Marriage+Reproduction

[AlmightyDirtyJake]

If there is one thing I love about games like Mount and Blade: Warband, it was that I could make my own kingdom, and get married, but I couldn't have a kid with my wife. There was no heir to my throne, so if I were to die (which I know you can't in Warband, but you know... realistically you will die) my kingdom would be in chaos. I think it would be cool if Kenshi could add a marriage + reproduction feature, so if you do end up making a new faction, if you had a kid, your kid would be the future leader of your faction. Obviously, the kids ageing process would have to be sped up, and it would be cool if when he/she is old enough to fight, he can join your squad.

What do you guys think of this?

[Marcuss2]

Kind for long run, but seems like fun, have another 3D interactive porn game.

Added to suggestions list

[toaster Assassin]

There is no main character, basically your actions represent the actions of the entire faction. It would be hard to keep track of every Unit's family tree.

[Blxz]

There is no main character

Mr Assassin hits the nail squarely on the head. There is no main character. Yes, we start the game with a single guy but people need to disconnect a little from that. They are not playing that character directly.

This concept factors into loads of suggestions that people are making; having kids, first person control, having some guys you can and some guys you can't control, even individual money/bank accounts. You are not a real person/entity in the game. If anything you are playing the 'common cause' that is binding these people together rather than a specific dude/dudette.

[Dimler]

If anything you are playing the 'common cause' that is binding these people together rather than a specific dude/dudette.

oh, I really like that idea Blxz. that you as the player aren't a person in the game but an idea, a drive that is uniting all of the members of your group toward some kind of goal; gives me goosebumps.

[iSuck345]

I think that there was something similiar... oh yeah it was about prostitutes XD. I also think they are gonna put burials in here.

[Ethredel]

There is no main character

Mr Assassin hits the nail squarely on the head. There is no main character. Yes, we start the game with a single guy but people need to disconnect a little from that. They are not playing that character directly.

This concept factors into loads of suggestions that people are making; having kids, first person control, having some guys you can and some guys you can't control, even individual money/bank accounts. You are not a real person/entity in the game. If anything you are playing the 'common cause' that is binding these people together rather than a specific dude/dudette.

I both agree and disagree with this statement. Allow me to explain:

Yes, we are not as much the "main character" as we are the collective, the squad, as it were. We are playing a "common cause", as you put it, but at the centre of every cause is a driving force, which would be the "main character" because he is the one that starts the whole adventure; and, to me, the most compelling common cause is creating an empire that will stand the test of time. I want to create a dynasty, and for that you need to sire children. I'm not asking for animated pornography or anything of the like, which would be both corny and unnecessary; however, what I am asking for is a bit of realism.
You might argue that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and you would be right, but I just don't believe that it should be here; just imagine for a moment, if you will, the epic revenge storyline of a son/daughter avenging the death of a parent, or an entire empire marching to war. A good blood feud always makes for a decent story.

In regards to the family trees, I agree that it would be impossible to implement for all the characters, which is why it should be for the "main character" and his descendants only.

[Potocobe]

How exactly are new NPC's spawned? The world is going to be procedurally built and populated. Populated how? A lot of death occurs in my games despite all the healing that goes on. Surely new NPC's are spawned based on some numerical value in the game. Why can't that number be represented by a number of children in a village doing what kids do till their timer runs down and they turn into NPC's that contribute.

The player is expected, it seems, to grow his faction by recruitment or enslavement. How do the other factions grow? Where do all of those hungry bandits and such come from? I would hope that there could be a source of people that the player could learn to understand and predict. Understanding how systems work really helps make good strategies. Regardless of the issue of children or heirs for a non-existent main character that has my name over his head I would like to know how faction populations will be managed.

[hekatt]

I agree with potocobe reproduction or some sort of immigration into the world is not only a good idea but required if you want to keep the game populated since this world is very dangerous sooner or later every one will get killed. though i do think it would be kinda of cool if you decided to go on a genocide of the human race and see that reflected by the scarcity of survivors(if any). on a lighter note seeing children run around in town would liven up the place and give you further initiative to defend that town especially if its your own.

[Moonracer]

As much as I'd love a game where your children act as a kind of "extra lives" mechanic it seems unlikely for this game.

First you would need to have children, elderly and baby NPCs. Then you'd need to implement some sort of aging process. You'd also have to figure out what to do if you die and only have a baby or child offspring. Do you control the child? Or does the game world fast forward so many years? There is also the fact that society simply will not allow games to let you kill children. So you have invincible children running around?

I'd rather development energy be spent on fighting and city building and leave marriage and children to the Sims

[Potocobe]

I don't think it would be a fun game mechanic in Kenshi to be worrying about raising children, getting old or married. I do however think it would be cool if the all the other characters in the game had to worry about those things. Kenshi is a survival kind of game. I'm pretty sure that finding water and dealing with thirst and dehydration are going to be part of this game. Just that right there will be something that you deal with the entire time you play. So will running from slavers and such. Having even more things that you NEED to do to survive would be overwhelming. And there will be other things.

I want to say that if there are mathematical algorithms determining when to add to the population to keep the game world populated then perhaps those numbers could be reflected somehow in the games environment to make it seem more alive and meaningful. Someone on another thread mentioned buzzards circling a battlefield to show where combat is/was going on (in place of the red, gray and green numbers in the distance i hope). This kind of thing is what I am referring to with the lived-in-village idea. Kids running around in the towns that tolerate them. Maybe cannibal villages don't let their kids(snacks) run free.

So, yes to more immersion, no to player controlled families.

[TheHappyPyro]

I agree, there comes a time when new recruits are near impossible to find, and that's reinforced by hours of climbing buggy highlands, getting raped by tons of bandits, and coming back with little to no new members...

[toaster Assassin]

hekatt said: I agree with potocobe reproduction or some sort of immigration into the world is not only a good idea but required if you want to keep the game populated since this world is very dangerous sooner or later every one will get killed.

I like the idea of immigration instead of implementing kids/ growth process.Perhaps immigration can be based on the well-being of the settlement. (i.e. a town with a lot of NPC activity/town building health/trading/ect will yield more immigrants (obviously all of this represented by numbers)The immigrants could arrive in the cities via caravans that originated from off the map. This way Chris's flow of time would not have to take into account an aging process. (There can still be different aged npcs of course)

Ethredel said:We are playing a "common cause", as you put it, but at the centre of every cause is a driving force, which would be the "main character" because he is the one that starts the whole adventure; and, to me, the most compelling common cause is creating an empire that will stand the test of time.

Its true that when leaders emerge, the "common cause" is accelerated, but when they die it does not necessarily mean the death of the cause. A belief of a cause starts in the mind of the individuals, and each individual tries to work in some way to benefit the common belief. A leader is just an individual who has the ability to do more. I view the leader/hero as a catalyst that amplifies the force of the cause rather than being the center. (meaning if the hero dies, another can rise from the ranks).In my opinion, the game ends when all your people die,because at that point there is no one who follows the faction/cause.

[Ethredel]

I like the idea of immigration instead of implementing kids/ growth process.Perhaps immigration can be based on the well-being of the settlement. (i.e. a town with a lot of NPC activity/town building health/trading/ect will yield more immigrants (obviously all of this represented by numbers)The immigrants could arrive in the cities via caravans that originated from off the map. This way Chris's flow of time would not have to take into account an aging process. (There can still be different aged npcs of course)

Its true that when leaders emerge, the "common cause" is accelerated, but when they die it does not necessarily mean the death of the cause. A belief of a cause starts in the mind of the individuals, and each individual tries to work in some way to benefit the common belief. A leader is just an individual who has the ability to do more. I view the leader/hero as a catalyst that amplifies the force of the cause rather than being the center. (meaning if the hero dies, another can rise from the ranks).In my opinion, the game ends when all your people die,because at that point there is no one who follows the faction/cause.

In the case of an empire, if there is no heir apparent, the power vacuum could potentially lead to infighting, and the entire empire could crumble as various people and factions within the faction fight for control. But it occurs to me now that I could just go recruit a random person at the inn and call him my heir, even though it breaks the immersion for a moment. I just think it's important to include many forms of faction management, otherwise the game could get repetitive really fast. And it goes without saying that such features should be complementary to the squad-based RPG nature of the game, and would therefore be entirely optional for the player that is not interested in forging an empire and managing it.

Don't get me wrong, developing time should definitely be prioritized elsewhere as it is now, but I felt that reproduction would at least be worth considering (even in the form of immigrants). Also, children and elderly people should definitely be included, and they should definitely be kill-able. People die and people kill each other, it's what they do.

[Blxz]

and people kill each other, it's what they do.

Not in my country. its pretty much frowned upon here....

[Ethredel]

and people kill each other, it's what they do.

Not in my country. its pretty much frowned upon here....

Go ahead, pretend that war, murder and suffering doesn't happen. Look at the history of humankind for a moment and tell me that it's not a history full of people killing other people for various reasons.
Besides, isn't this game supposed to take place in a semi-anarchistic post-apocalyptic world? Philanthropists and human rights would be the first casualties.

[Santaissick]

People die and people kill each other, it's what they do.

Don't forget people who kill themselves. They are always the forgotten ones...

[TravelingMerchant]

There doesn't need to be a lot of worry about anything, Chris and his beard have already devised character tabs for each individual character.

its not a stretch to say he couldnt simply add extra values with extra benefits like "Number of Spouses: , Number of Children: , and perhaps eventually add a tab for "Eligable Faction Recruits: which lists people seeking to join your faction and also children of your troops, the ladder joining simply because their family member is in your faction and the former joining due to a fame stat being met.

See there is a lot he can do with this game, and none of it has to be overly complex. THE most complex thing will be giving each npc a priority list of actions that does not overlap each other. Such as villagers sticking to villages and making sure they only take empty beds when they think they are tired based on time of day, personal health, beds available, housing available.

I'd hope he adds a cot item where npcs simply roll out a tiny little cot object that doesnt take a alot to load (perhaps a thin 3-Dimensional rectangular with a low res texture of a cot) and it would work like a becon of sorts that allows the npc's model to lay down and acts as the beds sleeping code.

See, if you can visualize it, IT CAN BE DONE!!

[toaster Assassin]

Ethredel said: In the case of an empire, if there is no heir apparent, the power vacuum could potentially lead to infighting, and the entire empire could crumble as various people and factions within the faction fight for control. But it occurs to me now that I could just go recruit a random person at the inn and call him my heir, even though it breaks the immersion for a moment. I just think it's important to include many forms of faction management, otherwise the game could get repetitive really fast. And it goes without saying that such features should be complementary to the squad-based RPG nature of the game, and would therefore be entirely optional for the player that is not interested in forging an empire and managing it.

Well, if there is a strong council in place (plus established traditions) they could possibly pick a new heir. Or the strongest general could kill the weaker ones and bring order with violence (both seem to work).
Maybe there could be an option to designate one "special unit". If they die, you just designate a new one.

[iSuck345]

and people kill each other, it's what they do.

Not in my country. its pretty much frowned upon here....

Has the black hole of morality just said that?