Print

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

[Necro]

In the future, maybe you will have to find something to do for da kidz, like making lots of toys. Or else they'll start doing pranks and the like, and the old dwarves will tantrum.    

[ August 31, 2007: Message edited by: Necro ]

[cOMMUNISMISFANCY]

Since when are there child labor laws in dwarven society?  Mini-Anvils should be used to forge miniature armor so we can send those children to hold off the rampaging hordes of elephants.

[Toady One]

You can put soldiers in the positions if you want, but if they are active, they won't work as with any other job.

[gloogorshkin]

That brings to mind the idea of certain nobles that would benefit from being soldiers--perhaps a drill sergeant or a general.  They could make training sessions more efficient, and maybe keep the military from going off to have a drink and a nap in the middle of an invasion :roll: .

[Noctis]

I'm disappointed!
Believe it or not, but the ability to run a Anarcho-Cummunist Fort was a major selling point for me... Alright, the manager, bookkeeper and such I can dig(try to smelt 300 steel bars w/o a bookkeeper, it's madness), but a Mayor? "Leaders"? Who need 'em? All they do is eat off yer table and slack all day long in their fancy little rooms...
And if ANY of them make ANY demands or "mandates" what-so-ever, they're gonna start practicing water breathing real fast.
Grrr...
And if that's not a permanent solution, then they're gonna become a permanent resident in a cell, with a well, a bed and a feeding area.

I suggest making leaders optional(as much as that's possible for the sake of gameplay) and make managers, bookkeepers and the like normal workers with the according labour enabled.

Also, how's the economy tiggered now? Cuz I wanna ANARCHY!
(and no, "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism)

All in good fun.

- Noctis

[Toady One]

The Mayor has always been in the game.  Allowing workers councils and so on would be fine, but it would be more work than sticking with what we already have.  But such councils would be required.  Just making leaders optional isn't a solution.  Some mechanism for decision-making should be put in place.  When the guilds come back in, it seems similar to letting them run the place, though I'm not sure who makes the large decisions about where bridges are placed or where the next mining tunnel is.  If it's everybody, there will be a lot of large meetings, though they could be somewhat abstracted away like the current mayor elections.  In any case, if you get rid of the executive, there needs to be something in its place, and there should be trade-offs.

[Asehujiko]

To be honest, i am severely disapointed with the last update.

For me the major selling point of df was that it was so accurate. When the game said somebody created a pigtail floodgate with spikes of mud, then the result was a pigtail floodgate with spikes of mud. Now all of this is gone because of some stupid mechanic that distorts information just because thats "realistic".

[LSTAR]

quote:Originally posted by Asehujiko:
<STRONG>Now all of this is gone because of some stupid mechanic that distorts information just because that's "realistic".</STRONG>

I'm not sure I quite fully agree with you or disagree, at the moment, but in my opinion, realism and accuracy are dependant on each-other. In any case, I have faith in Toady and I believe that whatever he puts into the next version will be entertaining even if I can't tell exactly how many plump helmets I harvested last season.

[RPB]

Um... as far as I can tell no information is going to get distorted that doesn't already start obscured prior to getting the bookkeeper/broker nobles. So what's the big deal? It's not like you need a noble to tell you someone's got a Pig tail floodgate that menaces with spikes of mud now, and it won't be that way after the update. Unless I've completely missed a development note somewhere, that is.

[ September 03, 2007: Message edited by: RPB ]

[Mud]

quote:Originally posted by Toady One:
<STRONG>The Mayor has always been in the game.  Allowing workers councils and so on would be fine, but it would be more work than sticking with what we already have.  But such councils would be required.  Just making leaders optional isn't a solution.  Some mechanism for decision-making should be put in place.  When the guilds come back in, it seems similar to letting them run the place, though I'm not sure who makes the large decisions about where bridges are placed or where the next mining tunnel is.  If it's everybody, there will be a lot of large meetings, though they could be somewhat abstracted away like the current mayor elections.  In any case, if you get rid of the executive, there needs to be something in its place, and there should be trade-offs.</STRONG>

That sounds really interesting. If dwarves are able to make major decisions like that for themselves, would it eventually be possible to have multiple fortresses "running" at the same time while the player controls a single fortress? Important things like export goods produced and military activity would have to be calculated fairly often, but it seems like most decisions could be abstracted out based on the sort of decision-making process you're talking about, then calculated fully when the player actually visits the site in question. You might even eventually be able to set every town, dungeon and tower to modify, improve and expand itself, at least on some level.

Of course, that brings up a great deal of AI issues, but presumably it would be possible to designate that your dwarves not mess with certain places or scheduled tasks that have critical importance. Still, overall, I think the lack of control would be more than made up for by the advantages of being able to run a network of fortresses, especially given the fact that the variety of ore and precious stones are so limited in each fortress now.

[history]

This might sit somewhat better with the rest of the game when armies and politics are released but, here goes.

quote: The baron/tax collector/hammerer are still external. The idea is to have the baron turn into a count then a duke as your fortress improves. I'd consider doing various other things with this (like having the king turn one of your dwarves into a baron instead of bringing in his cousin or whatever), but not yet.

I, personally think that it is great that we can now appoint nobles.  I still think however that given the context of the original founding of our fortress we should not be able to appoint all nobles.  A noble such as a baron or tax collector would be one example.  

Each fortress is a coloniziation effort by the parent civilization.  It is perfectly logical for the parent civilization to appoint one of its own members to supervise the activities of the settlers, who had some form of discontent great enough to propel them to strike out into the world and dig a new home.  

A noble not from one's own fortress, arriving after the fortress is deemed a 'success' in the eyes of the parent civilization, would fufil the role of superviser quite nicely.

This superviser noble would be akin to the governiers of European colonization efforts, or the political officer(a much better name for the noble) from The Hunt from Red October.

Killing the political officer could cause friction between your fort and the parent civilization, possibly ending in war and a struggle for independance.  War and independance of course would be better suited for the armies and political updates whenever they may come.  

The political officer could be a very lazy noble, or possibly assimilate into your population and begin to think like mindedly with your own dwarfs.

How to declare independance

Z    RRRRRRRRRRRRR
-    RRR*********
C    RRRs :p
R    RRRRRRRRRRRRR
D
X-COORD

R - stone
* - air
s - rope
= - support
! - lever
 :eek: - noble

[Turgid Bolk]

I do hope the game will differentiate between acts of rebellion and real accidents. I don't want to have to lock my "supervisor" in a box to keep him safe from the threat of "death by standing on a bridge to watch the seasonal floods" or somesuch. I mean, some amount of protection is needed, but is it my fault if he runs right into the goblin horde?

[TheSpaceMan]

Still, one might argue that a accident->death prone comunity is failing and thus also be a target. I don't think the king would accept that "Hey don't wory it was only 2/3 of the population that died in that flood." They would find someone responsible.

[Markavian]

quote:"Hey don't wory it was only 2/3 of the population that died in that flood." They would find someone responsible.[/QB]

"Out of the seven dwarves at Paddledwaters, one was mauled by an elephant and four drowned this season, along with all the pets. On hearing this the low King Onul Swordcats immediately demanded the expedition leader accountable, leaving it to expedition leader's best friend, but loyal envoy to the king to perform the execution... Paddlewaters now has one dwarf."

[Turgid Bolk]

Ah well, I suppose by the time that gets implemented nobles will have much better instincts of self-preservation, so you won't need to lock 'em away. Hey, they might even resist getting put into that mysterious room with the floodgates!