Messages

I'll add a suggestion that auto slaughter goes for oldest first to our list of ideas, thanks for the report.

Auto slaughter of juvenlies, right?

Because going for youngest is perfectly valid for the mature ones - where you want to keep the breeding stock young.

Last I checked:
- wheter to eat animals is a "agree to disagree" ethical issue
- cannibalism is classified as it's own criminal offense

I am confused, you are talking about reality here?  A legally neutral stance of some issues (like eating animals or slavery) is effectively supporting one side of the equation.  Neither slavers nor non-vegetarians seek to ban the not-keeping of slaves or the not-eating of meat. 

Wait, is your argument: "In the current game Vegetarians have no issues with Cannibals, so that should never change"?
Because I fail to see the logic in that.

You could always decide to go after a naturally neutral faction. Just few people do it, because aside from those hardcoded ones there is very little

That the raiders are friendly should be oversahdowed by the fact that all non-raiders hate your guts.
The wierdest thing is that this would be a logical continuation of your suggestion Actually take ethics into account when trading stuff at settlements
Why would Vegetarian Farmers trade with the Cannibal Raider Player tribe in the first palce?

It isn't the logical continuation of anything, obviously the Vegetarian farmers will trade with the Cannibal Raider Player if they have something to trade that isn't meat which the Vegetarian farmers want.  People can trade with each-other and 'agree to disagree' on ethical issues, that is what happens all the time.

Last I checked:
- wheter to eat animals is a "agree to disagree" ethical issue
- cannibalism is classified as it's own criminal offense

But why would raiders ever like eachother?  Everyone to the raiders that isn't them is their prey, this is what the raiding meme implies and there is no reason why it would not include other raiders.

And you having the Raiding meme would mean you are "one of them". Even if your faction name is slightly different, you are a fellow raider. As long as you do not attack them, they have no more reason to attack you then any based on their own faction.

or have a setting on clothing/armor bills for whether to dye it or not, similar to the set quality, hp, do to x ones
say if you tick (x) [dye after done if material available] then select the color, the bill would take 5 more work unit, and 1 dye as additional material

That would only work the Ideology Color.
And even that much work, would basically require doubling the number of recipees for any colorable item - one uncolored, one Ideology colored.

Different Characters prefer different colors and you never make a item for a specific character. And we need those differences to visually tell characters appart.
We just need some way to set up prefered colors in the clothing rules.
Something like selecting a prefered color for the Torso, the head and one for the legs, with any item covering multiple regions affecting one section only.

I disagree, there are other reasons why people might hate you aside from simply ideology.  Historically most vicious enemies were ideologically speaking quite similar.  You could even argue they were such enemies because they were so similar.  Why would raiders be neutral and not raid each-other for instance?

The main argument for this is dashed by how we can now create worlds with no natural enemy factions if we wish.

You could always decide to go after a naturally neutral faction. Just few people do it, because aside from those hardcoded ones there is very little

That the raiders are friendly should be oversahdowed by the fact that all non-raiders hate your guts.
The wierdest thing is that this would be a logical continuation of your suggestion Actually take ethics into account when trading stuff at settlements
Why would Vegetarian Farmers trade with the Cannibal Raider Player tribe in the first palce?

I'm not running any mods that affect animals in any way, but somehow this happened.

My rule for debugging is to disable any mods, especially the ones that could not possibly cause it.

It takes one mod author making a copy of a vanilla file during some experiment and forgettig it is there, to reintroduce bugs that have been fixed for years.

Yeah having half of my lifestock suddenly wander off because I dident have fences (because they dident excist back then?) when I came back to 1.3 was a big kick in the teeth.

Now that I got a little used to the mechanic though I quite like it but it does mean you have to take space for animals in mind alot more. I used to migrate them around from field to field and let them graze off grass but that doesent seem to be possible anymore

If you make each "grazing field" a pen, it should be as possible as it always was.

But chances are that if you need to do it, you propably got too many animals or way to few animal handlers.

I have mods, but none related to styling or auto styling.

Turn off all mods, especially the ones that could not possibly be the cause for it.

It takes one modder having copied a old version of a core file and forgotten it to keep old bugs.

Currently stuff like "Raiders hate you" is hardcoded into the game.
I do not think it should be. I think that should be the result of having incompatible Memes and Precepts - or having compatible Memes and Precepts.

A Raider Nation (one with a Religion that supports raiding) should be at odds with all non-raiders. But at least start neutral will all fellow raiders.

Several Precepts that lack a balancing factor (like "Cannibalism: Allowed") could be balanced simply on everyone else thinking you are a crazy cannibal for even consiering it allowed.

This is a game about survival and water is far more important for survival than food is.  You can go many more days without food than you can without water.

This is a game where a seaon lasts 15 days and a year 60.
Pawns would do nothing BUT drink 24/7 if the need for water was modelled remotely realistic.

The game is broken in that level. And here we are with SUPER CRAZY idea of fixing it.

What is even or purpose of "Ideas" section, when you hear an answer "just made a mod"?
Delete this section because with this attitude is unnecessarily.

"A mod is inherently broken and the author non-responsive. Let us change the game so it is working again!" is not a sensible idea.

The mod author decided to check for fingers, rather then the hand. That is the fundamental design mistake the mod author made.
The mod is the part that needs to be fixed.

If you look at any Vanilla Armor you will notice they cover:
- Shoulder
- Arm

Not a single line will reference the Hand or Fingers. Because for the game, the hand is a sub-part of the arm and the fingers a sub-part of the hand. That should have been a dead giveaway for the mod author that what he was doing was not supported.
He choose to do it anyway.
Now you are complaining he stopped supporting the mod and demand the basegme changes to support it.

I can not reproduce this with the save you provided, with or without ideology.  Pawns respect their assigned areas and do not leave to tend animals.  It may be fixed in 1.3.3080, though I have had this reported before and not been able to reproduce it, or the meditation bug.

My guess is:
1. The Animal was in the restricted zone when the command targetted it
2. The Animal walked out of the zone to feed or whatever
3. The order still follows the animal, outside the allowed zones.

There is a similar thing with hunting orders. Once the Pawn locks in a target, it will hunt it no mater how far it moves from the allowed zones.

I just realized my asumed root word was wrong.
It is the Gauranlen tree.
But the Dryads that make more are called Gaumakers.

So "Gau" seems to be the root word after all. Gau got a lot of meanings, most of them relating to palces:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gau
In Cantonese it is also a vulgar word meaning "male genetilia" - so it would mean "dick!"

Still nothing I could easily associate with a tree.

I recently learned that apparently animals that are tamed produce more meat when slaughtered (as opposited to hunting and killing their wild counterparts).
For Pen Animals, that bonus might require them to be inside the pen.

So actually changing the order of operations might be a problem.

I know and don't care, I still won't be keeping animals except to haul stuff or fight.  If I need a special pen with lots of grass to raise meat-animals, I might as well simply eat the animals and then plant crops in what would be their pen.

I run out of worktime for plantworkers long before I run out of plantable space on any halfway decent map.
So if I can turn a lot of grass that needs no pawn time to plant or harvest into food? All with minimal work for slaughtering or milking? That is already a good deal.

The increased meat amount is merely the icing on the cake.

Water is surely more important than toilets.

Also part of Dubs Hygiene.