Print

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

[Heron TSG]

it'd be nice to see who was in the running for mayor, so we could kill off all the unwanted ones... 

[Savok]

He hasn't just "made lots of nice cloth", he has produced countless masterpieces.  His weavings are heirlooms that people will treasure for generations.  His weaving ability is legend, and a big part of what makes the fortress as famous as it is.  Many people who immigrated to the fortress likely did so specifically because they heard tales of the incredible value of his weavings.  Masterworks are, basically, a big deal.

He has just "made lots of nice cloth." Which ties into the "worthless masterpieces" discussion.

[praguepride]

Lineages could be nice. Let's say that the current system uses simple number measuring to generate "Political Suitableness"

Political Suitableness = # of friends + social skill levels.

If that's all that's to it we should be able to add in more variables to lean it more heavily on other workers. I agree that just making masterpieces shouldn't be the only qualifier. These are dwarves! Military has to come into play as well.

My proposal would be

Political Suitableness = # of friends + average(social skills + military skills)  + flat bonus for being a legendary dwarf + flat bonus for being previous mayor + flat bonus for being one of the original founders + age.

So the best leader would be one with lots of friends, high social AND military skills, is a legendary founder, and very very old.

Now you can attach weights to them, so maybe # of friends is weighted higher then age, but overall that takes care of all the things that dwarves find dwarfy.

Of course, this is all moot because as soon as beards get introduced, the dwarf with the longest beard is autoelected ruler.

[Squirrelloid]

Of course, this is all moot because as soon as beards get introduced, the dwarf with the longest beard is autoelected ruler.

I support this product and/or service.

[Granite26]

Add in # of masterworks, and I support it, prague, although I'd like to see the actual formula be emergent from individual dwarves preferences (and thus dwarves will select different candidates from humans because the average human is different from the average dwarf)

[praguepride]

I think masterpieces are irrelevant, and are summed up in the "legendary skill" bonus.

Legendary Dwarves make more masterpieces, they get a bonus. What I'd like to see is your gritty battle-hardened veteren (who's legendary swordsman) be able to stack up against a legendary clothesmaker. Including # of masterpieces would greatly skew it in favor of only the dwarves who actually produce stuff.

Miners, Hunters, Fish Cleaners, Fishers, Smelters, Ashers, All the military & social skills, administrators...actually it's easier to just list who can produce masterpieces:

Carpenters, Boywers, Weaponsmiths, Armorsmiths, Metalcrafters, Bone Carvers, Stonecrafters, Mechanics, Seige Engineers, Clothesmakers, Leatherworkers, Engravers are the only ones who can produce masterpieces.

Legendary status is available to a dwarf no matter their role. Masterpieces are limited to only the "final line" in production. And finally, once you get legendary craftsmen they can pump out the masterpieces like it's nobodies business. To level the playing field, you'd have to weigh so heavily against masterpieces that they're not really even in the equation anymore.

[Granite26]

Add in kills (and rank) for vets...

Anywho, thats the point in making it a formula.  Some dwarves would go for the masterpieces, some wouldn't.  Craftsdwarves producing final products DO get all the glory and dwarfchicks in the real world.  Do we care about the best boy or key grip?

TL/DR :

Including # of masterpieces would greatly skew it in favor of only the dwarves who actually produce stuff.

I don't see the problem with this.

[praguepride]

Instead of the "let's just go with everything to make it complicated as hell" approach, let's actually try and boil it down to something useful.

I don't agree that kills should be included either, although it would mean balancing out vs. masterpieces. However, the skew is still towards craftsdwarves and I fully believe that a military stud > a master leatherworker in society.

You could say that you could weight it in favor of metal > stone > wood > leather > cloth, but again that's starting to get too complicated, and that's a bit of a cop out. It's a lot easier to make things more complicated, but let's rise to the challenge and make it as simple as possible.

Complications with Kill Counts:
Do random animals count or just goblins/kobolds/invaders? If not random animals, some should count. Single handedly taking down a Spirt of Fire should be > then watching your squad beat down an already dying Frog Demon.
What happens on a map without seiges? Or when seiges stop?

Complications with Masterpieces:
What happens if a masterpiece is sold/traded/lost?
How do you rank them? Shouldn't master swords count more then master shirts?
Decreasing award? Everyone expects a legendary shirtmaker to make legendary shirts, but what about the novice who pulls out a masterwork item despite the risk?


I would say that artifacts SHOULD count. I didn't include them. So you should gain a bonus of either a percentage of the item's worth (so the 200k plate mail is worth more then the 10k cloth bag) or just a flat bonus if "all artifacts are created equal"

Masterwork pieces are nice, but after a year or two nearly everything is masterwork. Artifacts, however, those are something to sneeze at.

[Granite26]

Instead of the "let's just go with everything to make it complicated as hell" approach, let's actually try and boil it down to something useful.

I think you may be in the wrong forums...  Were you perhaps looking for some other game?

Seriously:  You're starting to argue from a Dwarf-centric point of view.  The politics section should be robust enough to handle Dwarves, Humans, Goblins and everything else.  The best way to do that is to make it too complicated and then rope it in with personality settings.

[praguepride]

Why is it dwarf-centric?

Human History is rife with political leaders who gained their popularity from their military prowess. The old addage "might makes right"

Social skills are obvious
Military skills should also be obvious as well, but maybe  not weighted as much as social skills. Then again most people gain skills in all social skills at the same time, while military experience is harder to gain. I think this will balance itself out because a social character can easily get many legendary social skills, while it takes a lot of time to get a Legendary Swordsman/Axman/Hammerer/Marksmen etc.
Legendary status: Any race can have legendary skills
Artifacts: So far only dwarves can do it, but it's an "all or nothing" viewpoint.
Previous Ruler: Again, common theme is that the previous ruler tends to have a leg up on his opponents
Founders Bonus: This I added as being neat, but not necessary. Fantasy stories are full of "so-and-so became king because his ancestors founded the first town"


Anyway, here's my proposal. It should be generic enough to fit ANY race.

Political Suitablity = # of friends + Average(Social Skills) + Average(Military Skills) + 5 units for each legendary skill + 5 units for being a founder (or descended from a founder) + 5 units for being hte previous ruler + 10 units if it was a dwarf and if they produced an artifact.

[Topace3k]

I imagine a great deal of this topic is already slated to be implemented in one form or another.  The relationships arc, for example, will probably make these things more complicated than even any of the suggestions in this thread.  Problem is, it won't be happening for another couple years. 

[anyar]

What happens on a map without seiges? Or when seiges stop?

Isn't that more realistic though? When the military isn't actively fighting and gaining glory, why would be a master of the sword influence anyone to vote for you? A peaceful settlement would probably see mostly successful craftsmen as leaders, while a settlement that gets besieged every week would obviously be ruled by a military leader.

[praguepride]

Does that have to be a game shoehorn or shouldn't that be based on player decision?

If a player has 75% of his fortress on active military duty even if there aren't any seiges, wouldn't it be easy to picture it as a military fortress "ready for anything." It wouldn't be the first political body to waste all it's resources on a bloated military "just in case"

The reason why I wouldn't put kills into the equation is because you don't have to kill anybody to be a respected military leader.

[SirHoneyBadger]

I think inches of beard length should be a major factor in dwarf elections.

Under a foot, and you aren't even in the running.

Right there, that would solve the problem of child mayors, and it would also add some substance to the idea that dwarfs rarely if ever trim their beards (although they might shape them), let alone shave.

It makes social sense too, considering that in human societies, people with facial tattooes rarely become the leaders of major modern cities/states (unless we're talking about the Maori.).

Appearance can be a factor, for good or bad--you're free not to conform (ideally), but human nature-and by unconsious, if not consious, extension, dwarf nature-says that the way you look will always have *some* bearing on the impression you make.

In a dwarf society, number of children that reach adulthood (and/or mastery of a skill) might well be a factor, too. To a dwarf, a good parent should equate a good leader, since dwarf population growth/survival rate tends to be low.

[praguepride]

As was brought up before, efforts should be made to make the formula as "generic" as possible so it can be easily applied to any race, not just dwarves.

Maybe there could be an X factor for each race. Humans might have an "appearance" trait while elves might have a "ear pointyness" trait, dwarves will have their beards, goblins can have teeth size and kobolds can have tails or whatever.