Ludeon Forums

Not sure if this belongs here or in "stories." If a moderator moves it I won't feel bad at all.

I was watching a LP and the player would not allow two people to share a bed until they were married. He understood the game mechanics and knew it was sub-optimal, but he described himself as "old fashioned I guess" and left it at that. It got me thinking, is there anything I won't do in the game, because in reality I wouldn't? I mean, this is a game where I'll happily chop up raiders and feed them to my wargs, or sometimes to my colonists. In this game I leave people writhing on the floor until I can bother to get around to stripping them before they die. I made a zone for a newly-acquired pack of self-taming terriers around a poison ship so when I shot it, they went for the dogs and I could shoot the robots in the back.

Surely, there's nothing I wouldn't do?

Well, that's not true Even though there is no detriment in the game for it, I simply cannot bring myself to clad my colonists in uranium helmets. I *might* put uranium armor on them and I will happily use uranium weapons but helmets? No way. Too close to the brain.

How about anybody else? Any personal taboos that keep you from doing something that is actually beneficial (or at least not harmful) in the game?

I have a few, the mostly due to OCD haha. Some are things I do that I really shouldn't, as opposed to things I won't do that I should. Like taking trophy animals wherever I end up on the map! I'll grab a cute little pet like a raccoon or Fox as a personal pet whenever I end up in a different biome that has things I don't.

I hope to end up with a zoo sometime! That would be a worthy goal of this game. An alternate win condition.

I also do whatever I can to save my animals, up until the point where it will cost the whole colony. Giving them full access to rations during lean times. And defending them from Raiders at the cost of colonists life's.

My "don'ts" are more for gameplay purposes than moral sentiment.  I don't build geothermal reactors, for example, because I enjoy the challenge of building a large enough wind/solar farm and defending it from raiders.

I don't build traps because I'm trying to avoid the "killbox" style of play of funneling enemies to certain points... although I admit my play comes pretty close with my use of perimeter walls.  (I might have to reintroduce the 50-range mod)

OK, for sentimental reasons I don't butcher/torture prisoners... in fact lately, I don't take very many prisoners.  The worsening relationships over time "feature" has removed the incentive to patch up tribals and send them on their way.  So any downed raider just becomes target practice unless they look recruitable.

Breeding animals just takes too long, and there's always herds of caribou around in a boreal forest, so I usually don't bother.

I wouldn't accept gay pawns

I don't accept cannibals.

Not sure if I'm motivated by empathy for pawns or if I'm subconsciously doing it for selfish reasons, but I don't think I've ever given my colonists bedrooms that are smaller than 4-by-5.

I usually capture and either recruit or release pirate pawns: I don't think I've ever actually executed a prisoner once they're captured (I've lost a bunch to infections/prison breaks, but it's their fault that they decided to try escaping right into Security Officer Polar Bear #2).

Usually don't steal organs: again, might be that I subconsciously avoid the mood penalty on my colonists, so not entirely altruistic motives here.

I have never made a human leather hat. I don't harvest human skin.

No cannibalism, no using or selling drugs(excluding Penoxycyline, Ambrosia, Smokeleaf; never social), no trap corridors, no mazes, no shotguns, no Sharp melee, gold or silver is currency or for Adv. Component only, no selling buying or harvesting pawns(corpses, prisoners, or colonists regardless of origin) ...

Thats all I can think of off the top of my head.

I I have also never used traps that I can remember. Always felt too cheap and easy. Along with traditional kill boxes. I might reconsider traps now, with a heavy number limit after the rework. Still no to kill boxes, although they don't function quite as well thankfully.

I refuse to make killboxes.
They feel like cheating and wouldn't be a viable defense IRL, because real people aren't stupid enough to just walk to their deaths like that. Instead, I prefer to settle on a river, as it creates a natural defensive barrier that can act almost like a natural killbox. At least it feels less cheaty.

Also if any of my animals/prisoners are about to die from disease and there's nothing I can do, I euthanize them via an operation. It's a waste of medicine but it feels more humane.

This is really interesting! When thinking about it, I never base my choices on the "assumed feelings" of colonists or pawns in general - I mostly do what is best for the colony as the playing overlord. I will keep in mind to make a playthrough being as humane as possible. I already did two with a cannibal who basically murdered everyone in cold blood who entered the vicinity.

Also interesting is the "refraining from killbox playstyle". Imagine you are a group of survivors and some hostiles want to raid you. There is literally no reason to not try and outsmart them with hidden traps or ambushes in form of open areas with setup crossfire by turrets that are not visible when outside the walls. Why ever risk a shootout when I can drop a stone on someones head. Although I definetly understand it from a gameplay perspective.

Also interesting controversy with being civilized vs just do whatever to have it better. With the not accepting gays; I dont understand why you would ever do that, but hey ... not judging here. Myself, I noticed I mostly refuse the pawns who distrust a gender. It kinda makes me think "wtf is wrong with you" - although harsh survival conditions make things like this more likely just from the psychological standpoint.

The primary argument (besides Homophobia, which isn't worth discussing) for refusing gay colonists is that, due to the rarity of the trait, you are quite unlikely to get a nother Gay character of the same gender and appropriate age for a Romance.

Your gay pawn is then likely to start making relationship attempts on people with incompatible orientations (because the algorithm for determining social interactions doesn't take the orientation of the recipient into consideration). This leads to both mood penalties (for both the recipient and the instigator of the romance attempt) and also causes a fairly-hefty Social debuff, which makes those colonists more likely to Insult one another in future. This leads to Social Fights (which can result in crushed fingers/toes, or worse if one party has a melee weapon), as well as mental breaks from the mood penalty.

I haven't ever turned down a colonist specifically because he/she was Gay (usually it's because they have a skillset I don't need, or have some kind of nasty health problem), but I do weed out Misogynists/Misandrists unless they have a very good set of traits/skills (or I'm desperate for extra bodies), for similar reasons.

Since female pawns are superior due to 85% lower chance of propositioning people (male with no relationship is like having pessimist lite due to all the rejections), gay male pawns are fine for colony stability, better than non gay males, since you should be striving for almost all female colony anyways.

I don't know, isn't it just unattached male pawns that are the problem? Because the benefits from an active relationship are enormous (for both the happy couple and the folks who attend the wedding), and I don't think I've ever had a pawn who's already in a relationship making a pass at an unassociated pawn. So the ideal colony would be couples in the 20-30 age range (you know, to avoid aging health problems), with one set of Lovers marrying per year. Or am I forgetting something?

Yes, which is why you want to avoid an excess of male pawns. That is a very important aspect of stability.

Couples has its own problem since I am often firing people from the colony as their replacements are found and would rather not want them showing up in prisoner quests. Bit if you're not playing that way then just making sure the females outnumber the males should be effective.

I refuse to leave the planet. It's mine. No one is leaving it alive.

Quote from: vzoxz0 on September 18, 2018, 06:01:56 PM
I refuse to leave the planet. It's mine. No one is leaving it alive.

Same. The only time I leave the planet is when I have school/life stuff to attend to and I want to take a break from the game. Finishing the game by launching the ship is a good way of removing the distraction.

On the gay pawn thing... why isn't situational homosexuality a thing in Rimworld?  It's certainly popular enough in historical settings (California miners, navy men, prisoners, etc.).  If your colony has a serious male/female imbalance it would be entertaining to see one of the hetero men say "Oh why not?" after being propositioned repeatedly by the lone gay male.

I can't help but wonder if this horse has already been beaten to death in another thread...

Quote from: Shurp on September 18, 2018, 06:38:03 PM
On the gay pawn thing... why isn't situational homosexuality a thing in Rimworld?  It's certainly popular enough in historical settings (California miners, navy men, prisoners, etc.).  If your colony has a serious male/female imbalance it would be entertaining to see one of the hetero men say "Oh why not?" after being propositioned repeatedly by the lone gay male.

I can't help but wonder if this horse has already been beaten to death in another thread...

I had a male colonist without the "gay" trait eventually marry one of my gay colonists after being wooed by him. After his husband got killed by mechanoids, he went back to flirting with girls, though.

Anyway, one thing I would never do is eat/harvest one of my own dead colonists. I always make extravagant sarcophagi and tombs for my fallen boys and girls.

Quote from: Swarx on September 18, 2018, 07:02:04 PM
I always make extravagant sarcophagi and tombs for my fallen boys and girls.

Funny, I have a more complicated system for who gets put in a sarcophagus. Only colonists who made significant contributions to the colony get a sarcophagus, everyone else just gets a normal grave.

I second making killboxes, even though I should because I'm awful at combat. Not so much a refusal but a strong choice not to use the mini turrets, they can be a bit chaotic for my tastes.  I don't butcher humans, but only because of the colony wide mood debuff. It'd be neat if you could have the cannibals do it in secret, like if nobody sees it happen or sees the byproducts its all good.

I always avoided turrets for the most part also, but with the big rework, it will be interesting to see how they handle.

Things i refuse?

Quote from: The List
1. Making Killboxes. Kind of kills the fun & challenge IMO.

2. Killing my own colonists. I only banish them unless there are family members or a loved one, or my playthrough is cannibals if you're not a psychopath or a cannibal.

3. Making Mountain bases. Because of bug hives.

4. Giving everyone the same clothing & uniform. Everyone wearing Flak Jackets or Power Armor, i would give them different clothing & armor for them, even the same clothes but a different type of leather or materials or even a different hat.

I never struggled with the relationship so much that I considered gender selection - although I get annoyed by all the attempts on a married couple. Guess I jumped to conclusions when I first read the refusing gays statement - sorry about that.
Since I also dont really see the point of a ship launch, I do the opposite and avoid open maps and like to build mountain bases. Interesting is that combined with a very cold map - low temperatures prevent hives from spawning - they dont seem like a problem, altough that kinda feels like cheating. Maybe I got lucky on my runs and thats why I still dont actively avoid the infestations.

I basically don't do anything that I won't do in real life considering circumstances. No killings apart from self-defense, no messing with humans body (like butchering, cannibalism or organ harvest; I perform unneeded surgeries to train med skill though), I took all pawns and their bonded pets to ship, I don't respond to calls for help.

Go to stupid lengths to reduce wealth to make the game easier. Maybe the wealth/raid system is broken, but I won't do silly things to game it

Kind of a random thought, but don't "mini turrets" equal around 4 per human in value now?

Bionics are not really worth it anymore since they dramatically increase value. I can have what, 5 mini turrets with power source vs one guy with an archotech eye.

1. wall off any entrance. If its there, it will be defended, not closed  8)
2. Its not really a 'refuse', but more like try, but I always try to build rooms like recreation room with crazy amount of wealth (my idea is something like a golden pyramid my colonists can go to have fun at  ;D), or have an armory for weapons. Also give each important colonist (usually the first 4 guys) a special room with stuff in it. The constructor always gets his room linked to furniture assembly hall, where all my furniture get assembled, butcher gets his own freezer, researcher get the research table as part of his room, etc. Its far from optimal but fun  ;D
I also love building out of wood, especially in middle of desert  ;)
3. if using mods with all kinds of stuff, I sometimes pretend some of the more crazy things are just results of crazy experiments my researcher did, and so I build only one of them. For example there used to be a mod that added some kind of potato generator, or plasma generator with fun properties. Though in later stages of the game I would sometimes build more of them, kinda like the guy finally figured how to make more then just the single prototype of deadly radiation emitting generator he put straight next to the bed he sleeps at :-)

Oo I like this thread, fun to read about different rules. Like some others here, I don't have definite rules against cannibalism, killing/harvesting prisoners etc. but those are for state of emergency only. Like if one of my pawns has a bad heart condition, so of course he'll get a new heart, fresh from the prison hospital. But here are some of the gameplay rules I have:

1.  No mods which will make the gameplay easier without balancing it by introducing additional challenge. It's relative, but means no to really many mods. Mods such as EdB Prepare Carefully is okay, as I use it to create a crappy colonist to begin the game with.

2. Only start with a single colonist. And a husky. Also 3 medicines, and 3 meals.

3. There can be only one wall, to cover one direction, if the colony is near the edge of the map.

4. No turret building. Capturing turrets from a mission is okay though. This seems to mean that on average there are 1 or 2 turrets "alive".

Rule 3 and 4 are kinda new, in earlier games I never had any turrets or walls.

5. No killboxes. I do build massive sandbag defense lines with chunks in front of them etc. but I like to defence with pawns.

6. According to my rulebook it's okay build a space ship, but haven't, and doubt if ever will.

7. For all of the deceased colonists there will be a great mausoleum, built mainly from slade, also silver, jade and limestone. In this mausoleum there are resting places for about 20 pawns. Each will get a sarcophagus, and the first casualty of the colony will get a golden/silver one to honor his/her personal sacrifice to the colony, and to honor all to follow. Silver or jade to all really great pawns. Normals and short-lived get stone, usually sandstone. There are also two separate rooms for 3-4 more, one room for especially helpful and long serving colony animals, and the other for really troublesome colonists. Both of these will get a wooden box only. Usually I get to build this mausoleum around year 6-8, before this there's a crummy storage with wooden sarcophagi for colonists who died during the early game.

I have never been on a forum with so many people who play games the way they are "meant" to be played.

It is refreshing to know that I'm not the only one trying to just have fun when I game vs attempting to beat the system and "be the best".

<3

I don't really do killboxes as such. I usually make a main entrance that's more "realistically" defended by turrets, sandbags and a mine/trap field, then have some sandbags and mini turrets dotted around the main buildings, behind the surrounding wall. I don't do trap corridors.

I don't play without infestations disabled. I don't build deep mountain bases anyway (I like house clusters) and I don't want to have to avoid those dark green tiles like plague just for building into a hill that has 10 tiles of mountain.

I don't accept chemical interests/fascinations.

I won't kill wild people (or let them join, since their skills suck).
Wild people are also the only ones who gets a grave.
I will go out of my way to murder other people though. Including Tynan.

I tend to start out a new colony with reasonably high expectations for moral behavior and then slowly descend into a more grey area as circumstances force me to make hard choices. Once you learn how to read the impact various actions have on your pawns and their behavior, it quickly becomes clear what sort of behavior is tolerated and what isn't. It's not difficult to run a colony that's ruthlessly efficient but also happy, because you only need to avoid specific types of "bad" behavior and they're all pretty obvious. Don't eat or butcher humans, don't abuse/kill prisoners and don't harm your own pawns or tamed animals on purpose. That's pretty much it. Everything else is just a matter of base layout, resource management and a bit of luck.

I never take a prisoner i don't intend to release (release WITHOUT amputation) or recruit.

dying pawns on the ground get looked at....non-recruitables from pirate factions get shot on the ground, non-recruitable AND permanently-immobile non-pirate pawns get the same (brain damage, spine destroyed, etc.)

I know many people harvest prisoners for parts and medical xp, but I just kill on the ground, or capture-release or capture-recruit.



I never have my colonists willingly use the "hard" drugs....yayo, flake, go-juice.  And i usually (but not always) avoid using beer (unless it's gifted) or smokeleaf.  We also don't eat ambrosia....BUT i make heavy use of luciferium in my games, and i often produce drugs, but only to sell.

There's not a lot of things I don't do because I like, morally object to, like my colonists rarely do drugs only because I can't be arsed to make them myself and I don't want to deal with addiction/withdrawal, not because I'm a prohibitionist.

I think the only thing is, I won't kill/execute/sell into slavery/position them near raiders any of my colonists because they're useless. I've executed them if they've committed severe enough crimes during a rage. And I euthanised one who was braindead (Which was one of those most memorable things I've done in the game), and I won't rescue sailors or sheriffs from bandit camps or raiders. But once they're in my colony, I try to protect them best I can and find the best use out of them I can.

1) I don't do unnecessary surgeries to train medical, too micro-y and boring, and also unnecessary because of #2
2) I allow surgery fails, but I don't allow surgery fails that also consume the body part.
3) I don't use traps and use very few turrets, but still make heavy use of walls and killboxes.  I can't be asked to do combat the "challenging" way anymore; been there done that, and after 1000 hours it's just way too micro-y, boring and RNG.
4) I don't allow social fights to do permanent damage.  If somebody loses a toe in a social fight, it gets dev consoled back.  Wasn't a rule before B19, it's just way too common now, and completely unrealistic of actual social fights
5) I don't hunt with groups of drafted colonists, way too micro-y and boring.  Thusly, I also don't allow full herd animal revenge--if they do, they get console removed like they were never there in the first place.  The compromise is I don't get that meat and leather.  Single animal revenge is ok, even though that's also kinda bullshit because the AI governing hunting sucks.
6) I don't build the spaceship
7) Mid to late game, I don't allow pawns to choose their own partners (not that they would anyway, because romance is broken after about 10 colonists).  When I can afford to, I build a special "luxury" complex with a bedroom, private fridge, private kitchen, private bathroom, has TV, etc. and lock two single pawns in there until they fuck.  Once they do, they get booted back out to the common rooms and replaced with the next aspiring couple.  Arranged marriages for the win.
8.) If Pawn A hits on Pawn B and gets refused, and then Pawn B hits on Pawn A a short time later and gets refused, they get dev consoled into a relationship because that's nonsense.
9) I changed the value of -15 "Failed to romance me" to +5 to simulate flattery and the principle of successful persistence.  This obviously leads to more romances, but it also tends to lead to more affairs, which IMO is way more fun than the nearly insurmountable monogamous relationship values in vanilla.
10) I almost never use animals for combat.  They're just too precious to me emotionally, and also just way too stupid, bless their little hearts.
11) If I get attacked by manhunting cats, they get console removed because I refuse to kill cats.  I use console to fire a different manhunter event after.
12) I don't accept "Innocent Prisoner Died" mood debuffs, and they get modded to 0--because trying my absolute best to save someone's life but having them bleed out before I can triage them, and then getting a colony-wide debuff for it, is nonsense.  As tradeoff, I never leave anyone to bleed out on the battlefield, friend or foe, and always try to save everyone every time.
13) Until there's at least a *sort of* reliable way to down prisoners without killing or maiming them, I don't play with prison breaks.

#7 and #9 are interesting, I may give those a try.  How hard is #9 to mod?  I like the idea of rewarding pawns for trying to start relationships and having entertaining chaos result.

Hmmm, I just realized something else.  #9 is the only way to get #7 to work, otherwise persistence will result in violence.

It's an edit to one variable in a single xml file.  Find your Rimworld folder, navigate to Mods\Core\Defs\ThoughtDefs\Thoughts_Memory_Social.xml, open that up in a text editor, ctrl+f to find "failedromance", then change the baseOpinionOffset value to whatever you'd like.

#9 isn't required for #7, they won't fight unless they weren't compatible anyway.  It just speeds up the process a bit, and prevents situations where they each have 3-4x rebuff on each other, which actually happens irritatingly often.  I've done #7 forever, but I only just started #9 in my newest game. It always feels like romances stop almost completely once your base gets big enough, simply because they don't have enough opportunities to meet and chat with each other unless they're both cooks, etc.  And that's no fun.

I don't butcher people. I'll leave them to rot, but I won't butcher them. I also don't tend to take many prisoners; probably my most common outcome is just leaving them to their fates. If they recover after the battle, they leave peacefully, so it's not like I really lose out by just ignoring them, and it's loads easier. If they bleed out, I generally just leave the bodies there until something eats 'em, or drag them to a dump.

The real reason I avoid both of these is I think they make the game kind of silly. There's something deeply wrong about raids where the more you're attacked, the richer you get. But it's nice not to have to worry about separating food stockpiles or having tons of prison cells.

Quote from: Aszh on September 22, 2018, 11:53:16 AM
9) I changed the value of -15 "Failed to romance me" to +5 to simulate flattery and the principle of successful persistence.  This obviously leads to more romances, but it also tends to lead to more affairs, which IMO is way more fun than the nearly insurmountable monogamous relationship values in vanilla.

I'd never thought of tinkering with that... I might mod it to depend on the attraction/compatibility values between the pawns, so that pawns who hate each other don't magically hook up, but ones who are marginal aren't scared away.

Things I won't do...
Bury pets.
Accept pyro's as colonists. if they wander in, guess who gets to visit ancient evils first.
Let my pawns use drugs; that's excluding beer!

There should be another thread...things I'd never have opted for before.
Like, heck, I'll lop off that prisoner's leg.... just in case Rhonda my sharpshooter needs it.

I don't use combat strategies that feel unrealistic, or that abuse the AI tactics.

I won't allow visiting pyromaniacs to live, I arrest and execute them, for my own colonists I'm a bit nicer, they go for medical 'treatment' and then are executed humanely.

I don't usually allow my single starving colonist to die to malnutrition when they are laying next to a pile of food, especially if they had a tantrum of sorts that rendered them that way to start with. Hediff removal, one of the few times I'll actually console debug something.

Never recruit pyros, chemical guys, lazies or slowpokes. The lazy reasoning is like, Im here trying to save all your asses, and everyone is doing its part, and you have the balls to not give a shit? Well, you can die. Pyros and chemicals... Well, its a mental illness... But I already have enough shit to deal, and I cannot and will help someone who is not willing to help himself. Slowpoke I understand it as lazy.

TBH I never get old people either... Tho I should get them, or at least put the ones that are extremely fucked up to sleep (80 year old, bad memory, scars, etc), since it would be doing them a favor...

I never recruit fat people cause, even tho I know the mechanics are irrelevant for this, to me its like "wtf, are you stealing food? gtfo".

I also never recruit another kind of people... But people will be very triggered for this so I wont say. And yes, people will be triggered in this forum where, ironically, where they make jokes about war crimes, tortures, treating humans like livestock, etc.

I don't refuse any refugees, even if they're not very useful. I also don't harvest organs, butcher or otherwise mistreat prisoners: If they're not worth recruiting they get released unharmed.

I don't do killboxes, although natural chokepoints created by terrain features are fair game.

I don't allow my pawns to use any drugs harder than smokeleaf and psychoid tea unless they're already addicts, or become such by binging on the stuff they found in a dead raider's pockets if I can't put a stop to that in time.

I make a ridiculous amount of effort to make the colony pleasant to live in, with plenty of recreation options and the spaces between buildings filled with flowerbeds and lawns with the occasional sculpture.

I generally don't banish or dispose of pawns which have become useless because it seems too much like min/maxing and is somewhat immersion breaking to me. My current game is set at the difficulty of Cassandra Rough with Marvin's Combat Readiness mod (highly recommended) and I recently had a pawn who gained mild blindness in both eyes on his 46th birthday (mod). By the time he was 48 he had gone profoundly blind in both eyes (same mod). He was my best shooter AND doctor at the time, but I just sucked it up and got through the setback. Last few years he's been a star animal handler. Thanks for your service Noob!

Also had a pawn who had a birthday and became frail. That one really sucks, but c'est la vie right? She's still doing all the same jobs just more slowly. We're all in this together!

That being said, I've been considering banishing a raider I converted who keeps having semi-regular breaks and tries to keep binging on the hardest drugs he can find. Shattered his nose the first time trying to  down him, but he still persists. Now that I think of it, maybe I will implement a 3 strikes you're out rule... that could be interesting an interesting way to trim the fat on unstable pawns clogging up the colony works. Then again, some seasons are bad for everyone and that sort of strict policy could leave the policy quite empty pretty quickly. But I digress, I think I'll head over to the scenario forum with a new idea.

Well,

— no mods. At some point I used a mod that introduced hysteresis in hauling, but later I figured out how to make efficient food production chain using game features only. This chain does not even need additional hauler (cook can do it all), though dogs do increase production rate.

— no gay colonists. Never.

— no ugly traits, no sex-hater traits, no addict traits, no pyro traits. This all is driven by efficiency motives for couple-based colony.

— no part havesting (except bionics) or unnecessary mutilation of prisoners despite my colonies always sells a lot of human skin and train animals with insect-human kibble (good stuff for training cooking). I like how game allows me to butcher gays, then turn them into fuel, then into energy. But my colonies never execute prisoners even if some turns out to be gays. I train surgery on prisoners by installing/removing peg legs but only if a man already has a peg leg or got his leg shoot off during fight. If a man got into my cell it's a guaranty to be alive, he'll end up as a colonist or will be sold.

— never allow my men to die. Consequently very strict selection criteria.

I always refuse to forgive wild animals that ate my crops.
I always kill them with our bullets of justice. 8)

I'm not gonna go through all my GD plants and click cut plant on every GD blighted plant then select my grower and click "prioritize cut plant" on every single GD blighted plant.

If there's a blight the whole fucking field is gone, sorry look like you're eating meat for a while boys.

I just don't have the patience to deal with blight properly. 

You're not the only person that has molotovd a field in response to blight.

Better than getting carpal tunnel.

Fat pawns.

They're not fat, they're drawn as obese. Should be redrawn ASAP to something like this:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d5/34/47/d53447af5b8561baf072478b7920dc63.jpg)

What are those..things sticking out from his torso? Those long wiggly things around the axe and the long tubes that touch the ground? WHY WOULD YOU POST SUCH A LOVECRAFTIAN NIGHTMARE?

Yeah, what gives?  Why can I see his pants?  I'm looking at his *under* clothes, aaaiiii!!!!

I never turn away people in need, even if they are useless.

I think carewolf plays on "base builder" :P

I can think of only one thing I want to add to this great thread. I refuse to allow non compatible pawns to live in the same colony. For example I had a pawn that was in a relationship with another one and one of the other guys kept hitting on her all the time and was constantly depressive. I also refuse to banish people for reasons like that (it has to be really bad) so instead what I do in these situations is I send the pawn who is incompatible off to found another colony on a nearby tile with a different biome. I love having more than one colony and I wish the limit wasn't 5. Micromanaging 2-3 raids at once is a lot of fun and one of the things I enjoy the most about this game. With the new caravanning system being so efficient it's easy to have a 'courier' who ships goods back and forth between your colonies. I like to settle a few settlements like this and have a country with colonies of up to 10 pawns each. Lets you spread wealth around better too so the raids don't ramp up like crazy.