Print

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

The Miners Guild - House Tekkud (Pick)

The Woodworkers Guild - House Lolum (Wood)

The Stoneworkers Guild - House Lam (Stone)

The Animal Handlers Guild- House Fer (Beast)

The Smiths Guild  - House Zuntir (Anvil)

The Jewelers Guild - House Istrath (Jewel)

The Craftsdwarves Guild - House Rigoth (Craft)

The Fishworkers Guild - House Tatlosh (Fish)

The Farmers Guild - House Ber (Earth)

The Engineers Guild - House Olon (Gear)

Handlers of the Dead - House Rash (Death)

The Military Orders

[AngleWyrm]

The part where customers refuse to buy needs more clarity.

Maybe there's a sale attempt, where the salesman offers a price, and the customer accepts or refuses the sale. If the customer accepts, price goes up on the next pick. If the customer refuses, price goes down on the current pick.

Still needs to model the price a customer is willing to pay.

[Andeerz]

Yeah.  Underlying sort of "intangible" things like motivation, willingness, want, etc. will need to be modeled in a reasonable way.  Personality traits definitely should play a role, but there should be more to the picture...

Another thing that will also need some clarification in addition to the stuff mentioned is ownership of the raw materials, tools, and stuff that are the basis of the economy after the dwarven economy sets in in a fort.  If a guild in this game is going to follow the definition of what a guild is, this needs to be addressed.  Guilds were a lot like cartels and corporations in their own right, mandating that its members produce and sell things meeting a standard of quality to satisfy market demand and make the guild money.  These mandates would often be independent of other governing bodies.  Guilds would provide members with access to tools and raw materials that the guild itself owned provided that the members give back to the guild a good deal of their profits and time.

Let's use mining as an example of what I would suggest:

If YOU designate mining of an area, the fort itself should pay miners from the fort's own coffers (paying with goods? or with coins?).  The miners could use fortress-owned picks (or guild owned picks if part of a guild) if they don't own their own.  If the miners were part of a guild, the guild would likely want a share of the profits from the workers, their rationale being that they helped provide employment/training to the workers and helped provide labor for the fort's project.  Whether or not the fort will accomodate the guild's demands would be up to the player. 

If a guild allowed to automate mining designates mining of a vein of ore, does the guild end up owning what it mines (likely with an imposed tax by the governing body of the fort i.e. you), free to sell it to the fort or other buyers?  Perhaps this could be determined by the player and/or other nobles.
 

Basically, the player should be able to set what degree of ownership there is of raw materials, produced goods, workshops, tools, etc.  Does everything made become communal property?  Does the maker of the craft own it, or is it the fort's or guild's?  Does the worker or guild own the workshop?  Do they have to rent it?  Is it free for use?  What taxes are there?  The player should be able to dictate all of these as the ruler of the fort.  Guilds should have internal rules, like guild fees, ownership rules, and rules about price-setting.  Guilds and individuals should be able to protest or accept rulings made by the player/fort, and if guilds are at odds with the fort's rulings, then they can protest, leave, or whatever. 

[Jake]

I never did get around to making that post with my more detailed ideas, did I? Oh, well, Toady probably already thought of them anyway. Still...

Individuals bringing fellow guild members into interpersonal disputes is already on the to-do list, so how about guild masters developing a grudge against the mayor/baron or other guild masters?
Guild masters should also be able to demand either extra apprentices or fewer jobs assigned if their members are being constantly overworked, which could be one source of ill-feeling between guild masters; say if the Guild of Blacksmiths are up in arms because they haven't got enough metal to do their jobs, but the Guild of Miners is threatening to come out because they've got too many digging jobs and not enough hands.
Ill-feeling against a particular noble should lead to guild masters sending members to trash that noble's assigned rooms, or another guildhall, and then messages like "A -steel battle axe- is missing from the armoury!" and eventually mass rioting that looks a bit like a co-op tantrum spiral if the player doesn't stop things getting out of hand. (And not with judicious Unfortunate Accidents either; I heard a rumour that Toady One is planning to make nobles capable of spotting and avoiding them in future versions!)

I also think the method of assigning labour should also change somewhat after guilds come back in. Dwarves with a pre-existing level of skill should automatically join the appropriate guild, but peasants should be assigned to a guild (or the Fortress/Royal Guard) manually before you could select their individual labours within that guild's sphere of responsibility only. I wouldn't be against those being assigned automatically according to whatever you had most jobs in the queue for, but changeable manually at the cost of a small unhappy thought to the guild master about 'interference from on-high'.

Lastly, the old list of guilds is probably going to change. The way the militia currently works makes guilds of particular weapon-users redundant unless dwarves can become members of more than one guild (and I think it was a silly idea in the first place, but that's just my opinion), and the various religious groups will almost certainly supplant House Rash until and unless more complicated post-mortem rituals like embalming come about. I'd also support splitting civilian and military metalworking, and aligning bowyers with the latter, but there are going to be so many different perspectives on which labour belongs to which guild that it's probably best to make groupings customisable in entity_default if it's not going to be up to the RNG.

[kuketski]

I never did get around to making that post with my more detailed ideas, did I? Oh, well, Toady probably already thought of them anyway. Still...

Individuals bringing fellow guild members into interpersonal disputes is already on the to-do list, so how about guild masters developing a grudge against the mayor/baron or other guild masters?
Guild masters should also be able to demand either extra apprentices or fewer jobs assigned if their members are being constantly overworked, which could be one source of ill-feeling between guild masters; say if the Guild of Blacksmiths are up in arms because they haven't got enough metal to do their jobs, but the Guild of Miners is threatening to come out because they've got too many digging jobs and not enough hands.
Ill-feeling against a particular noble should lead to guild masters sending members to trash that noble's assigned rooms, or another guildhall, and then messages like "A -steel battle axe- is missing from the armoury!" and eventually mass rioting that looks a bit like a co-op tantrum spiral if the player doesn't stop things getting out of hand. (And not with judicious Unfortunate Accidents either; I heard a rumour that Toady One is planning to make nobles capable of spotting and avoiding them in future versions!)

I also think the method of assigning labour should also change somewhat after guilds come back in. Dwarves with a pre-existing level of skill should automatically join the appropriate guild, but peasants should be assigned to a guild (or the Fortress/Royal Guard) manually before you could select their individual labours within that guild's sphere of responsibility only. I wouldn't be against those being assigned automatically according to whatever you had most jobs in the queue for, but changeable manually at the cost of a small unhappy thought to the guild master about 'interference from on-high'.

Lastly, the old list of guilds is probably going to change. The way the militia currently works makes guilds of particular weapon-users redundant unless dwarves can become members of more than one guild (and I think it was a silly idea in the first place, but that's just my opinion), and the various religious groups will almost certainly supplant House Rash until and unless more complicated post-mortem rituals like embalming come about. I'd also support splitting civilian and military metalworking, and aligning bowyers with the latter, but there are going to be so many different perspectives on which labour belongs to which guild that it's probably best to make groupings customisable in entity_default if it's not going to be up to the RNG.

Yor suggestion is by far the one most similar to mine. =)
About part with guild members being in different guilds - i think it is neccesary, especially in early to mid stages of game, where we do have all kinds of skilled dwarves, but their job load is erratic - woodcutters being fisherdwarfs, when no wood to cut or miners being mechanics when there is nothing to mine. it can be done with "part time working".
Dwarf is always belong to one of the guilds, but can "part time work", when his guild does not have job for him. profits from working(stone from digging, fish from fishing) comes from hiring guild (player pays to guild - guild pay to guildsdwarf OR to an other guild, hiring part-timer, when dwarwen economics starts and dwarfs is paying taxes ro a player).
but i think, that Toady wont implement such a model - we`re playing good(Muahahaha) taxes-gathering(WTF??) dwarven god, who`s telling what dwarves should do, not the goverment of the fortress.

so, when miners dig - they basically making that "because they think that digging here is a good idea". If economy is on - they get money for it. and there are some works, without any profit to economy - building fortification, walls, digging moats and so on and we still need to pay for it for economy to work properly.

what if we have a sige apon us, and fortification wall have a 1-tile breach. we order masons to build the bloody wall, but our balance is 0 dwarvenbucks and masons simply says "sorry man, but no money - no walling". goblins enter the fortress through the breach and kill all of the dwarves.

i think, that money should kick in only in giuld-to-guild, guild-to-dwarf and dwarf-to-dwarf interactions. who are we playing? god or accountant?
Communistic God of Dwarves says build the wall! And dwarfs WILL build the wall! Unless they want to recieve blessing of Red magma!

But if we ARE godly accountant and need to pay for each ordered job, that is not profitable by itself, then we need a HUGE amount of money and stable income.
in real world, steady income is based on huge population - 300 taxpayes cannot give us much taxes... especially with dwarven tax-gathering speed...

well, in this situation, the comminism community is much more better siuted. If dwarf works as much as he can without strain to an organism - then dwarf can take whatever he wants.

[Andeerz]

I see where you are coming from, kuketski. 

About part with guild members being in different guilds - i think it is neccesary, especially in early to mid stages of game, where we do have all kinds of skilled dwarves, but their job load is erratic - woodcutters being fisherdwarfs, when no wood to cut or miners being mechanics when there is nothing to mine. it can be done with "part time working".
Dwarf is always belong to one of the guilds, but can "part time work", when his guild does not have job for him. profits from working(stone from digging, fish from fishing) comes from hiring guild (player pays to guild - guild pay to guildsdwarf OR to an other guild, hiring part-timer, when dwarwen economics starts and dwarfs is paying taxes ro a player).

That's a good problem to point out.  And I like your solution.  But I also think that regardless of stage of the game that dwarves have the option of not being in a guild at all.  I also think guilds should also be able to be driven out or not established in a fort if the player's fort fosters such conditions.

so, when miners dig - they basically making that "because they think that digging here is a good idea". If economy is on - they get money for it. and there are some works, without any profit to economy - building fortification, walls, digging moats and so on and we still need to pay for it for economy to work properly.

Construction works would profit the economy.  Think about real-life construction works or any other example of a service-based trade.  In this case, you (or a noble) would pay dwarves with money or goods obtained through some sort of tribute (taxes...).  This money wouldn't come from nowhere and the services rendered from the dwarves would ideally contribute towards something that would improve the economy (like making a faster and safer passage way from the mines to the smelters, or building workshops, etc.)

what if we have a sige apon us, and fortification wall have a 1-tile breach. we order masons to build the bloody wall, but our balance is 0 dwarvenbucks and masons simply says "sorry man, but no money - no walling". goblins enter the fortress through the breach and kill all of the dwarves.

Good point!  But I think there would be an easy solution to this.  Perhaps the behavior of dwarves could be modified so that if the fort is in a state of emergency (i.e. siege mode!), such labors wouldn't require pay and/or pay could be postponed at the player's discretion.  Plus, perhaps there could also be a "forced labor" option where the dwarf might get an unhappy thought but will be very likely to do the task mandated by you lest they be subjected to the hammer.  Also, the postponement of pay as well as keeping tabs on debt could naturally lead to slavery, indentured servitude, and serfdom in the game.

i think, that money should kick in only in giuld-to-guild, guild-to-dwarf and dwarf-to-dwarf interactions. who are we playing? god or accountant?
Communistic God of Dwarves says build the wall! And dwarfs WILL build the wall! Unless they want to recieve blessing of Red magma!

But if we ARE godly accountant and need to pay for each ordered job, that is not profitable by itself, then we need a HUGE amount of money and stable income.
in real world, steady income is based on huge population - 300 taxpayes cannot give us much taxes... especially with dwarven tax-gathering speed...

The way I see it, the role of the player in this game is, among other FUN things, to set up a thriving economy: resources come in, goods come out like a well-oiled machine, with as little a chance of tantrum spirals and death as possible (unless you want things to go to hell, which is a different and equally fun story).  The huge amount of money (or capital of some sort whether it be represented via coins made of precious metals or produced goods or both) needed to pay dwarves and stuff would arise through smart management of the economy (i.e. a successful planning and execution of a well-designed fortress). 

Also, I don't see where there would be a problem with the godly accountant thing you mentioned as the government of the fort is represented via nobles like the expedition leader, mayor, tax collector, record keeper, etc.  These dwarves would have (and some already do have) very tangible and very realistic tasks to do if the economy was implemented a bit more realistically.  They would ideally act as additional tools through which you could impose your will upon your dwarves and interact with other bodies of government like guilds and other civs and stuff in a way that is somewhat believable.   

       

[kuketski]

Well, yeah, nobles in fact ARE usefull tools of player.
But ok, if we are godly goverment that have account, then we should also have our own "property". Just like any dwarves.
I think, that in than way it is neccesary to create not only private property but also "organization" property. Such as hammer, belonging to a Fortress Goverment or to a guild. And we should be able to pay craftsdwarves for their work on goods, provide them with materials and then sell goods, that belongs to Fortress Goverment explicitly (or we can sieze dwarfs or guild property but it`ll generate unhappy throughts for them).
Also, Fortress Goverment lending militia their equipment on time of duty or dwarves is forced to buy their whole equipment?
Well, maybe military dwarves will want to buy BETTER equipment, that may save their lives (set top quality equipment on sell and set low quality equipment for militia usage), but it must be implemented.

[Jake]

I think I'd rather my role as a player-character remained some way above the level where I have to worry about tax revenue, personally.

And I'd suggest setting it up so that guild members can only do other jobs within that guild's area of responsibility; architects could double as masons, blacksmiths could make metal crafts between big orders etc. This would make a separate Guild of Miners somewhat awkward, unless you have enough hands for rigid demarcation and a steady, just-in-time flow of raw materials for your manufacturing industry.

[nuker w]

VERY behind this. Yea... I voted for this. Ignore my last comment. Silly me.

[kuketski]

I think I'd rather my role as a player-character remained some way above the level where I have to worry about tax revenue, personally.

And I'd suggest setting it up so that guild members can only do other jobs within that guild's area of responsibility; architects could double as masons, blacksmiths could make metal crafts between big orders etc. This would make a separate Guild of Miners somewhat awkward, unless you have enough hands for rigid demarcation and a steady, just-in-time flow of raw materials for your manufacturing industry.

Errr... for what? I have migrant, who both Professional Butcher and Professional Gem Setter! and i want him to butcher corpses when he dont have gems to set!

[Jake]

Errr... for what? I have migrant, who both Professional Butcher and Professional Gem Setter! and i want him to butcher corpses when he dont have gems to set!

Well, for one thing it's quite likely that in future versions, skill in a related discipline will help dwarves level up faster; a carpenter should find it easier to get the hang of woodcrafting, for example.
For another, I don't know about any of you, but having dwarves multi-task across related disciplines only makes it a hell of a lot easier for me to keep track of who's supposed to be doing what.

[kuketski]

Errr... for what? I have migrant, who both Professional Butcher and Professional Gem Setter! and i want him to butcher corpses when he dont have gems to set!

Well, for one thing it's quite likely that in future versions, skill in a related discipline will help dwarves level up faster; a carpenter should find it easier to get the hang of woodcrafting, for example.
For another, I don't know about any of you, but having dwarves multi-task across related disciplines only makes it a hell of a lot easier for me to keep track of who's supposed to be doing what.

Well, usually i trying to optimize my dwarf`s load by cross-tasking themin any discipline that is suited.
all the other darves(preferably male and useless) is going to form a huge army (usually 1/3 of entire population).
But we play whatever Toady codes, so if he`s going to implement your idea(or related) of cross-guild working, i presume it is more convinient to make cross-guild up or down the tech tree - if armorer dont have bars to make armor, he`ll try to smelt it in smelter with ore. if there are no ore, but ore mining is issued, he`ll pick up pick (of course if his miner`s skill allows him to part-time in miners guild) and go mine his ore.
similarly, if miner dont have anything to dig, hell try to smelt ore, that he dug some time ago, or build wall with or make mechanism stones, that he dug. all that allowed/forbidden according to his skills.

[Jake]

Well, usually i trying to optimize my dwarf`s load by cross-tasking themin any discipline that is suited.
all the other darves(preferably male and useless) is going to form a huge army (usually 1/3 of entire population).
But we play whatever Toady codes, so if he`s going to implement your idea(or related) of cross-guild working, i presume it is more convinient to make cross-guild up or down the tech tree - if armorer dont have bars to make armor, he`ll try to smelt it in smelter with ore. if there are no ore, but ore mining is issued, he`ll pick up pick (of course if his miner`s skill allows him to part-time in miners guild) and go mine his ore.
similarly, if miner dont have anything to dig, hell try to smelt ore, that he dug some time ago, or build wall with or make mechanism stones, that he dug. all that allowed/forbidden according to his skills.

That's pretty much how I set up the division of labour in my fortresses, at least where wood and stone are concerned; I'll designate a large area to be dug out/cleared every time we're running low on the relevant material, then spend several weeks converting it to trade goods and furniture. It reduces workshop clutter, and in .40d it was a convenient way to ensure that nearly everyone had a weapon to hand in the event of a military emergency. The main drawback is that nearly everyone has a weapon to hand in the event of a tantrum spiral.

[Andeerz]

I think guilds should not be unhappy with a member if they work on something unrelated to their guild so long as the member takes care of guild obligations.  Perhaps a dwarf could be a member of a guild and not have to be a member of another guild in order to do work of another labor.  Maybe it might ruffle some feathers if that member competes with a guild of that other labor, though, which I think should have the possibility of happening.

[Jake]

That should probably depend on the guild, and the guild master.

A position which I sincerely hope I can rename 'shop steward', I might add. Anyone know when thatched roofs are being implemented?

[Kurouma]

Encouraged by Andeerz to post these ideas here:
Crosspost from mid/late-game bureaucracy thread.

I think something like this would be a good idea. As it is, the level of micromanagement required to run the fortress decreases pretty smoothly as your population expands, as it should. It's like zooming out from The Sims level to maybe Pharaoh or Caesar level. But it doesn't go far enough.

One of the things that does really bug me mid/late game is labour assignments. We shouldn't have to download third party programs just to manage who does what in the fortress. It gets tedious when you have around 80+ people, especially if their primary skill (their icon) is different from what you have them assigned to.

So I suggest a similar process to the noticeboard: once you get a guild, jobs from that profession become privatised. You designate them to be done, and then the guild (if they have a guild office designated or something) employs someone to do them for you, probably someone with high skill.

Maybe this ties in with the dwarven economy when it returns; instead of being assigned labours, everyone becomes available for employment in any field. When there are lots of one profession's jobs to do, lots of dwarfs have opportunity for employment in that field. Maybe you don't have enough skilled workers to fill them all, so base salaries increase with demand. If you have hardly any jobs queued up from a profession, then all but the highest skilled get laid off and have to look elsewhere, maybe becoming haulers, maybe getting jobs filling in vacancies in a trade with lots of job openings (but getting paid less because they'd be Dabbling).

Maybe each guild should charge interested dwarfs a bit of cash in return for some basic training in that trade.

Then your large fortress always has exactly as many workers in each trade as required, without you having to micromanage each dwarf's labours. Provided you have the population to supply all the work, of course. The manager should give you an idea of the unemployment rate too.

Obviously the player should get to dictate a minimum skill level for guilds to hire, again through the manager. And just to give completeness, the option to manually change labours on a dwarf has to stay in as well.

I think something like this would make managing larger fortresses much more bearable and fun. Time freed up to focus on ruling, not on frankly tedious labour micromanagement.