Print

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

[Myr0ku]

When the next release will be unleashed, i suppose theire will be a lot of bugs, and many updates will be released in the next months.
So, will i be forced to recreate a whole world at each new patches ? Or simply the new game and keep my save...
Not sure of the righteousness of my langage, but the fact is i'm not English Speaker

[Baughn]

Using 'righteousness' in that manner makes up for all of it. Even if it's wrong.

Anyway, no, you will almost certainly not need to create new games between patches.

You may even be able to keep using your current save, though you'll be missing out on a lot of new features if you do that.

[Footkerchief]

When the next release will be unleashed, i suppose theire will be a lot of bugs, and many updates will be released in the next months.
So, will i be forced to recreate a whole world at each new patches ? Or simply the new game and keep my save...
Not sure of the righousness of my langage, but the fact is i'm not English Speaker

It depends.  Saves from the upcoming release will be compatible with following releases, but occasionally certain bug fixes (or new features) can't be applied to a preexisting world/fortress, and if you want to use the changes, you'll have to generate a new world.

You may even be able to keep using your current save, though you'll be missing out on a lot of new features if you do that.

Nope, it was confirmed that current saves will not be compatible with the upcoming release:

There was a bit of a discussion about save compatibility.  I think in this release we've been moving slowly in the direction of it being practically impossible... and crossed that line a while ago.  Between the map changes and all the interaction stuff, it's not going to be feasible time-wise to keep things operating smoothly in old saves.

[Myr0ku]

OK, thanks, i searched a bit, and i fugured righteousness was not the good term...
Yes, i'll surely create a new world, because i don't want to miss citys and ruins (if i well understood, there will be ruins, no ?)

[Footkerchief]

OK, thanks, i searched a bit, and i fugured righteousness was not the good term...
Yes, i'll surely create a new world, because i don't want to miss citys and ruins (if i well understood, there will be ruins, no ?)

Yes, ruins are confirmed:

Are we going to have ghost towns/ruins?

There are ruins with ruined buildings at times now, though they tend to resettle the old sites if they can.  Many towns can be in a bust state at this point, in which case a lot of the buildings are in bad shape if they aren't occupied.

The next version will also have pyramids, catacombs, tombs, and other creepy places to adventure in.

[Owlbread]

Will the militia be able to leave the fortress and attack other sites in the future, or will that be completely restricted to the army?

Does this question presuppose that the Army Arc will split the current military into a militia and a regular army?  Because I don't think that's guaranteed.  If it did, you'll probably still be able to use the militia for off-site attacks.

The split already exists, though - a civ-wide army, and site-based militia, at least in terms of entity positions. Not that we see much of that.

Oh right, those entity positions.  My hiatus is showing.

My understanding of the situation with the military is that there is a civ-wide army (as Knight Otu has said) that you can gain control of if you get a Monarch. That would allow you to create generals, captains and so on. As Knight Otu has said, militias would be confined to sites, which means that when "retiring fortresses" and so on is implemented, you could create a fortress, create a militia, develop it to the status of a capital city (or something like that) then create new outposts throughout your empire. Although your capital has the original army and can attack sites, your new little outposts would have their own militias too that they could raise. I was just wondering whether or not those militias in the outposts could leave the site and attack a neighbouring goblin fortress that's giving them hassle just the same way as the civ-wide army can. So you think that would be possible? It might be important in the future - if you've embarked on another continent to your home civilisation, that might leave your dwarves isolated.

[ragman le bon]

If playing a dwarf in Adventure mode, will you need alcohol to get through the working day?

[Putnam]

If playing a dwarf in Adventure mode, will you need alcohol to get through the working day?

If this release doesn't have it, a future one most certainly will

It'll probably come around the same time that you can buy alcohol at stores

[darkflagrance]

Will the new mists that occasionally waft over the landscape be creatable with reactions? Will they still work if temperature is turned off in the init file?

I envision custom workshops where Dwarven War Chemists produce vile fumes to overwhelm goblin attackers from recessed grills next to entrance walkways, or stained distillery rooms filled with noxious gasses that suffocate their workers over time, infect them with incurable degenerative disorders, and, left uncontained, spell the doom of a fortress and the sterilization of the embark for reclaim efforts.

[Kriby]

Guh. Pockets of noxious mists sealed in the rock.

[Scarpa]

We'd have to use canaries nobles in the (bituminous) coal mines.

[Cruxador]

When the next release will be unleashed, i suppose theire will be a lot of bugs, and many updates will be released in the next months.
So, will i be forced to recreate a whole world at each new patches ? Or simply the new game and keep my save...
Not sure of the righteousness of my langage, but the fact is i'm not English Speaker

OK, thanks, i searched a bit, and i fugured righteousness was not the good term...
Yes, i'll surely create a new world, because i don't want to miss citys and ruins (if i well understood, there will be ruins, no ?)

You'll get cities and ruins, as well as new undead and monsters (vampires, werewolves) and mummy tombs.

Your English is understandable just fine, but the grammar is not very good. "Righteousness" doesn't mean that, as people said. You could use "rightness", but it's not exactly a normal way to phrase it anyway. It would be more normal to say "not sure if my language is right".
You say "i" as a word, that should always be capitalized as "I".
You should not have a space before the "?".
"Theire" isn't a word, there are two words, "there" and "their". The one to use that time would be "there". "their" means something owned by "them". There's also "they're" which is short for "they are".
"fugured" is spelled wrong, should be "figured".

Otherwise you are using English well. Since you use it well enough that everyone can understand, you only need to keep using it and reading in English and your grammar will get better until nobody could tell you're not a native speaker.

[bombzero]

When the next release will be unleashed, i suppose theire will be a lot of bugs, and many updates will be released in the next months.
So, will i be forced to recreate a whole world at each new patches ? Or simply the new game and keep my save...
Not sure of the righteousness of my langage, but the fact is i'm not English Speaker

OK, thanks, i searched a bit, and i fugured righteousness was not the good term...
Yes, i'll surely create a new world, because i don't want to miss citys and ruins (if i well understood, there will be ruins, no ?)

You'll get cities and ruins, as well as new undead and monsters (vampires, werewolves) and mummy tombs.

Your English is understandable just fine, but the grammar is not very good. "Righteousness" doesn't mean that, as people said. You could use "rightness", but it's not exactly a normal way to phrase it anyway. It would be more normal to say "not sure if my language is right".
You say "i" as a word, that should always be capitalized as "I".
You should not have a space before the "?".
"Theire" isn't a word, there are two words, "there" and "their". The one to use that time would be "there". "their" means something owned by "them". There's also "they're" which is short for "they are".
"fugured" is spelled wrong, should be "figured".

Otherwise you are using English well. Since you use it well enough that everyone can understand, you only need to keep using it and reading in English and your grammar will get better until nobody could tell you're not a native speaker.

i often forget to capItalIze i even though i know i should as It is Important to capItalIze your i's.

[Niccolo]

i often forget to capItalIze i even though i know i should as It is Important to capItalIze your i's.

Now that's just plain cruel. Don't confuse the poor guy.

[KillHour]

Your English is understandable just fine, but the grammar is not very good. "Righteousness" doesn't mean that, as people said. You could use "rightness", but it's not exactly a normal way to phrase it
...

"Rightness" refers to a state of being, so it wouldn't be appropriate.

A better word would probably be "correct" or "correctly", as in "Am I correct in the usage of my grammar?" (which is a passive sentence) or "Am I using my grammar correctly?" (which is an active sentence, and more common).