Print

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

[Rowanas]

AAARGHHH. my internet connection goes down at random intervals and it cut off two posts I've tried to make in the last week, including one about the ants, but now the topic has moved on, so my post is useless. I HATE VIRGIN.

[Roxorius]

I HATE VIRGIN.

Let it go, man. It's not healthy to hate yourself, dude.

[Diablous]

Don't know if this has been asked yet (I am not shifting through 700+ pages) but, Will it ever be possible in a future version for a civil war to start during gameplay and the player's fort to be involved, i.e you support the resistance and attack other forts loyal to the crown, or attack rebelling forts, and support the crown, or just refuse to be involved; and if so, can the player start a civil war?

I think that would be an interesting addition to the game. I know I would enjoy it.

[smjjames]

Theres a whole bunch of external army stuff coming sometime after this release where you can command armies to attack stuff. I have no idea about internal conflict though, but theres likely some future dev goal involving this.

[Footkerchief]

Don't know if this has been asked yet (I am not shifting through 700+ pages) but, Will it ever be possible in a future version for a civil war to start during gameplay and the player's fort to be involved, i.e you support the resistance and attack other forts loyal to the crown, or attack rebelling forts, and support the crown, or just refuse to be involved; and if so, can the player start a civil war?

I think that would be an interesting addition to the game. I know I would enjoy it.

Yes, there's a dev item for civil wars etc:

# Core63, SUCCESSION, ASSOCIATED CONFLICTS AND SCHISMS, (Future): First of all, succession for positions needs to occur in play, so that dead liaisons are replaced, as well as dead monarchs. Then the process needs to be made messier all around. Wars over succession, schisms over religious disagreements, etc., starting from world gen and coming into regular play. In dwarf mode, you might be involved on one side or the other, directly or indirectly, relying on more involved diplomacy and army code than we currently have, and adventure mode can also gain a lot from such conflicts.

Several facets of that item are on dev_next, meaning they're slated for near-future development:

# III.D.1: Handling basic succession for all positions during regular play (part of Core63)
# III.D.2: Allowing conflict over succession, schisms and contested claims to entity positions in world gen (part of Core63)
# III.D.3: Allowing such conflict in regular play (part of Core63)

[The Minister]

Speaking of my little side note above, and granted it's a bit further into the fortress future than the next release,  will other civilizations ever eventually react to you building a fort within their geopolitical boundaries?  I'd like to think there will eventually be repercussions if a group of dwarfs just started digging in in the middle of human territories, especially if they are digging up all sorts of valuable minerals and gems that technically belong to the humans... I'd like to see something like the humans annexing your fortress by defeating your military, allowing you to continue running it, but swapping your parent civ to human and stationing NPC human guards.  maybe you could even rebel against the humans and kill their guards by training and arming new troops in secret...  That'll need some pretty sophisticated AI on the human guards, though, and some way you keep you from dealing with the human guards like caravans and nobles currently can be dealt with... Or maybe not

that would be awesome, and I wonder if it could work in proximity to other civilizations:

Will proximity to political boundaries affect rate of sieges?  For example, would a fort deep within Dwarven territory, far from a border, would lead to fewer sieges, but being right on the boundary with goblins (for example) would lead to frequent raids and sieges by goblins?

[sonerohi]

I'm still in favor of the "anthill as organism" theory, personally.

Let's get back on topic; do you think smells will ever play a part in adventure mode?

Your pants catch on fire!
Your third toe, left foot is burned!
Something smells delicious.
Your lower body is incinerated!
Something smells delicious.

[Diablous]

Don't know if this has been asked yet (I am not shifting through 700+ pages) but, Will it ever be possible in a future version for a civil war to start during gameplay and the player's fort to be involved, i.e you support the resistance and attack other forts loyal to the crown, or attack rebelling forts, and support the crown, or just refuse to be involved; and if so, can the player start a civil war?

I think that would be an interesting addition to the game. I know I would enjoy it.

Yes, there's a dev item for civil wars etc:

# Core63, SUCCESSION, ASSOCIATED CONFLICTS AND SCHISMS, (Future): First of all, succession for positions needs to occur in play, so that dead liaisons are replaced, as well as dead monarchs. Then the process needs to be made messier all around. Wars over succession, schisms over religious disagreements, etc., starting from world gen and coming into regular play. In dwarf mode, you might be involved on one side or the other, directly or indirectly, relying on more involved diplomacy and army code than we currently have, and adventure mode can also gain a lot from such conflicts.

Several facets of that item are on dev_next, meaning they're slated for near-future development:

# III.D.1: Handling basic succession for all positions during regular play (part of Core63)
# III.D.2: Allowing conflict over succession, schisms and contested claims to entity positions in world gen (part of Core63)
# III.D.3: Allowing such conflict in regular play (part of Core63)

Sweet. Thanks.

[Neonivek]

I wonder how Toady feels at this point. How long has it been since he said he was better, excluding recovery?

[Gara-nis]

Will the elves ever bring anything but useless crap to trade?

[Neonivek]

Will the elves ever bring anything but useless crap to trade?

You mean like wood that you need to get metal armor for your military?

Elves are possibly the MOST useful trade carrivan for those who don't cheat for magma

[Nadaka]

Will the elves ever bring anything but useless crap to trade?

You mean like wood that you need to get metal armor for your military?

Elves are possibly the MOST useful trade carrivan for those who don't cheat for magma

except that if you buy from them regularly they stop bringing wood.

[CobaltKobold]

Wood too? Wood is quite necessary for non-steel things too. Like axles and windmills and w'terwheels and clear glass.

'm more interested in the animals.

[G-Flex]

Will the elves ever bring anything but useless crap to trade?

You mean like wood that you need to get metal armor for your military?

They also tend to bring all kinds of exotic animals, albeit irregularly.

[LordDemon]

Will the elves ever bring anything but useless crap to trade?

I think Elves would make a great salesmen for some rare/ungrowable herbs, that you could use in alchemy (when it is implemented), in healthcare (I'd love to see a rare expensive regenerative herb, with which one could regrow limbs, eyes, heal organs etc...)  or even induce strange moods in dwarfs ("Urist McArmorer stops eating fairy dust. Struck by fay mood.")

This would fit the elves natural style, but would make them valuable in trade.