Messages

I would eliminate entirely the requirement for medicine in order to operate and instead add an option to only operate with specific types of medicine: closest, glimmerworld meds, regular meds, herbal meds, none.  Obviously chance of infection would vary accordingly.

Currently, if you want to see the health of your potential characters you need to dig deep into the info screen (two clicks).  I find it the most useful information that is not currently displayed.  In particular if I am randomizing for a particular trait, say fast walker/jogger, and then get a character that is significantly slowed by a pre-existing injury, it is quite annoying.  I would have the create character screen list all pre-existing health conditions.  From a realism stand point, a basic health check up would likely be part of any recruiting scheme.

Thoughts?

A quick answer to your question.  A metagame which allows you to not only arrange peace with your neighbours including pirates (which is now sort of possible through prisoner release but not very rewarding) and a means to deal with mechanoids permanently.  Civil society is what ultimately allows villages to not be fortifications.

What if the warden breaks a law, does he escort himself to jail?

English is not my first language. Can you point out where in the quote they mention a killbox ?

Sorry, earlier in the link then the excerpt I used...

An Enemy that may approach you on Even Ground may Easily pull You Out and if he be Driven to Seek you a hundred miles within the Land in boats you shall from both sides of your River where it is Narrowest So beat them with Your muskets as they shall never be Able to prevail Against You.

And in a nod to FoW

And to the end That You be not Surprised as the french were in florida by Melindus and the Spaniard in the same place by the french you shall Do Well to make this Double provision first Erect a Little Sconce at the Mouth of the River that may Lodge Some ten men With Whom you Shall Leave a Light boat that when any fleet shall be in Sight they may Come with Speed to Give You Warning.

Ever look at a medieval castle? If you're fighting guys who do not have siege equipment, this is exactly how defenses work in real life.

I don't think a castle is an appropriate comparison, especially if trying to appeal to realism as a justification - here is a quote from Wikipedia on the cost of building a castle:
...
A separate question: how did single-family log cabin homesteaders protect their property in colonial America? I truly mean single family (e.g. a dozen or less total members to rely on for labor), not a garrison from the British Navy with a compliment of laborers.

A good example from history is the instructions given to the settlers at Jamestown, VA

When You have Discovered as far up the River as you mean to plant Your Selves and Landed your victuals and munitions to the End that Every man may know his Charge you Shall Do well to Divide your Six Score men into three parts whereof one forty of them you may appoint to fortifie and build of which your first work must be your Storehouse for Victual 30 Others you may imploy in preparing your Ground and Sowing your Corn and Roots the Other ten of these forty you must Leave as Centinel at the havens mouth The Other forty you may imploy for two Months in Discovery of the River above you and on the Contrary [country?] about you which Charge Captain Newport and Captain Gosnold may undertake[.] of these forty Discoverers when they Do Espie any high Lands or hills Captain Gosnold may take 20 of the Company to Cross Over the Lands and Carrying half a Dozen pickaxes to try if they Can find any mineral. The Other twenty may go on by River and pitch up boughs upon the Banks Side by which the Other boats Shall follow them by the Same turnings You may also take with them a Wherry Such as is used here in the Thames by Which you may Send back to the President for Supply of munition or any Other want that you may [be?] not Driven to Return for Every Small Defect.

So roughly 1/3 were used to fortify their landing site, 1/3 for growing food, and 1/3 for exploring for profit. 

And what was it that they were looking for on their colonization site ... a way to the sea, and a killbox.

Note, even if you are building a small fortification by a small number of men, you want a killbox.  Allowing the enemy a choice of directions to attack you from is trouble in real life as well as games.  What makes kill boxes obsolete is civil society.

An alternative historical perspective on what a very small number (1) of castaways does to defend themselves would be: Alexander_Selkirk , the probable inspiration for Robinson Crusoe.  What did he do when his enemies (the spanish) arrived.  He hid.  Up a tree.  Arguably, the base of the tree was a kill box, but the more important point is that he hid.  Currently In RimWorld this is sort of doable by building a wall over your only entrance or locking the door and assigning people to fix it repeatedly until the raiders die or visitors come and chase them off. 

One thing that I think might help differentiate biomes would be if some aspects of the biome were tweaked based upon the terrain type, so flat dessert would have a different feel then mountainous dessert.  For example, you could have Muffalo's available in any biome, but only if it is mountainous or has large hills, or turtles in any biome that has a coast.  Basically take the biome from being one dimensional to two or more.  Under the hood this is already almost the case as biomes are calculated from several different (almost hidden) variables.

I would add, on a meta level, that within the worlds context, biomes are boring.  Pretty much all worlds are equivalent with the exception of what factions are on them.  If there is a style of biome that you like to play with, pretty much every planet will have it.  I don't think that is likely to change unless/until more complex interactions with the world (and not just your little square of it) become possible.

personally on my world that would be excruciatingly hard considering ive maxed out around 60 population. going through every one just trying to reach there clothing requirements and giving them weapons require quite a bit of micro management. for me these bucket list items would just make the game harder to play and more tedious.

sorry f i come across dissing the idea. that's not what im trying to do. im simply elaborating on the fact that some people may like to make small manageable colony's but others like me always aspire to grow bigger and bigger to find the limits of the system and to find how big your colony can grow before the game mechanics impede you to much to keep on going. a big one of those problems are food. but that's not the point and off topic. i hope people can relate and i hope my criticism was constructive.

It seems like this should not be a problem as long as bucket-list items are not a requirement to maintain happiness.  If completing a BLI gives a small permanent bonus (say +1 mood per BLI) than this would generally not be a necessary thing compared to providing fun in other forms or making the colony more beautiful for the general popuace.  People playing with small colonies might try to accomplish them, while larger colonies would likely just have them accomplished by almost random chance.  Unless you have that one guy who is never happy, in which case you could try to micro his BL for a while.

Overall, I think it would be a nice touch.

Eating a variety of foods.

Information glut isn't so much a failure as a missed opportunity.  Nothing breaks when there is too much information.  Testers don't get confused and cry for help.  In fact, the game hums along too smoothly because they understand everything.  That's why often, the hardest part about tackling information glut is realizing that it's happening in the first place.

Bonus points for identifying the game designer and the source ...

I assume that even with the timetables, pawns sufficiently lacking in certain needs will violate the timetable and go eat, play chess, or whatever fulfils their needs.

So to be clear, you are saying that killing Fog of War has proven to be an ineffective "spite solution" to kill boxes.

Fog of War wasn't removed because of kill boxes, so no, they wouldn't go away. Fog of War exaggerates the issue of kill boxes, elevating them from an efficient solution to a practically necessary one.

Your devotion to kill boxes being the solution to everything is admirable, but misplaced.  Kill boxes are focused around building a centralized base, whereas dealing with FoW in a non-research-tech way would need to be focused around expanding your base.  It would not eliminate any existing need for a kill box, but neither would it make it more necessary.

I would like to recall a bit from Tynan : With a fog of war you cannot see elements of storytelling like a raider attacked by fauna or becoming broken.

But you would hear the gunfire, and perhaps find a bloody mess that tells the story.  Much of it also depends on the implementation of fog of war.  If a raider becomes dazed and confused, wanders around aimlessly for a while and then leaves and no one is ever near enough to see it, does it matter that you missed that story?  There are certainly cases now where I find meals dropped in the middle of nowhere far from where my base-camp is.  I eventually figured out that this is probably caused by NPCs starting to eat then deciding to leave the area mid meal, but the story of that colony was not made more interesting by seeing such an event.  In fact, I would argue, the mysterious dropped items were more interesting, not less.

I also support that FoW would not change the Killbox problem in any way. Killbox work precisely because AI are extremely predictable. And I'll go on saying that if we had FoW, not being able to count on that anymore could make raider/tribal quite frustrating (and again, I don't want to need guard outside of those clear event)

Well, it might help make it so that you don't need 50 tribals attacking you just to make a raid interesting.  Besides which, presumably one would develop research opportunities and buildings which would eventually ameliorate any FoW issues (in case you really like having to be attacked by an overwhelming hoard).  And is having a group of raiders sneak near your base from the edge of the map in the middle of the night actually more annoying then having them magically appearing in drop pods right on top of you?  I would argue that it is actually less annoying.

So to be clear, you are saying that killing Fog of War has proven to be an ineffective "spite solution" to kill boxes.  Kill boxes are a result of raider AI that is incapable of handling a kill box. A darkness based fog of war is not going to encourage kill boxes any more than they already are.  FoW would open up the opportunity for new types of interactions between existing game mechanics which can lead to emergent behaviour and hence more interesting stories.  There is obviously a place in this world for both perfect and imperfect knowledge games, but for creating stories imperfect knowledge is far superior.

As for tipping towards RTS, I don't see why you think this.  Fog of War is a staple in TBS, RPGs, FPS, and card games.  It is not unique to RTS and there are certainly plenty examples of RTSs that do not have fog of war. 

Personally, I would like to see fog of war as a night time feature, thus distinguishing night from day by more than just "my pawns sleep and plants don't grow."  Being able to see every revealed area as it is now during the day would make a lot of tasks reasonable (looting goo, etc...) while having the FoW occur at night would provide a certain amount of tension.  An alternate, though related, option would be to have FoW be controlled by lighting.  Outdoors during the day would be as normal, eclipses and night would be FoW, and building lights would permanently reveal areas, at least until taken out by tribal raiders.  It could be made quite efficient as pawns LoS would not need to be checked, and lighting is already calculated.  Fire would have additional uses.  Overall I think it would be a win.