Print

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

[Granite26]

Traders bring goods, setup at the trade depot, and your noble/trade manager walks out and decides what the fortress needs for it's output.

This is an EXCELLENT model for dealing with a small outpost-mine on the edges of dwarven influence.  Conversely, it's a HORRIBLE model for a bustling dwarven capitol.

The problem?  Changing the model to a constant stream of traders independantly bringing goods to set up shop breaks the regular seige model that is part of the 'fun' of the game.  Either the sieges don't happen, or the traders can't get in for number of goblins constantly marching in.

So, here's a few questions:

Which would you prefer: A constant stream of traders with no sieges or a constant stream of goblins with no traders.

What is the appropriate balance between traders and siegers?  When war comes, how much warning should you get and how long should they last?  Should we have a bigger difference between when the traders show up (are showing up) and when the gobbos do?  (I'm thinking 3-4 years of peace and 2-3 years of serious war)

Should we have the option to pick which kind of fort we'd like?  How would that pick be made?

What about temporary forts with the sole purpose of building a giant project?  How does that relate?

Kingdoms are coming...  How is that going to affect sieges?  How do you see it happening?

[korora]

The problem?  Changing the model to a constant stream of traders independantly bringing goods to set up shop breaks the regular seige model that is part of the 'fun' of the game.  Either the sieges don't happen, or the traders can't get in for number of goblins constantly marching in.

I think the whole siege/trade dynamic needs rebalancing anyways.  Personally I'd like to see traders gravitate toward the metropolises; they'll do the traveling salesman thing out to the villages, but probably base themselves in the capitol where they can trade with other merchants. Trading should be a vital part of survival and prosperity, so it's not a trifle when goblins show up and cut off your supply lines. 

I also think goblins should raid more often but siege less.  Where you place your fort relative to claimed territory should matter a lot more than it does; you shouldn't expect to survive -- or even arrive -- if you try to start a fort in the middle of someone else's land.  On the other hand, if you're in the middle of a bunch of other forts, you probably don't have to worry about any large-scale invasions (unless the goblins take some of the other forts protecting you). This gets to picking the type of fort: if you want to sim-city or megaconstruct, do it at the heart of your civ's territory.  If you want to fight goblins, start a border fort.

On a related note, I want the days of finding the perfect site to end, but as-is it's pretty hard to get anything done unless you go somewhere with everything you need. I think improved trade (i.e. caravan arc) would help that a lot; another thing that would help is Retire Fortress so that you can e.g. build a mining settlement to supply you with bars in your fort on a magma pipe; you'd forge weapons and armor there before sending them to the capitol or the front.

This post is strong evidence for Granite's Law.

[Pilsu]

I don't know, I'd be very frustrated if the perfect site ended up being next to the enemy capital and was thus inaccessible

Yeah, I could switch my civ but they're called Hist-Paper Nitwicks, I don't want to play as them! Curse you random name generator

[Granite26]

different fort types based on different locations would be my favored solution as well, but I'm curious if other people have other ideas.

The different-by-location precludes a good balance in an individual site.. (although a border metropolis could see long periods of war and also good trade opportunities as the game advances...)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Economic Theory and Trade:
(Not what you think)

Modern International Trade theory states that if you are importing a lot of apples and exporting a lot of oranges, a protective tariff on apples coming in has the exact same effect as a tax on exported oranges.  This is due to foreign trade balances, and the fact that your imports and exports have equal value (export deficits have an effect on your currency's value)

Now, lets apply that to DF, sorta.  In DF, you can produce a lot of different things, and import most of them instead.  In the short term, producing things is so dirt cheap easy that it's easier to just do it yourself than to import (because trading is high overhead, what with being unable to pick what you get, having to haul everything to and from the depot, etc)  The only real advantages to trade are variety (you get a lot of strange foods to fulfill dwarf tastes and rare minerals for the occasional mandate).

Lets take a Spore backstep and take a look at the kingdom as a group of forts and ask ourselves:  What is a successful dwarffort?  Obviously from this perspective, a successful dwarffort is one that produces (significantly) more goods (and services) then it consumes.  From this perspective, it can be the mining fort that produces enough iron for everyone, the trade fort that produces goods for trade, or the defensive fort that defends a key pass or serves other military purposes.

Tying this back to the original apples to oranges comparison:  It doesn't really matter what kind of fort you decide to run, NPC forts should be able to fill in the gaps.  What really matters is your comparitive advantage.  If all you do is export craftsgoods, you're still freeing up dwarves in other cities to make weapons and train as soldiers.

The point of this is to give justification to fort specialization. in a kingdom setting.  If you play a 'safe fort' and don't make enough stone flutes, the front lines could fall to the goblin hordes.

I don't know, I'd be very frustrated if the perfect site ended up being next to the enemy capital and was thus inaccessible

Yeah, I could switch my civ but they're called Hist-Paper Nitwicks, I don't want to play as them! Curse you random name generator

Good reason to play a combat fort for a bit first to push back the foreign civ...

[korora]

I think that should be a spoiler tag, not a code tag... the code tag makes it really hard to read.

[Granite26]

failure to preview after being clever on my part... wanted to separate the lecture from the commentary...

[Align]

I don't get it. Why can't sieges appear in waves while traders arrive more frequently and perhaps erratically?

[Pilsu]

Good reason to play a combat fort for a bit first to push back the foreign civ...

I don't think DF is meant to be an RTS game

[Duke 2.0]

 You know, when the carvan arc comes around I would like trading to be automated. Such as a dwarf buying and selling things on his own for his own personal shop from the traders. Thus if you get a constant stream of traders you won't need to pause every five minutes to trade.

 And yes, I like the idea of sending out a group of dwarves to start a mine/farm/fortress to supply the current fortress.

[shadow_archmagi]

And yes, I like the idea of sending out a group of dwarves to start a mine/farm/fortress to supply the current fortress.

I can't get the words "Dwarfston Ale Party" out of my mind. No hammerization without representation!

[Tormy]

 You know, when the carvan arc comes around I would like trading to be automated. Such as a dwarf buying and selling things on his own for his own personal shop from the traders. Thus if you get a constant stream of traders you won't need to pause every five minutes to trade.

 And yes, I like the idea of sending out a group of dwarves to start a mine/farm/fortress to supply the current fortress.

This sounds good...but automated trading? I am not sure that the AI could handle that, but I might be wrong of course..

[Foa]

I'd like to have sieges as common as the constant caravan visits.

[Granite26]

I don't get it. Why can't sieges appear in waves while traders arrive more frequently and perhaps erratically?

Because in a given season you can only have a trader or a siege.  (OK, yes you CAN have both but it's really hard to manage without being cheap, and doesn't make any sense.

Good reason to play a combat fort for a bit first to push back the foreign civ...

I don't think DF is meant to be an RTS game

No it isn't, but personally, I'd like to see the effects of one fortress effecting the world.  I'd like to see a reason to play more than one fort in a given world (like the man says, play the civ, not the fort adventurer

[Nogert]

No hammerization without representation mass quantities of booze!

Fix'd 

[irmo]

Good reason to play a combat fort for a bit first to push back the foreign civ...

I don't think DF is meant to be an RTS game

Sure looks like an RTS game to me. It's a strategy game that runs in real time.

If you mean "it doesn't have generic abstracted resources and factories that somehow manufacture trained infantrymen", no. That's because it's the best RTS game ever.