Print

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

[SlyStalker]

OK, so I found this in Dwarf Therapist, and it's an option which groups dwarves with the gender and sexual orientation together as the name suggests ('F, Hetero', 'F, Bi', 'F, Homo', 'F, Asexual', 'M, Hetero', etc). Does this currently add to the game in any way other than the possibility of recreating several adult videos I have in mind?

[Orange Wizard]

It changes who dwarves are attracted to. If the attraction is reciprocated, they will become lovers and (possibly) marry.

[Arcvasti]

Its mostly an immersion thing, with very few gameplay effects on dwarves, unless you're doing a legacy fort or something like that. However, it makes animal breeding slightly more difficult, as some animals aren't interested in breeding. Which limits catsplosions and such, but makes it a pain to breed megabeasts and rare animals.

[SpiralDimentia]

makes it a pain to breed megabeasts

I'm sorry, what?

[Arcvasti]

makes it a pain to breed megabeasts

I'm sorry, what?

Let's say we have two dragons, a male and a female captured with cage traps and we want a dragon breeding program, because that's dwarven as hell. Now, each of the two dragons has a chance to be interested in long-term relationships with the opposite gender, flings with the opposite gender, flings with the same gender, long-term relationships with the same gender or completely uninterested. While the default settings make the likelihood of each in roughly descending order from the above list, that's still a decent chance we don't get any baby dragons. Which, considering that there might ONLY be two dragons in this particular world, means that there is a much lower chance of having a swarm of fort-bred dragons/rocs/whatever then in 34.11. Although its quite possible to mod the [ORIENTATION] tags for some/all animals/megabeasts so that these types of breeding programs are more possible, if not NESSECARILY more realistic[As I'm really not qualified to say to what degree homosexuality and asexuality are practiced/experienced by dragons. Although, if they are intelligent creatures in the DF world, it would certainly make sense.].

[WillowLuman]

Doesn't that only affect creatures who need to marry to reproduce? For non-civ creatures, aren't spores still in effect?

[Arcvasti]

Doesn't that only affect creatures who need to marry to reproduce? For non-civ creatures, aren't spores still in effect?

If I remember correctly from a similar discussion in another thread like this, spores only work for creatures that would be willing to marry. Which might not be realistic for all animals, since many types of them don't mate for life.

[Cptn Kaladin Anrizlokum]

Doesn't that only affect creatures who need to marry to reproduce? For non-civ creatures, aren't spores still in effect?

I have had a fortress die because my main source of food was peahen eggs, and I had three peacocks. One got killed by a zombie polarbear, and the other two ended up being gay, so no eggs. And then everyone died, the end.

So no, it does affect animals.

[Dracko81]

I thought egg layers always laid eggs, and it is a matter of whether or not they are fertile.  I have even done this with animals in my forts, and they all laid eggs without a male of the species in the fortress.

If you mean you were unable to replace your peahens, then that makes much more sense.

[Cptn Kaladin Anrizlokum]

I thought egg layers always laid eggs, and it is a matter of whether or not they are fertile.  I have even done this with animals in my forts, and they all laid eggs without a male of the species in the fortress.

If you mean you were unable to replace your peahens, then that makes much more sense.

Yeah, it was the first year in a haunted glacier. When more migrants showed up I ran out of food rather quickly...

[Illogical_Blox]

My boar is gay... thankfully, I have a vast amount of food and about 120 leather from a caravan.

[wuphonsreach]

In the old days, you could just bring 1 male and 2-4 females of a particular species and be assured of a breeding pair.

These days, you have a 25% chance that any single critter will not mate, ever.

So to be sure of having at least one breeding pair, you should now bring 3 of each gender (which gives you about a 97% chance of success).

(Overall, I agree with the change... but it does make embark points a bit more precious if you want to bring livestock to breed.)

[Spectre Incarnate]

(Overall, I agree with the change... but it does make embark points a bit more precious if you want to bring livestock to breed.)

Under advanced world creation, you can raise embark points if you just want a few more to compensate for this change in animal orientation. Since it is a new aspect that may need a little adjustment to work with, I consider it a house rule, but your mileage may vary. 

[WillowLuman]

I think I'll just mod the chances down for animals. Humans (and presumably human-like fantasy races) have absurdly complicated sexuality compared to most of the rest of the animal kingdom, so it only makes sense.

[Garath]

The funniest example I've always found was that of reindeer (I think it was) where some males look like females and get grouped with females where they go on and breed while the 'real men' are fighting eachother during breeding season