Bay 12 Games Forum

Mod in some gold mauls to your entity civ files and you're *cough* golden. Mauls are pretty much the largest blunt weapons in the game with the caveat they are just for bashing things with extreme force. Supply that force and they'll collapse pretty much anything with is my reckoning (i ought to really test this out more in the arena).

*EDIT - I just tried a meagerly equipped ogre with a gold maul vs a bare bronze collossus, in 1v1 combat the ogre managed to deal substantial fractures on the collossus but lost out to wrestling, if i supplied more ogres im sure the collossus could be physically beaten to death.*

Alternatives like morningstars (that are actually edged and simultaneously blunt, like spiked balls) and flails (that are a little bit different but sort of like morning-stars essentially) are good candidates too if you just have spare gold lying around as you'll benefit from the density primarily with a teeny bit of shear.

EDIT - Now the collossus has equipped the maul and is parrying all the equipped ogres i send at it with the maul like it was a fencing sword meanwhile destroying kneecaps.

I'm pretty sure warhammers and maces are superior to mauls.  Lower contact area makes better blunt weapons. 

Huh, could you make more kinds of vampires?  Like maybe instead of drinking blood, there's a booze vampire that drinks too much, or a rust vampire that breaks metal objects (or just iron/steel if being literal) or a vampire that has a steel body or dragonfire breath, suddenly the vampire starts breaking bones and burning things when it gets mad. 

I suppose you could still avoid the exovampires by turtling, but if any are in your fortress before you seal it up, you're in trouble. 

Werebeast epidemics are one of the few things that can really sink one of my fortresses anymore.  It would be interesting to make something which is as virile as werebeasts, but not as immediately dangerous and obvious.  Because if you see a werebeast you react strongly to it, if it were something more tame, you might not choose to divert resources to fix it until it's too late. 

You might be able to add [CAN_STONE] to the ammo to make it out of obsidian like shortswords. 

Here are some reactions for making stone maces and stone sling bullets from Furry Fortress:
[REACTION:STONE_MACE]
[NAME:make stone mace]
[BUILDING:CRAFTSMAN:NONE]
[REAGENT:A:1:STONE:NONE:NONE:NONE][WORTHLESS_STONE_ONLY][PRODUCT:100:1:WEAPON:ITEM_WEAPON_MACE:GET_MATERIAL_FROM_REAGENT:A:NONE]
[SKILL:STONECRAFT]

[REACTION:STONE_BULLETS]
[NAME:make stone bullets]
[BUILDING:CRAFTSMAN:NONE]
[REAGENT:A:1:BOULDER:NONE:NONE:NONE][WORTHLESS_STONE_ONLY]
[PRODUCT:100:10:AMMO:ITEM_AMMO_BULLETS:GET_MATERIAL_FROM_REAGENT:A:NONE]
[SKILL:STONECRAFT]

Oh, that gives me a thought.
Permitting dwarfs to own a weapon can be (theoretically) a real pain in the beard.
Making self-defence a labor makes even more sense as types of weapons permitted for civilian use can be defined via the same routine as ammunition is currently defined for hunting/training/combat.

But if self-defense is a labor, you would have a bunch of dwarves just doing self-defense instead of other jobs, probably like how they all try to fish if they can instead of work. 

Lets not forget that dragon armour and lava crab armour (oh god why) would need to be sufficient to survive extreme heat. And under other circumstances, having armour equipped *or horribly fused into their bodies with liquid metal or cauterising hot iron spikes if we are thinking brutal hardcore methods probably reserved for goblins* should make animals more vulnerable to maces (reasonable counter when armour clad cave dragons arrive) and generally slower and easier to tire gaitwise for balancing purposes unless rigorously trained and expert in battle.

I don't think animals should randomly appear with armor, unless they're part of a siege.  Some intelligent being should have to make armor for them.  Also, I think all metals are magma safe and dragonfire safe already. 

I think the main reason that the game doesn't have centaurs is the difficulty with their internal organs: If it's a human(oid) torso stuck onto a horse torso, does that mean that the upper upper body and upper lower body are both lungs, while the 2 intestines reside in the lower upper body & lower lower body? Plus there's the fact that a human's head has neither the musculature nor the dentition to process enough grass to sustain a full-size horse. So, between that and the existing various animalmen, I don't really see any need for X-taurs, they wouldn't bring anything new to the table.

Rakshasa seem more promising, but the D&D version more so than the authentic Indian origin, because the game currently lacks races more civilized (or at least better-dressed) than dwarves. Sure, the elves are snooty and elitist, but they're still a bunch of dirty hippies selling beads. It would be a neat change to have it be a challenge to build a fortress elegant enough, and sell finished goods refined enough, to attract the attention of the lavishly-robed tigermen merchants who will pay exorbitant prices for your masterwork (but only masterwork) wares, but also eat your flesh if they think they're being insulted by the quality of goods you offer them.

Back when I was designing a race of space centaurs for some reason, I explained that the two torsos each contain a set of redundant organs.  So an X-taur would have one pair of lungs in its upper torso (human torso on a centaur) and a second pair in the lower torso (horse torso on a centaur).  Having both pairs of lungs is optimal for the X-taur, but the X-taur can stay alive with only one pair.  Another theory was that the centaur is actually related to nagas and merpeople, and the lower torso is actually a modified tail that has evolved to space out the legs and doesn't hold any significant organs.  I also calculated that a normal sized human body affixed to a normal sized horse body would look stupid; most centaurs in artwork are much smaller.  An artistically correct centaur has a lower torso between 1x to 2x the volume of the upper torso whereas a horse would be something like 10x the volume.  X-taurs could have higher metabolisms (as they do in Dungeon Crawl) but it should be feasible for a human torso to sustain a correctly proportioned centaur. 

Also worth noting that the ancient greeks thought this out completely: 
I would agree that having an animal-man and X-taur for every animal would feel excessive, but replacing a few animal-men with X-taurs could add to the diversity.  For example, there might be lion-taurs and tiger-men, but no lion-men or tiger-taurs.  I think some creatures would make more sense as X-taurs, for example animals like cheetahs or mountain goats that are known for their swift legs make more sense to me as hexapods, while something like a kangaroo-taur would be ridiculous.  Bird-taurs or at least a kinnara-style body would clear up the classic issue of anthropomorphic birds needing both wings and hands. 

I'm actually incredibly furious that D&D rakshasas exist.  It makes absolutely no sense for Gygax to have made up a completely new creature and then gave it the name of an existing mythical race with their own well defined characteristics, especially since D&D has so few qualms about making up names for their other made up races like the Gith or Kenku.  I would be equally furious if DF made the same mistake.  If you wanted to make a race of super luxurious elitists, I'm sure you could pick a mythological being that would be better suited than the man-eating rakshasa.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_guardians_in_folklore lists Jinn, Gnomes, Leprechauns, Dragons and Salamanders, and off the top of my head, the rakshasas' cousins, the yakshas or at least the yaksha king Kubera (who was drumdrumdrumdrum a dwarf) were placed in charge of guarding and distributing worldly treasures by the gods, or the gandharva/apsara who live in the flying cities of heaven. 

That said, the authentic Hindu Rakshasa could still have some potential as super luxurious elitists, since their island stronghold was a fabulous palace gifted by the gods in ages past, and they accumulated great wealth in their conquest of the three worlds, but I think this would be greatly complicated by their trait of hunting and eating human beings (and allegedly dwarves).  But then, elves also eat people and that's not why we don't get along, so maybe a Rakshasa civ could think of your dwarves as livestock until their fortress reaches a certain level of wealth and then send someone to trade. 

Reading through this, the only races you have here that aren't currently possible to mod in are the Naga (civs will never generate in the ocean or magma sea) and Barbarians (civs will never generate in savage biomes IIRC, and nomads aren't currently implemented).

I do want it eventually to be possible for specific biomes to be specified for colonization and for modders to design site templates rather than just using cities/fortresses/forest retreats etc, but that's probably a distant goal.

I don't think an underground forest retreat for Trow is possible either.  The main thing I am intending to suggest are the sites, but such a thing is dependent on the creatures that live there so I have described a few that I think would fit into the DF cosmology well. 

I've had some ideas for new civs.  There are some things that modding would not be able to deal with.

Western:

Trow/Deep Elf:
An underground race of elves that grow fungus and tame cave creatures.  Could be more martial than surface elves in response to underground threats, using bone or chitin arms in addition to wood, or reactions that harden wood or they cultivate special iron-wood fungus that is much harder than other wood. 

Most people would probably recognize the spelling Drow instead of Trow, but I'd rather shy away from Gygax's version since people want them to be so specific sometimes.  Trow is actually cognate to Troll and represents a diminutive version, although the Trolls of the Norse world bear little similarity to those of Tolkien and Gygax.  Trolls were associated with magic; the term trollman refers to a magician or wizard. 

Powrie/Redcap:
A predatory race of dwarves that lives on the surface.  According to legend, they dyed their caps red with blood, and had to kill regularly for if the caps ran out of blood they died.  I would just say that Powries are bloodsuckers and starve without sustenance.  It was impossible to outrun a Powrie, either because they are too fast or because they are tireless.  Powries lived in the ruins of old castles.  In dwarf fortress they might take up residence in ruined sites, but this would complicate world generation.  Perhaps Powries could build sites that appear to be ruins, being in a state of disrepair or unfinishedness, or being eerily empty on account of the blood suckers lack of needs. 

Barbarian/Wildmen:
A relative of the common human with greater physical ability and animalistic instinct.  They could live a nomadic lifestyle traveling in huge groups and making temporary camps, or they could live in crude dwellings, hardly sheltered from the elements that they do not fear.  Barbarians might specifically colonize savage ecosystems, or human sites within savage ecosystems might generate or transform into barbarian groups.  Barbarians would ride on exotic mounts or carry their goods on exotic animals like elephants and rhinos.  Barbarians would wear garments made of hides, bones and shells instead of cloth, and might forego the hassle of metalworking and rely on wood, rock, bone or shell arms and armor instead. 

Puck/Brownie/Hob:
Small mischievous spirits of western lore.  I would imagine something akin to Terry Pratchett's Nac Mac Feegles, very small creatures with enormous strength.  They would probably prefer to fight barehanded than with weapons, as they wouldn't be able to wield anything particularly dangerous, although, I enjoy the Atelier Iris version of Brownies which are knee-high little munchkins that wield stone hammers as large as they are and I would love some sort of tag that would make that possible.  AI's Brownie:
Not sure what kind of site a Puck/Brownie/Hob would occupy.  According to some myths they live inside mushrooms, maybe they could grow a kind of highwood sized mushroom and hollow out the cap to live in, with multiple caps together to form large buildings like the civic mound or drinking hall.  They could also roam the world as vagabonds or live exclusively in existing civs, like animal people. 

X-Taurs:
Centaur like creatures made from various animals.  They would probably be like animal people.  In contemporary artwork, they are often depicted as fully animal, but with a hexapod body layout. 

Some examples.  Fair warning, they are weird:



Indian: 

( I realize that many would complain that Indian mythoraces are out of character for DF, but they might provide the foundations of an idea that could be DFized later )

Rakshasa:
The antagonists of the Ramayana are a race of "demons" with the ability to fly, venomous claws and taste for human flesh (presumably also dwarves and their boozey livers).  Some sort of EATS_PEOPLE tag could work like the thief and snather civs for Rakshasas and Powries.  Rakshasa seem to be prone to mutations, their king, Ravana, has 10 heads and 10 arms, his brother Kumbhakarna was a giant, and in artwork, the rakshasa are often portrayed as various animals rather than any specific shape.  They inhabit a fortress atop a mountain on an island, very difficult to reach if one is not able to fly like a Rakshasa.  This could be an interesting type of site to add when ships are implemented, as it would require sea travel to reach.  (Although in the real story, the Vanara use a dwarfier approach and reach Lanka by building a bridge hundreds of miles long and exploiting an error in physics left by the gods) 

Some pictures: 
Vanara:
One of the main protagonists of the Ramayana are the race of monkey-men, the Vanara.  The vanara were incredibly strong, wielding boulders and tree trunks in battle.  The Vanaras were allies of the Riksha, bear-men, and both were created by the gods for the purpose of fighting the Rakshasa.  It would be interesting to give Vanara some sort of tag which specifies that they must be at war with another specific civ.    I have a read a version which says the capital of the Vanaras was a large cave within a forest, but it seems that it is depicted variously as a citadel or just a region.  China has a variation of the Vanara lead by Sun Wukong who found a vast cave behind a waterfall and commanded his monkey-men from there.  It would be interested to see a site type which is a more civilized cave or forest than what the elves and kobolds use. 

Naga:
Naga just means snake, but in legend, Naga characters are given anthropomorphic or straight-up human characteristics.  They are depicted as mermaid-like, snake-like, dragon-like or polycephalid.  According to legend, Nagas once lived above ground but were chased away by the mighty bird Garuda.  Nagas formed two groups, those that live underwater and those that live in the deepest regions of the underworld, which in DF would be the magma sea.  In the current version of DF, it would be a stretch to be able to visit cities that are undersea or in magma, but perhaps that will change someday.  Perhaps Nagas could live on the coasts and build fortress that extend under the water, or create towers that extend from above the water to below the seabed. 

One imagines that the concept of undersea Nagas is somehow related to the western concept of mermaids and to the Dragon Kings of China and Japan, who live in palaces underwater.  Some amalgamation of these concepts might be better than using any one on its own.