Messages

[with it]

^To add to what JesterHell said...

What has been forgotten along the years and centuries is stuff we no longer use because either we invented something better or is no longer valid considering today's scientific knowledge.

Infrastructure is not just "convenient". It is the very foundations that allowed "today's scientific knowledge" and technology. We don't use the old infrastructure any more because we built and learned things with it that made it obsolete.
But if we lose what we built and learned we will need that old infrastructure again to rebuild and relearn the more modern stuff. And maintaining the knowledge of how to do that, to the extent that you suggested(rebooting from the stage of prehistoric humans), is insanely difficult.


But as I said in my previous post, I don't disagree within the context of the game and how easy it seems to build stuff that should be way harder.
I just get irked when it seems like someone lessens the importance and difficulty of the infrastructure or previous generation.

Pretty much. Kinda like how, if OUR "real-world" society collapsed, and took technology with it, we would be highly unlikely be able to have a second Industrial Revolution, due to the fact that we have used up so much of the necessary raw materials?

People often forget that

1) raw materials are hard to get. Humanity has known about Iron for around 3000 years, yet actual "dig a hole in the ground" mines (this goes for other materials, as well) have only been economically feasible for the last 300 years, due to the development and improvement of the the steam engine, which in turn allowed for effective water pumps. Without steam power (and the accompanying labor-saving practices), the overwhelming majority of iron (and other metals/materials that can't be found on the Earth's surface) was made laboriously by hand, usually in the form of "bog iron" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_iron), which can generally only be "used" once in a generation. Or, that without the Bessemer Process, actual steel is really fucking expensive and hard to make? Not to mention charcoal, seasoned timber, clay
2) People aren't stupid. Take a "caveman" (hint: actual people in the Paleolithic, even Neanderthals, didn't actually live in caves, they built houses/tents from stone, bone and hides), throw him in the modern day, and with an adjustment period, they would have no problems. The Greeks and the Romans discovered steam power, more than once.  Take a "modern" human, throw them back in time to the Paleolithic (or, hell, even a Classical time period), and they are likely going to die. People who lived in earlier time periods were more skilled and "intelligent than people living in modern eras. They HAD to be, or they would die.

Take, for example, a medieval peasant. In real life, and in game-terms, they are often portrayed as stupid and uneducated. Uneducated (that is, illiterate), maybe, but not stupid. Tell me, could you know:
1) How to plant different crops, how much "return" you will get from your land, and how to best manage the crops (treat diseases, when to harvest, etc)
2) How to raise numerous different species of animals, how to treat them for disease, how to  birth new animals, etc etc
3) How to build houses that will keep you warm in the winter, cool in the summer, and dry all year round?
4) How to accomplish different crafts (smithing, weaving, leatherworking, etc) that you actually make money off of?

And they did all of this without having references, like seed packets or animal manuals. By experience and passed-on knowledge.

I had a raid happen just after my single pawn decided to test the first batch of beer of the season. He, DRUNK AS F**K, stumbled to the blockhouse, only to SOMEHOW get a running headshot on the first raider to attempt to gain entry.

Since the raid was relatively small, the rest of the raiders apparently thought that was more than enough, and proceeded to get the hell out of dodge.

Funny as hell.

AS self-contained weapons of war, they logically 1) contain their own power source, and 2) are specifically hardened against EMPs. The fact that they get "slammed" by EMP grenades is...... weird.

On a similar note,  most US military hardware is hardened against EMP attack. Likewise with most other nations military equipment. If we can do it in the 21st century, logically, self-contained AI-propelled mechanical warframes in the 55th century would be as well.

I suppose the pirates like any other organisation can be multi-tiered with middle management etc, explaining why a "boss" doesn't have to be the top guy.

I think I have captured a tribal with the same name as the one mentioned in factions, but I'm not completely sure.

^ This.

Think of the enemies with "boss/chief" descriptions as mid-level leaders. Sergeants, war-leaders, etc. Makes more sense

A killbox, not a killzone.

I use a killzone. Many players use killboxes. There is a pretty significant difference.

A killzone is where the enemy has no cover, and is usually under fire from more than one direction. You accomplish this by using terrain (marshes, shallow water, etc) to slow down attackers, and by making "bunkers" ( I use embrasures, but bunkers are perfectly possible in the vanilla game using doors and corners) to give you overlapping fields of fire. Clear out trees from around your hardpoints, and it gets even easier to break the enemy (because it gets easier to hit them)

A "killbox", on the other hand, relies on essentially breaking the game's AI, by forcing them through a single door into the firing lines of massed turrets. Generally, the AI will prioritize breaking through and entering through doors as opposed to walls and mountains. Therefore, the enemy usually stacks up in effort to break down the single door, and when the door breaks, they all get -BLAMMED- by the turrets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIvXgMVKy4A
The above video gives a good, if unusually wide-open, example of a killbox.  All attackers get funneled through the wall opening at the "bottom" of the colony, and get shot to pieces.

It's not too hard to survive without killboxes provided you have friendly relations with the tribals.  When pirates and mechs attack your base all you need is a sparse turret perimeter around your entire base (with a perimeter wall about 20 squares out from the turret to prevent your turrets from getting sniped).  The enemies will concentrate fire on your turrets while your colonists chew up the attackers.

But I can see that this strategy could be a problem on marsh, where the swamp breaks up your perimeter and makes a portion difficult to defend.  Consider it an extra challenge.  Hmmm, makes me want to try a forest on my next game.

Agreed. Making friends with all, or even most, of the tribes is long-term priority #1.

[1]

i tried using Marsh as a kill box type area but it was only useful in small engagements, by mid game the sheer numbers of the attackers forces you to build standard tunnels and kill boxes as the speed slow of the marshes as well as the ease they can tunnel, knock down walls or simply not be forced into compressed deathballs makes marshes in the long run less useful than 2 layer deep walls.

Entirely debatable.

I have fought off 25 vs 1 raids without using the classical killbox. Of course, you have to mod the hell out of Rimworld to do so, but it is possible.

Use Combat Realism and Combat Realism-Defense. CR makes it so you don't need 700 bullets to put people down, and CR-D gives you things like barbed wire (which slows down attackers) and "embrasures:, which are basically walls with arrowslits, so you can fire in (relative. My pawn has taken an arrow to the face before) safety.

You use the terrain and things like rubble, barbed wire, and so on to slow down and concentrate attackers. Once you kill/down a decent portion of the attackers, the rest will flee.

No gaming of the AI, forcing them through one door into the waiting sights of 10 turrets.

Using the term "tribals" is kinda like using the term "Native Americans" or "aboriginal Europeans" to describe the societal patterns of multiple groups spread across a/multiple continents.

In short: it is foolish, and doesn't work.

For simplicities sake, let us assume the majority of "tribals" are similar to Native Americans. That still gives us an entire continent to work with, with an amazing range of variances and differences.

And, in all seriousness, the presence of agriculture doesn't exactly preclude nomads. The majority of "Woodlands" (aka Native Americans that lived in the New England/New York/Ohio area of the US) cultures were sedentary for part of the year (usually the summer), then in the winter migrated along the coast (to fish), or north, to hunt for large game like moose. Every couple of years they would move their villages, as the groundsoil got depleted due to agriculture.

Due to the sheer number of people the tribes can literally throw into the meatgrinder that is your colony, they almost by definition can't be nomadic hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherers can't really have enormous populations due to the need to live off the land (look up "carrying capacity" for an idea of what I mean). "Pastoralists" (which is the intermediate stage between hunter-gatherers and farmers, and is where people raise animals like sheep/goats/cattle, and follow them as they graze) could have larger populations, but not really comparable to agriculture-based societies. It wasn't until agriculture became developed that populations really exploded.

Also, the tribes seem to have a pretty solid sense of "division of labor", where people could actually specialize in certain tasks (aka weaver, healer, shaman, crafter, etc). The "division of labor" didn't really exist in earnest until agriculture developed, where the surplus of food could allow people to specialize instead of starving.

Personally, I just ignore the established lore ( where, like in many other cases of "lore" throughout the game, just doesn't work with what the game has to offer), and headcanon that the various tribes are similar to Wampanoags/Iroquois: that is, they practice agriculture and migrate, depending on what they need to do. Makes more sense that way

But then there's a precedent of the player's colony, that get's to space-travel tech level in a few years, it should be even easier in a town of a few thousand inhabitants.

I find It funny that you can build a spaceship out of bits of steel, But you can't craft the most basic of firearms.

But you can. Turrets and mortars are guns.

But yet you can't crank out a musket, which at its most basic form is literally a metal pipe, welded shut at one end, with a hole drilled in it?

On the other hand, if you get to berserk, it really means (excuse the language) that "you fucked up" as far as managing mood.

I'd argue otherwise.  Right now the mood system significantly factors in things that shouldn't cause issues.  Like environment Beauty.  As it stands right now, colonists can lose their minds taking a long walk through a under construction mountain base.  I've had it happen many times.  Unless you segment everything off, the game considers the tunnel ways on large room with plenty of ugliness (rough walls and floors, dirt and debris, and junk everywhere).

Then colonists have negative mood effects for EVERYTHING initially...  Seriously, everything.  And it's not a gradual build up at all, it's full on with the negative effects.  It'd be one thing if the negative factor started out mild and grew as it remains unaddressed.  That makes sense.  Initially certain things are noted, but don't bother you as much.  After the same bullshit for awhile, it starts to really bug you.

But really, right now with the current incarnation of the mood system, it feels like this to me:

"Whaaaa!  It's cold outside, I'm sleeping on the ground, and where's the food!?"

"Really?  We just fuckin' crashed a few hours ago.  Here!  A decent wooden cabin nestled in relative safety with single beds for everyone."

"Whaaaa!  It's crowded in here, I don't have my own room, we're eating nutrient paste, people moving around woke me up, and it's not pretty!" 

"You gotta be fuckin' kidding me!  Fine!  We'll dig into the mountain and carve out some rooms for everyone!"

"Whaaaa!  All this unfinished rock is hideous!  I can't stand it anymore, RAGE!"

"You know what... Go right ahead, you people break for anything and weren't meant to survive."

The mood system lacks a much needed memory context, so moods are WAY too swingy.



As for getting non-lethal options, if you read or watch any media with people in tense situations, there's always scenes of people losing it and everyone else trying to subdue and restraining them without trying to cause harm.-

Damn straight. I understand that the mood system is in-place and the way it is specifically to provide challenge and excitement to the game, but....... come on.

In the "canon" scenario (which, after using Prepare Carefully for so long, I never actually use anymore), you just literally crash-landed on a planet. You should consider yourself lucky to be alive. Instead, the pawns whine and complain until they get private rooms, with solid gold floors, and utterly-ridiculous amounts of luxuries.

If I were in a similar situation,  I would be ecstatic if I had a bed to sleep in, food in my stomach, and was relatively safe. Everything else on top of that (private room, nice food, nice location, etc) would be gravy. 

Instead, all we get is "whine, whine, whine"

[Poster 1]

Poster 1: Gives no info on size of animal farm or training level of the animals in farm, claims animal farms are unsustainable.

Poster 2: Asks Poster 1 about size of the animal farm and presents his own size as an example of a what is so far sustainable in his experience.

Poster 3: "Pfft"s Poster 2 rudely. Then implies Poster 2's example is somehow invalid because he didn't have 10x the numbers.

Poster 4: posts inflammatory and slightly rude post unnecessarily detailing his complaints. Including Boston-esque underlining.

poster 5(me): unleashes poster 4's wrath.

Cute.

You "aspire to be a moderator", yet you mock people who aren't even part of the conversation?

Real mature

I can underline, italicize, and up-scale whatever I damn well please in my own posts, thank you very much. Last I checked, there wasn't a forum rule against it. And, last I checked, you weren't a moderator, so you can hop right off.

User was warned for this post: Rule 3, do not reply to rulebreakers, just report them.

In "real life", you can build traps that can, with a little effort and foresight, kill large game like bears and deer. They are basically the same thing as the traps designed in-game (read the info tab, the in-game traps apparently drop heavy weights on the head and shoulders of the target), except they..... well, you know, work.

Do you have any info on people killing bears or deer with deadfall traps? I've never heard of this trap used against something this large.

I've only heard of traps used against small game - from boar-sized on downwards. With some exceptions (giant cage traps, gun-trigger traps, bow-trigger traps, explosive traps, etc).

Deadfalls (which are basically the traps already in-game). They can be ranged in size from the standard "Figure 4" deadfall, which is used for small game like rabbits and squirrels, to giant ones using whole logs. You just scale the thing up, basically. You just have to make sure the weight is capable of breaking the spine or crushing the skull, or you will have one very pissed-off animal.

http://www.vintagetraps.co.uk/shop/bear-caught-in-an-native-american-deadfall-trap/

Or, the so-called "spear" traps, where the animal triggers a spring that propels sharpened spikes into the animal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBq6hU6ZZZ4

As someone that 1) plays with a single pawn, and 2) basically "roleplays" the pawn as someone "settling the frontier", as it were, I would LOVE to be able to use traps, I really would.

They just aren't effective enough to be worth the time.

In "real life", you can build traps that can, with a little effort and foresight, kill large game like bears and deer. They are basically the same thing as the traps designed in-game (read the info tab, the in-game traps apparently drop heavy weights on the head and shoulders of the target), except they..... well, you know, work.

In game, you basically have to cheese the hell out of the trap to get much use out of it. Either build a killbox so attackers get funneled into it, or build some walls so that animals have to trigger it.

I would love the option to either 1) be able to "bait" traps, so that hungry animals get attracted to them, and/or 2) build alternate traps, like beartraps or snares, that break the leg of the target and/or hold them in place (prevent them from moving)

There is a pretty significant difference between a kinda-fortified building that can be broken into easily, and a base carved into a mountain that funnels all the attackers  through a single door into the range of multiple turrets.

The pawn isn't invulnerable inside the blockhouse, they just have a high-degree of cover. My pawn has taken an arrow to the face when they leaned around the door, has had tribals break down the door and stab him to death, and has been burnt to death when they set the building on fire. It isn't 100% effective, not like killboxes are. The key aspect of the strategy is not the blockhouse, but usage of terrain. Without the attackers being slowed down via difficult terrain (marshes, shallow water, rubble), the blockhouse would be basically useless.

I also make sure to clear away any trees and bushes away from the  blockhouse, usually a "survival-rifle-shot" away from the building. Trees provide a surprising amount of cover.

The whole point of the blockhouse is to 1) provide a degree of cover, greater than that of sandbags, 2) to allow the pawn to fire on the enemy long/effectively enough to force them to break and flee. If you don't shatter them before they get into shotgun range, time to fall back.

All of the above are based on real-life fortification and seige-strategy, by the way.

Wow, you people are really dependent on killboxes for survival, huh?

Me, I don't use them. I play "realistically", that is, with an eye for terrain, and to use "force multipliers".

Of course, I have mods downloaded (like Combat Realism and Combat Realism-Defense, mainly), that make the game/pawns actually believable.

Keep in mind that I usually play in the Boreal Forest, so there is a LOT of water on the map.

I prefer to back myself into a canyon, with mountains on three sides. Preferably, there is either a marsh or a lake (even better), at least partially blocking off the opening

There, I build my pawn (I enjoy playing solo scenarios) a comfy little log cabin. Near the opening to the canyon, where the "path" narrows due to the marsh/lake, I build what is called a "blockhouse".  Basically, a little building with gunslits in the walls that you can safely fire from. Around the blockhouse, I have my pawn painstakingly pile up rubble and rocks, and usually build barbed wire fences, in order to slow down the attackers. They can still pass over the rubble/barbed wire, but it drastically slows them down, making them easy pickings for my rifle-armed pawn. When they get too close for comfort, I have the pawn equip a shotgun, or I just have them fall back to the cabin (which has more embrasures/arrowslits to fire from).

Sure, it takes some micromanaging, but I have routed 25+ tribal raids with one pawn , some fortification, and an eye for terrain.