Pregnancy as another way to boost numbers

[glob]

I don't know if it was already said in the thread or not, but it is impossible to sell a game if players can kill children. Tynan would have to make them invulnerable, and that's sucks.

[Scythah]

The one constant this always boils down to (stating the obvious here) is *drumroll*... gameplay. More or less everyone accepts that it would be a complete pain in the butt to have to wait 15 ingame years for your children to mature, and there are a lot of pros and cons, and varying ways of it being brought in... with that in mind, people shouldn't get so worked up about accelerated growth. Whether it's a narrative driven mechanism (some sort of progenation/rapid aging machine), or just a simple fact of the gameplay, the only way children will ever materialise ingame, is when the player doesn't have to sacrifice insanely long playthroughs just to see Junior grow on.

I mean, we've already kind of abandoned realism when a primitive tribe can learn to build working spaceships in a decade or less.

[LittleGreenStone]

Ahh, that's the topic I was looking for!

Anyway, I quite frankly couldn't give a shit if a child growing up in 4yrs or whatever feels ridiculous to some when we consider that colonists can land on a planet having survived a catastrophic deconstruction of their space ship and immediately be able to magic up complicated structures and machines out of some scraps of metal on the ground. If we're going a pull an "aah, but x" argument card for an idea, it's only fair and reasonable to apply that card to the game as a whole and see if the argument still stands on its own merits. Something being seemingly ridiculous on its own suddenly isn't so ridiculous when compared to the context of the entire game.

Agreed, but I would consider (oh and I so hate this saying) not comparing apples with oranges, or maturity rate with magical construction skills.

But before that, I'd like to apologize for any wrong use of calculations, I have a mild discalculia which makes it somewhat difficult.

So, in RW there are 4 seasons, each lasting 15 days, making a year 60 days long. It is unlike our time-table, yes?

The maturity of
elephants: 4 RW years, in real life: 8 to 13 years (let's agree on a ~10y average),
arctic wolves: 0.8 RW year, IRL 22 months (IIRC) =1,83y,
wild boars: 0.5 RW year, IRL 6-12 months (let's agree on ~9) =0.75y
rats: 0.3 RW year, IRL about 1 month =0.083y

Let's count with human standards, 18 years to maturity:
18 years for us equals to 6570 days,
18 years for a pawn equals to 1080 days,
which would mean humans mature ~6 times faster in RW to begin with, if we counted with our reality.

Counting with RW's reality:
Elephants should mature in 1,6 RWyears, a 2.4 RWy difference,
Wolves should mature in 0.195 RWy, 0.605 RWy difference,
Boars should mature in 0.125 RWy, 0.375 RWy difference (AND THEY SHOULD HAVE 5-8 PIGLETS!),
Rats should mature in 0.013 RWy, that's less than a single bloody day in Rimworld, yet they need 15 RW days in the game.

So the rates of maturity of (the above!) animals vary from 1.5x to 15x,
and it would stand to reason human pawns should benefit from this accelerated maturity,
making a newborn an adult in somewhere between 1.2 and 12 Rimworld years.

Did I do my math right?

In my opinion, 4 years is a very valid and reasonable time for human reproduction in the magical realm of RimWorld where our reality does not matter for the sake of trivial stuff like game balancing.
Oh, and there's always the possibility of adding a glitterworld artificial maturator.

And how long your colony will last? Depends on your difficulty level for the most part. I've had over 10 years old colonies, and elephants too mature in 4 years right now, so "it's too long" is not a valid argument, people, nor is "preggies and kids dying is baaad" while your pawn is sitting on a human leather sofa, eating the raw flesh it butchered from a previously tortured and harvested 14 years old Urbworld sex slave.
This sh*t is dark already and you're happily playing with it you punks. /end rant.

And damn, I only realized it now I counted with 18 years when I've seen 14 years old pawns in the game...oh well.


As for backstory, all children could born with a new, blank "colony kid" childhood backstory based on your colony, and could attain new adulthood backstory based on their life (job) in the colony or maybe not have it at all,
have their stats based on that of their parents' as you said,
and maybe have their interests' be influenced by that of their parents' or randomized completely.


As for probability, it could depend on the general mood of individuals. In a colony where pawns are freezing (or boiling), starving, are deprived of joy and are walking on carpets of corpses in general, the probability of a pregnancy happening could be close to zero, while in colonies where pawns are generally happy, the chance could be greater.




It could very much work.
Now if only Tynan-dono agreed...

[jmababa]

Ahh, that's the topic I was looking for!

Anyway, I quite frankly couldn't give a shit if a child growing up in 4yrs or whatever feels ridiculous to some when we consider that colonists can land on a planet having survived a catastrophic deconstruction of their space ship and immediately be able to magic up complicated structures and machines out of some scraps of metal on the ground. If we're going a pull an "aah, but x" argument card for an idea, it's only fair and reasonable to apply that card to the game as a whole and see if the argument still stands on its own merits. Something being seemingly ridiculous on its own suddenly isn't so ridiculous when compared to the context of the entire game.

Agreed, but I would consider (oh and I so hate this saying) not comparing apples with oranges, or maturity rate with magical construction skills.

But before that, I'd like to apologize for any wrong use of calculations, I have a mild discalculia which makes it somewhat difficult.

So, in RW there are 4 seasons, each lasting 15 days, making a year 60 days long. It is unlike our time-table, yes?

The maturity of
elephants: 4 RW years, in real life: 8 to 13 years (let's agree on a ~10y average),
arctic wolves: 0.8 RW year, IRL 22 months (IIRC) =1,83y,
wild boars: 0.5 RW year, IRL 6-12 months (let's agree on ~9) =0.75y
rats: 0.3 RW year, IRL about 1 month =0.083y

Let's count with human standards, 18 years to maturity:
18 years for us equals to 6570 days,
18 years for a pawn equals to 1080 days,
which would mean humans mature ~6 times faster in RW to begin with, if we counted with our reality.

Counting with RW's reality:
Elephants should mature in 1,6 RWyears, a 2.4 RWy difference,
Wolves should mature in 0.195 RWy, 0.605 RWy difference,
Boars should mature in 0.125 RWy, 0.375 RWy difference (AND THEY SHOULD HAVE 5-8 PIGLETS!),
Rats should mature in 0.013 RWy, that's less than a single bloody day in Rimworld, yet they need 15 RW days in the game.

So the rates of maturity of (the above!) animals vary from 1.5x to 15x,
and it would stand to reason human pawns should benefit from this accelerated maturity,
making a newborn an adult in somewhere between 1.2 and 12 Rimworld years.

Did I do my math right?

In my opinion, 4 years is a very valid and reasonable time for human reproduction in the magical realm of RimWorld where our reality does not matter for the sake of trivial stuff like game balancing.
Oh, and there's always the possibility of adding a glitterworld artificial maturator.

And how long your colony will last? Depends on your difficulty level for the most part. I've had over 10 years old colonies, and elephants too mature in 4 years right now, so "it's too long" is not a valid argument, people, nor is "preggies and kids dying is baaad" while your pawn is sitting on a human leather sofa, eating the raw flesh it butchered from a previously tortured and harvested 14 years old Urbworld sex slave.
This sh*t is dark already and you're happily playing with it you punks. /end rant.

And damn, I only realized it now I counted with 18 years when I've seen 14 years old pawns in the game...oh well.


As for backstory, all children could born with a new, blank "colony kid" childhood backstory based on your colony, and could attain new adulthood backstory based on their life (job) in the colony or maybe not have it at all,
have their stats based on that of their parents' as you said,
and maybe have their interests' be influenced by that of their parents' or randomized completely.


As for probability, it could depend on the general mood of individuals. In a colony where pawns are freezing (or boiling), starving, are deprived of joy and are walking on carpets of corpses in general, the probability of a pregnancy happening could be close to zero, while in colonies where pawns are generally happy, the chance could be greater.




It could very much work.
Now if only Tynan-dono agreed...

It's in A15 unlock it and find out It's a locked feature. My friend unlocked it for me and wow look at this http://imgur.com/a/pRTqW. Still 9 months pegnancy I don't know how to calculate that into seasons. I'm just going for what my friend said 9 months pregy

Edit: babies are slow don't check any jobs that require them to be far from bed and food source like hauling

[Harold3456]

Writing a soon-to-be buried post in a controversial topic, but.....

I'm very open to the idea of kids in Rimworld. A few months ago (the time of that last thread that was linked here) I was against it, but a few months of slowly exhausting all the features of the game as-is has made me come around.

Now, LittleGreenStone has done an excellent analysis on the maturity dissonance between RW and our world, which I believe should logically win over anybody who's outright dismissing the idea based on realism constraints.

That said, there are many constraints to children in Rimworld that have nothing to do with realism - the fact that kids would be a massive burden, for one, and without proper tweaking to the triggers that result in childbirth, children in Rimworld could be a massive source of frustration. I would say something like what others have said, where only purchasing baby-related items and putting them in a couple's room would trigger a chance for baby-making.

Also, as some have said, there's the issue that the game may not sell as well if it depicts children dying. I can understand this from a political point of view. That said, if any game could get away with children dying, it would be this one. The graphics are simplistic enough for it not to be terribly graphic, giving some disconnect (losing a 17 year old is no more tragic to me than a 65 year old, as long as their stats are about even). The mechanics of the game already punish you for killing people for the sheer fun of it (executing prisoners, letting your own colonists die, etc), you could throw on an additional debuff for "child died"/"witnessed child's death". Which brings me to the final consideration: would children be allowed to be raiders? I would say no, for the mere reason that if one were to implement a harsh "witnessed child's death" debuff, children could fast become the most potent weapon in a raider's arsenal.

[LittleGreenStone]

Oh my, thank you for the kind words.

That said, there are many constraints to children in Rimworld that have nothing to do with realism - the fact that kids would be a massive burden, for one, and without proper tweaking to the triggers that result in childbirth, children in Rimworld could be a massive source of frustration. I would say something like what others have said, where only purchasing baby-related items and putting them in a couple's room would trigger a chance for baby-making.

I think the difference between you and me lies in our way of thinking.
My first concern is whether a feature makes sense or not. Anything goes that is reasonable.
It's the how part that is important, which is of secondary concern to me.
Take melee fights for an example. With assault rifles, sniper rifles, grenades, mortals, traps and an animal army, melee has little chance of success. However, close quarter fights, hordes of cavemen overrunning you, or said animal army under your command flanking and taking out enemies with relative ease, melee combat was a feature made available by armor, shields and a (more or less sacrificial) army.

To me, this secondary concern is balancing.
Obviously having all the females pop out kids non-stop from the get-go is a terrible idea that will mostly burden players, especially when their primary concerns lie with food or shelter.
The "place an object to allow pregnancy" is not a horrid idea, but since pawns mostly decide what to do themselves (wooing, marrying, conversing, etc), I think it would give too much freedom to players over this feature. Still viable though, and it would also allow players not to have to bother with children if they don't want to, so it has that upside. Still I think playing with its chance is the best method, based on the average mood of individual pawns. Say, a .1% chance per the couple sleeping in one bed would mean hundreds if not thousands of days could pass before a pregnancy, or with generally good mood of both pawns of the couple (which would indicate some sort of a well-established and relatively safe colony), increasing it to 5% for example would probably make it happen in a few dozens of days.
Safety precautions could be taken to prevent repeated pregnancies also.
Since we have established it is reasonable (we have, right?), the only issue I see is how to balance it not to stress out players or make it the no.1 concern of the game.

Also, as some have said, there's the issue that the game may not sell as well if it depicts children dying. I can understand this from a political point of view. That said, if any game could get away with children dying, it would be this one. The graphics are simplistic enough for it not to be terribly graphic, giving some disconnect (losing a 17 year old is no more tragic to me than a 65 year old, as long as their stats are about even). The mechanics of the game already punish you for killing people for the sheer fun of it (executing prisoners, letting your own colonists die, etc), you could throw on an additional debuff for "child died"/"witnessed child's death". Which brings me to the final consideration: would children be allowed to be raiders? I would say no, for the mere reason that if one were to implement a harsh "witnessed child's death" debuff, children could fast become the most potent weapon in a raider's arsenal.

Well, again, cannibalism, organ harvesting, homosexuality, prostitution, pedophilia, drug abuse, animal cruelty, and so on, including the permutation of any of those, Rimworld breaks most of the Taboos already. I don't really see how a couple of dead children could make it any worse, especially since it's not really visual, as you've pointed it out.
However, Raiders could try kidnap kids to lessen the grim nature of a successful raid, and I don't see why they would use kids, it doesn't really make sense, as the are pawns also, so a "witnessing child's death" mood penalty would likely apply to them as well, at least to an extent. Just think of how pedophiles, for example, are treated in prison, by those who have no quarrel with taking an adult's life. + a child might become their fellow raider, how else would they replenish their numbers?

[grinch]

I'm replying to this thread as opposed to starting a new one because it is linked from the FAQ/FSI (suggested ideas).  I think the whole limited time argument doesn't work because you are basing it on the fact that the colony starts right there and there wouldn't be kids present.  But... that's not necessarily true.  Some people could start with children.  I honestly think it'd be a fun challenge mode to start a colony of nothing but kids.  You would base what the children could do on their current age.  Doesn't seem so difficult to me.  Would obviously need another job to take care of the kids, though I suppose you could use the doctor.  Base babies in cribs needing food on someone who is bed ridden and needs taking care of, something we already have.  We already have a birth system with animals.  I don't think it'd be hard to keep many of the thing simular.

love it. big fan of "Lord of the Flies"

[CodeRen]

Doesnt that game Banished allow children to die?

I think children should be in the game and Ive run some pretty long colonies. Hopefully he does! Im rooting for you tynan!

[A Friend]

Children in Banished usually die from starvation, diseases and accidents without much focus other than a simple notification and a gravestone erecting in a cemetery. Players don't lose them to cannibalism, failed organ harvests, being peppered by mini-gun fire, being beaten to death by an angry dude with a club or being kidnapped. I'm sure there'd be some few "moral guardians" who'd initially complain about it and call for the game to be banned but I doubt it'll be much of an issue in the long run.

But either way, I'm still not sold on children... well on what the majority of people want from the feature, that being a way to have a steady source of population every year. I'd prefer the game focus be on these small group of people instead of a busy sim city. Having a DF-esque children system where couples poop out a baby every few months would, I feel, ruin that. Why care about What's-his-face dying horribly when there's 5 children capable of replacing him in a few days?

I'd have no qualm with children as long as their purpose is not "Population Factory" but rather something that'll add to the story of the game. Make them somewhat uncommon and have them age normal without messing with time speed. I know children reaching adulthood in a few minutes works wonderfully in DF and other town building games but they're focused on large scale civilization building. But I like how Rimworld isn't exactly following suite and is focusing on small-scale. Enabling us to at least get attached to some of our characters.

But hey, that's just one guy's opinion...

(Also don't give me and other disagree-ers that bullshit argument of "If you don't like it then just mod it out" or "Just add contraceptives then if you don't like the feature, gosh, why do you hate additional content?".)

[CodeRen]

Children in Banished usually die from starvation, diseases and accidents without much focus other than a simple notification and a gravestone erecting in a cemetery. Players don't lose them to cannibalism, failed organ harvests, being peppered by mini-gun fire, being beaten to death by an angry dude with a club or being kidnapped. I'm sure there'd be some few "moral guardians" who'd initially complain about it and call for the game to be banned but I doubt it'll be much of an issue in the long run.

But either way, I'm still not sold on children... well on what the majority of people want from the feature, that being a way to have a steady source of population every year. I'd prefer the game focus be on these small group of people instead of a busy sim city. Having a DF-esque children system where couples poop out a baby every few months would, I feel, ruin that. Why care about What's-his-face dying horribly when there's 5 children capable of replacing him in a few days?

I'd have no qualm with children as long as their purpose is not "Population Factory" but rather something that'll add to the story of the game. Make them somewhat uncommon and have them age normal without messing with time speed. I know children reaching adulthood in a few minutes works wonderfully in DF and other town building games but they're focused on large scale civilization building. But I like how Rimworld isn't exactly following suite and is focusing on small-scale. Enabling us to at least get attached to some of our characters.

But hey, that's just one guy's opinion...

(Also don't give me and other disagree-ers that bullshit argument of "If you don't like it then just mod it out" or "Just add contraceptives then if you don't like the feature, gosh, why do you hate additional content?".)

True but when you look at this game its a very basic 2d game where if you dont look under the health bar, you can barely tell what is going on half the time to the individual in terms of damage. The graphics dont tell much and they dont even look dead at first glance, so graphically children dying would be no more important than anything else.

In terms of gameplay, when the new update rolls around and you can actually settle new colonies and slowly populate the world, do you want to always make your colonies out of converted slaves and random joiners? Because that sounds boring as all hell and after a while, you end up with a bunch of slave colonies (sept for the wanderer that calls you for help from a raid) and adds no diversity. I want my colonists to give birth and raise pawns and see them grow. I cant believe you dont think thats clever storytelling. Sure a lot would die. It happens. Your argument about not wanting a lot of colonists because its about to be a group surviving is fine and all but in the screenshots, did you see how many pawns were part of the caravan? Thats a lot of them (I count 28). And they wouldnt be popping them out like in DF or banished, tynan wouldn't add them in that way and is not what anyone is suggesting. You want to get attached to a pawn? Raise them and you will.

In a game about storytelling, think about the stories that will be told of Pawns from their birth all the way to their eventual death? Its exciting!

[A Friend]

In terms of gameplay, when the new update rolls around and you can actually settle new colonies and slowly populate the world, do you want to always make your colonies out of converted slaves and random joiners? Because that sounds boring as all hell and after a while, you end up with a bunch of slave colonies (sept for the wanderer that calls you for help from a raid) and adds no diversity.

I assume that wanderers will be able to join you in groups now or emigrating outlanders. But to answer your question: Nope, I wouldn't mind my colony being comprised of some children. Just don't flood me with them.

I want my colonists to give birth and raise pawns and see them grow. I cant believe you dont think thats clever storytelling. Sure a lot would die. It happens.

And I'd have no issue with that. I'd actually agree it would add quite alot to the game. What I have issue with is people wanting super fast growth.

Your argument about not wanting a lot of colonists because its about to be a group surviving is fine and all but in the screenshots, did you see how many pawns were part of the caravan? Thats a lot of them (I count 28).

Well, what I want isn't always what I'll get. I'm not the dev. But Rimworld is fun as heck and I'll still play it.

And they wouldnt be popping them out like in DF or banished, tynan wouldn't add them in that way and is not what anyone is suggesting. You want to get attached to a pawn? Raise them and you will.

If implemented, I really do hope so. As for the bolded text, actually yeah no one is really suggesting it, my mistake. It's just how I interpreted the suggestions on this divisive mess of a topic with all these "instant growth noodles" and time shit; an easy stream of working hands. Which to me doesn't sound good for the game. Reproduction should be something that can help add to the population, but you'll have to work for it hard. Same with animal taming. It might not be the best or most efficient way. But it's still an option.

The more I think about this topic, the more I seem to accept it.
With the introduction of settlements and events to help create it, big populations are inevitable so might as well add in children... it's just screwing with the time scale that's making me really dislike the idea.

[CodeRen]

The more I think about this topic, the more I seem to accept it.
With the introduction of settlements and events to help create it, big populations are inevitable so might as well add in children... it's just screwing with the time scale that's making me really dislike the idea.

Yeah no doubt I dont want a cheap way to gain more people by shooting babies out and putting them in a vat or boosting their age. Animals are hard to keep in the game if you arent prepared and can be a liability and are completely optional. The same thing should be done with pregnancy/children. Sure there are going to be unexpected pregnancies but im sure it will only add to the story! And right now having colonies that are 15 years old is boring and probably not the way its designed, once we can settle and move around the planet then you no longer have the "I crash landed and am only here long enough to build a ship and leave" and it moves too "I can crash landed here and have a lot of people living in this base, lets explore the planet and slowly make more colonies" and then staying 15 years plus makes sense.

Imagine your colonists giving birth to a pawn and watching that pawn age to 30 where he died in a fire set my an army of boomrats after moving around the planet and settling 2 colonies or something along those lines? Sounds uber cool.

[CodeRen]

https://ludeon.com/blog/2016/01/progress-continues/ Here he says he hasnt added kids YET!

https://twitter.com/TynanSylvester/status/794003347376377856 Here he says he doesnt know and he doesnt think that far into the future. I hope he does add them ):

[Thundercraft]

How long do you normally play?
A year? Two years?
Imagine needing 18 years?

IMO births would be near impossible to sustain. Though It is something worth considering IMO the only replication will be clones. Due to the time factor mostly.

In searching this topic, I'm surprised by the lack of a mention of Dwarf Fortress, which the dev claims as a source of inspiration. DF addresses the time issue in regard to pregnancies by having infants grow up to children and then to reach "adulthood" at the age of twelve.

There are some things to be said for this approach. Waiting 12 years of in-game simulation is more reasonable than 18. But it is still significant enough that many players mostly ignore this game mechanic.  And most forts do no last that long before failing.

At least pregnancy is handled, which in and of itself adds another layer of realism and depth. And children add depth to the relationships of your simulated people. If the child dies, the parents get really stressed. Likewise, if a parent dies the child gets stressed. (In DF, they could commit suicide, potentially even starting a deadly "tantrum spiral" of deaths.)

Personally, I am very much in favor of handling pregnancies and of having them grow up in a relatively short time, like 12 years or so. Also, I think children should be able to do very minor tasks, such as hauling, once they reach a certain age (that is, even before being considered "adult" by the colony).

To explain this, perhaps somewhere along the line humans genetically modified themselves so children mature faster? It could be explained that, with a huge push to colonize space, it was not only useful, but more advantageous to raise children rather than wait for more colonists to arrive via slow, sublight ships.

Consider the Jem'Hadar in Deep Space 9. They were a race of genetically modified supersoldiers. And after just 1 day of maturation, they had rather advanced  reasoning and language skills.

Heck, having a maturation of 12 years is not even a stretch. It's not even sci-fi. Gradually, it seems to be becoming reality. Just Google "puberty earlier" for recent articles about how both boys and girls are hitting puberty earlier than ever before. More girls and boys are reaching it at 10 years or even 9 or younger. For a scare, try reading the wikipedia's article on "List of youngest birth mothers." It's not just fertility, either. It's getting more difficult to determine a child's age as they physically mature and grow larger at a significantly faster rate than before.

The leading theory is that this is largely due to good nutrition. But there are other, controversial theories over other possible causes like hormones in our food, the larger consumption of dairy products, and second-hand exposure to pharmaceuticals or chemicals that our water treatment plants fail to filter or which otherwise end up in our water or food.

[Tammabanana]

A check-box in the Options menu to turn human reproduction on/off could provide a compromise.