Messages

[IS]

Denim is..... just cotton. Its just cotton woven in a specific way. That's it.

If you add denim, what is the difference between denim cloth and 'regular' cotton cloth? Realistically, just a pattern, and since the pawns don't weave the cotton into cloth in Vanilla Rimworld, who is to say they aren't making it into denim?

Needless diversification.

A plasteel longsword is just. . . steel. It's just plasteel forged in a specific way. That's it.

Denim isn't just "cotton" in the same way raw meat isn't a hamburger and rocks aren't concrete. There is a reason and a process for justifying the use of one thing over the other. There's a reason for all the hyperlinks in my original post, I did some research into this so I wouldn't be suggesting something "needless." From your reply, you're acting as if the stuff in your T-shirts and beanies is the same as a pair of jeans. . . which simply isn't the case. Denim is some tough stuff, I think it could justify its place in the game.

The stuff in my T-shirts and beanies IS the same stuff in a pair of jeans, mate. The only difference is how it is woven. The literal only difference. Same material.

Plasteel is not steel. That, my friend, is a stupid comparison.  Sorry, but it's true.

Denim is..... just cotton. Its just cotton woven in a specific way. That's it.

If you add denim, what is the difference between denim cloth and 'regular' cotton cloth? Realistically, just a pattern, and since the pawns don't weave the cotton into cloth in Vanilla Rimworld, who is to say they aren't making it into denim?

Needless diversification.

If you read the description on the "Information" page of all leathers in-game, you will see that they are all already dried, tanned, and scraped.

Once you remove the hair or fur from a hide, all leather is pretty much the same.

I would like to see animal pelts divided into "hides" and "furs". Hides are pelts that are dried, tanned and scraped, and furs are pelts that have been preserved with the hair/fur on.

Furs would be much better for cold-weather clothing, while hides would be tougher, for general-purpose use.

Of course, in my opinion, animal pelts should be rebalanced, both to be worth more and to 'give more material', as it were.  When i made my buckskin leggings in real life, it took 3 buckskins, not 30.

-facepalm-

Would someone please tell me why children are viewed as useless until they are 12? It -must- be a modern thing, related to the compulsory education that keeps children locked indoors for 8/12 months of thr year until they are adults....

One of the many reasons preindustrial, and even post-industrial familes had many children was so they could help with the work. On a farm, children didn't just sit and drool until they were 16. Even children barely out of toddling years could hold a mop, or put things away, and children 5-6 could (read:would) be given chores like firewood gathering, animal milking, or water drawing. Anything older and stronger than that would basically be a small adult.

In the "Children and Pregnancy" mod by Thirite, children are FAR from useless. Even when they are infants and toddlers, when they can't really do much of anything, the mood bonuses bequeathed from a successful childbirth are often more benefitial than whatever labor they could provide.

To be entirely honest, just the concept of a wild animal species that literally explodes when killed is.... Asinine. Nonsensical.

Such a species -could not- exist in the wild, as they would eat and breed themselves to extinction, since their population wouldn't be controlled by predation.

Carrying capacity is a thing, after all.

I would prefer it if instead of being wild creatures, boomrats and boomalopes were instead animals that could be bred using glitterworld tech, and husbanded for chemfuel. Releasing them should cause an ecological disaster.

Same thing with deciduous trees not changing color in autumn

They are actually faux-Spanish. It is yet another aspect of Rimworld's "Space Western" theme I so despise.

Why not throw some actual Native American into the mix, especially when tribes come from different biomes?

Temperate and Boreal forests could be Algonquin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algonquian_languages)
Rainforest could be Muskogean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muskogean_languages)
Arid Shrubland and Desert could be Uto-Aztecan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uto-Aztecan_languages)
Tundra and Ice Sheet/Sea Ice could be Eskimo-Aleut (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo%E2%80%93Aleut_languages)

Of course, you could go the "realistic" route and have their names and suchike be little more than degenerated English. Considering how the colonists and the tribes speak the same language and all.

[Technically]

Colonists don't eat hay...

This comment is appropriate for your name.

But yes, the OP seems to be mistaking Hay for Human-Food, which it is not.  Do you eat grass?  I do not.
If you are trying to keep animals on Sea-Ice, then Hay could be helpful there, but you can feed them Rice (or better yet, Simple Meals made from Rice) in any case.

Also, Hay has a 60% fertility sensitivity, so it only receives a fraction of the growth bonus that Rice does in Hydroponics.

Technically...... humans totally eat grass.

Have you eaten anything made from wheat, barley, oats, rye, maize or rice recently? All cereal-crops are grass that has been selected to produce large seeds. If you let your lawn-grass go to seed, you can technically take the seeds and eat them, though it would be a pain in the ass to do so.

Also technically, all 'hay' is is the stalk of the cereal-grass. Humans can't eat it, so we feed it to animals as fodder.

Rimworld crops make no fucking sense. Hay is used as animal-fodder, yet we can't grow any grain other than maize or rice. You make beer by fermenting hops, although hops are literally nothing more than a flavorant and a preservative in reality. Crops also behave entirely opposite what they do in reality.

.... This is why I play with Vegetable Garden.

-snip-

That is because combat in vanilla Rimworld is stupid and nonsensical.

Download the mod Combat Extended. It is one of the few mods i -refuse- to play without at this point

Dark Heresy is a -very- good fit for Rimworld, to the point where one can set a campaign on a Rimworld without -any- mechanics changes at all, only refluffing

Historically, beer and other fermented beverages were not used to get drunk per se. Instead, they were used as a means to both preserve calories and to make water drinkable. Intoxication was just a happy side effect.

I -would- propose three changes to beer, but since it is beta im not even going to bother.

Most of the value of the "sniper rifle" is tied up in the optics, anyways. The actual rifle itself is going to be relatively cheap. More expensive than a service rifle, yes, due to being accurized, and therefore of closer tolerances than a service rifle, but still: bolt action rifles are cheap because they are simple and easy to manufacture.

@ spacedorf

No. Military firearms (so, the bolt action rifle and the assault rifle) aredesigned to be used in melee combat. They are reinforced specifically so they can be used in close-combat, with bayonet and other buttstroke strikes. The israelis have an entire martial art based around using the curved magazine of their assault rifles to hook and parry and control their enemies weapon.

Ranged combat beats melee combat in almost every situation in real life, so I must admit I don't really see the issue.

A military-issue bolt-action rifle with wooden furniture was only slightly-hyperbolically designed as much for melee combat as it was for shooting. They weighed several pounds, often had solid metal plates on the buttstock, and could crack a skull or stave in a ribcage with a single swing. The only way you could make it more lethal in CQC would be to slap a bayonet onto it.

Generally, outside of combat taking place within 20 or so feet, the shooter will defeat the melee-er most times. Within 20 feet is a different story.

Such as it is in-game. If you don't have personal shields, melee is largely relegated to use in ambush (aka jump out from behind a cliff face when the enemy is only a few squares away), or as an emergency weapon.

Finally, ranged attacks do not need to be nerfed. Firearms in Rimworld are already anemic as hell, to the point before I installed Combat Realism/Combat Extended, I shot a raider in the chest 4 times with a bolt-action rifle. They survived long enough to run up to one of my colonists, savage them in melee, have a mental break and wander around for several hours, and die from hypothermia several hours later.

Not cool.

[NO]

Tribal start players probably are the only ones with a genuine argument as the tribal's might have no concept of eating at a table so why the debuf.

NO. NO. NO

I really hate this argument, to the point where I knee-jerk into a frothing rage whenever I see it.

People have known about furniture and the like for over 10,000 years, since before the Neolithic Revolution. People have known about beds. People have known about shirts and trousers and shoes and tables and artificial light and ovens and stoves and means of preserving food. People have known about pretty much every article of clothing, every piece of furniture, pretty much every equivalent to modern amenities there is, with the obvious exception of electricity and the like.

Give me one reason, one good reason, as to why Tribals get portrayed as mouth-breathing, paint-chip-eating, incompetent half-wits, please.

-deep breath-

All that aside, the 'didn't eat at a table debuff" is one of the worst in a long line of extremely-annoying debuffs that make no sense. Be happy you have a roof over your head, food to eat, and warmth to warm your sorry hide with, for Christ's sake.