Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Jiri Petru

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 38
256
Besides being easier to chew (seriously, try eating a raw steak) and lasting longer (cooked food does last longer than raw) a major attraction of cooking would have been that it makes the meat more compact. When you have to carry everything on your back, mass-cooking the animals you just killed simplifies the task considerably.

Are you really sure you're talking about cooking, and not about drying, salting or other ways of preservation? I can't imagine any food that last longer after being cooked. Vegetables definitely not, meat I don't think so (it rots quickly no matter what).

Anyway... Nil, the point about cooking and diseases is a good point. It feels like a separate suggestion, though - it's basically adding a new system. I'm trying to keep this suggestion as simple as possible, but I'm sure if Toady later decides to implement food diseases (or for example nutrition), it could easily be added to this system. Much easier than to the current one, by the way  :) Killing bacteria by cooking and then storing the meal in barrel for a couple of months doesn't sound reasonable.

EDIT: By the way, I keep editing the first post to reflect the discussion and make it more understandable. You might want to reread it occasionally.

257
Kilo: Thanks for popping in!

Having a kitchen becomes a luxury, not a way to preserve food indefinitely.  As such, it's pretty much only a happiness boost (spices would fit well here, btw.)
Yeah, that's about what I had in mind.

However, I am worried about requiring players to put more dwarves on food production, since stockpiling is harder.  Maybe meat gets smoked as part of the preparation and as such, it doesn't spoil?  And baking hardtack biscuits can't spoil either, but most dwarves would prefer something else (they give a low amount of happiness)?  Crops would spoil, of course, and dwarves would generally prefer food that would be prone to spoiling over other food for practical reasons.

I'm not sure how much harder would it be to obtain and keep food. Perhaps the same, perhaps a bit harder. If it gets harder, you could either devote more dwarves to food production, or arrange caravans with food supplies. Toady wants to get some "population sprawl" in the next series of releases, which would probably mean your fortress could easily get food from outlying villages (unless besieged). I would actually like this, but in the end it's Toady's decision how he handles the economy, the fortress dependence on outside world, etc. I think he could probably implement this suggestion in such a way that it wouldn't require more farmers. Anyway...

You're right, meat could get preserved automatically as part of butchery. Ideally, the butcher's workshop would double as a smokery and a saltery (?). The butcher would cut the animal and automatically preserve all meat... either by putting it into barrels along with salt, or by smoking it.

This would probably mean the "butcher an animal job" would have some prerequisites, though. Either salt and a barrel for salting, or a piece of wood for smoking. Should we still allow butchering without any of these, ie. butchering that yields rw meat? Raw meat is useless, spoils too quickly and can't be stored (unless you have a freezer). So what's the point in allowing it? I think we might want to let it in for the rare famine where you butcher a cow and want to cook it immediately (which shouldn't require salt nor wood). But I'm not sure how to handle this in terms of automation. We don't want butchers automatically creating useless raw meat when you don't have means to dry/salt it, and when you don't need to eat the meat right now. Any ideas?

-----------------

As we're talking about economy, caravans and travel distances, what do you all think about this? Would you change/add/remove anything?

  • Grain, vegetables and fruit are cheap and available in huge supplies. They are only traded in the raw form.
  • Since fruit and vegetables are spoilables, they should have limited caravan "range". Caravans would take them only short distances. Grain doesn't spoil and can be shipped all over the world.
  • Addendum: I think the problem with fruit/vegetables transport wasn't just time, but perhaps more importantly the hazards of medieval travel - insects, bumping and other nasty things that would destroy the fruit after quite a short distance
  • Raw meat and raw fish are average priced and can be traded only extremely short distances since they spoil too fast. Prepared organs fall into this category as well, so you wouldn't be able to buy sausages for example.
  • Meat instead gets traded in livestock form  :)  If you want sausages, you have to butcher the pig yourself! Livestock is expensive and can be traded short distances (I guess?).
  • Preserved (smoked, salted...) meats and fish are expensive but can be traded all over the world.
  • Milk is extremely short distances only.

-----

Also, as a separate issue, how could we preserve fruit and vegetables if we decide not to use canning (as it was invented in 1809)? I'm still skeptical about drying, as I'm not sure how many foods you can realistically dry. But perhaps someone would illuminate me?

258
I'm as confused as Richards. Could someone please explain how the new material stats change combat? Is there a new balance between materials?

259
DF Announcements / Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.31.10 Released
« on: July 12, 2010, 07:46:11 pm »
Can someone tell me how the new material changes change the combat? The main question here is: is iron actually better than bronze again?

260
Nil Eyeglazed: OK, we understand each other now. You last post was precise. Thanks  :) So the way I see it is you're against this idea because it adds no benefits, or the benefits are small. Something like dyeing. Even though both would be "build-and-forget" automated affairs, they would distract dwarves and reduce effectivity, and the benefit wouldn't be worth it. Well... I guess I can live with that  8) As Kotaku said, there are people less concerned about effectivity who build things not because they're effective but because they're pretty, cool, or whatever. I always use dyed clothes only because I can. I decorate as many items as I can. I build nice hallways and rooms, etc. etc.

So even if cooking added only small benefits, I think it's allright. Look at it from the other point of view: that would mean you wouldn't have to build a kitchen/pot/etc. The game would become easier to manage, and the only cost would be a minor happiness hit. Cooking would technically be optional, and made only for the sake of happiness - that's not necessarily a bad thing, is it?

(BTW, It would still be easy to find jobs for full-time cooks - remember they would have to dry meet, salt fish, pickle fruit, etc...)

The problem I'm trying to solve is not much of a gameplay problem, it's a problem of realism or believability. I simply don't like how we cook stews or roasts, then store them in barrels or sell them to caravans. It breaks my suspension of disbelief. This system was intended to fix that, make the game less bland and more interesting - the new cooking, the salting, drying, pickling... - though the end result is pretty much the same (dwarves are fed). As I've said, it's very much a cosmetic thing.

Quote from: Slink
I see in my mind's eye my eldest aunt's cold cellar (...).

Thanks. I'm a villager myself and we used to can pretty much everything  :) Still, I'm not sure if people in history could can as easily as we can ( ::)). I mean, you need glass jars to can things in, right? How common would glass jars be around 1400? Not much I think. So when I wrote "with difficulties and in small amounts", I meant that and should have been more direct. "Small amounts" is to avoid canning whole barrels at once, and "with difficulties" = requires glass jars you need to create in your glass smelter first.

However, that made me look up canning at wikipedia. Turns out it was invented in 1809, which means we might have to omit it completely. The problem is I guess that you need an air-tight container. While dwarves could probably invent something along the lines, I'm not sure how Toady feels about modern inventions in the game (he doesn't like steam power, though dwarves could invent that too).

Quote from: Slink
That completely overlooks dried fruit, vegetables, and mushrooms, which are also possible.

I omitted that to avoid too much complexity. If we could can/pickle everything, there would be no need for just another way of preservation, right? But now that we might have to forget about canning, drying seems the way to go. Although I'm not sure. You can't dry everything - you can dry mushrooms, but not carrots or potatoes. How to handle that in game and not make it confusing? Ideally, one way of preservation would apply to a whole category of foods, not to specific examples. That way, you would be able to dry mushrooms, but not fruit nor vegetables. How does it sound?

261
DF Suggestions / Re: Volume and Mass
« on: July 11, 2010, 05:11:21 pm »
I strongly disagree!

This would basically make a game that already has almost unbearable level of micromanagement into a game that is a micromanagement hell. Me no like.

Dwarf Fortress (fortress mode) might be a simulation, but it's also a game and a game needs some simplification. Having everything counted in nondescript units where each job consumes a single unit is a good thing! Easy to handle, easy to remember. A few exceptions (chain mail, breastplate) are still acceptable. But once every job requires a different amount of "units", then in all becomes too confusing.

The stocks screen would become next to useless. Now when I have 30 units of cloth, I know I can produce 30 socks or 30 caps or 30 tunics or whatever. If I had 30 metres of cloth, what would that mean? Could I produce 67 socks or 43 caps or 12 tunics or what? I really wouldn't like that! That's making things more complicated... a lot more complicated... for no gain. What of it?  If you really dislike how certain items consume too much material, just let 1 unit of cloth produce 3 socks at the same time, but not the other way around (1 sock consuming 0.33 cloth)!!! Each job consuming 1 unit of material is a rare occasion where DF is streamlined and unified, and I'd love to keep that.

These were just my loud two pences, because I felt you need someone sceptical here  :P But please continue, I won't interrupt no more.


262
Kohaku: My issue with nutrition is not that we can't display it. We could, of course. My issue is it adds another layer of complexity and I'm not sure I want it. Wait... I'm sure I don't want it. If I had to choose where to add a new layer of complexity, it would be up, like commanding armies or kingdoms, not down, tracking more information about individual dwarves.

I'm not strictly against the idea of nutrition, but my opinion would heavily depend on the actual implementation. The system would need to be next-to-invisible and all actions required from me as the player would need to be simple and easily understandable. Something like happiness works now. "Have a beautiful fortress, use decorations, statues, have nice rooms and quality items = your dwarves are happy". That's something I can handle. "Have meat, grain and fruits = your dwarves are healthy" is something I could handle too. But nothing more. If you wanted me to care about precise food rates, I wouldn't like it.

I'm still not sure how far nutrition effects should go. Having dwarves fat/slim depending on what they eat sounds really cool. Its mostly just cosmetic. But having diseases, not so much. That's no longer cosmetic, that actually adds penalties and requires micromanagement. Penalties and micromanagement for something this "small" are bad! A similar issue would be if the personality system that's purely cosmetic now required you to micromanage things. Imagine two dwarves with a grudge couldn't meet, otherwise they'd murder each other. You'd have to micromanage the game, find them, and enclose them in separate burrows. Very, very, bad! Or if dwarves with certain personality aspects would disobey orders as soldiers, forcing you to micromanage and find suitable recruits. Horrible!

Unless we can handle nutrition without any added micromanagement, I say let's not bother.

As for dwarves consuming 3, 4 or 5 meals... I think I'll respond in your Volume and Mass thread, it's a connected issue.

EDIT: Having a "chief nutritional dwarf" is akin making the game into a fitness centre. Totally ahistorical, totally bland. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, I just really dislike it.

263
Reply to an older post.

Nil Eyeglazed: I'm convinced our misunderstandings are just that - misunderstandings. You seem to be reading different things than intended. I'll try to explain better, please let me know if it helped, I'll eventually try to rewrite the OP.

Quote
Right, I understand that.  The problem is that the only remaining benefit for cooking is happiness, and the way the game works right now, that benefit is fairly small, especially if compared against something like increased risk of miasma.  So without these benefits, inappropriate as they might be, cooking ends up being pretty much irrelevant to game play-- there's no reason to pursue it.  Under the changes you're advocating, the game might be more realistic, but with the way I play the game, I would just stop cooking.  And I don't think I'm alone.  So then the question is, do you want changes that make cooking irrelevant?

How could you stop cooking? Dwarves would cook automatically by themselves before eating. Do you mean you would not build any "kitchens", thus forcing them to eat raw food only? But why would you do that, if eating raw food only would create unhappy thoughts? And really, all you'd have to do is build a (automated) "kitchen" and stop caring. It's extremely simple and there's no reason not to do that!

Quote
Currently, a stockpile of, say, 500 plump helmets costs me 50 squares and 50 barrels.  After I cook those plump helmets down to roasts, I only need 25 squares and no barrels.  That's because I can store those roasts.  That's why I cook.  That's how cooking currenty affects stockpiles.  If I were limited by some mechanic to a single roast at a time, say, by cluttering workshops, or because of prepared meal degradation, that same stockpile would cost me 47 spaces and 46 barrels.  It probably wouldn't be enough of a difference to justify cooking for me.  I don't consider that a purely cosmetic change.

But all of these are just minor details that can be changed easily. You say you store prepared meals to save space? And not being able to store prepared meals would mean larger stockpiles? Well then, we wave a magic wave and suddenly we can store 50 plump helmets in a single barrel instead of 10!

Quote
I don't think it'd really affect much if you renamed roasts as pickles, or biscuits as jerky.  I don't think it'd be bad to introduce food degradation.  I just wonder if there'd be any purpose to roasts in that situation.

This is where I think we don't understand each other. There would be no roasts any more, exactly because they wouldn't have a purpose! Not roasts as we know them now. There could be something named a roast, but that would be only cosmetic, and the item would exist just for a couple of seconds in after being cooked (or taken out of a "pot") and before being eaten.

What I'm trying to say: forget about kitchens as we have them now. Forget about prepared meals as we have them now. Neither would exist any more. Instead, dwarves would automatically cook ingredients just before eating (or automatically retain a small supply of cooked food in a "pot").

Quote
Individual cooking is the worst in terms of the way you changes would affect the impact of qualtity, but your changes would also affect communal meals.  If a meal has to be eaten now, you can't make a dedicted cook and tell him to cook everything in the fortress, then forget about him until he eventually shows up idle.  Doing so would invite famine.  That slows down skill progression, which means less of an effect from quality.

Why can't I make a dedicated cook? On the contrary - a communal "pot" would require a dedicated cook. He would cook food as needed, not continually, but that doesn't matter. As the "pot" would be automated, you would only have to assign the cook and then you could happily forget about him. The cook's skill would still apply to the food.

You could not create famine, no matter how hard you tried. Cooks would not cook more food than needed. (You could still create famine by dumping all your stocks, though  ;)).

Skill progression is a detail that can be changed. If afterwards cooks cook less food on average, simply make skill progression faster.

---

Hope this was helpful.

264
Kohaku, I'm afraid I have to distance myself from your nutritional idea.  :P It would require overtly complex underlying mechanisms noone would be able to remember, and the only visible end result would be that one dwarf eats 3 foods per meal, while another one eats 5. Which is IMHO wrong! All dwarves need to eat 1 food exactly. The disparity would make the stocks screen and the number of stockpiled food completely useless. The player would have no way to tell how much food there is and how long the stocks will last. Making Dwarf Fortress more obscure is not what we want.

But I'm also afraid Toady agrees with you because I seem to remember he wrote somewhere he wanted to implement a nutritional system. My two cents are: I don't really care about nutritional system, as long as it works in the background, is completely automated and doesn't make the game any more complicated. All I am willing to do is to provide different food sources - if the dwarves handle the rest automatically, so be it. But if I'm required to monitor their food intake, carefully prepare recipes for a balanced diet and whatnot, I'm probably quiting the game.

Not to mention our modern understanding of diet and its components are only recent, and by medieval and whatever, people had no idea (in the better case) or a completely wrong idea (in the worse case) of what was healthy.

--EDIT:
Quote from: Ultimoos
There could be a couple of different nutritions. And a lack of something would make dwarfs more sleepy, lazy, less effective in combat or even make them easily fall for sickness.
This is what I'm afraid of. How would the player know their dwarves are weak due to lack of animal fats or whatever? Is there any simple way to tell them? Or would they have to browse through Thoughts screen or endless tables to find the information amongst dozens of random other numbers or stats? If the latter, don't bother implementing nutrition, it would only made the game worse.
--

And even if it is all invisible, there's a problem how to inform player about the nutrition. How would the player know something went wrong? The game really shouldn't have a system with a complexity bigger than it can meaningfully report to the player. Would there be a separate Nutrition screen that would list all dwarves' needs and consumed foods in a similar way how the Healthcare screen now? That would be horrible! A reasonable way to handle the system would be for it to be invisible all the time, unless there is a problem. Then some pupup or something would warn you: "There's a danger of scurvy! Quickly provide more fruit. If you don't do that in two seasons, dwarves might start to die". This would be allright, it's quite user friendly and also provides an interesting challenge.

Quote from: Ultimoos
Now we can feed entire fortress with strawberries with out having to bother with other food too much.

This isn't really a problem with nutrition, and you don't need nutritional system to handle this problem. Is is again a problem of the food units, and how much dwarves consume per year. How much is 1 strawberry? I imagine it would be something like a jar of strawberries. But how can that much be harvested from a single tile? And even if it could, it would just mean that 30 jars of strawberries provide about the same amount of food as a single cow. Which is ridiculous. One dwarf eats 8 times per year, which means that 8 strawberry bushes - or 8 jars of strawberries - provide for a single dwarf for a whole year. Farewell, economy!

The game simply needs better balance of food "sized" all over. And when the foods are balanced in between each other, you then need to balance adventurer mode and fortress mode, because as I've already says, dwarves eating only 8 times a year must consume much more per meal. We probably can't solve that now - we've tried to come up with a division based on how much a single cow would last, but our division wouldn't probably work for grain, cheese, berries, etc. The first step really needs to be to balance the foods so that "1 meat" is about the same amount of food as "1 grain" and "1 berry".

Thinking about berries specifically, I'm not convinced they can be kept in fortress mode. Gathering enough berries even for a single dwarf serving (= 1/8th of a year's food intake) seems extremely difficult, and it wouldn't be worth the effort. For a fortress of 100 dwarves or a human town of 100 people, berries might as well not exist - their effect would be almost nil. Unless, of course, you dedicated a large part of the workforce to gathering, but I doubt any player would want to do that. I see no reason for keeping berries in. They would probably be best as an adventurer mode only and just a cosmetic thing for dwarf mode (like pebbles are).

OR berries could be implemented the same way as spices, if we ever get to that point. I imagine foods like these wouldn't satiate nor decrease hunger, they would only create happy thoughts. (I know, you might argue you can get satiated by berries in real life. But fortress-mode scale is very different from real life or adventure-mode scale).

265
DF Suggestions / Re: DF Eternal Suggestion Voting
« on: July 11, 2010, 02:55:52 pm »
You still ignore my argument that smaller suggestions are pretty user-unfriendly. You can't expect people to be able to read and keep in mind several hundreds small suggestions that often vary by minor specifics. I can't do that personally, I admit I've never bothered to read the list past the first half, because by that time I was already forgetting what I read in the beginning. With small suggestion, the only real effect is that people vote for things in the first part of the list and don't bother reading more. Someone argued for opening the list to more players. Enforcing small suggestions only would have the exact opposite effect - making the eternal voting more elitist.

And that's not to mention how would you handle it technically? Any idea for a real implementation of suggestion limits? Who would judge what is small and what is large? How would you set the rules? Where would the dividing line between small and large be? Even if you managed to answer all of this, you'd find out everyone feels it differently and that people keep posting what you consider as a "large" suggestion. Who would moderate it then? Toady wouldn't.

I say, leave things develop naturally. Don't set any arbitrary limits. It's the easiest and (IMHO) even the most effective way.

---

Quote from: Draco18s
Toady looks at the list and sees Underground Diversity and More Machines in the top 10, so he works on them and releases a version.
A few votes get reallocated, but the two suggestions remain in the top 10.
Toady looks at the list for some stuff to work on for the next version and skips those two items, works on something else, and releases a version
Things shuffle around a bit, but the two suggestions remain top 10.
Toady looks at the list and sees Underground Diversity and More Machines in the top 10, so he works on them some more and releases a version.

The two would stay because people who voted for them have already stopped caring and don't bother to come back and relocate their votes  :P Really, the list needs periodical resets even if it is just for deleting "dead" votes. I personally am for periodical wiping of the suggestions too, to delete "dead" or "abandoned" suggestions.

266
DF Suggestions / Re: Adventure mode hospitals
« on: July 09, 2010, 03:07:17 pm »
I'll just leave this here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimaristan

edit: why would it have to be strictly secular anyway?

This just shows how uneducated am I in the history of Arabic lands. Thanks.
Still, hospitals could be rare (cities only) or only made available to certain civilisations.

267
DF Suggestions / Re: Better interface one step at a time.
« on: July 09, 2010, 02:10:23 pm »
Stuff constructed b-C-* is not affected by building destroyers.  Mixing items in that menu would make it confusing and adding unnecessarily to more Fun.

The question here is whether things should be categorised by whether they can/cannot be affected by building destroyers (which is a very minor and uncommon problem), or by something different. Like for example by, you know, what logical category they look like (architecture/rooms/furniture/mechanisms...).

I've said it many times and I'll repeat it once again. Toady's biggest interface fault is that he tends to categorise things accorting to the way they work internally in the code, not according to game logic or what sounds logical to the player. Thus barracks are made from furniture, while hospitals are zones. Fishing areas are zones, but plant gathering areas are designations, and farming areas are workshops. And don't want me to write about stockpiles and their absolutely horrible categories.

268
DF Suggestions / Re: DF Internationalization to translate it
« on: July 09, 2010, 02:05:13 pm »
all code is in english(important code at least) therefore it makes sense for developers to go to english until the program is stable enough for the tinkering required.
besides, you are replying in english, what are you complaining about?

Internationalization =/= translation

Another problem with localising it would be the translation of certain terms.

Like, take the term Mountainhomes.

In Dutch that would become 'Bergthuis' which sounds really silly because it's singular(there's no specific multiple form for home in Dutch).
So you'd have to find an alternative. Like... 'Thuisgebergten' (Homemountains/Homemountainrange)
Or 'Berg gehucht'(MountainHamlet) 'Berg burchten'(Mountain Fortresses) 'Berg paleizen'(Mountain Palaces).

And not to even start on things like goblins and kobolds.(In the Dutch translation of Harry Potter the goblins at gringotts were translated as kobolds)

This isn't really Toady's problem, is it? It's the translators job!  8) Translation isn't transferring the text 1:1, it almost always includes making compromises, using different terms, coming up with your own words. As for Chthonic's question - it depends heavily on the translator's quality. Some simply keep the English words, some come up with their own or find similarities in local folklore. We have a brilliant Czech translation of the Lord of the Rings, for example, and the lady who translated it made up amazing and naturally sounding creature names or Hobbit names. (But the Czech fantasy norm is heavily based on English, yes. We mostly use English creature names, with only slight changes sometimes to make them easier to pronounce. That's because fantasy comes in the form of computer games (people used to play only in English, though translations are lately becoming frequent) and bad books (long live the Warhammer) translated by horrible translators.)

The only problem from the perspective of Toady I can think of is the way names are created, and how names are translated from dwarven/elvish/etc. to english. Basically, it just takes two random dwarven words, puts them together and transfers both to English (so you have surnames like Clasplashes, Keygem). This works in Germanic languages, I suppose, but not eg. in "our" Slavic languages. You can't just mash any two words together, in fact, mashing words together is very rare compared to English. If you did that, it would sound very weird. Not weird as "Clasplashes", but weird as in "totally ungrammatical" or "outright wrong". And I have no idea how to handle this.

To elaborate:
English "Clasp" + "Lashes" = "Clasplashes"
Czech "Mihotat" + "Řasy" (direct translation) = Řasomih (it sounds horribly, but could be taken with a grain of salt because it's "translation from dwarvish")

English "Key" + "Gem" = "Keygem"
Czech "Klíč" + "drahokam" = Klíčodrahokam (easy, but sounds horrible), more probably "Drahoklíč" (sounds strange), most probably "Klíčový drahokam" or "Drahokamový klíč" (making one of the words adjective, which could actually be simple)

The problem you'd have to code the grammar rules for creating names in languages that can't use simple mashing. Which would require a lot of time and a good knowledge of the target language. I know the names are a very minor part and could be ignored (= done badly) but perhaps Toady could somehow export the grammatical rules to raws and let us program our own? It's the only solution I can think of.

269
Yeah, dividing by 10 was an arbitrary, random number I came up with. If you think 4 is better, then 4 it is! (does a single cow really feed a person for a whole year? wow). The important part here is that I'm suggesting to handle food in a similar way how thread/cloth is handled now. Ie. 1 thread is actually how much... 10000 thread units? But it gets divided by 10000 for most purposes. Food in fortress mode would be similarly divided to make up for dwarves only eating 8 times a year.

The actual numbers would have to be balanced later. There are other things than livestock to take into consideration, such as field yields, etc.

The idea to have the divider/multiplier dependent on size of your dwarves/humans/kobolds/whatever you play as sounds like a good one. But I'm worried about the implementation. No matter how you divide, people should always eat only 1 displayed unit of food per meal. In other words, the division for eating should be the same as the division for display, so the stocks menu works properly. "100 food units" should always mean "100 meals available".

I'm not sure how this would work out for fortresses with different races/castes. We definitely don't want one cast eating 0.8 food per meal and another one 1.4. Perhaps rounding would be in order? Imagine you have a fort with kobolds, dwarves and humans. Kobolds would eat for example 0.8, which gets rounded to 1. Dwarves 1.0. Humans 1.5 which gets rounded to 2. End result: kobolds eat as much as dwarves do, humans eat twice as much. Simple to remember for the player.

1.0 should be the standard for the average size of your race, the most common race in your civilisation or something.

--------

Nil Eyeglazed: Sorry, I don't have much time now. Will respond later.

270
DF Suggestions / Re: "Programmable" job manager
« on: July 08, 2010, 01:53:11 pm »
Welcome to the Suggestions forum!

You have just managed to re-suggest the second most popular suggestion of all time!   ;D  :P

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 38