Print

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

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

And thats worldgen time. You only do that very infrequently, so it taking even an hour or two isn't a big deal. Remember, the end goal is that you don't gen new worlds every game, but keep re-using the same one.

That'd be great if we were at that end goal already, but in the actual world, you need to generate multiple worlds to find good sites, especially if you're picky and want something rare, like a site with easy-accessible magma and flux. The lack of a functioning site finder makes this particularly annoying.

[Baughn]

I doubt the current level of sprawl is intentional. Given a bit of tuning of the algorithms, we'll probably be back to something more reasonable.

[Rose]

just like the current level of minerals isn't intentional >_>

[James.Denholm]

Allegedly.

[Vercingetorix]

I kind of like the sprawl as is myself, although it should be easily adjustable in worldgen (although I imagine upping savagery or other constraints on civilization placement will affect it as well) without necessarily having to start off in a young world.

In general, if civilizations have been expanding over the world for 1,050 years or more I figure most of the good sites have already been settled leaving only the most untamable wildernesses for future expansion...you'll have to make do with what's still left, or, later once we've got a macro-level military take it over from another civilization with ensuing consequences.

[zwei]

It seems that humans can immigrate to your fort in 31.13. Whoa.

[sockless]

Hmm, the amount of minerals isn't meant to be intentional? So in a 10m^3 space I'm not meant to have enough iron ore to make 10 large iron statues? The amount of metals in this game is ridiculous. I've never had any problems at all finding any iron ore.

[Cruxador]

I doubt the current level of sprawl is intentional. Given a bit of tuning of the algorithms, we'll probably be back to something more reasonable.

What's unreasonable about the current level of sprawl?

[Tormy]

I doubt the current level of sprawl is intentional. Given a bit of tuning of the algorithms, we'll probably be back to something more reasonable.

+1

[Chromasphere]

And thats worldgen time. You only do that very infrequently, so it taking even an hour or two isn't a big deal. Remember, the end goal is that you don't gen new worlds every game, but keep re-using the same one.

That'd be great if we were at that end goal already, but in the actual world, you need to generate multiple worlds to find good sites, especially if you're picky and want something rare, like a site with easy-accessible magma and flux. The lack of a functioning site finder makes this particularly annoying.

Yes, but we are in the middle of a construction project.  I agree with sasQuatch.  At some point, we'll have to have some 'inconveniences'.  I don't think it's realistic to expect Toady to work toward implementing end goals AND make it perfectly fun all the way through the process as well.  So, if one of the end goals is having a longer worldgen, which is not unreasonable, then we should expect worldgens to take longer and longer as Toady 'constructs' DF.  Of course, I could just be flapping my dwarven-grog-numbed limps.

[Untelligent]

And thats worldgen time. You only do that very infrequently, so it taking even an hour or two isn't a big deal. Remember, the end goal is that you don't gen new worlds every game, but keep re-using the same one.

Maybe I WANT a new world infrequently, but it generally takes me a couple dozen tries to get a fort I want. And I like large worlds.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Then lower your standards.

[MaDeR Levap]

To be fair, sprawl = claimed teritory for given civilization. This is probably why embark option is turned off. Of course, if even your own civilization have unembarkable sprawl, cause of this bug must be more complicated.

I would propose this to fix it:

• Near term: just much, much slower sprawl.
• Far term - implementing diseases and plagues that will sometime kill off half of nearby civs. Of course, for DF player, it will be hilarious. Plagues erupt more often within proper spheres (deformity, diseases, death etc). Nice reason to war between entities that normally does not fight between themselves BTW!
• Embarking on sprawl: allowable, but in not your civ, then you have permament war with civ that controls this territory. Of course, before embark program will warn about it. Another nice way to adjust difficulty level! Bored with DF? Embark next to human village, kill off these pesky peasants and be ready to ambushes from beginning and sieges as soon as you hit 80.

[jei]

It seems that humans can immigrate to your fort in 31.13. Whoa.

How do I get them to do that!?

[Mel_Vixen]

It seems that humans can immigrate to your fort in 31.13. Whoa.

How do I get them to do that!?

Happens when a Dwarf takesover a human town i think. This is far more likely now with the exploding population.

To be fair, sprawl = claimed teritory for given civilization. This is probably why embark option is turned off. Of course, if even your own civilization have unembarkable sprawl, cause of this bug must be more complicated.

[...]

IIrc i did read a bugreport on the release thread that says that you cant embark on fields etc. that belong to ruins/abandoned villages. Wild sprawl wasnt and claiming of land wasnt that uncommon thought back then. The people hadnt a so big nationality thinkage then we today and the orders between to countrys werent that well defined in reality then on paper.

I say you should be able to embark on forreign land with some consequences like paying taxes or whatever. Depending on the distance to strategic or economical stuff the consequences could differ.