Economic gain" (among other things) as distinct sub-routines for decision making would be better (imho), where leader personality determines the weighting of each priority.

[therahedwig]

Adding to that list, there's also cultural/religious considerations(there may be zombies, yes, but that's because it is the holy ground of the death god, etc.).

The latter could get quite complicated even, depending on how complicated the divine law from the mythgen will get. I can imagine a people who would flip their shit when the nearby zombie land is dezombified on the sheer basis of 'oh crap, that was there for a reason'.