Print

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

[Linthar]

Currently there are two methods to get a custom race to always attack you in fortress mode that I know of, putting a babysnatcher tag in the entity file, and removing the can_speak tag from the creature, and both of these have some other unwanted consequences. So it would be nice if there was a simple tag that could be put in the entity file to make the race attack in fortress mode without using any workarounds.

[Felblood]

I'd like to see this as something other than "always hostile" what makes these people hostile to dwarves? Are they Xenophobes who see the dwarves as a threat, or Conquerors who want to make them slaves?

It's important, because it will affect what they do defeated enemies during worldgen.

A [GENOCIDES:DWARF] or [INVADER] tag would be more to my liking.

[Hyndis]

I believe this is how the [BABYSNATCHER] tag works, though this has the side effect of the attacking force building up to full fledged sieges very slowly.

It would be nice to be able to just hardcode various civilizations to be at war with other civilizations, so you could preserve names of attackers while at the same time not having to continually regen worlds to find a civilization actively at war with another.

[Sensei]

That's pretty much what Felblood is saying, a [HATES:ENTITY] tag. Of course, witht eh army arc coming up in the next release, you probably WILL be able to start wars through... er, "diplomacy". So that way you can guarantee war in fort mode.

[Felblood]

Well yeah, but I think what Linthar wants is a way to make creatures that, while intelligent and capable of speech, will ignore any peacemaking attempts and attack dwarves on sight, and lay siege to their cities.

[BABYSNATCHER] does this, but it also causes (not ironically) baby snatching, which might not be consistent with the flavor of whatever race a person might be trying to create.

[HATE]ers aren't going to kidnap your children and indoctrinate them, they are going to kill them.

[Linthar]

Well yeah, but I think what Linthar wants is a way to make creatures that, while intelligent and capable of speech, will ignore any peacemaking attempts and attack dwarves on sight, and lay siege to their cities.

Yeah that's pretty much what I'm looking for and I must say that a [HATES:ENTITY] tag would make a lot more sense then how I initially phrased things.

[Pilsu]

I'd like to expand this a bit for inter species conflicts. Being able to set two civs to use the same species template and hate each other would be useful and would be hard to accomplish without making the other civ kick dogs and rape babies with the existing mechanic. Simple competition would drive conflict in real life

Of course, genocide approach would be a bit too extreme for this or at least too simplistic. Several different preferred approaches for conquered territory would be more like it. Goblins might simply kill everyone, elves eat them, humans enslave the population etc. If it's the same race they're warring against, it'd elicit a different response. Anything from enslavement to annexation to pillage & rape. I'm not sure how interspecies rape would be handled but it seems necessary if the game's races are the usual fantasy fodder of Short Humans, Lean Humans and Boring Mary Sue Spirited Humans that dominate the realm through nothing but author appeal

[Felblood]

So basically, you want two different types of tags:

One type that forces a very specific interaction with a specific race, like [HATES:DWARVES:GENOCIDE] or something, for a race that hates dwarves and hunts them to extinction at the first opportunity. This let's you inject conflict into your world without having to go through the [ETHIC]s.


--and one type that dictates a more general approach to world affairs, if circumstances are right and they happen to feel like it at the time. These would probably be new [ETHIC]s or something, on whether a group approves of subjugating nations of the same race, raiding neighboring counties for profit, or conquering cities for purely expansionist reasons. Once we have the means to establish that our humans are okay with conquering the cities of their fellow humans, they can go about it whenever they happen to have the resources and soldiers, etc.

I could get behind that.

[SirHoneyBadger]

How about being able to handle this (atleast partially) through Personality? The game currently incorporates an excellent Personality system with a very wide range of possibilities.

Being able to tie this in to a Civ with a very high average level of ADVENTUROUSNESS, ANGER, ANXIETY, ASSERTIVENESS, and a very low level of TRUST, COOPERATION, and FRIENDLINESS, atleast in it's leadership, should--naturally--cause that Civ to seek out others and try to dominate them, without shoehorning another mechanic into the game.

[varkarrus]

I'd want the following

For dwarves [HATES:ELVES:GENOCIDE]
For elves [liKES:DWARVES:TRADE]

[Sensei]

heh... I imagine that if one entity attacks another, the entity would just go to war over the attacks until they die or the attacking entity loses too many forces and decides to genocide again later.

I think it would be...

Elves: [liKES:DWARF:TRADE]
Dwarves: [HATES:ELF:TAKE_LUNCH]

[Felblood]

In order to make civilizations change over time, we could just use the personalities of their leaders, as their religion is already used to determine holy wars.

This way, when a new ruler comes to power, he can start influencing the public policy of his country. Selfish, aggressive rulers could launch a campaign of conquest as soon as their butt hits the throne, but a string of guys who are merely uncooperative jerks, should also strain relationships, enough to eventually cause a war.

International relationships could grow and degrade like friendships, but there would need to be a lot more downward pressure, for the system to actually do anything.

A highly diplomatic king would need to arise, every few generations, or world peace will crumble, which is, of course, the goal.

It's like I always say, "World peace is bad."

[Pilsu]

Those approaches would still fail to have the desired effect without making one or both sides blood thirsty lunatics bent on world conquest. Their hates would also be universal, not just directed at a particular race or civ. Not to mention it completely fails to incorporate the desired choice between approaches to conquered foes

[LordNagash]

This idea has been suggested a few times before, and I really don't like it. I mean the whole point of Dwarf Fortress is that it's supposed to simulate a world and the history of that world. If dwarves hate elves, that should be because of something that happened in the game, like the terrible beard mutilations of 125 or something like that. Having one race just unequivocally hate another for no reason other than 'well they just do' feels like a very artificial construct to put onto the game.

[SirHoneyBadger]

I very much like Felblood's solution. It ties in personality type (and I think that's important, obviously), while giving LordNagash a historical why.

Anything less than that, I feel, would be unacceptible.