v0.31 Talk:Starting build

Axe only for weapon

An axe is really ONLY useful for a weapon, as a log can be used to quickly make one. Even if axes are cheaper now, there is no point in bringing one to chop wood.

Only if training axes work to chop wood, otherwise it is far easier to take an axe than to make one. --Eagle0600 09:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

They do, just tested it

Wagon = 3 logs = 1 carpenters workshop + 2 logs. Just add a carpenter, and you have two axes already. --Dree12 00:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Only if training axes work to chop wood

This is the sort of trivial test editors really should do themselves before posting. And confirmed, they do cut wood. At 17P, its a toss up whether having a weapon in hand (even a wood one) is worth the delay of making a Carpenter's shop and creating one (if probably a higher quality one - which then partially negates its use as a training weapon.)--Albedo 19:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Which skills do i need, really

This section, as the title implies, is not 'which skills would it be nice to have'. Its 'which skills can i not reasonably avoid using'. Having avoided any military engagements with numerous fortresses in .40d, no, not even the military qualifies as an essential skill set, no matter how desirable it may be. Its simply too easy to work around. Only skills which cannot be avoided or which avoiding leads to incredible contortions to make the fortress run should be listed here, and afaict, that list is complete as of my edit (and was complete the first time I wrote that section). The only argument that could be made is Mechanic should be *removed*. --Squirrelloid 08:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Why should Mechanic be removed? They're still used for everything from traps to power! While not many people use weapon traps, if elephants wander into the fort, the only 'safe' way is to use weapon traps. Besides, higher skill means more traps quicker. There are no skills that cause increadible contortions if not brought, really. You start fine with no skills, they train up. Appraiser is the only skill that is hard to train up and causes "incredible contortions" if not brought. So with that suggestion, the section should state that you need Proficient Appraiser on all your dwarves. --Dree12 23:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

First, the suggestion is not what skills you should take, but what skills you will just about always use, barring extreme contortion.

Second, I think mechanic belongs in the list, because I think using no mechanisms ever is crazy. But that's a place where there probably are alternative ways of ("successfully") playing that don't involve building a single mechanism ever. That's why I say an argument could be made to remove the mechanic; not that I am personally making one.

Third, appraiser is really easy to train actually - whenever a dwarf goes to trade they make appraise checks as soon as you hit the 't' button (or at least they did in .40d - needs confirmation). They make one appraise check for each item the merchants brought to trade. So someone with no appraise skill will suddenly be skilled or better just by looking at the goods of a large trade caravan. (I believe you only get one attempt per caravan, so no xp scumming by rotating all your dwarves through broker for one caravan!) Of course, until you get enough xp to hit novice at least, you'll have to guess how much to trade for what you want, which is painful. You will, however, always use it (barring the extreme contortion of never trading).

Fourth, I _think_ appraiser is already implicity included, since I think its a leader skill. If not, that entry should be amended to the original text 'broker skills' because appraise is the most relevant of those.

--Squirrelloid 08:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Think about who will read this article, and why, and what they want to get out of it. (Or, more accurately, what you , the knowledgeable editors, want to give them, since many won't know what they do want/need out of this article.)

"Need" is almost purely subjective, unfortunately. Do you "need" a miner? No, they'll train fast enough, esp in soil. You will always* use one, but you don't "need" to take one. Bottom line, you can start with 7 unskilled dwarves - so you don't "need" any skills, right? Any dwarf can make mechanisms, so you never "need" a mechanic, right? Wrong.

*Challenges and advanced play are not what this article is about.

To me, that subsection is about what the starting player (1st fortress, 3rd fortress, that ballpark) wants to bring so their fortress will flourish despite the typical newbie flailing - and why. But what you use and what you "need" are not the same thing. So, we don't say "You need/don't need Appraiser" (or Mechanic, or etc) - we list the usual, predictable recommendations - Miner, Mason, Appraiser, Brewer, Cook, Grower, Military, etc etc - and say WHY it's suggested you "need" them. "Mechanic - more quickly produces (and places) high quality mechanisms, for weapon traps and created wealth". A quick one-line explanation, and let the player decide based on that. "Fisherdwarf/Ambusher -if you can't get UG crops going, you need creatures to supplement your food" - Meh, not for me, but okay. (Likewise, some can be listed as why you do NOT need them - "Glassmaker - too easy to train up on "free" sand.") This allows diff editor's opinions without a black/white "include/exclude" debate. More to the point, in the end, only experience will answer that question for each reader's playstyle, so this is only to give the newbie the confidence and information to make a choice that's better than "Play Now!".

Rewrite the intro to that subsection to reflect this reality, put objective pro's/con's for each listing, and undelete anything that has been scratched off the list.--Albedo 19:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Organization

First, there were too many starting guides in the 40d namespace, so we probably want to spend some time dividing the necessary material among articles in a *rational* manner early rather than having multiple superfluous pages again. I started a discussion on that here.

Second, this article is trying to fulfill too many functions. As per the above linked discussion, I think this should be separated into (1) a general starting a fortress page that covers the mechanics of doing so, and indexes the necessary guides, (2) a Quickstart guide for new users with a link to a save from DFFD, (3) a theoretical treatment of starting builds for advanced users, and possibly (4) an Embark Now guide (could possibly just be embedded in the parent page).

As it is, this page covers not only starting builds, but also how to navigate the embark menu (which is really a separate topic entirely, and I would never have thought to look here for it). It also covers Embark Now, which isn't really a 'build' at all from the user's perspective.

So, we should discuss this before I unilaterally implement such a far-reaching modification. But this page is a mess because its trying to do too much.

--Squirrelloid 10:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I completely agree. Having a bunch of redundant guides that have too much on them is going to confuse people, much like the 40d ones did, and that is the opposite of what having guides for beginners is intended to do. The first three guides you suggested should have pages, and that should be everything. Even an Embark Now guide could be included as part of something else where it would make more sense, not as its own page. --AzureShadow 12:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We have long needed an article dedicated to the Embark menu (and some of its sub-menus as well.) Breaking this beast up would not be a bad idea, but "Play Now" I think contrasts/fits well with the custom option, and is fairly brief (and would almost be a stub by itself? Meh, maybe not.) Putting "Play Now" on a separate article would isolate it from players who would never choose it and are only interested in customizing their own build.

(1) a general starting a fortress page
(2) a Quickstart guide for new users with a link to a save from DFFD

Problem is we already have so many "how to start the game" guides. This/those would have to be rationalize with each other, losing the redundant parts. --Albedo 19:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

When i gave that list, I had intended it as a full list of necessary pages, not just breaking this one up, but merging the valid parts from the other existing articles (or, since this is a new version, the appropriate themes from those articles and redirect their DF2010 namespace page names to the relevant articles). I did just read your points over at DF2010:How to correctly start fortress mode, and I'm not sure I think we need quite as many different pages as you do, but I'll think about it and post something before I do anything too crazy. --Squirrelloid 21:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)