Messages

1

Gameplay questions / Re: Is it possible to swim off this island

« on: November 21, 2024, 06:52:17 PM »

Withes were added in 3.60. If he has a real knife, he could get his timbercraft or carpentry high enough to make fine or perfect withes and make a fine stone axe that way, but if he only has a stone knife, it won't work, he'll get poor ones only, and his island is small, so the saplings are limited and he shouldn't attempt making them until the skill is quite high. But that's another viable option, and some more skills to work on training up once he's got his three skill ups in swimming for the day.

ooooo how much timbercraft and what's the best way to level it up, apart from making boards???

2

Gameplay questions / Is it possible to swim off this island

« on: October 30, 2024, 04:31:53 PM »

Gaps between islands were small when the ice was there... But it wasn't possible to swim (unrealistic I could swim in ice cold water)... Now you can swim but the gaps are larger...

Apparently you can only swim 7 wilderness tiles with 100 swimming skill... But I am not sure how diagonal movement works? Technically I would only have to swim across 3 tiles diagonally NE, and then 2 tiles straight to the north...

Also to me it seems that the fatigue is random... Once I swim 1 tile, get 1% fatigue, once I have to swim many tiles to get 1 fatigue... Weird...

3

Suggestions / Re: NPCs to use exactly same movement rules as player character.

« on: October 30, 2024, 09:50:57 AM »

It's not hard to imagine strikes going downwards have more impact than those going upwards, considering existence of the gravity. Upwards attacks also should be considered more tiring. Might be less visible for stab attacks while for slashes it will be clear, though all the small things make a difference.

I am pretty sure that has mostly to do with ergonomics, not gravity. You can slash much faster, with much faster acceleration than just dropping a sword. And I wouldn't say someone standing lower immediately means all your attacks have +9.8m/s² acceleration, while his get -9.8m/s².

Although with heavier two handed weapons it would probably start getting more significant.

By my bruises given and received. Some of us, like myself, have been re-enactors doing high impact sports... like armored combat and I don't mean tanks.

But you are not usually reenacting duels, with one of the combatants standing uphill, right? I can agree high ground gives you an advantage in group combat, but I don't see how it helps you in a duel. (And that was the original point, player fighting an NPC.) Especially when you are standing so much higher... In the discussed scenario, when NPC has their shoulders at the height of the player's ankles, assuming both parties are armed with a sword NPC can hit player's ankles while being ~1,5 meters away, while player would barely be able to even reach the raft he's standing on with his sword.

Battle of Hastings... the Saxons were all fine until they came off the high ground. The fate of Angleland was all down hill from there. yuk yuk yuk.

But that wasn't because they came off the high ground, rather because they ignored their orders, broke their formation and chased after the "retreating" enemy. And again, this is group combat.

It is probably mentioned by many pre-gunpowder era warfare texts. There is also a detailed Wikipedia article on this matter, here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_ground

This is about large scale group combat as well.
AND including cavalry and archers... And for those units high ground definitely matters more... It's harder and less effective to charge uphill, projectiles are affected by gravity for a longer period, so gravity affects their range more. Also if the enemy is above you, fortifications make it much harder to shoot them. If they are below you, fortifications provide cover only to those immediately in front of them.

So yeah it definitely matters, but without cavalry, without archers, it matters less. In a duel I am not sure if it matters, and I definitely wouldn't want to engage alone someone who's standing so much below me his head is at my ankle level.

4

Suggestions / Re: Bigger settlements and warfare?

« on: October 28, 2024, 05:08:07 AM »

Are you thinking of 2x1, 2x2, or even larger wilderness map tiles for the size?
Populate each 1x1 with “current density” of people, and give villagers/townsfolk knowledge of people in other (1x1) parts of the larger town?

Not necessarily. When I said bigger I meant more inhabitants. I think it should rather have a higher density of population.

5

General Discussion / Re: That's very silly of this game

« on: October 28, 2024, 05:04:45 AM »

Harvest all the nettles that you can and plant a giant field with all the seeds, and then next year harvest all those nettles too. Make nettle yarns until you have enough fine/perfect ones, then make nettle cords until you have enough fine/perfect ones, then finally make a fine or perfect nettle rope. With that, you can make a fine stone axe, which can make boards.

With that much time I would probably be able to just wait until I don't freeze to death in water and swim to the mainland.

Also, in the summers, practice your swimming until you get the skill to 100%

And what am I supposed to do in winters? With nothing else to do I may as well just go swimming in cold water and warm up by a fire to prepare my swimming skills, so I can escape immediately when it's warm enough.

Put bear traps along the shore for catching seals to make warm clothes. Prepare a ton of wooden blocks to survive the winter, you'll need the fire going almost continuously.

Wiki says seals are not attracted to bait, and I haven't seen one yet, so I am not sure that would be worth it?

6

Suggestions / Re: Bigger settlements and warfare?

« on: October 27, 2024, 04:54:33 PM »

Naturally, considering history a science it has to be open for new factual discoveries to replace the old theories, but the game world is based on the current knowledge of the history, and the settlements modelled in accordance with that.

That's not exactly right. There are some not exactly historically accurate things in the game, there are some things based on educated guesses.

Also an unproven theory that makes sense is often more popular among scientists than believing only in the things we have undeniable proof of.

There are actually quite many things that were invented and established elsewhere in the world even thousands of years before the game era but didn't quite exist 

That's true, but just because it existed somewhere else isn't my only reason.

Even in the game, we have fortified settlements, we have agriculture, we have trade, we have food surpluses, we have raiding parties... That's pretty much everything that's needed for bigger settlements to grow.

As someone else already said here, trade didn't happen with random traders wandering in random areas of finland, hoping to trade with a random hunter. For both sides it is the most convenient if the trade happens mostly in one or a few places, and if that happens someone would want to take control of those places probably, there would be a need to guard them, perhaps to provide places for traders to stay for a few days, etc.

But out of curiosity, what would you consider a historically relevant population for that "small city" that would fit in the era?

As for history - I don't know, somewhere in the hundreds.   
As for the game - I think it should be something that's notably bigger than a village, big enough to have a different feeling to it, and worth to travel across the map for.

7

General Discussion / Re: That's very silly of this game

« on: October 27, 2024, 03:21:24 PM »

With current version, you should be able to craft boards even with a stone axe. Will take some time, but at least you can fashion a paddle.

I was playing on 3.62, didn't bother to update. ...And with current version you mean 3.8x, not 3.71? ...

8

General Discussion / That's very silly of this game

« on: October 27, 2024, 02:49:19 AM »

So apparently I spawned on an unpopulated island, with my father killed by a glutton, yet we brought no punts, paddles or axes to this island, we just magically appeared here, and now my character is completely unable to fashion any kind of tool to help him get out from that island

9

Suggestions / Re: Bigger settlements and warfare?

« on: October 27, 2024, 12:20:35 AM »

The iron age was different in Finnland than in the mainland of Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland#Iron_Age

There is no commonly accepted evidence of early state formations in Finland, and the presumably Iron Age origins of urbanization are contested.

Or if you look at the history of Helsinki, the capital and largest city:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki

Permanent settlements did not appear until the beginning of the 1st millennium AD, during the Iron Age, when the area was inhabited by the Tavastians. They used the area for fishing and hunting, but due to the lack of archaeological finds it is difficult to say how extensive their settlements were. Pollen analysis has shown that there were agricultural settlements in the area in the 10th century, and surviving historical records from the 14th century describe Tavastian settlements in the area.

It seems that in the time period in which our game takes place, even Helsinki was just some agricultural settlements.

Turku, the oldest founded city on Wikipedia's list was founded two centuries after our game takes place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Finland

I am aware of that. I stand by what I said though. Think about all the things of which proof we found in the last decade. Earlier many people would say "there is no proof of that".
There is a site in western siberia, around the same latitude as southern finland, where we found a fortified settlement that was build 8000 years ago.
But not a single small city in finland in the early iron age? I think that's ridiculous.

I didn't agree with you at all 

"I would like to see one or two towns in the game though"

and if there was an option of skirmishes happening without player's involvement, but allowing player to join as a mercenary, or perhaps as a hero?

You do get raids from Njerpez camps to friendly npc settlements outside of the players POV. This can even cause for settlements to become depopulated and desolate.
But aside from that, as what the other replies mention Iron age Finland doesnt really have the population density or enough large scale agriculture to support the towns and cities you are hoping for.

I was talking about just two - a few small cities. Nothing large. Perhaps one for most cultures.

10

General Discussion / Re: Hunting mode?

« on: October 26, 2024, 08:13:39 AM »

If you want, you can use cheat engine

What cheat engine?

and freeze the value that indicates when you've climbed to the top of a tree, when used on the overworld map it'll show you where animals are at a far greater distance and frequency

Hmmm, I am not sure though, if that wouldn't be too easy? With so much vision you could probably lose an animal, and then just immediately find it on the world map.

depending on where you are on the map, season, time of day, and stats, you'll see more or less animals

Season? Time of day? So probably more animals in spring-autumn, less in winter, and best time would be small hours?

heres a video/tutorial on cheat engine, and some basic concepts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8m_SqrXK7c

hmmmm I am not sure not sure

11

Suggestions / Re: Bigger settlements and warfare?

« on: October 26, 2024, 07:29:17 AM »

The game is set in early iron-age Finland, where most people lived a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.  For cities and armies, you need large scale agriculture.  Of course there would be conflicts, but largely raids for food or women that would be unlikely to involve outsiders.  Feuds between villages would be a nice dynamic, but I think a lot of work for Sami and I would sooner see him spend the time expanding the survival aspects on which the game is based. 

I would like to see one or two towns in the game though, on or around the river estuaries in the south-west.  These would represent trading posts where people from around the Baltic would bring metal tools to trade for furs and amber - which I think is what the Driik villages are supposed to represent.  Foreign traders should set up bases there, as having them wandering the wilderness on the off chance of finding a trapper who has a use for an expensive sword or piece of metal armour seems a tad ridiculous.

Early iron age is very late in the history of human civilizations. You can't convince me by that time there wasn't a single city in Finland with a couple hundred inhabitants. Honestly idk why would you go on explaining how people lived as hunter gatherers, not in cities, but then you basically agree with me? 

12

General Discussion / Re: Hunting mode?

« on: October 24, 2024, 03:56:25 AM »

If you want, you can use cheat engine

What cheat engine?

and freeze the value that indicates when you've climbed to the top of a tree, when used on the overworld map it'll show you where animals are at a far greater distance and frequency

Hmmm, I am not sure though, if that wouldn't be too easy? With so much vision you could probably lose an animal, and then just immediately find it on the world map.

depending on where you are on the map, season, time of day, and stats, you'll see more or less animals

Season? Time of day? So probably more animals in spring-autumn, less in winter, and best time would be small hours?

13

Suggestions / Bigger settlements and warfare?

« on: October 24, 2024, 02:33:35 AM »

Last time I checked each village had a few people, maybe like 20 in driik? And there wasn't really warfare. But come on, people fought each other and built cities thousands of years before the game's settings. I think it would be cool if there was a few bigger cities scattered over the world, and if there was an option of skirmishes happening without player's involvement, but allowing player to join as a mercenary, or perhaps as a hero?

14

General Discussion / Re: Hunting mode?

« on: October 24, 2024, 01:26:18 AM »

There are more animals farther away from humans. You'll not find as many in Driik. Also, if you wander back and forth about an area, or in circles, you're more likely to find animals than if you just go in a straight line.

I know that. I lived on the edge of Reemi, and would look for animals in no man's land, but there still weren't too many of them...

Maybe it's possible to modify spawn rates or something, so there is X times more of all animals, or certain types of them?

Or how about leaving food on the ground? Maybe it would attract animals, and give me a better chance of stumbling onto an animal or their tracks if I checked those locations regularly?

15

General Discussion / Re: Is it possible to acquire any type of yarn in winter without any trading?

« on: October 23, 2024, 10:30:56 AM »

Yes, it is possible. Just raid the village instead of trading with them.