Messages

You play on permadeath, but you reload? These things don't compute. Do you impose your own permadeath rule that you sometimes break or do you have some way to reload even on permadeath when something goes stupid?

Sorry, I thought that was understood. Alt-F4. Hard quit the game, then restart. So long as you don't click Save and Quit, you'll revert back to the last save, which with default auto-save settings is no longer than 24 in-game hours.

I play on permadeath, but I reload when I think something's bullshit. Playing on permadeath does two things that are important to me:

1. It keeps saves nice and tidy. I'm not OCD in any clinical sense, but I dislike having a bunch of cluttered saves, even if I've only got one colony going at any given time. Screw anyone who thinks this is a dumb reason.
2. It makes me consider (except when I rage-quit; there's no consideration, just reflex) whether a particular loss is something I want to lose up to an in-game day of play time over.

I feel it offers a balance between easy save-scumming and true permadeath. If the way permadeath works gets changed, I'll probably look into fixing it myself, or request a more experienced modder to help in putting it back.

Those ideas are magnificent RAAAARGH.

However, i wouldn't call them cheap ideas.

I still want them though.

Fully concur. I like all of those ideas, and think at least half of them would be 'expensive'.

Bluefur is muffalo leather. Muffalo wool is... well, wool.

Set Up Camp and Camping Stuff are actually separate mods, though they are intended to work together (originally both were by the same modder; they've been picked up and updated by other modders since then) Camping stuff originally introduced bedrolls and the butcher spot, but they were superceded when they were added to Vanilla. Set Up Camp just allows you to create a small, temporary map where you can hunt, heal, etc. before continuing on your way, without ever needing to semi-permanently settle; It uses the same mechanics as random events that happen while traveling in a caravan.

Yea but the room was probably something like 400 square tiles large and the fire was in a tiny little part of it and the entire place turned into 250 oven of hell that killed all my pawns.

Does seem like it might be a bit overtuned, then. Any chance you have a screenshot? Of course, removing a door turning an entire area "outdoors" and therefore ignoring dozens of fires is also a bit overtuned, so maybe it kinda balances it out.

I would say that any downed-yet-alive pawn should be able to arrest (friend/ally/neutral/visitor/enemy) of course with repercussions.

I believe you can? You just have to draft your pawn to arrest them; I frequently have minor problems with accidentally telling a pawn to arrest another pawn when I'm just trying to place them in a specific place near the other pawn.

PleaseBro: If you had a direct door to the outside (as suggested by your comment about one door being removed dropping the temp to -4) then it's likely there were sections you could deroof.

Alternately, you could have just deconstructed the door yourself; Honestly seems safer than trying to run around in a burning room removing sections of thin roof.

I sent a guy with 3 muffalos to get them, and take them to the dropoff and back. The guy who took the Muffalos got malaria and died - surprise surprise - one square away from home.

Well, they say that most accidents occur within 25 miles of home...

But yeah, Aile lays it out well. Items tab of the caravan menu, nothing to do with splitting the caravan. If you want to *keep* the items, then splitting the caravan is the only option, though.

I'd be ok with this, except for the resultant situation.
(snip)

It feels like you're disagreeing with me, but you're not saying anything I disagree with. Can you elaborate on how you think my suggestion is bad, given the context you gave?

It's clear that Tynan wants to keep melee viable. I'm reluctant, but I'm also willing to admit that I could be biased. So I'm trying to give suggestions that keep melee strong at melee ranges only. Given that raiders tend to come at 2-3x the colony's strength, melee raiders are still viable because the player can be distracted by gunners, explosives, or just overwhelming numbers. Melee colonists can be viable as defense against those melee raiders, commandos sneaking around to assault the flanks, or ambushers. Both sides can take advantage of superior defensive equipment as well, later game.

I just checked, and the option to drop items is absolutely still there. You completely lose the items, but you can do it. I do it with tainted clothes and corpses on purpose, sometimes.

Check the 'items' tab. I'm not 100% sure if bodies of deceased colonists show up there; I didn't want to kill a colonist just to test, but if they count toward your weight carried, then they should.

If you just draft and attack in the open, sure.  That's a losing proposition no matter the weapon though.

If you don't do that, then it's up to the player to engineer the situations where the weapon has the advantage.

This is exactly what I mean. I've expressed my discontent with the melee vs ranged system in the past, but I think this is the main point of contention. A melee pawn charging directly at a gun-wielding pawn who's targeting him is just too damned strong. If the player doesn't target the melee because there are too many of them, like in a tribal raid, or because they prioritize the ranged pawns, then they kind of deserve to get wrecked. But when I have 3 pawns targeting a single melee, and he still gets there mostly unscathed, that's where I draw the line. As a player, I should never consider draft-and-charge to be a viable tactic, either.

There is indeed no such thing as an expendable pawn.  You can melee without taking friendly fire, or even enemy fire.

EVERY enemy pawn is expendable, which is why they can get away with using melee pawns all the time. That's always been my problem with how raids are balanced. Yes, we can use smarter tactics than the AI raiders, but there gets to be a point where smart-but-still-fun is simply not sufficient; The cost will end up being too high, because our pawns aren't expendable. So you get killboxes and animal hordes or door cheesing or what have you.

a totally unsupported shooter will generally lose to a fast-approach melee attacker if placed 1 on 1 and that's fine.

One shooter vs one melee, unless the melee is using tactics to close the distance without getting shot, should almost always default to the shooter, unless the melee is considerably better than the shooter. Melee should be the resort of the zerg rush, where you can afford to lose lots of pawns, or used tactically, using terrain, covering fire or superior protective equipment to get close to your enemy. In roughly even odds, the melee shouldn't win, except by fluke.

I think that the harvested plants have better nutrition/tile than plants in the ground; it's been a while since I've seen the discussion on it. Also, if I recall right, plants in the ground will eventually die, and of course cold temps will kill them as well.

Obviously you can do what you want, if the nutrition loss is worth not taking the effort to harvest, then you do you.

Replace Stuff for 1.0 is also still kind of broken; See the last couple of comments in the release thread Oblitus linked.

So I had a thought earlier when I was reading feedback about armor slowdown. If it matters, for context I've moved and fought in both steel plate armor (SCA; not FULL plate, though I've worn it once, but still plate) and various forms of flak vests and kevlar helmets, with swords and rifles.

Now, plate armor is going to slow you down. It just is. It's heavy, it's bulky, and it's designed to protect more than it is to give you a full range of motion. It's great against cutting, fairly decent against blunt, and so-so to straight up useless against piercing. But at the same time, you can absolutely sprint in plate armor and if you're used to it, you can run or jog for a good amount of time when necessary.

But modern protective armor, like flak vests/jackets/pants etc. are bulky, they're heavy, but they're also much more flexible and when fitted properly (and I don't mean tailored; I mean strapped and adjusted to your body) they're easy to move in and once you're use to them they don't slow you down much.

What I can attest these armors do is tire you the fuck out. What about if, in lieu of a speed decrease, they give you penalties to food, rest and comfort consumption?

An additional thought, though it may not worth the effort to implement, but it's interesting anyway... Modern body armor takes forever to put on... ONCE. Once the armor is adjusted and strapped for your body, it's literally 30 seconds to put on both vest and helmet; flak pants aren't really a thing in the U.S. Army, so I can't speak for those. The best we have are knee and elbow pads, but those don't stop bullets. If armor could be assigned to a pawn, similarly to how beds are, then having them put it on the first time could take a LOT longer, as would switching armors up willy-nilly, but putting on their assigned armor would be a lot quicker.

I think these changes would create the paradigm you're looking for, where pawns aren't wandering around in full armor all the time, but put it on before a raid or for a dangerous hunt. The former (rest/hunger/comfort degradations in lieu of speed penalty) seems like it would be easy to implement, at least.