Print

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

[MoatMan]

Unless they kill a dwarf.

Then they get a dwarven name not a goblin name

To fix it take out the [INTELLIGENT] tag and replace it with can civ and can learn (and regen?)

Don't forget the [CAN_TALK] token. I like them to have names. Regen doesn't seem necessary to make them into meat merchants so I don't think it'll be necessary to turn them back into murderers

[AtomicPaperclip]

Unless they kill a dwarf.

Then they get a dwarven name not a goblin name

To fix it take out the [INTELLIGENT] tag and replace it with can civ and can learn (and regen?)

Don't forget the [CAN_TALK] token. I like them to have names. Regen doesn't seem necessary to make them into meat merchants so I don't think it'll be necessary to turn them back into murderers

Isn't that what was decided to be the problem?

[Kittah_Khan]

Unless they kill a dwarf.

Then they get a dwarven name not a goblin name

To fix it take out the [INTELLIGENT] tag and replace it with can civ and can learn (and regen?)

Don't forget the [CAN_TALK] token. I like them to have names. Regen doesn't seem necessary to make them into meat merchants so I don't think it'll be necessary to turn them back into murderers

CAN_TALK makes them potentially friendly.
the only way known to have permanently hostile civs is removing CAN_TALK.

[MoatMan]

Okay I'm still messing around with the tokens trying to get this mix right. Can they have a diplomat or use tree diplomacy if I disable speech? Killing the Diplomat and  cutting trees would get me a siege that way.

Incidentally does that mean the wiki entry is just wrong?
    |
    V

"Baby Snatcher

Sends thieves to steal babies. Also sends ambush parties to harass your civilization. Without this tag enemy civs will only siege, and will siege as early as they would otherwise babysnatch. This can happen as early as the first year of the fort!"

Whenever I remove the [BABYSNATCHER] token they get the "NO TRADE" Status next to their name and are totally friendly instead of their usual raid happy selves, whether they had the [CAN_SPEAK] or [INTELLIGENT] tokens.

[assimilateur]

I removed [intelligent] replacing it with [can_civ] and [can_learn]. I then started the game with invaders:no and played like that for several years. After I switched to invaders:yes I waited until next year - because this sort of thing gets calculated at a year's start - and the next spring, BAM!, "a vile force of darkness has arrived", like clockwork.

In short, I can attest that this thing works as long as you're willing to "sacrifice" their ability to speak. From what I've seen so far the only differences will be a lower population threshold for them to start sieging and their lack of names. They'll be called "goblin" instead of the usual Smunstu Incestromances, and supposedly get named by the dwarves if they manage to clip anyone.

[MoatMan]

Okay, I really should have read through the thread more carefully before my last post .

So let me see if I have this straight.

[INTELLIGENT] or [CAN_SPEAK] Generally makes a civ friendly,
UNLESS they have [BABYSNATCHER] or [ITEM_THIEF] which makes them hostile by default.

If [CAN_SPEAK] is not there at all or implied they are also permanently hostile.

Sound about right?

[MoatMan]

I removed [intelligent] replacing it with [can_civ] and [can_learn]. I then started the game with invaders:no and played like that for several years. After I switched to invaders:yes I waited until next year - because this sort of thing gets calculated at a year's start - and the next spring, BAM!, "a vile force of darkness has arrived", like clockwork.

In short, I can attest that this thing works as long as you're willing to "sacrifice" their ability to speak. From what I've seen so far the only differences will be a lower population threshold for them to start sieging and their lack of names. They'll be called "goblin" instead of the usual Smunstu Incestromances, and supposedly get named by the dwarves if they manage to clip anyone.

Thanks for the info.


Now I only have a few more questsions.
Without the [CAN_SPEAK] token will they still send small raiding parties before they siege?
If so what triggers the shift between raiding parties and a siege? Fortress value?

Though it seems to be unverified on the wiki, dead dwarves supposedly count towards the requirement of 80 dwarves for sieges (Slowly working my way towards it to test). Also, if you remove the baby snatcher tag you'll get friendly goblins. Baby snatcher races are permanently at war with non-snatcher races.

Replace [INTELLIGENT] with [CAN_CIV] and [CAN_LEARN]. [INTELLIGENT] implies those two, plus [CAN_SPEAK]. Because the current version is bugged (i.e. creatures make peace way too often if they have the ability to communicate), [CAN_SPEAK] often leads to peaceful civs.

Aye. Babysnatchers are permanently at war with non-babysnatchers. Unfortunately, that tag makes them insist on trying to, well, snatch your babies before they'll bother sieging, and there's no way to bypass that stage. So you can either have guaranteed war with a non-speaking civ in the first summer, or guaranteed war with a speaking civ after a few years.

Again, thanks.

Am I right to assume a war means a siege?
And how would I get a guaranteed war with a speaking civ? Or is that guarantee a population above 80?

[assimilateur]

Without the [CAN_SPEAK] token will they still send small raiding parties before they siege?
If so what triggers the shift between raiding parties and a siege? Fortress value?

I wouldn't know because at the time I had re-enabled invaders my fortress value was rather high; probably too high for just ambushes.

That said, vanilla goblins are supposed to require a pop of 80 dwarves before they siege you, though I don't know to what extent that is set in stone. Perhaps a high fortress value can override that population requirement, or it was the lack of [babysnatcher] that made them siege my ass at ~50 dwarves.

I'm forced to guess here because I hadn't tested this out too thoroughly until I went ahead and modded my goblins. It would be nice if modding their [babysnatcher] and [can_speak] status was superfluous, because I'd like them to have their usual wacky names.

[MoatMan]

Without the [CAN_SPEAK] token will they still send small raiding parties before they siege?
If so what triggers the shift between raiding parties and a siege? Fortress value?

I wouldn't know because at the time I had re-enabled invaders my fortress value was rather high; probably too high for just ambushes.

At this point I'm just trying to see if the [BABYSNATCHER] Token is superflous once [CAN_SPEAK] is gone.
That said, vanilla goblins are supposed to require a pop of 80 dwarves before they siege you, though I don't know to what extent that is set in stone. Perhaps a high fortress value can override that population requirement, or it was the lack of [babysnatcher] that made them siege my ass at ~50 dwarves.

I'm forced to guess here because I hadn't tested this out too thoroughly until I went ahead and modded my goblins. It would be nice if modding their [babysnatcher] and [can_speak] status was superfluous, because I'd like them to have their usual wacky names.

Goblins sieged you with less than 80 Dwarves?
Where they missing  the [BABYSNATCHER] and [CANSPEAK] tokens?

How where they modded?

[assimilateur]

Yes, [CAN_SPEAK] and [BABYSNATCHER] was exactly what they were missing.

I had also multiplied my gobs (made 4 different entities/civs based on the goblin race), but that's hardly relevant.

[MoatMan]

Yes, [CAN_SPEAK] and [BABYSNATCHER] was exactly what they were missing.

I had also multiplied my gobs (made 4 different entities/civs based on the goblin race), but that's hardly relevant.

Cool that pretty  much wraps it up.

One last note, for anyone who's lurking, I'm gussing the    
[PROGRESS_TRIGGER_POPULATION:2]
and
[PROGRESS_TRIGGER_PRODUCTION:2]

In the goblins entity entry MIGHT determine when they siege or raid, one referring to population, the other to wealth but I'm not sure. Its not in the entity token list on the wiki anyway.

Also, should we fix the [BABYSNATCHER] definition on the wiki?

[assimilateur]

Aw Jeez, forgot about that part. I've also switched [PROGRESS_TRIGGER_POPULATION:2] to [1] while leaving the production thing at default.

Right now I'm thinking that this might conceivably be enough to trigger low pop sieges without even removing their propensity for babysnatching and speech, but we'd need someone to test this.

[MoatMan]

Aw Jeez, forgot about that part. I've also switched [PROGRESS_TRIGGER_POPULATION:2] to [1] while leaving the production thing at default.

Right now I'm thinking that this might conceivably be enough to trigger low pop sieges without even removing their propensity for babysnatching and speech, but we'd need someone to test this.

EDIT: Looks like that first time was something of a coincidence. The medium and small maps I gened had no waring goblins but two out of four small maps I gened had at least one warring goblin civ. I guess the jury is still out.

Looks like this might be the case. I gened a small world with  goblins with a 1 population trigger and the fortress finder mode shows every goblin civ is at war with the Dwarves.

I've modded my goblins a little bit but only in the ethics (Making them kill each other less) and site tolerance categories.

[sev]

Though it seems to be unverified on the wiki, dead dwarves supposedly count towards the requirement of 80 dwarves for sieges (Slowly working my way towards it to test).

Interesting.  My current fort has 73 live dwarves and 18 dead ones, so I've got fewer than 80 alive, more than 80 if you count deceased.  I've been in this state for about a year and a half, and haven't seen a siege.  Lots of ambushes, so I know they can get here.

So, so far, I can't verify this claim either.