Print

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

[ArkDelgato]

Now, I can see not giving dwarves poison and blowdarts because of the future goals,

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

# HUMAN TOWN: You should be able to control a human town, as you control a dwarf fortress, but with changes appropriate to the new setting. Related to Req469 and Bloat146.
# GOBLIN/KOBOLD/CAVER: Controlling the bad guys is an obvious extension, and you've got the whole friendly happy world waiting for your raiding parties.
# ELF FOREST RETREAT: Yes, elves for the elf people -- but thinking more general, as we list all these racial civilizations, we should think in broad terms and use the civilization definitions to allow any type of civilization to be played. Elves will provide some necessary extra elements for this process. Mixing the cliff dwelling, wilderness dwelling, town building, ethics/sphere-aligned/religious tendencies into a robust interface for civilization building is a long-term goal. Related to Bloat25.

There needs to be some inclination to be kobolds (use of poison), elves, humans and goblins.

If dwarves can do everything, there would be no reason to not be a dwarf.

[Serefan]

If dwarves can do everything, there would be no reason to not be a dwarf.

Read the entire forum. Megastructures, epic tales, dwarven engineering, dwarven computing, Boatmurdered, Nist Akath.

Dwarves. Can. Do. Everything. 

[Kilo24]

Toady has mentioned poisoned weapons being sort of undwarflike, and I was trying to think of why.

Two possible, realistic reasons:

• The kinds of biological poisons used in blowdarts and on weapons might just not be very accessible to dwarves, except for maybe things like cave spider venom. Not sure about this one.
• Not sure about this one either, but maybe dwarves just don't have a lot of resistance TO biological toxins. In the real world, humans do because they spent their entire prehistory eating weird stuff they found growing and on the ground, so we've basically got super-livers. Dwarves, living underground, I can see not being so resilient. I can see them having ridiculous resistance to mineral-based and other environmental toxins, but as far as more organic stuff is concerned, I can see them being weaker. But I'm not really sure of this either, since an overall hardy constitution is one of the main accepted truths about dwarves in the first place.

I think it's more of a matter of how dwarven ethics are traditionally depicted in Tolkien lore.  Big axes, heavy hammers and smashing stuff to bits is dwarfy over relying on poisoned weapons or slipping poison in goblets.

My personal preferences would be to allow them to use poisoned weapons, but let the ethics of some dwarves interfere (using poisoned weapons might give dwarves who care about such things an unhappy thought, and might have diplomatic repercussions by having other dwarven groups look down on such behavior.)

[Greiger]

I think it's just about how Toady sees dwarves.  From what I gather poison is more against what Toady's idea of typical dwarven ethics are. 

They would likely find poisoning weapons a dishonorable or dirty tactic.  They would likely know how, and even understand it's effectiveness.  But the idea of "resorting" to poison to defeat a foe is appalling.  Like why Toady decided to not let players directly order their fortress to attack residents.  It would be so opposed of dwarven ethics that it would cause all kinds of rioting no matter how well treated the fortress is. 

Of course I would be happy if things happening in worldgen could change the views from civilization to civilization, but that would probably be a ways off yet, and may not have the interface for control of it anyway.

I don't think Toady would leave the possibility out forever however.  Modding will likely be able to have a fortress poison their weapons eventually, but it may not be possible until he gets around to things like goblin fortresses and stuff. 

Why work on a complicated interface that nobody playing vanilla would use until you need it?  Its probably that same reason why swimming and flying pathfinding dosn't work yet, it just isn't used(much). 

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, you could probably bash out a list of pros and cons for each race.  Here's some possible ideas:

Humans: Like in all games, humans would be the average, middle of the lane guys who can do everything, although not particularly well.  It would be possible for them to live underground, but they would become stressed if they did this for too long.  They wouldn't be as good at mining as dwarves and their lifespans would be relatively short compared to dwarves and elves.  You would also possibly have to build structures above ground, as humans would get tired of walking around bent double in dark and dingy tunnels.  Humans however would have a size advantage on dwarves, without the weapon restrictuions of the elves.  They would also be better at trading, perhaps even convincing incoming caravans to trade at a loss through bartering.

Elves: Have some very serious disadvantages, the most obvious being the shunning of metal.  Wouldn't be able to live underground (ie build buildings underground) at all (or maybe even be unable to mine, since they never really use stone or metal anyway).  Instead of cutting trees they would "coppice" them, extracting a log but leaving a stump that would gradually regrow a tree.  Wild animals would not be agressive to elves, and elves would be able to train almost any animal.

Dwarves: Comon, you know what these are, right?  Advantages to other races are basically the ability to live underground fairly uninhibited and better mining skills.

Goblins: Many disadvantages, including no ability to farm, but they are very geared to war, and thus goblin soldiers can still perform civilian activities (and vice versa).  They would excel at weapon making.  One of their primary advantages would be the fact that goblins are far more resiliant than other races, and would not become melancholy, berserk or insane as easily.  In addition, if a goblin died a true warrior death, their relatives wouldn't mind so much, and their soldier team mates may even get a boost from that goblin's noble sacrifice (basically tantrum spirals would be far rarer in a goblin tower).

Kobolds: Small.  Rubbish at fighting.  Limited and primitive technology.  These are some of the disadvantages that could affect kobolds.  However, kobolds could be faster and excellent at sneaking, even civilian kobolds.  You could also surprise and ambush enemy attacks, potentially deadly with a squad of archers.  Thief missions to other races are another possibility, and you could tell thieves what you want them to bring back.  Kobolds would also breed much, much faster than any other race.

Anyway, just possible ways of balancing the races.

[Warlord255]

Yeah, you could probably bash out a list of pros and cons for each race.  Here's some possible ideas:

Humans: Like in all games, humans would be the average, middle of the lane guys who can do everything, although not particularly well.  It would be possible for them to live underground, but they would become stressed if they did this for too long.  They wouldn't be as good at mining as dwarves and their lifespans would be relatively short compared to dwarves and elves.  You would also possibly have to build structures above ground, as humans would get tired of walking around bent double in dark and dingy tunnels.  Humans however would have a size advantage on dwarves, without the weapon restrictuions of the elves.  They would also be better at trading, perhaps even convincing incoming caravans to trade at a loss through bartering.

Elves: Have some very serious disadvantages, the most obvious being the shunning of metal.  Wouldn't be able to live underground (ie build buildings underground) at all (or maybe even be unable to mine, since they never really use stone or metal anyway).  Instead of cutting trees they would "coppice" them, extracting a log but leaving a stump that would gradually regrow a tree.  Wild animals would not be agressive to elves, and elves would be able to train almost any animal.

Dwarves: Comon, you know what these are, right?  Advantages to other races are basically the ability to live underground fairly uninhibited and better mining skills.

Goblins: Many disadvantages, including no ability to farm, but they are very geared to war, and thus goblin soldiers can still perform civilian activities (and vice versa).  They would excel at weapon making.  One of their primary advantages would be the fact that goblins are far more resiliant than other races, and would not become melancholy, berserk or insane as easily.  In addition, if a goblin died a true warrior death, their relatives wouldn't mind so much, and their soldier team mates may even get a boost from that goblin's noble sacrifice (basically tantrum spirals would be far rarer in a goblin tower).

Kobolds: Small.  Rubbish at fighting.  Limited and primitive technology.  These are some of the disadvantages that could affect kobolds.  However, kobolds could be faster and excellent at sneaking, even civilian kobolds.  You could also surprise and ambush enemy attacks, potentially deadly with a squad of archers.  Thief missions to other races are another possibility, and you could tell thieves what you want them to bring back.  Kobolds would also breed much, much faster than any other race.

Anyway, just possible ways of balancing the races.

The races don't necessarily have to be balanced; if there's enough differentiation in mechanics, it'd be worthwhile to play as other races even if they're easier/harder than Dwarf mode. For example, instead of making a Dwarven town and doing the "aboveground" experiment, you could just play Human mode and have little changes that work with that.

[Serefan]

When reading the powergoals, I don't think balance and advantages/disadvantages are the main thing Toady cares about. I think his ultimate goal is a totally different gameplay.

- Dwarves: Just like DF mode now is.

- Elves: Build treehouses, little to no mining, stuff like that, and adapt workshops to fit with this treedwelling. This could have a serious change in gameplay.

- Humans: More aboveground, with little mining camps, and erecting entire buildings from crude stone, like the last poster mentioned.

- Goblins: Trying to maintain leadership and a community with your people divided among small camps, with troublemakers making life hard in other camps, and leaders in every camp.



EDIT: Sorry, ArkDelgato, I didn't see you've already post part of those powergoals.

[Timst]

Hm, you know, quoting the entire post just before you own is pretty useless... we know you're replying to it.

Anyway, I like leafsnail civs's descriptions.

One idea I just had will be some sort of special game mode when you control a "trial" race that can do anything for, like, 1 year. The computer notice how you play (underground / aboveground, use of mechanics, trade, farming, poison, general ethics etc.), and at the end of the trial year, your people automatically turn into the more relevant race (ie, if you have been living like humans, you become humans).

[jamoecw]

...(In today's time we don't lose technology but in the past anything people no longer used often became lost)...

read more history, the middle east used to have irrigation down well enough to have a major population, enough to rival europe.
slings were used to hurl gernades really far distances, and even earlier slings were able to outdistance even modern bows.
the metallurgy of metal working civilizations pre steel was able to bond hard and soft metals in ways that we can't do today.
romans had some method of having a full sized metal chariot not only float in mid air with no strings, but gradually descend while moving forward, as if it were gliding to earth.
greek and roman stone working was more precise than what we can do today.

that's just some of the stuff that we don't consider to be just mumbo jumbo, or excessive elaboration.



as far as race advantages i think humans should naturally be like primitive cavemen, no leaders or technology of anykind (other than basic fire), but they would be masters at mimicking others, so the closer they live to another civilization the closer to that civilization they would become.  if they live at the doorstep of the elves without any other cultures around they would be almost short lived elves, likewise with the dwarves, goblins, and such.  if they send out caravans those would become a cross between the cultures that it travels too, making them fairly accepted anywhere that trading is accepted.

as for goblins i think they should be like the old nordic peoples, sure they farm, but they farm animals for meat and cheese, with such a strong ethos that they would rather starve than eat fish or some other 'barbaric' food.  they trade with each other quite regularly, and maybe humans, but none others.  they tend to keep their soldiers away from their homes, relying on their remoteness for protection were possible, and a near professional level militia otherwise.  they veiw others like they view animals, thus a declaration of war or any other form of diplomacy would be as hard a concept to wrap their mind around as we would a peace treaty with bears.  the civilians would be averse to hunting, and eating plants.  once a decent sized force was trained and equipped they would ship out or the entire town would get bad thoughts, and would want even a militia until they have been attacked at least once, either before or after the soldiers leave.  the idea is that while they are in some respects less war like than other civilizations, all the other civilizations see are their armies and war machines, making them seem ultra warlike.

[smjjames]

I think the reason poisons would be undwarfy would mainly be a cultural (and ethical as some people above me said). Perhaps the dwarves prefer kill in a way that is in your face and making the assassination more visible rather than a stealthy anonymous way.

I'm sure they are aware of diplomatic repurcussions and have ways of killing/assassinating that would make it difficult to point the finger at someone, but are still dwarfy.

Poisons definetly would be known to them, cinnabar, which is an ore of mercury and very poisonous, there are certainly underground flora/fungi which are toxic, and everything ingame that has venom. There is also lead, which someone will definetly mod to be toxic like it is in real life.

[Leafsnail]

Lead is poisonous, but you would need rather a lot of it to induce a quick fatality.

[smjjames]

Oh yea, I almost forgot one. You know how sometimes methane can accumulate in mines, resulting in an explosion? Since there will be gaseous substances (aside from the mists, steam, dust, and miasma), perhaps we could have pockets of gas underground or maybe certain fault-lines which vent toxic gases. It would add another layer of FUN to the game.

I'm not sure if we can simulate the lack of oxygen due to unbreatheable gases, but the potential is there.

[Armok]

and I'm just dreaming of this game within a few years, having a name change, just being called Sim Earth. 

There's already a game with that name, it's a fifty years old geography/gaia simulator.

[Serefan]

and I'm just dreaming of this game within a few years, having a name change, just being called Sim Earth. 

There's already a game with that name, it's a fifty years old geography/gaia simulator.

Sim Earth 2.0+     -  The plus stands for awesomeness. Also, dwarves.

[Areyar]

make that *Sim Fantiverse* ...couse it's mastercrafted and I suspect WW has copyrighted all his titles very solidly.