Print

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

[Putnam]

I think it's two braids braided around each other.

[DG]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Urist_McArathos]

My apologies if this has been asked before: I could not find a reference to it with my searching.

Are there plans to allow you to eventually "retire" a fortress, and then found another?  For example, you build a mining fortress, then retire it and it becomes part of your civ instead of an abandoned site for reclamation, then you can found another one somewhere else, essentially building your kingdom up?  Or those migrants you may be able to send on missions, maybe you take control of them and start a new fortress?  Also, any plans to allow reclamation of lost cities/sites in your civ's history?

I assume that if this idea is in the works, or in order for it to be, more work would have to be done on citizens being a part of the legends and history, not just randomly generated migrants.  Also, cities and sites that have been created in the past would need a set structure, and other details.  I was just wondering since, at the moment, it seems like civs rise and fall INDEPENDENTLY of player actions, and your fortresses are nothing but brief establishments doomed to fail (since leaving them results in abandonment).  With trade and armies coming, it would seem like a natural progression that you can have a greater impact on your civ.

[Cruxador]

My apologies if this has been asked before: I could not find a reference to it with my searching.

Are there plans to allow you to eventually "retire" a fortress, and then found another?  For example, you build a mining fortress, then retire it and it becomes part of your civ instead of an abandoned site for reclamation, then you can found another one somewhere else, essentially building your kingdom up?  Or those migrants you may be able to send on missions, maybe you take control of them and start a new fortress?  Also, any plans to allow reclamation of lost cities/sites in your civ's history?

I assume that if this idea is in the works, or in order for it to be, more work would have to be done on citizens being a part of the legends and history, not just randomly generated migrants.  Also, cities and sites that have been created in the past would need a set structure, and other details.  I was just wondering since, at the moment, it seems like civs rise and fall INDEPENDENTLY of player actions, and your fortresses are nothing but brief establishments doomed to fail (since leaving them results in abandonment).  With trade and armies coming, it would seem like a natural progression that you can have a greater impact on your civ.

The issue with this is that some things that work in the fortress mode don't work so well in the more abstracted mechanics of a fortress that the player isn't present for. A lot of people want this, but until a solution can be found for that it's not going in.

[Urist_McArathos]

I'm wondering what the issues are?  I'm envisioning, in the scenario I mentioned, that the game would store the wealth, inventory, and structures built in your fortress (like it does when you fail and need to reclaim), and then just...doesn't build any further.  Basically, it would be like any other site during world gen.  The dwarves age, breed, and die as they would during world gen, invasions may or may not come (as in world gen), and life just goes on while you move on to another fortress.

I know the FIRST obvious hurdle is writing the game so that time can continue to move forward and affect the retired fortress.  It would also be nigh impossible if migrants continue to be random dwarves instead of members of the existing legends timeline; how does one fold into the history of the world creatures that literally appeared out of thin air one summer?  I can't understand what other issues or hurdles there would be, but I am not saying there aren't any; I'm simply stating that I am ignorant of the problems and hurdles involved.

I also won't say they "should be easy enough to fix down the line" (I tend to see that assumption made on a lot of suggestions), because I truly have no clue.  It's a feature that I for one dearly want, and just wanted an idea of whether or not it was even being considered as a long term goal, or was possible.

[Cruxador]

The only specific issue I can remember is that people build some complicated things with fluids that wouldn't work, like magma defenses and mist generators and god knows what, and the dwarves won't know to use those.

[Urist_McArathos]

Makes sense; I personally don't see why they'd need to be used behind the scenes, at least in the way I'm imagining it would work.

Of course, if the game does take into account defenses dwarves know how to use (and those things don't get fixed), I could see a LOT of fortresses that are perfectly defensible as player forts suddenly being overrun by goblins as the AI would forget to enable the magma trap and have an army of copper-clad recruits.

[Niccolo]

Of course, if the game does take into account defenses dwarves know how to use (and those things don't get fixed), I could see a LOT of fortresses that are perfectly defensible as player forts suddenly being overrun by goblins as the AI would forget to enable the magma trap and have an army of copper-clad recruits.

And then the goblins keep that fortress and stage raids on any nearby dwarven fortresses. Can you imagine Goblin swordmasters with candy swords invading?

[Footkerchief]

My apologies if this has been asked before: I could not find a reference to it with my searching.

Are there plans to allow you to eventually "retire" a fortress, and then found another?  For example, you build a mining fortress, then retire it and it becomes part of your civ instead of an abandoned site for reclamation, then you can found another one somewhere else, essentially building your kingdom up?  Or those migrants you may be able to send on missions, maybe you take control of them and start a new fortress?  Also, any plans to allow reclamation of lost cities/sites in your civ's history?

I assume that if this idea is in the works, or in order for it to be, more work would have to be done on citizens being a part of the legends and history, not just randomly generated migrants.  Also, cities and sites that have been created in the past would need a set structure, and other details.  I was just wondering since, at the moment, it seems like civs rise and fall INDEPENDENTLY of player actions, and your fortresses are nothing but brief establishments doomed to fail (since leaving them results in abandonment).  With trade and armies coming, it would seem like a natural progression that you can have a greater impact on your civ.

There have been a lot of threads dedicated to this idea:

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=53896.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=45086.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=19689.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=3326.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=3841.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=29331.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=30750.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=5717.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=6233.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=21353.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=3744.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=19905.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=23487.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=3726.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=3017.0 (includes comment from Toady)
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=54905.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=69685.0

Spoiler: tags (click to show/hide)

retire retiring fortress fortresses abandon abandoning abandonment reclaim reclaiming

[Karakzon]

you would have to have a defence AI that recognised pathing, levers and their functions and the implacations of said functions and so on. something very complex. Know how drawbridges work, were and when to deploy the infantry, deploying marksdorfs, handling the injured. release of pets or war animals and the resetting of said trap. considering, it would take a wile to code and take up some cpu to run, but it is conceivable to get a defence AI for a fortress that wouldnt kill everyone in said fort sometime in future. Only problem is that someone could take such an AI and use it in fortress mode or some such.

[stolide]

you would have to have a defence AI that recognised pathing, levers and their functions and the implacations of said functions and so on. something very complex. Know how drawbridges work, were and when to deploy the infantry, deploying marksdorfs, handling the injured. release of pets or war animals and the resetting of said trap. considering, it would take a wile to code and take up some cpu to run, but it is conceivable to get a defence AI for a fortress that wouldnt kill everyone in said fort sometime in future. Only problem is that someone could take such an AI and use it in fortress mode or some such.

Toady could put in some very basic instructions that you could give a dwarf, perhaps just any dwarf through the manager.

Something like "On siege, wait 50 steps, pull lever 11." Lever 11 being the level that seals the fort.

I don't know how hard that would be, but it sounds like it would not be too complicated. If the game allowed said instructions to last after you leave the fort without abandoning it, you could have a fort that would be able to make rudimentary use of whatever nonsense the player builds.

Personally, I would like something like that for the sole purpose of removing some micromanagement. If it were extended with a large list of events to trigger it, and potential actions, you could have a mostly automated fortress.

[Cruxador]

Since Toady seems to not be blueing things on the dev page, let's speculate about what stuff will become blue or purple upon release.

"Grazing and Drinking for Livestock" should already be purple already since grazing was added in fort mode, but it isn't.

Under Markets:
"Small markets associated to entity population villages" should certainly be green by the time this is done, although I don't know if Toady's done everything he wanted to with them yet.
"Markets need to replenish goods and manage ownership changes" may well be green too. I don't know about ownership changes.

Under Villains, we could get some purple from necromancers.

Under adventure sites:
"Non-town sites need to created and used for various purposes in world generation (prisons, tombs, temples, mines, castles, etc.)" should be purple, we'll get everything but mines added.

Under Night Creatures and the Undead:
"Replace skeletons and zombies with generalized generated types of creature corruption/undeath etc." I think should be green. If Toady considers some not yet completed night creature stuff to fall under this, it'll at least be purple.
"Causes -- existing from the beginning, death circumstances, being cursed, focusing on specific historical figures at first" purple
"Goals, if any, as individuals, even if it is murdering or mutilating wayfarers in the woods" Vampires have some of this, so purple.
"Weaknesses, restrictions on movement, other limitations" Purple. No restrictions on movement yet, as far as I'm aware.

Under Torment the Living:
"Night creatures must act out their goals during play" I think green
"Some victims can end up drained as subvillains or slaves in the same way a bandit leader has subordinates" I think green, at least purple, because vampires.

Under Curses and Exposure:
"Can be cursed by night creatures when you put them down" probably purple since I think Toady wanted to do more with this.

A couple questions that arose from rereading the dev page:
Will we get population sprawl with farms and whatnot growing up around adventurer-created sites?
I feel like that should happen based on the adventurer's reputation and what stuff the site actually includes.
Will merchants come to adventurer sites?
It would be a good reward that makes sense for building a nice site, both traveling caravans like in Dwarf mode and potentially markets formed by the population.

[EnigmaticHat]

you would have to have a defence AI that recognised pathing, levers and their functions and the implacations of said functions and so on. something very complex. Know how drawbridges work, were and when to deploy the infantry, deploying marksdorfs, handling the injured. release of pets or war animals and the resetting of said trap. considering, it would take a wile to code and take up some cpu to run, but it is conceivable to get a defence AI for a fortress that wouldnt kill everyone in said fort sometime in future. Only problem is that someone could take such an AI and use it in fortress mode or some such.

Toady could put in some very basic instructions that you could give a dwarf, perhaps just any dwarf through the manager.

Something like "On siege, wait 50 steps, pull lever 11." Lever 11 being the level that seals the fort.

I don't know how hard that would be, but it sounds like it would not be too complicated. If the game allowed said instructions to last after you leave the fort without abandoning it, you could have a fort that would be able to make rudimentary use of whatever nonsense the player builds.

Personally, I would like something like that for the sole purpose of removing some micromanagement. If it were extended with a large list of events to trigger it, and potential actions, you could have a mostly automated fortress.

There are several problems with relying on instructions like that.  First, that requires that the player is very smart and can anticipate every outcome.  For example, the above command would seal the farmers and hunters outside, something the player would know to avoid but the AI wouldn't.  And what if a random tantrum killed the lever?  Or the dwarf that was supposed to pull the lever died?  A fort run by predetermined instructions would be doomed, because even if the instructions were really thoughtful as the situation changed they would make less and less sense.

Likewise, that sort of control lends itself to a lot of exploits and unrealistic behavior.  For example, the player could put all the fort's valuables in a vault, set the dwarves to open the vault to the outside when a bunch of obscure conditions were met, then come back as an adventurer, trigger the conditions, and get rich for nothing.  Or, using a similar trick, get the dwarves to stockpile their equipiment and then seal themselves in small rooms, then come in and get a bunch of experience beating them to death.

If you ask me, a better idea is simply to wait.  Players forts right now rely on a lot of defenses that shouldn't work; literally unstoppable automated defenses, unbreakable walls, magma that never cools and can be easily pumped, small farms that provide infinite food from inside the fortress, ect.  As these things are made more realistic and the siege AI gets smarter, actual fights between soldiers should matter more, and the AI's job becomes easier; it just needs to know where to put the soldiers, a much easier task then knowing when to pull the lever.  And, it won't matter quite so much if the AI screws up the trap portion of the defenses.

[darkflagrance]

If the game simulated retired forts as forts still in progress, you'd slow down the game ridiculously.

Rather, I predict that retired forts, should the functionality be added to DF, will:

-randomly generate items depending on workshops and craftsdwarves available and randomly export non-artifact worn items
-never mine out or construct any new area
-populate the fort with a random combination of dwarves who were present when the fort was abandoned and dwellers from the fort's surroundings (a feature yet to be implemented)
-randomly place dwarves proximate to places they are likely to be (meeting areas, workshops or farms if appropriate labors are enabled)
-be unable to use complex lever-/timing-based traps without some sort of trigger AI also being implemented (highly unlikely)
-support dwarves based on available underground soil + farming output, and perhaps build additional farms on farmable areas that seeds are available to the civ for.
-battles can be simulated using the worldgen battling algorithm: a forgotten beast or siege can be generated, and then each enemy can be placed into battle with a fortress inhabitant, priority given to fortress inhabitants with military skills.

[Caldfir]

I imagine that all of this is requisite for kingdom-building, which is one of the long term goals of DF.   The caravan arc and army arc are needed to be in place so that worldgen can "continue" once the player starts playing the game.  Once all of that is in place, it becomes more reasonable to talk about building sites and moving on.  In short, we have a long way to go before any of this can be implemented. 

That said, it is (and has been a long time) within reach to have abandoned forts simply "paused," however this seems just as unsatisfactory to me as the current state of affairs, so I would rather wait for development to naturally progress to include this feature than have Toady spend time coding something that would be a very unimpressive placeholder.  Still, dare to dream I guess