Print

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

[G-Flex]

stuff

Dude. Chill.

[Joakim]

Agree with the psychology stuff.

I think at least Master or a very high level should be reachable by training (with teacher, etc.) alone but at a much slower rate than currently, i.e. five years or something. Then they can have a "battle-hardened" skill that can only increase in miniscule amounts through civilian life (barfights ,  somewhat more in an arena and significantly only against real enemies. A captured goblin can be regarded as a nerfed enemy regardless if released again, so only fresh enemies counts as a real fight.
So only a battle-hardened dwarf will get enraged, civilians will drop their gear, wet their beard and flee. With personality related exceptions, of course. And modified by dwarf/enemy ratio and all the thousand details that make DF fun!

[Pilsu]

I think at least Master or a very high level should be reachable by training (with teacher, etc.) alone

Why?

[Byakugan01]

Because that denotes a skill level. It does not denote combat experience. Combat experience and your proficiency (that is, skill level) in a given form of combat are not one and the same. You can be extremely skilled in the use of a weapon, but not have any practical experience in applying that weapon to combat. Even so, you can wield the weapon/perform the techniques of the martial art (and believe it or not, there ARE modern-day military martial arts) with ease. It might not be as good as having actual combat experience with a weapon, but it certainly does not mean you aren't extremely skilled. And of course, if someone with only combat experience comes up against someone who has both combat experience and has trained in the use of a specific weapon (and not via the DIY style of training), then my bet is on the guy who has somewhat less combat experience but greater proficiency in their weapon. And you know what, if a dwarf has the right personality, not having combat experience might  not matter too much-if they take joy in slaughter/are somewhat psychopathic, then they might actually perform almost as well as a battle-hardened veteran since they would not be bothered by what they see. The main problem in applying what you learn to practical use would be the fact that, let's face it, war is ugly. Dealing with the psychological part of the deal is the biggest obstacle; before the U.S. military revamped its training methods, a study found that only around 25% (might be underestimating it) of the men in the field would actually shoot at the enemy. This was back in WW1, of course; by 'nam, the ratio had gone up dramatically.

BTW, hunting was considered a way for nobility to keep their combat skills sharp in times of peace, so even regular hunting and non-notable kills should count towards combat experience.

What I said about civilians having military skills is a simple extension of what you suggested, pilsu. Eventually, armies are going to come from world gen and actual members of the nations, and potentially every member of a civ could be drafted as a member of the military. Therefore, if all their soldiers have adept skills, then by logical extension their civilian population would also have it. This goes double for when civs can keep growing after world gen, since eventually the soldiers of all nations would consist of NPCs born after world gen, who therefore spent some portion of their time in game as peasants (even if it was just 1 turn after they grew up). May I suggest an alternative? Have nations at war or on bad terms with other nations ramp up the training of their military, in proportion to the length of time the conflict has gone on.

I know about history, and also know that it would lead to the ruin of both nations economically long-term. But if you are able to manipulate events just right, you could manage to create two nations with strong warriors (or at least enough for your satisfication), arrange it so they are at peace, let them recover (during which the new elite men should be training up better-than average recruits), go to war with them AFTER they recover, wash, rinse, repeat. Alternately, give a militaristic nation control of an important point on a trade route-they should be able to expand pretty rapidly once they start benefitting from it (though that will have to wait until the caravan arc).

I actually think it would be a simple addition to the generator to at least make elite soldiers better able to make judgement calls for the purposes of attacking and retreating, based upon what they can see within their line of sight. And the idea of a scouting party would be based simply on how long it took for the "feelers" to be killed/how many of them were killed. BTW, I do believe NPCS will eventually be able to dig, so they might be able to accidentally hit your cistern/river that way.

Edit 2: That's why I used the comparison of someone who is both battle hardened and skilled in weapon/shield using vs someone with just battle hardening. BTW, part of the problem is also the huge bonuses to stats, and especially speed, that long-time champions rack up as they learn more weapon skills.

[Granite26]

Anything that doesn't model the fact the elite fencers lose to untrained people because they do 'unexpected' things is inherently flawed.

There's a difference between a highly trained individual that usually wins, and a hardened vet who know defense first, then offense

[Neonivek]

Well remember that Dwarf Fortress has a hint of the epic in it as well. In War even a master could lose to skilless peons if they are in great enougb numbers.

So the real question isn't so much "Should a Dwarf become a Master through training?" as it is "Should a Dwarf become Epic through training?"

[Tormy]

I think at least Master or a very high level should be reachable by training (with teacher, etc.) alone

Why?

Pilsu, are you arguing about the good old "combat/field experience vs. skill level gained via training" again? IIRC we've talked about this more times already. I think that field experience should be the most important thing in regard to reaching high levels in a given weapon skill. I am not sure about the "caps" however. Perhaps this could work:

Group 1: "Talented" skill level should be obtainable via self training.
Novice
Competent
Skilled 
Proficient 
Talented
 
Group 2: "Accomplished" skill level should be obtainable via training with a teacher.
Adept 
Expert 
Professional
Accomplished 

Group 3: All of these should be only obtainable via participating in battles/fights. IE: Combat experience. [Obviously shooting at living + moving & armoured targets is much harder than shooting at training dummies]
Great 
Master 
High Master
Grand Master
Legendary
Legendary+1
Legendary+2
Legendary+3 
Legendary+4
Legendary+5

[Neonivek]

You know

It would make sense to me if Dwarves who reach the High Master status can leave the fortress to obtain their own ends.

[Felblood]

I am so sick of every interesting thread about combat balance getting derailed by the old Training vs. Combat Experience debate. (*cough* Both are important, caps rob the game of it's epic fantasy feel, and it's already too fast and easy to max out skills, robbing the player of a proper sense of progression and achievement.*cough*)

As to the actual topic of this thread, here's my take:

Currently, the only reasons a competently run fortress will lose dwarves to goblins is the monumental stupidity of the dwarves, or a large quantity of bowgoblins. Chief among these stupidities is guards abandoning their posts at semi-random intervals, leaving civilians exposed to ambushers or even raiders.

The new squad controls we're getting will remove this particular vexation, and the game will be much better for it, however it will not eliminate stupidity based losses. We're still going to have dwarves who try to run through an invasion force to drink from the river, instead of a perfectly serviceable well, for no apparent reason, etc.

I don't think any of us are fully prepared to comment on exactly how the new changes will effect the strength of the typical (or even exceptional) fortress. Our forces will likely have lower overall stats (because there are more of them and the gains will be re-distributed) and better combat equipment. Mega beasts and underground creatures will likely be a much more serious threat, even if the goblins cease to be truly dangerous. There are a lot of variables at play here and many of them are still unknown quantities.

Until such time as the current system of newbie friendly, slowly escalating attacks is replaced by armies, equipment and wars coming out of global populations, stocks and diplomacy, any tweaks made to the numbers, equipment and skills of attackers will be placeholder code, that will eventually require replacing, and thus be redundant work. Adding any more work to the next release, regardless of how much it might be needed in the long run, wouldn't make a lot of financial sense for Bay12.

If your vision of goblins doesn't align with Toady's raws, or if you just can't wait for a more hardcore experience, then that's why the raws are there. I would personally find it acceptable if DF came with two sets of vanilla raws, one for new players and a second one for experienced player, so challenge seekers could still play with "official" raws, but I don't think that that would represent optimal use of Toady's time, as there are already plenty of difficulty enhanced raws available.

If the vanilla goblins are to be enhanced, I'd much rather that it be in a way that has longer lasting value and entrenches them as a unique part of the world. Regardless of whether they need to be stonger, turning goblins into green, beardless dwarves (elite battalions with high grade equipment vs. huge hordes of poorly armed conscripts) is not the answer. Giving goblins new pets or a combat state, similar to martial trance, but also very different(perhaps it only triggers if they are fleeing and find themselves cut off, or something), would make them more interesting, than simply giving them better crafted gear (which increases the already too-high value of their dropped armor).

[LordNagash]

I'd just like to point out that your own military will no longer be a group of super heroes, demolishing enemies left and right.

With the new system of attribute gains linked to tasks, attribute gain will be a lot slower. Not to mention the fact that there is going to be a default cap of 300% increase on attributes as well, according to a recent answer in the future of the fortress thread.

I guess what I'm saying is, maybe we should actually /see/ the new version before we start listing problems with it that may or may not exist?

[Organ]

Warlord255 said this on the first page, and I think it bears repeating: goblins themselves may be weaker, but their advantage is the training and utilization of all manner of terrible cave creatures, which we're sure to see more of in the future.

[Pilsu]

It might not be as good as having actual combat experience with a weapon, but it certainly does not mean you aren't extremely skilled

You would be able to train up to Expert. Would you seriously say that doesn't count as "extremely skilled"? After that come Professional, Accomplished, Great, Master, High Master, Grand Master and of course, Legendary, none of which really fit some chump with no experience in real battle. Those ranks should be earned, not just attained by rubbing your friends on a tarmac. It'd actually make the higher ranks mean something too

Psychological hardening is already in the game, the lack of it just doesn't have the morale effects it should. That and killing bunnies makes you stop caring about anything

BTW, hunting was considered a way for nobility to keep their combat skills sharp in times of peace, so even regular hunting and non-notable kills should count towards combat experience.

Going by what you said, it'd just prevent the skills from becoming dull, not increase them. A substitute for continued fruitless sparring I guess

armies are going to come from world gen and actual members of the nations, and potentially every member of a civ could be drafted as a member of the military. Therefore, if all their soldiers have adept skills, then by logical extension their civilian population would also have it

Yeah, like all Americans have the skills of a marine. Anyone could be drafted but it usually doesn't come to that

As for Tormy, I drew the line for self-training at Competent since Skilled and above does seem to imply what you're doing. Just sort of practicing with a novice friend wouldn't make you very good. At the very least it should stop at Skilled, Proficient by definition is going too far

Accomplished should imply you know, accomplishment in the field. Not just training. Before that is Professional which I think is an appropriate line for becoming Elite and thus, undraftable. You know, a professional soldier

Felblood, NPCs will inevitably have higher skill levels and better equipment quality. The effort would not be wasted. Even if the worldgen has to spend time "training" the conscripts, they'll still show up more skilled. Even if you don't think that is the case, equipment quality being determined by the civ's craftsmanship level would not clash with the future. It's not a placeholder, having suggested for raws to have an [-armor-] tag would be

Improved troop controls will almost entirely eliminate the stupidity you mention. You can't really complain about deaths if you have proper control over your army. Civilian behavior is predictable and since the implementation of the forbid on drop global command, there's no real reason to complain about them being stupid. You can't realistically demand that army development be put on hold until Toady singlehandedly codes a functional AI when we already have the tools to prevent stupid behavior

[Byakugan01]

You make a good point about the expert ranking. Hunting though, if you think about it, could increase skill on its own, particularly if you're trying to shoot a small, fast moving target with a crossbow. Not quite the same as playing pin the goblin, but it should get the job done for the bow skills at least.

World gen-and post world gen-training of recruits would make sense. You would inevitably encounter only the less experienced, greener elements of an attacking civ by default if they are hostile to you at the start and don't know your strength. After all, why send the elite to crush the small, backwater outpost when the rabble might suffice? The late could well be assumed to be defending their own front or leading an attack on some other, larger outpost.  when it doesn't, then they start to take you more seriously. Craftsmanship of a civ should be taken into account, and in fact might eventually lead to missions in adventure mode to assasinate or bring back a civ's best craftsmen, or being able to issue such a mission to NPC adventurers yourself (if/when they make it in).

Regardless though, I am interested in seeing how attribute gains will work in the next version with the modifications today has done to the system.

[alfie275]

Maybe make it so goblin invaders recieve more equipment over time, maybe upto dragon riders? Oh I had brilliant idea: goblins on (canvas?) gliders, Only way to stop them is to shoot them down, but shooting their body won't be that effective, you should aim for their glider wings.

[Pilsu]

How do you avoid abuse if you don't cap XP gains from hunting though?

Goblins becoming arbitrarily better equipped over time is pretty video gamey. But yeah, the first goblin incursions probably would be competent raiders/scouts at most