|
Notes |
|
|
|
The save would make this easier to reproduce than screenshots. DF doesn't show caves on the embark map, at least by default, so starting near a cave isn't easy to reproduce.
Also, I'm not convinced this is a bug - it might just be a new feature in 0.44.11. From the devlog:
Existing sites near prosperous fortresses will associate themselves to those fortresses
|
|
|
|
|
This was discussed in 44.11 announcements thread. Toady said there that sites from other civs aren't supposed to join themselves to you right now. (You can tell it's buggy because you're not given any interacting options besides raiding). So it depends on who owns the cave right now. If it's refugees from your civ, then not bug. If it's kobolds, then bug.
My only save of this on dffd was 44.11 though and interactions have changed in 44.12 according to the devlog. |
|
|
|
|
So, Toady just mentioned that right now everything except bandits and kobolds should be able to link to you economically. It looks weird right now, but will make sense one day. Probably someone else owns the cave (check Legends) and this isn't a bug.
Being able to send citizens there but not call them back seems worth keeping up though. Good way to accidentally lose citizens. |
|
|
|
(0038621)
|
|
risusinf
|
2018-07-20 07:33
(edited on: 2018-07-21 04:21) |
|
Barely started new fort, and a cave joined up.
http://dffd.bay12games.com/file.php?id=13909 [^]
Continuation: the very first autumn and outpost liaison promotes me to barony. I have population 15 and 28000 wealth. Ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
(0039017)
|
|
FantasticDorf
|
2018-12-06 00:25
(edited on: 2018-12-06 01:10) |
|
I would like to add that while i can't exactly recieve a save right now demonstrating it due to different factors, I do have a save wherin a human army *should* be marching to sieze a site if the save being loaded prior.
That site was conquered by them but was economically linked to me as a result, because either of the human consort visitor in my tavern currently, or a bugged long term pseudo full resident in 0010966
Therefore i believe other people on site in either case can cause false site linkages, not least possibly related to kobolds getting in trouble while they're cloaked, or that consort being implicitly linked to a faction leader.
|
|
|
|
|
Collected from discord, conquered sites from other civs like my above note mentioned ignore and allocate your fortress nearby.
Quick fingered player took this screenshot of this copycat ocurrance, as the result of a human site dispute it seems: ( https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/173888543419006976/525470465133772801/unknown.png [^] )
Best way to probably incur is to just settle near enough hamlets to have it happen after a period of time. Talking to who took the picture doesn't seem like anything on site incurred it for them though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still present in 47.02, can't supply a save presently because playing on modded conditions but pretty commonly on vanilla 47.02 also i've had goblin pits settle directly nearby and force my fortress to a barony requirement.
If banditry:<num> or [LOCAL_BANDITRY] is to blame, 0010825#c38569 suggests due to 50 percent of goblins in freshly constructed pits being likely criminals they have free reign to economically link with the dispersed population. |
|
|
|
|
Especially important to 47.xx, bandits can establish or least occupy map visible forts/castles which are marked as always hostile on the world map and able to be raided but are often in 47.02 presently very lightly populated.
I have a recommended correction with extra suggestion detail within the forum link below, in that a broad fix to this issue report would be to have hostile bandit forts settle with the emigrated criminal population instead of economically linking the site peacefully with criminals amongst normal site citizens.
(( http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=175623.0 [^] )) |
|
|
|
|
I have a presentable save for 47.02, where two economic sites of a goblin pit (3rd of felsite founded) and a elven retreat (4th of felsite founded) joined, raising my total population to 100 offsite residents within the first spring of my fortress site's embarkation.
By the time of my first scheduled dwarven liason visit in autumn, i will likely be prompted to elect a noble baron unavoidably short of denying the request entirely. More details can be found on my save.
(( http://dffd.bay12games.com/file.php?id=14800 [^] )) |
|
|
|
(0040320)
|
|
FantasticDorf
|
2020-03-06 11:02
(edited on: 2020-03-06 11:09) |
|
Dwarves also have very poor and regionally local territory claiming through [BIOME_SUPPORT:<biome>:<num>] across broken terrain like prevalent swamps in the default world-generation settings, while elves, humans and goblins expand invisible historical territory borders seen in legends map-modes (invisible to the 'c' screen's inspection) for a settlement range within [SETTLEMENT_BIOME:<biome>] much more effectively.
Meaning for needing to be within a day's walk, hillocks will cease to expand very far away without a convenient bridge of suitable terrain, but that may be seen as intentional game design or a fault in the system that the Fortress itself doesn't exert territorial influence for your Civilization to allow spontaneous foundation around yourself.
In any such case, a lot of other sites abuse this free market link of the player's fortress with no nation already claiming it, especially when a transition to a barony expects a economic site to as elaborated in Toady's reply to Death Dragon in the 30th of June 2018 FotF post, become a direct holding & request movement of labor.
(( http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=169696.msg7797285#msg7797285 [^] ))
|
|
