Print

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

[Silverionmox]

I don't think the purpose of your fort should ever be decided based on where it is. That's a concious decision for the payer to make.

If you decide that a military castle is needed, to facilitate the expansion of your empire, you don't want the game telling you that the dwarves you brought out to do the job are from a hated religious group, and the civ is more likely to have to fight this castle than use it as a staging ground.

Likewise, if you choose a site based on its mineral content, to make a manufacturing center, you don't want the game to decide that this is too close to the border for that, and give you no immigrant artisans.

The player still chooses, it's just that letting the game pick a goal for you should be an option. The options should be restricted based on what's available: a civ isn't going to build a temple fortress for a god they don't worship, or defend against a non-existing threat. Ideally, you'd say what you want, and history continues until the game finds a suitable occasion (in most cases, instantly.)

In any case, the goal should be known before choosing a fortress location. Sometimes that can restrain the area somewhat, since for example a goal can be to build a fortress to control the goblins of the Burnt Intestines: that should be somewhere in between the parent civ and the goblins.

[Mephansteras]

On the topic of starting stuff and customization, I have an idea for the current "poof from nothing" group of dwarves.

I'd like the ability to set a few basic things about them beyond their skills. These would have some game effects, but mostly be flavor which would help greatly for storytelling.

1) Age for each dwarf
2) Relationship between dwarves
3) Sex of each dwarf

This would let us do things like set the group up to be a single family of dwarves, a few families, a group of unrelated dwarves, or whatever.

[Footkerchief]

^^^ Setting relationships would be a little strange.  Doesn't DF currently evaluate personal compatibility to determine those?  It would be strange if the player could force incompatible dwarves into relationships.

Anyway, I think those options would all be a step backwards.  The dev pages indicate that Toady is going to continue moving away from "generating" people, and toward the player choosing from a pool of existing candidates.

[bjlong]

^^^ But if the migrant pool is big enough, someone could just use something like the site finder to cull out options they don't want. There should also be the ability to train dwarves somewhat before embark, from a game perspective.

[Granite26]

^^^ But if the migrant pool is big enough, someone could just use something like the site finder to cull out options they don't want. There should also be the ability to train dwarves somewhat before embark, from a game perspective.

A year passes, things change (slightly) and you train your dwarves. 

Will be especially interesting if there's an invasion in the meantime :-D

[Felblood]

That's good, but what if one of the dwarves dies in the interim? Do I get to review my list and select a replacement, do I get given a peasant to fill the gap, or do I just have to embark with six dwarves?

Here's an alternative thought: Let the player buy dwarves out of the pool, at a cost based on what they would cost to create, but discounted. Then leave the option of creating custom dwarves at full price.

That way, you can build a couple of dwarves of mysterious origin, for critical skill combinations, but buy the rest of your dwarves from the pool, to get the discount. This way, players who tie their founders into the fiction will get a bonus, but we won't lose any of our current abilities.

Eventually, I'd like to see the items available for embark become based, on what a fortress actually produced.

Silverionmox: I should be able to build a fort anywhere I please. I should be able to build the great wall of China around my civ, if I want to. Not a short term goal to be sure, but it would be awesome, and there's no reason to block it. The game, no matter how advanced, will never be able to account for every possible player goal or strategy.

If I want to build a mining out post in a place where it's in appearent danger of being overrun by natives, the machine should shake it's head and say, "They're your dwarves. Go ahead and get them killed; see if I care." It should decline to comment when you city actually survives and thrives.

I do agree that I shouldn't be able to build a temple to a god nobody in that civ worships. I should however, be able to build the temples that do make sense in nonsensical places. The game might not care that my temple of the fire god is in a volcano, being more concerned about the volcano being too close to the dark towers, but I should be able to take my chances.

[Granite26]

That's good, but what if one of the dwarves dies in the interim? Do I get to review my list and select a replacement, do I get given a peasant to fill the gap, or do I just have to embark with six dwarves?

That way, you can build a couple of dwarves of mysterious origin, for critical skill combinations, but buy the rest of your dwarves from the pool, to get the discount. This way, players who tie their founders into the fiction will get a bonus, but we won't lose any of our current abilities.

Eventually, I'd like to see the items available for embark become based, on what a fortress actually produced.

I do agree that I shouldn't be able to build a temple to a god nobody in that civ worships.

A:  Unless you picked a dwarf that was about to die, they shouldn't be involved in world events during that time, they should be isolated (yanked from reality into a pocket training dimension).  Cheap and effective

B: Genius... I really like the 'buy existing for cheaper'

C: Good Call

D: Akenaton might disagree

[Felblood]

Wasn't the whole point of encouraging players to use worldgen dwarves to get away from abstractions like that?

What if the entire city get's wiped out by an undead army? Does my expedition somehow manage to get out before the calamity, even though they opted to wait a year to train? Why bother making training take time, if it has no consequences?

Amenhotep was all over that Atep worship thing. Is it possible to have a dwarf king who worships a god nobody else in his kingdom does? If so, I guess he should be able to demand a temple of his god, or even a temple city for his god. One way or the other, the god would probably still be on the list of gods worshiped in that civ and be available for construction. I don't expect the project would draw a lot of volunteer labor, though.

Moreover, dwarves seem to have a lot more control over where they live and what monuments they help build than an Egyptian would have. If Pharaoh says you help build a temple, you help build the temple. If the king doesn't live at a site, can he still demand a temple of Atep? Should he be able to?

[Granite26]

If that's the case, then dwarves should die on the way to the site...  I just don't see too many issues with dwarves leaving the city in 1501 and arriving at the site in 1502 with new skills, but without having to play the oregon trail mode getting there

[Mephansteras]

Well, a reasonable compromise is to have the game stop and say "Your civilization is at war with X, and they are converging on your home city. If you do not leave now, you may not be able to leave at all". And give you the option to embark with whatever skills the dwarves have gained up to that point.

[Felblood]

I suppose one could say that they acquired those extra skill levels while exploring or prospecting, but before they found the site. That way, training could take time, but your dwarves would no longer be available to the city they left behind and wouldn't be tied to it's fate in any way.

[SirHoneyBadger]

If that's the case, then dwarves should die on the way to the site...  I just don't see too many issues with dwarves leaving the city in 1501 and arriving at the site in 1502 with new skills, but without having to play the oregon trail mode getting there

I don't know...as an option, that *might* not be so bad. Infact, it might be a lot of fun, every once in a while, to model your dwarfs setting out into the world.

And it would be a feather in DF's "uniqueness" cap. I can't think of any other game, atleast off the top of my head, that has that sort of thing where it shifts from a pure survival game, to a survival/builder/sims game, to a roleplaying game.

And really, although I have no idea, it doesn't seem like it would be an enormous headache to tack on that feature into the code as it currently is.

Besides, I'm so goddamn old that I actually remember, quite fondly, playing Oregon Trail more or less when it first came out. It was a neat little game, for the time, and relatively "dwarfy", down to the ASCII.

[Felblood]

Once you can adventure with a proper player-controlled party, Playing Bamguskekim trail could be both fast and fun. Didn't this come up in another thread, just the other day?

I wonder if it's too late to dig that thing up without accusations of necromancy. Sometimes, it feels like you just can't win around here.

After we can mine in adventure mode, I'd like to be able to rally a band of prospectors and travel the mountains until I find a suitable set of rock veins and water sources, and then just press a key to found a fortress. It's long term, I know, but it would be awesome.

Site finder should probably stick around.

[Mephansteras]

I wonder if it's too late to dig that thing up without accusations of necromancy. Sometimes, it feels like you just can't win around here.

Usually if you have a valid reason for bringing an old thread back people won't mind so much. Just make it clear that's why you're doing it. 

[Footkerchief]

Yeah, nobody minds as long as you're not bumping a two-year-old thread just to say "Yes, I agree" or something.  Go for it.