Print

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

[Im_Sparks]

'Operation green-skinned shield' ^^. Slave-fighters would indeed be neat thought the chance for disobeying, running away and even mutinies among them would be higher i think. Better to get this guys for farming guarded by some marksdwarfs with there dogs.

Having slaves fight is a bad idea. It always has been. Slave fighting and the employment of mercenaries has ALWAYS resulted in negative effects. Slaves and mercs should only be sent into the killing fields, suicidal missions without knowing so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghilman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Guard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofa_(warrior)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_India_Regiment

slave soldiers were done, and with varying success.  it wasn't always a bad idea, and in fact could be a brilliant idea.  you are also quite wrong with mercs as well, although i doubt i need to show much proof of that since it is much more common.

Though there are good examples of slaves, I agree with you on the fact that it has varied amounts of success. The trouble with slave labour is and has always been instilling loyalty in those you're oppressing. Those are good examples by great leaders. I believe the Romans had it best when the S.P.Q.R took many slaves from nations and forced them to reinforce their armies and civilians as servants and forced them to make weapons and armor for loyal soldiers.

As for mercenaries, I think Nicolo Machiavelli puts it best in

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand; 1 and he who told us that our sins were the cause of it told the truth, but they were not the sins he imagined, but those which I have related. And as they were the sins of princes, it is the princes who have also suffered the penalty.

Mind you, the times have of course changed and I don't doubt there are loyal mercenaries. Military contracters in Iraq have proven to be loyal - if reckless - fighters for the almighty dollar.

[bjlong]

Machiavelli was concerned mainly with defense and control, though. In wars, mercs have been used to great effect, especially with a backing of loyal troops. Take a look at the Swiss mercenaries, for example, to see mercenaries that literally changed the face of warfare. I would agree that they're not reliable for garrisons and defense, as their motivation is to show up, kill bitches, get paid, and get out. Not really guard material.

[Im_Sparks]

The only objection that I have to that is you have little control over mercs. Once you set free the mercenary captain, anything and everything in his given path can and will fall victim to the mercs.

But yes, other than that final objection, I've been one-upped in that. Shucks

[Dakk]

'Operation green-skinned shield' ^^. Slave-fighters would indeed be neat thought the chance for disobeying, running away and even mutinies among them would be higher i think. Better to get this guys for farming guarded by some marksdwarfs with there dogs.

Having slaves fight is a bad idea. It always has been. Slave fighting and the employment of mercenaries has ALWAYS resulted in negative effects. Slaves and mercs should only be sent into the killing fields, suicidal missions without knowing so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghilman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Guard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofa_(warrior)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_India_Regiment

slave soldiers were done, and with varying success.  it wasn't always a bad idea, and in fact could be a brilliant idea.  you are also quite wrong with mercs as well, although i doubt i need to show much proof of that since it is much more common.

The deadly cushions beckon thee.

Sorry, cound't resist, i just cracked up when the image of an armored piece of furniture wielding an axe and going all WAAAAAAAGH came to mind :<

[G-Flex]

This is starting to sound like it belongs in a suggestions thread.

[jamoecw]

stuff

stuff

more stuff

Though there are good examples of slaves, I agree with you on the fact that it has varied amounts of success. The trouble with slave labour is and has always been instilling loyalty in those you're oppressing. Those are good examples by great leaders. I believe the Romans had it best when the S.P.Q.R took many slaves from nations and forced them to reinforce their armies and civilians as servants and forced them to make weapons and armor for loyal soldiers.

As for mercenaries, I think Nicolo Machiavelli puts it best in

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand; 1 and he who told us that our sins were the cause of it told the truth, but they were not the sins he imagined, but those which I have related. And as they were the sins of princes, it is the princes who have also suffered the penalty.

Mind you, the times have of course changed and I don't doubt there are loyal mercenaries. Military contracters in Iraq have proven to be loyal - if reckless - fighters for the almighty dollar.

nice philosophy quote, but the reference to romans using slave soldiers is incorrect, those that were taken from their home territories were paid with both money and citizenship.

Machiavelli was concerned mainly with defense and control, though. In wars, mercs have been used to great effect, especially with a backing of loyal troops. Take a look at the Swiss mercenaries, for example, to see mercenaries that literally changed the face of warfare. I would agree that they're not reliable for garrisons and defense, as their motivation is to show up, kill bitches, get paid, and get out. Not really guard material.

it depends on how much the mercs care about their image as a professional fighting force, there are many accounts of mercs fighting to the end defensively in sieges and what not, not to mention that they have definitely played key roles in occupations, which tended to be far more humane than the average of national troops' occupation record.

This is starting to sound like it belongs in a suggestions thread.

naw, the original idea is already possible.  i am just educating people of some misconceptions, kind of like if someone said that slings were not an effective weapon against someone in armor and had no place with professional troops.

[G-Flex]

Fair enough.


Oh, and here's this:

Question for Toady: (I apologize if this has been asked before, but I've been paying attention to this stuff and haven't seen it yet)

How will magma pools/pipes be integrated into the new underground structure? I can't very well see the current straight-pipe magma tubes coming up through complex cave structures like that, so what'll they look like, exactly?

[Toksyuryel]

Magma rivers!

[TheDJ17]

Underground Magma oceans underneth the ocean with an ocean underneth!

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Underground Magma oceans underneth the ocean with an ocean underneth!

ItGotBetter

[Aqizzar]

Not to mention FPS 8 at embark.  Oh boy!

[LumenPlacidum]

Physics is the beginning of all science.

As a physicist, I know I can always annoy a chemist with the following:

All science is either physics or stamp-collecting

Although a mathemetician friend of mine likes to point out that physics is just a small branch of applied maths.

The argument is usually settled when we all agree that at least we're better than biologists......

Back on topic: Toady: in all the object storage changes that are going on, will bolts now re-stack nicely?

Just because it's impossible to ignore an xkcd reference: http://xckd.com/435/

With regards to the magma, it seems like until volcanoes are properly structured in all their fiery glory, the magma will probably have pools in the underground layers and may at some points simply fill up the underground entirely, much like water does in some places.

[Osmosis Jones]

Look 2 pages back

[LordZorintrhox]

Underground Magma oceans underneth the ocean with an ocean underneth!

Magma rivers!

Oh dude, real magma pipes underground, like an empty tunnel of igneous rock meandering through the under-dark...still attached to the magma chamber that made them...mmm, toasty adventurers...

Or the obligatory fortress in a volcano inside another volcano.

Toady: So, with the new items and such (crutches etc.), what are you going to do for the 437 code points to represent them?  Are we going to loose some of the unassigned tiles, or are already in use item tiles to be used, like '\' , '|' , and '/' ?  Bandages as '[', or as the bolt of cloth symbol (would look appropriate and would look right in most fancy tile sets too)?

[Techhead]

Large extensive caves like the one shown occur most often in sedimentary rock, especially in limestone and similar minerals, likely formed by water flowing through them.
Although volcanic processes do form caves, they are shaped very different and are often formations made by the magma itself. It wouldn't be likely that you would find large empty caves near an active lava tube.