Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 95 96 [97] 98 99 ... 211

Author Topic: Future of the Fortress  (Read 735074 times)

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1440 on: March 05, 2017, 07:29:41 am »

In the current version, once you found a fortress near a goblin civ, they declare war on your civilization and usually end up decimating them. Sometimes goblins also declare war on nearby human and elf civs, conquer their sites and make you unable to trade with them.

So, two questions: why do goblins declare war on your civ if you settle near them and what makes goblins so successful in conquest post-world gen?
Goblins are supposed to be EVIL and are lead by demon masters. Somehow they've also taken on the role of somewhat ordinary civ building creatures, though. On the civ level they're out to enslave everyone else, as directed by their masters, while on the individual level they have somewhat barbaric original customs and inherent nasty traits, but aren't out of place as members of other civs (such as the cannibalistic elves or constantly in-fighting humans). The odd thing is rather that goblins frequently are at peace with the elves and/or humans you are in contact with, while they really ought to be at the --- "not currently at war" stage.
Goblins do not age, do not need to eat, and can thrive in any biome that isn't good or too savage (or too wet: they can't handle oceans...). These characteristics give them advantages that let them dominate the world given enough time in most cases.
Logged

FantasticDorf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1441 on: March 05, 2017, 08:15:59 am »

In the current version, once you found a fortress near a goblin civ, they declare war on your civilization and usually end up decimating them. Sometimes goblins also declare war on nearby human and elf civs, conquer their sites and make you unable to trade with them.

So, two questions: why do goblins declare war on your civ if you settle near them and what makes goblins so successful in conquest post-world gen?

I have a impromptu answer to this question, goblins are set to a hostile default (because of babysnatcher prefix) and often the civ (human, elves) are the aggressor because goblins have abhorrent ethical standards (treatment of animals/plants/eating of bodies etc.) as when goblins attack nearby settlement (attacking dwarfs who almost never call aggressive wars) they have their own motives based more in politics rather than ethics.

> In a defensive war, every time a village is sacked by goblins it collectively makes the goblins stronger and the opposing side weaker, i don't know precisely why but the amount of goblins increases (you could say this is population management saying pillaging = more food/wealth increase the pop cap) usually goblins hold out well enough to starve the wars off or remain stifled and don't do anything for the remaining of worldgen.
  • I've personally seen goblins swing wars through successive pillages to raise armies and start to slog and overwhelm the opposition when given a numerical advantage, humans do much the same though they are numerous anyway, hence successful at dominating late-game world generation.

If post-artifact update we gained more elaborate negotiation as well as player input to diplomatic decisions (formal agreement being to hand over a artifact on threat of war, then denying it by locking it in the room past the deadline), we might understand more about the reasons goblins get triggered to commit to wars themselves without obvious ethical conflicts (goblins inhibit 'evil' spheres, adding more primary spheres doesn't do much for them behaviorally though its a interesting thing to do.)
  • Just to remember that if a race is hostile, until acted on with a 'casus belli' there is effectively a uneasy truce between them and all other races.


If you unset the ability to not eat, and instead make them carnivorous (goblins are already bone carnivores and eat food just fine) i find there is no difference to goblin population in relevance to the hardiness of them because they carry food (trolls/beak dogs) which are replenished via common domestic wherever they go. (Plus no biome supp numbers, just a base of 1)

Using the pillaging example, "Stolen Wealth = Food = Population growth -> More animals = Small increment to total Wealth & Population sustainability", when that formula goes wrong you see spirals of population even beyond the defined cap of a site as the civ becomes immensely wealthy via a mix of labor created items (big dark fortresses have great stashes of discarded goblinite because of defined space for weapons piles the civ fills up from invaders & dead soldiers/production) animals increase and obviously each member of the civ must be clothed adding to value.

Besides kobolds or thieves/site being routed and finished there is no natural way to divide up that value or detract from it.

> Question for Toady, if you were to tally up (for ease sake omitting value of the walls and value per discovered floorspace) the cost of a hillock or world-gen fortress based on its founding furniture, how many units of Urist would it cost to 'buy' a prebuilt settlement?

Which is economically important if you were to do math saying that 1500 urists is a generic supply budget for founding a fortress that hasn't already been prefabbed and equipped to buy the tools, and experts and then from there on rely on immigrants, traders and local production.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2017, 08:21:29 am by FantasticDorf »
Logged

Eric Blank

  • Bay Watcher
  • Never stabs friends, promise!
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1442 on: March 05, 2017, 11:53:42 am »

can war animals/pets follow their owners when they're sent away? Can we beef up our recovery squad by assigning them a bunch of war dogs?
Logged
"THEN CAME TOBNOM, ASS-GOD".
I have no idea where anything is. I have no idea what anything does. This is not merely a madhouse designed by a madman, but a madhouse designed by many madmen, each with an intense hatred for the previous madman's unique flavour of madness.

Rubik

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1443 on: March 05, 2017, 01:08:24 pm »

@FantasicDorf
When I find myself thinking about DF with a proper economy implemented, I also tend to ask what the core value of urists would be
If we apply some rudiments of economy, we get that it's none
Or, more precisely, money has only the value people give it, and it's subject to change over time and circumstances
So, I guess that each time you created a world, the prices for buying stuff, pre-built settlements included, should be different

As it is right ow, all civilization-spawning creatures use coins with the same value, independently from the nation's economy, which is already pretty unrealistic
But to be honest, I would prefer if we had different coins from each civ, and made the rawified or something, than having a single different coin for each civ of a race. It makes merging gold coins absolutely horrible when you loot a burned town
Logged

Random_Dragon

  • Bay Watcher
  • Psycho Bored Dragon
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1444 on: March 05, 2017, 02:13:23 pm »

Hmm. What'd also be interesting is if the coins had values more comparable to some historical standards, like the classic Roman "1 aureus = 25 denarii" value for gold and silver coins.

Rubik

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1445 on: March 05, 2017, 02:53:29 pm »

Hmm. What'd also be interesting is if the coins had values more comparable to some historical standards, like the classic Roman "1 aureus = 25 denarii" value for gold and silver coins.

I must recognize that procedurally generated currency exchanges and banks related affairs really make me giggle from pure excitedness
I wonder just how far away does Toady think the economy update is?
Logged

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1446 on: March 05, 2017, 04:39:19 pm »

Hmm. What'd also be interesting is if the coins had values more comparable to some historical standards, like the classic Roman "1 aureus = 25 denarii" value for gold and silver coins.

I must recognize that procedurally generated currency exchanges and banks related affairs really make me giggle from pure excitedness
I wonder just how far away does Toady think the economy update is?
I don't think you'll get a clear answer for this. He doesn't keep a schedule.

Last clear "plan" was 'boats before economy' which will follow 'Scenarios' (massive law, society, politics arc). Before that Myths and magic. Assuming a year plus 6 months bugs/minor updates per release, multiple releases for magic and scenarios, that makes it roughly 10 years from now. That's assuming small releases. Which alternate dimensions won't be...
« Last Edit: March 05, 2017, 04:50:09 pm by Shonai_Dweller »
Logged

Random_Dragon

  • Bay Watcher
  • Psycho Bored Dragon
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1447 on: March 05, 2017, 10:56:31 pm »

I don't think you'll get a clear answer for this. He doesn't keep a schedule.

Last clear "plan" was 'boats before economy' which will follow 'Scenarios' (massive law, society, politics arc). Before that Myths and magic. Assuming a year plus 6 months bugs/minor updates per release, multiple releases for magic and scenarios, that makes it roughly 10 years from now. That's assuming small releases. Which alternate dimensions won't be...

DF2100 Economy Update hype.

GoblinCookie

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1448 on: March 06, 2017, 05:44:52 am »

I have a impromptu answer to this question, goblins are set to a hostile default (because of babysnatcher prefix) and often the civ (human, elves) are the aggressor because goblins have abhorrent ethical standards (treatment of animals/plants/eating of bodies etc.) as when goblins attack nearby settlement (attacking dwarfs who almost never call aggressive wars) they have their own motives based more in politics rather than ethics.

[BABYSNATCHER] does not have anything at all to do with goblin hostility (though it should). It is all ethics and relative strength, the goblins are usually stronger than other folks because they do not eat and their ethics clash with everybody.  Vanilla Dwarves do not call aggressive wars because they have no siege_progress values defined in their raws (in vanilla). 

> In a defensive war, every time a village is sacked by goblins it collectively makes the goblins stronger and the opposing side weaker, i don't know precisely why but the amount of goblins increases (you could say this is population management saying pillaging = more food/wealth increase the pop cap) usually goblins hold out well enough to starve the wars off or remain stifled and don't do anything for the remaining of worldgen.
  • I've personally seen goblins swing wars through successive pillages to raise armies and start to slog and overwhelm the opposition when given a numerical advantage, humans do much the same though they are numerous anyway, hence successful at dominating late-game world generation.

If post-artifact update we gained more elaborate negotiation as well as player input to diplomatic decisions (formal agreement being to hand over a artifact on threat of war, then denying it by locking it in the room past the deadline), we might understand more about the reasons goblins get triggered to commit to wars themselves without obvious ethical conflicts (goblins inhibit 'evil' spheres, adding more primary spheres doesn't do much for them behaviorally though its a interesting thing to do.)
  • Just to remember that if a race is hostile, until acted on with a 'casus belli' there is effectively a uneasy truce between them and all other races.


The amount of vanilla goblins is only capped by the total hard maximum for the site, which is 10,000 for a dark fortress.  This means that the only thing that keeps the goblin population below the maximum is being killed off in wars.  If the goblins are winning all their wars then fewer of them are getting killed, so you see your goblin population increase, or rather you see them reach the maximum. Additionally sites with a high population can create new dark pits/fortresses while depopulated sites cannot, giving them more sites overall.

It is certainly not stolen wealth, since they are not capped by available food and other reasons. 

If you unset the ability to not eat, and instead make them carnivorous (goblins are already bone carnivores and eat food just fine) i find there is no difference to goblin population in relevance to the hardiness of them because they carry food (trolls/beak dogs) which are replenished via common domestic wherever they go. (Plus no biome supp numbers, just a base of 1)

Using the pillaging example, "Stolen Wealth = Food = Population growth -> More animals = Small increment to total Wealth & Population sustainability", when that formula goes wrong you see spirals of population even beyond the defined cap of a site as the civ becomes immensely wealthy via a mix of labor created items (big dark fortresses have great stashes of discarded goblinite because of defined space for weapons piles the civ fills up from invaders & dead soldiers/production) animals increase and obviously each member of the civ must be clothed adding to value.

Besides kobolds or thieves/site being routed and finished there is no natural way to divide up that value or detract from it.

Vanilla Goblins are already bone-carnivorous, in spite of the fact they do not need to eat anything.  You are correct in that [BONECARN] and [CARNIVORE] does not cause food problems in modded non-perpetual motion machine goblins, that is however only because they have [USE_CAVE_ANIMALS]. The other pet acquiring tags are broken for that site, a dark fortress that does not farm vegetable food MUST have this tag or they will only reach a population of a few dozen if they have to eat. 

[NO_EAT] does make a big difference to the population. With only cave animals as a food site the population of a dark fortress tends to be capped at between 1000-3000, leading to goblin populations being very much checked by removing of that token.  Larger populations (about 5000) can be obtained by making them farm but vanilla goblins neither farm nor eat.

Stolen wealth does not make sense even if goblins ate.  The reason that everyone already trades with goblin dark fortresses, which is why the vanilla DF is totally overrun with troll meat, the goblins make the stuff but do not eat it, causing it to be exported even though the importers should (they label it beef but we the player know better).  Occupied settlements tend to be near ruined and often become actual ruins after not very long, so from the POV of the goblin dark fortress conquering all their neighbors means less food not more will become available.
Logged

Putnam

  • Bay Watcher
  • DAT WIZARD
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1449 on: March 06, 2017, 12:08:53 pm »

Hmm. What'd also be interesting is if the coins had values more comparable to some historical standards, like the classic Roman "1 aureus = 25 denarii" value for gold and silver coins.

Code: [Select]
[CURRENCY:COPPER:1]
[CURRENCY:SILVER:5]
[CURRENCY:GOLD:15]

already in the game

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1450 on: March 06, 2017, 06:08:49 pm »

Will artifacts at adventurer sites attract actual invaders (besides npc artifact hunters)? How about megabeasts?

'cos I think defending my wooden hut from a swarm of beakdog riding goblins would be awesome. Even cooler if they tried to negotiate with me first.
Logged

Daniel the Finlander

  • Bay Watcher
  • Making bacon pancakes
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1451 on: March 06, 2017, 08:10:42 pm »

The thing about goblins is that during world gen they do decently, but as soon as play begins they tend to go on a rampage and conquer half of the world. I think it might have something to do with the fact that wars in general are more common post-world gen.
Logged
chances are their heads are being melted completely off due to pain forcing them to cry and tears don't evaporate so they just increase in temperature searing through the skull to the brain.

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1452 on: March 06, 2017, 10:06:18 pm »

The thing about goblins is that during world gen they do decently, but as soon as play begins they tend to go on a rampage and conquer half of the world. I think it might have something to do with the fact that wars in general are more common post-world gen.
Good. All the more armies to face my drunken horde as they defend my wooden camp.

--
You know, it may be broken from a simulation point of view (loads of time to fix that later with politics, religion and stuff still umimplemented), but it's kind of fun, isn't it?

(Almost) everyone survives 1050 years due to the slow pace of initial worldgen wars, then when you get to start playing, goblins suddenly get massively aggressive, thus increasing your chances of running into their armies. Seems fine to me.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 10:21:43 pm by Shonai_Dweller »
Logged

FantasticDorf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1453 on: March 07, 2017, 07:26:55 am »

Lot of topics so i've put goblin's quoted response cut down in the spoiler.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Without meaning to derail too much into 'goblin mechanics', i can agree its not a sole factor but [BABYSNATCHER] does in play automatically single goblins out into a factional group, for example even with amicable ethics the goblins would still be hostile. Other babysnatcher civs can trade & maintain good relationships with goblins even if they agree to disagree on key topics as long as it doesn't slide too far.

Similar case study is seen in the kobold civilisations, which are KOS and can trade with other similarly aligned civilisations infact its a core mechanic of the Masterwork mod.

> Issue is localised to market settlements (fortresses, towns, retreats, dark towers) for exceeding the 10,000 cap and 120 base per site cap 0007526: Dark towers contain thousands of goblins and trolls, causing lag indeed there may be a lot of off screen goblins but there are a lot presented on the site. From experience, without expedition nobles, goblins are not fond on making new market site towers, lots of 'hamlet' level mini settlements doesn't flesh out the problem well enough.

> If you remember the horsepocalpyse animals had to be toned down because of over-population - Also carnivorous civilisations previously in worldgen used to starve but via use of cavern animals (which is now 1 super-region with thousands of regenerating animals) they have a lot of food to eat. The stolen food arguement comes from natural growth of a population hitting 120 with its animals and stopping vs, artificially getting bloated then not hard-capping to a halt, as the formula has already reached past the cap and continues to grow since they don't exactly become sterile, just have a lot of second cousins and large families.

> Trolls are huge (big as polar bear men thick with tallow fat) & beak dogs give eggs & meat, foodwise there's plenty but they also supplement their diet with eating sentient enemies, so conquering others is a non-issue foodwise. If trolls & beak dogs were non-domestic they'd have more of a issue with a nessecity to eat given that they also can hunt for animals in the surrounding area & caverns but those are finite resources.
Logged

GoblinCookie

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #1454 on: March 07, 2017, 01:32:41 pm »

The thing about goblins is that during world gen they do decently, but as soon as play begins they tend to go on a rampage and conquer half of the world. I think it might have something to do with the fact that wars in general are more common post-world gen.

They tend to do so well because they are so numerous, because they do not have to eat. 

Without meaning to derail too much into 'goblin mechanics', i can agree its not a sole factor but [BABYSNATCHER] does in play automatically single goblins out into a factional group, for example even with amicable ethics the goblins would still be hostile. Other babysnatcher civs can trade & maintain good relationships with goblins even if they agree to disagree on key topics as long as it doesn't slide too far.

Similar case study is seen in the kobold civilisations, which are KOS and can trade with other similarly aligned civilisations infact its a core mechanic of the Masterwork mod.

By hostile you mean hostile in fortress mode as opposed to fighting wars against your civ.  I do not know much about that, but I do know that wars do not happen because of babysnatching, even though they really should. 

> Issue is localised to market settlements (fortresses, towns, retreats, dark towers) for exceeding the 10,000 cap and 120 base per site cap 0007526: Dark towers contain thousands of goblins and trolls, causing lag indeed there may be a lot of off screen goblins but there are a lot presented on the site. From experience, without expedition nobles, goblins are not fond on making new market site towers, lots of 'hamlet' level mini settlements doesn't flesh out the problem well enough.

> If you remember the horsepocalpyse animals had to be toned down because of over-population - Also carnivorous civilisations previously in worldgen used to starve but via use of cavern animals (which is now 1 super-region with thousands of regenerating animals) they have a lot of food to eat. The stolen food arguement comes from natural growth of a population hitting 120 with its animals and stopping vs, artificially getting bloated then not hard-capping to a halt, as the formula has already reached past the cap and continues to grow since they don't exactly become sterile, just have a lot of second cousins and large families.

> Trolls are huge (big as polar bear men thick with tallow fat) & beak dogs give eggs & meat, foodwise there's plenty but they also supplement their diet with eating sentient enemies, so conquering others is a non-issue foodwise. If trolls & beak dogs were non-domestic they'd have more of a issue with a nessecity to eat given that they also can hunt for animals in the surrounding area & caverns but those are finite resources.

Dark fortress civs with bonecarn starve, they also starve however if you give them no farming unless you give them cave animals; the reason is not anything to do with how special the underground is but because the dark fortress site type is bugged so as to keep the creature from initially generating a population of domestic animals based upon the local environment on the surface.  Hunting provides a negligible amount of food, but does not 'run out', but a population of a few dozen per site is not viable in the long run given the enemies and beasties that there are around in most worlds.  Other sites do not really have the same problem, it is quite possible to sustain a viable population of a town or a forest retreat with non-cave animals as livestock, though the population is generally relatively small compared with a site with a great number of food sources. 

There are basically two caps, the available food mechanism decides how big the population can get and then there is a hard cap that limits the total population overall regardless of the food supply.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 95 96 [97] 98 99 ... 211