Messages

Well you've got Rice and Corn mixed up in your summary.

1st. Corn can be eaten raw without penalty, Rice cannot.

2nd. Corn yields 18 per harvest, not 16. (Meaning it actually generates the most food-per-time-per-crop)

3rd. Only Corn isn't susceptible to crop blights.

4th. Spoil times are as follows (In days)
Corn: 60
Potatoes: 30
Rice: 40
Berries: 14
How relevant that is depends on your circumstances obviously.

More important than all of that is this: Corn requires less work per food than any other plant by a significant margin.

Quite simply you have to walk to it less often, plant it less often, harvest it less often, haul it less often.
The result is that you can generate more corn per time than the other crops not only because it genuinely does yield more food/time but because your colonists can plant more of it because of all the spare time you have due to not having to constantly walk/replant/harvest/haul.

Damn stuff is even immune to blights, can be eaten raw, and spoils the slowest. There's really not any competition at all.

Edit: Oh and Corn is tied for most valuable at 2.1 silver each with Berries. Potatoes/Rice are 1.9 each

To be clear - If you're referring to drop pod raiders then the map itself is irrelevant.


Drop pod attacks always land closest to your oldest trade beacon.
Last time I checked if your only trade beacon is indoors and you place a second beacon outdoors, the drop pods will instead around that.

You can more or less decide exactly where drop pod raids land.

i think the level of equipment should also be considered. since better swords + higher melee skills + bionics = higher chance of incapacitation/instakill per hit, multiplied by number of swordsmen.

Well to a degree - I'm comparing weapons of equal quality to determine the merits of the weapon types.
Higher quality weapons will do more damage but if they're of equal quality the %'s I listed are correct.
Higher melee skill isn't biased towards either weapon type in the long term.
There's a slightly counterintuitive scenario whereby a low accuracy colonist is probably more suited to having a Longsword since the average distance covered when wielding a knife is likely too far to be practical, so you're essentially just hoping for a lucky hit with a sword at that point. That aside it's fairly irrelevant.

Bionics don't increase the damage per swing of melee strikes, only the manipulation of the pawn and by extension their accuracy. So, see above.

besides, i've often seen knife attacks get deflected by power armor (though i might just be imagining things).

Fairly sure you're imagining things. Rimworld mitigation isn't flat armor which prevents X points of damage, it's % based damage reduction.

Pawns can't move after completing a melee attack until their weapon is off cooldown. Even if you manually order them to do so.
Ignoring material modifiers that means if you're using a longsword in order to chase someone down your pawn will have to stand around for a full 2.5 seconds after swinging before it can move again and attempt to catch up.

This is fairly important since after being struck in melee combat pawns *must* stand still for a short period of time which makes knives a lot better at keeping opponents from fleeing, but it doesn't necessarily mean you're more likely to kill them before they reach the edge of the map if you're only using a single person to chase. Keep in mind other colonists benefit from the hit-stun effect of knives.

(Shivs are pieces of crap by the way - strictly worse than knives, so stick to knives.)

Long story short - Knives are about 80% of the dps of longswords and swing about 66% faster which effectively means that pawns armed with longswords have to spend 66% more time running between hits. ( Not accounting for the hit-stun effect which the knives benefit more from. )

Ignoring the nature of wounds I'd say that Knives look like they've got the edge in this respect as your Longsword armed colonist would have to be significantly faster than the fleeing pawn in order to compensate for all that extra run time in order to maximize the Longsword dps which would bring the average kill time to below the knife's.

That said, a lucky longsword hit might remove a limb or instantly kill the fleeing pawn whereas an optimal knife hit is probably only going to slow them down.

Over long chases knives will be more consistent and will minimize the average distance a fleeing pawn covers, but they're less likely to spontaneously kill an opponent over the course of a chase that was so short that the knife couldn't have output the requisite dps.



Really what you want to do is have more than 1 pawn chasing down each raider, preferably one armed with a Knife and the other with a Longsword. The Knife will consistently hit-stun the target and weaken every hit-location, the longsword as a result will be able to more quickly catch targets and maximize its own dps while also being more likely to completely remove pre-wounded locations.

It's hardly a suggestion. It's just a bug
"I suggest this bug be fixed" Perhaps?

Stonecutting tables assume that every block type is identical.

Just as the Op pointed out if you have 100 Basalt blocks your " Craft 90 Sandstone blocks" bill simply won't function regardless of the quantity of sandstone blocks.

False, Boboid.

This is only about the events. Meaning in A10 you don't get any events leading to more colonists when the soft cap is reached. You have a zero percent chance on getting a joined wanderer, slave trader etc.

Now in A11 the only difference is that the chance will not be zero (but still very tiny). So whilst having more colonists than the cap allows, you can still hope for an event (plus the new events Tynan has added.)

Nothing I've said is false. Please go back and re-read what I've written very carefully.
I've been quite clear to differentiate between event based growth and recruitment every single time I've mentioned either. But hey, just for giggles let's do it again.
When I say "Hard cap" in reference to population growth I mean a complete inability to increase your population by any means. Because that's what a hard cap is.

In A10 there is a hard cap on event based population growth (Which I already specifically mentioned and differentiated, twice.. good grief people).
In A11, there won't be. The chance may be infinitesimally small but it will still exist.

None of this changes the fact that in A10 and continuing on into A11 there is no hard population cap which prevents population increase through recruiting prisoners, which is why I mentioned and cleared it up in the first place since the OP -seemed to me- to be under the impression that recruiting was impossible -or at least too hard- beyond a certain point, which isn't really the case.


The only thing I'm not absolutely sure about is the recruitment difficulty of prisoners taken after passing the Critical threshold. I've never payed enough attention to recruitment difficulty ( due to the inevitable nature of the mechanic ) to notice any patterns regarding it.

[HARD]

There is no HARD cap on population, only soft caps that attempt to slow down population growth, they'll never stop it entirely.

I will answer with quote

Population control on storyteller can't reduce incident chances to zero any more; there is always a tiny chance. Just to maximize variety.

Like you see in A10 storytellers can reduce incidents to zero.

You're misunderstanding both the notion of a Hard cap and the implications of that changelog.

There is no system in place that will completely cease population gain through recruitment. Period. End of story. Fin.

What you're referencing is the event system which will eventually stop sending you free colonists, crashed colonists, and slave ships once you're above a certain threshold. This does not prevent your population from increasing.
There have even been posts of colonies that contain hundreds of colonists.

[HARD]

Rimworld folder -> Mods -> Core -> Defs -> StorytellerDefs

Looks like Cassandra and Pheobe both aim for 11 and start turning off certain events at 16.

There is no HARD cap on population, only soft caps that attempt to slow down population growth, they'll never stop it entirely.

In my experience while events that gift you colonists will cease and recruit difficulty may increase ( hard to say ) over time your overall population will still exponentially increase on reasonably high difficulties due to raid scaling.

Keep in mind that a 99 recruit difficulty prisoner will inevitably be recruited given enough time, lowering your population won't make that prisoner any easier to recruit. However being below the Critical value will likely enable slavers again.
Again though it's a bit hard to say exactly what the effects are, I'd have to do way more digging than I have time for so take everything with a pinch of salt.

"Population control on storyteller can't reduce incident chances to zero any more; there is always a tiny chance. Just to maximize variety."

^ This will be a huge deal. Even if the chances are tiny it'll make for more interesting choices.
Wish I had time to test it out

Now if only we could get actual people to obey these kinds of zones in real life

you mean like bathrooms?

Exactly like bathrooms.
You need only be stuck in an airport for 6 hours to discover that even basic signage is often completely ignored

Now if only we could get actual people to obey these kinds of zones in real life

Cleanup and refactor of HediffDefs and related code.

._.

Bahahahaha. I'm a bad, bad man for laughing at you but.. I can't help it.

Violating surgery means euthanasia, or harvesting of any organ or body part which is not infected or damaged somehow.

What about edge cases like a visitor having a Bionic leg and replacing it with a Peg Leg?
I assume if you went about it by going Remove/Harvest->Install there would be a penalty.
But what about just over-writing it with Install in order to get their delicious bionic-bits?

[some]

....based on the changelog.

Irrelevant. You know virtually none of the pertinent details.

You've got no context beyond your own assumptions.

At best this is theory-crafting without any of the evidence to back it up.

Nope. We know that the AI has gone through a re-work. One of the pre-requisites of getting barricades back, stated by Tynan was an AI re-work.

If you opt to take that statement that way then you might as well say that any AI change would've been a sufficient justification for the implementation of embrasures.

Raiders now target crops = Embrasures are now sensible!
Nope.

Plus those Sapper raids are not constant but just a different type of raid (like sieges). So the current AI behaviour will remain in place, which makes testing in the current build viable.

The fact that all raids may not include sapper behavior doesn't change the fundamental embrasure problem.
All you're saying here is that some raiders might circumnavigate embrasures and somehow that's a justification for their existence.

--
Don't get me wrong guys I want to have this discussion - when there's some actual context, information and testing to base it off of.

Right now all you've got is If-buts-and-maybes.

As I said, this is all just wild speculation.