Bay 12 Games Forum

You see someone out in their bare feet and it is kind of odd, what is wrong with them? They look unable/unwilling to take care of themselves. Right now dwarves need exactly shoes, pants, and shirt or they feel bad regardless of the situation. Temperature would be a separate consideration, and while a simple implementation of it might show up I doubt more complex behavior like you mentioned is on the horizon.

Part of the reason I suggested this is some mods would benefit from it like bug work-arounds, animal civs, and ways of reducing cpu load. For those an init setting could work, but civ ethics would be so much more interesting. Goblins might consider clothing a personal matter, kobolds caring even less and looking the part, and others could shun nude people or consider them misguided.

ETHIC:NUDITY

Now that bad thoughts for clothing are enabled, how about this be regulated by ethics? Would allow modifying how severely people of a civ react, if at all, to being nude in the raws.

Instead of just one nudity tag, could have two for more complex behavior, like this:
ETHIC:NUDITY_PARTIAL
ETHIC:NUDITY_FULL
Nudity_partial would mean you have something on your legs or something large on your body, but lacking at least one other important thing. A large thing on the body would be like a cloak, toga, or shirt large enough to cover the legs a bit. Both sexes could follow these same rules for simplicity and because it is ye olde days anyway.

An option to send more than one would be nice. More dwarves, better armor/weapons, and calmer land would increase odds. Three dwarves with iron axes and leather armor could rarely run into trouble in most conditions, but in a savage evil biome you might want to send a bunch or arm them very well.

Instead of selecting one or more dwarves just for this it could have you select a squad. Those are already set up to handle groups and equipment.

I assume this sort of thing is already planned anyway.

The ideal solution is, as I've seen some say, to make the game less "front loaded". That is, do a better job of balancing early vs late fort complexity. Right now the challenges are early, and once overcome become almost a non-issue.

Ideally the game would be better designed to start out easy, but became more complex the further you go. One idea I've seen for this is dwarf demands scaling up as their fort gets bigger/wealthier. That and similar ideas could fix the problem. There are already a few minor things like this, such as plant gathering often being good enough at first.

If what is needed to get by starts out small enough and scales up fast enough, then it'll be better for both newbies and vets. If the game works like this then a fort with 30 dwarves would be a lot simpler than with 100, and a tutorial could be good enough by only going over the few activities and workshops important in the first couple of years. It would work like many games, needing more knowledge/skill the farther you go. Difficulty could be adjusted significantly by simply altering values like population cap. That would also allow a player to practice using many workshops/methods/activities needed for more complex forts with a 30 pop max fort, if they need to. A big, wealthy, 30 year old fort would actually demonstrate player skill. Newbies would have trouble dealing with the average 5 year fort, but currently many players get bored by then anyway and surviving that long is as good as beating the game.

The difficulty needs to curve better. Once the game's core difficulty functions properly, then maybe we can think about more than basic (siege on/off, etc) difficulty options. Until the core system is fixed anything derived from it will also be broken. Unless it is something that fixes the brokenness, in which case it might as well be part of the core system.

Could depend on race. A tag to say which parent their surname comes from.

How about having small creatures give 1 piece of meat unless they were super small like insects? Like how it works with skulls, which are produced even for small creatures. So rabbits and cavies would consistently give exactly 1 meat.

I would seem that adrenaline, or other chemical/spiritual/mental changes caused by a state of arousal cause elves to lose their immortality.  See: Arwen, after falling in love.

No, they just grew tired of the world and yet were unable to ever leave it. This is why they envied mankind's ability to die. Originally they were much more intense. Arwen died of a broken spirit due to Aragorn's death, which was one of the very few things capable of killing an elf. She did not die of old age any more than elves which die of battle wounds do. No elf could lose their immortality. Even in death they could not truly leave the world, and had the possibility of being born again. The closest thing to this was that the half-elves, of which there were very few, could choose to align their fate with either elf or mankind.

1. Dead bodies don't drop their clothes, though their clothes can still be removed from them if unforbidden.

2. Cloth/leather worn by someone when they are dead gains the "moldy" trait which reduces value by 500 rather than a percentage, enough to zero most clothes, yet still leaving it usable if you really want to. Story justification: being considered tainted, superstition, and because it is just plain creepy. This also goes for stuff dropped due to having a part severed, whether it resulted in death or not. This will also help adventure mode, as it is those bloody bandit clothes net too much money.

3. When a body rots away to bones, cloth/leather it is wearing is destroyed.

#2 exists because otherwise players would be tempted to quickly strip clothes for easy money. All three of these work together to make clothes from the dead easy to avoid hassling with and not generally worth it.

Metal is exempt from all but #1. Resists mold/destruction from having dead body in it, and too valuable to let a little superstition get in the way. At worst, melting it down would eliminate any death effects.