Hirelings and citizens.

[Pakislav]

The way Kenshi is:

You run a communist-cult commune. Everyone, some at a tiniest entry fee, will do anything you ask of them. They'll suffer slavery-like conditions, they'll suicide-charge a beak thing just to let the rest of the party to get away, they'll pay no mind to their creed, breed or trade.




The way Kenshi could be:

Hirelings: Governed by AI and attached to town. Require regular pay. Only fulfill duties of their trade: A guard will guard the settlement or people. A scientist will science. A worker will labor. May desert if without pay, hungry or settlement is overrun.

Citizens: Governed by AI. Attached to town. Require a building they can own. Only fulfill duties of their trade. May desert when starving or owned building gets destroyed.

Optionally: Only the characters player starts with are free. Additional character player may control fully require regular pay.




Reasoning: It's too easy and there's only one failure state (death) in the game. The player has too much control and thus not enough organic, unexpected things happen like being completely deserted by all your guards right before a raid because you run out of money.
Alas, maybe Kenshi just isn't meant to be the game I'd like it to be, sadly... gimmie 3D dwarf fortress please.

[Abstracted]

Sounds like you're looking for Mount and Blade haha.

There are already mercenaries in the game, it would be great to have an ongoing contract with them and have different prices for different levels of mercs. Beyond that, I don't think taking away control from the player for their own squad is wise. You're just creating more hassle and more potential issues for the AI to go awry.

If the game is too easy turn up your difficulty and see how you go when a character can die much easier, meaning your squad members are more important, or turn up the hunger level so they starve quicker, so you need to better manage food to keep from negative afflictions.

[Grimmrok]

Wrong game, pal.

Maybe try something like Banished or the like?

[Messala]

Dwarf Fortress and a few other games achieved similar idea's you're looking for only because they don't use an actual world I think. Most rpg's I've played that I have liked are kind of gimmicky in the way that their AI works almost through a UI; as if it's a playing card game. The game's code is much easier to handle in that scope imo since there aren't nearly as many variables that could go awry and break the game. Plus from my knowledge of coding, games like Dwarf Fortress, total war, and Warband; the things that can happen to the player are all laid out with matching variables that respond to each other with mathematical precision. But in a game like Kenshi where the player can actually move across its lands physically and interact with the world, I think that fact makes AI programming for it much harder since so many variables and logic tree's will be shifting at the player's control. Now the programmer needs to create hundreds of things for every possible situation so that the game doesn't break IE: Logic tree's clashing with one another causing huge ridiculous civil wars that make no sense. Accidental crossbow crossfire hits causing wars

Maybe it's possible for games like kenshi to have that level of AI, but I'm a game art assets type of guy not a programmer so I don't actually know for sure but I can imagine it would have already been done by someone if it was easy or even possible lol. I for one am happy with Kenshi as it is now but a game with insane AI progression like that would be amazing indeed.

[Pakislav]

It wouldn't be that hard at all.

World travel would get abstracted to a meta-game layer kinda like M&B campaign map. So would most stuff like city production for economy. Even in player settlement the storage could be abstracted to solve most hassle with AI in regards to 'I need this material, it's stored there, I can't get there therefore derp'. Everything would in fact be far easier, more intuitive and engaging than current design which is ambitious but deeply flawed. Frivolous stuff like 'he hit me, let's go to total war' can just be ignored with one logic gate and is basic programming stuff. Kenshi already tries to do more ambitious things with theft and slavery.

[lucidmadness]

This would be cool as a mod, but I don't think it's what they were going for big picture wise.

[bk3000]

The way Kenshi is:

Everyone, some at a tiniest entry fee, will do anything you ask of them. They'll suffer slavery-like conditions

Honestly I've thought similar every time someone requests the ability for the player to own "slaves." How is that different gameplay wise than how your own NPCs operate normally? I've thought for a while that you should pay them on a daily/weekly basis. Maybe not a lot, and maybe the amount can be negotiated as part of dialog (otherwise some default amount) - so that someone starving might offer to work for you just to eat, but some skilled (or just arrogant) warrior might demand a noteworthy amount of cats. I could see some wanting you to keep booze in stock. But at the very least, that clearly distinguishes your people from de-facto slaves that you purchased. They stay because they benefit somehow.

It makes gameplay sense to add some more cat sinks so you don't simply just pile cats up to the ceiling. Your faction grows so it takes more to keep it operating. Yet another reason to not just turtle up behind your walls.

Now supposing that gets implemented at all, I think the people you recruited beforehand should clearly have no such requirements. From an implementation point of view, you add some default character data to account for this. "contractType" and "contractData" which defaults to "cats" and 0. But new characters might have non-default requirements via dialog.

And honestly while I would like that to happen, I don't think it is the sort of thing they'd want to further delay the official release of the game over. It might make for a nice post-release improvement. But I could see this tying them up if they wanted to do it extensively - because of all the dialog editing. Maybe not so bad if the (new recruit) default was a set amount of cats though, but anything beyond that would probably be some work/time they'd rather invest elsewhere.

, they'll suicide-charge a beak thing just to let the rest of the party to get away, they'll pay no mind to their creed, breed or trade.

I get what you're saying there, but it would be rather problematic from a gameplay point of view for them to refuse attack/move orders. So I think that much has to slide for sure. Still I could see a devout holy nation recruit refusing to repair a skeleton, etc. Some honorable recruits who refuse to steal. And there is some precedent - dogs that steal limbs and run off with them, characters refuse to attempt lockpicks that are too hard for them. So I'd image there is some code base already enabling the AI to disobey your orders in some situations.

And perhaps you might consider this before hiring them - that their personality might make them more problematic than they're worth. Though I'd think that after they'd been in your faction for a time, some loyalty should develop and they should be less likely to disobey orders.

The way Kenshi could be:

Hirelings: Governed by AI and attached to town. Require regular pay. Only fulfill duties of their trade: A guard will guard the settlement or people. A scientist will science. A worker will labor. May desert if without pay, hungry or settlement is overrun.

Citizens: Governed by AI. Attached to town. Require a building they can own. Only fulfill duties of their trade. May desert when starving or owned building gets destroyed.

The idea of your people only performing tasks per some predetermined trade is an idea I'd absolutely hate. It is better now that you can choose to have your people "a jack of all trades" but at the cost they'll be master of none. It is better to specialize and going with what they're already good at is usually the best idea. But it isn't like people can't learn new skills.

[Grimmrok]

I've thought for a while that you should pay them on a daily/weekly basis.

Why do people want to have a "pay your pawns on a regular basis"?

I mean, what happens if you have 0c.?
Does the whole crew leave?
Leaving you with no character to play with?
Or is the idea that "you don't pay your starting character, but yes for everyone else"?
If that's the case, then you're missing the point that you play as ALL characters.
The "protection" fee, which is the initial payment, is pretty much to limit you from just hiring everyone and sending them to their death, or to slavery to turn into profit. It's not for "oh you pay him to work for you, that's reasonable".

You play as all of them. You are all of them. All their money is shared. All their money is your money. Sounds like communism, but a version that actually works.
This is not a kind of game that you can implement capitalism into. Or at least into the player's position.

All the characters in our control are us.
We play as all the characters in our control.

This is not Age of Empires, where every time that you give a command to a pawn it responds with "My Lord!".
This is not Sims, where your persona refuses to go party because they are too tired and want to sleep.
This is not XCOM, where you give your soldiers orders and they follow them blindly or get panicked and are unable to take orders from you.
This is Kenshi, where you are each and every one of your recruits, and they act on your will as long as they are capable to do so. They don't lockpick only if they are unable to due to lacking the skills. They won't talk to other NPCs if they are mute because they simply lack the ability to do so. Not because they want to disobey the player.

Please, people, come into terms with the kind of game that Kenshi is.
What you're asking for here is not "feature", it's "change the game".

[bk3000]

All the characters in our control are us.
We play as all the characters in our control.

This is not Age of Empires, where every time that you give a command to a pawn it responds with "My Lord!".
This is not Sims, where your persona refuses to go party because they are too tired and want to sleep.
This is not XCOM, where you give your soldiers orders and they follow them blindly or get panicked and are unable to take orders from you.
This is Kenshi, where you are each and every one of your recruits, and they act on your will as long as they are capable to do so. They don't lockpick only if they are unable to due to lacking the skills. They won't talk to other NPCs if they are mute because they simply lack the ability to do so. Not because they want to disobey the player.

Please, people, come into terms with the kind of game that Kenshi is.
What you're asking for here is not "feature", it's "change the game".

Well your entitled to your view. But I'm afraid I can't agree with you and your view at all. I don't see it that way. Your view also seems to be that individual personality and will simply disappear once they join up. That in turn is less immersive. Certainly they need to obey you for the most part for simple game play reasons.

And I've found another example where they already disobey you (because it makes sense). They'll refuse to apply first aid to someone in the water. You need to get them to land first before they'll obey. On top of the other examples I've mentioned, that demonstrates what I've said doesn't fundamentally "change the game" much. It just adds a little character. Granted Kenshi already has lots of character.

Now I'd agree the other suggestion really does change the game far too much. I think my previous post covers that. But as for "what Kenshi is" then you're missing something. Personalities matter a great deal in Kenshi. The dialog system should make that clear. it isn't mere flavor text, but has real consequence too. Although currently that importance totally ends the moment you recruit them. So my suggestion is more in line with the spirit of the game.

Now the characters you control are still AI entities just like all the NPCs in the game. They're still ruled by different AI goals. For example how they join a fight when another of them was attacked... did you order this? No. They're choosing to do this (even if you would have ordered it anyhow). Obeying your orders is... an AI goal but one with high priority. Just like in real life any soldier will usually obey orders, but they are still distinct individuals not mere drones. And sometimes they do disobey orders and/or they do things they where not ordered to do.

And judging from your post you see them like Zerglings while you're the Overmind, or something along those lines. Well you're still entitled to your view but again I just can't agree. Your faction isn't a hivemind. They aren't drones (excluding any drones you may have recruited).

[Sol Lignum]

(...) I've thought for a while that you should pay them on a daily/weekly basis. (...)

But that's exactly what you do! See, while from the gameplay standpoint, our characters are no more then slaves indeed, it is up to player to decide if they actually are.
- Will we just recruit the cheapest, strip them down to their trousers and make them work for a boiled veggies a day, and replace them as soon as they die. Then they're slaves.
- But we also can recruit who we like, train them if needed, equip and feed them well, treat their wounds, carry their sorry unconscious butt to safety, and so on. In this case, they're brothers in arms, or family, or communist scum, whatever suits you

The way i see it: most of them are kind of lost souls, ready to join up with anybody who's willing to pay them some "insurance money", feed them and provide some healthcare. In exchange for some work\fight\brain -power.

They're loyal to death and cannot leave if things go bad, though... So maybe that's what would ultimately differentiate them from slaves. I wouldn't mind if most but selected few of the recruits could just walk away if they feel hungry or neglected.

[Pakislav]

The idea of your people only performing tasks per some predetermined trade is an idea I'd absolutely hate. It is better now that you can choose to have your people "a jack of all trades" but at the cost they'll be master of none. It is better to specialize and going with what they're already good at is usually the best idea. But it isn't like people can't learn new skills.

You've misunderstood. These hirelings and citizens wouldn't be characters you control at all. They wouldn't be 'in your squad'. They'd be more like current bodyguards/settlement guards. Basically NPCs that get attracted to your town to give it life and actually make it a town rather than some weird, creepy cult-place full of mind-washed slaves.

Bottom line of the entire thread; this suggestion would indeed make Kenshi not be Kenshi anymore like I hinted at the end of OP, even if such a design would possibly be better than Kenshi design, in some aspects at least (namely "realism"), it would almost require making Kenshi a single-character game, which would mean no med-evacs like currently which is one of the funnier parts of Kenshi and the soul of the game.

[Hatsune_Neko]

it would almost require making Kenshi a single-character game.

this would never happen. as its a squad based game.
this is why you are meeting such resistance, suggesting changing the core of the game can do that.

[bk3000]

Bottom line of the entire thread; this suggestion would indeed make Kenshi not be Kenshi anymore like I hinted at the end of OP, even if such a design would possibly be better than Kenshi design, in some aspects at least (namely "realism"), it would almost require making Kenshi a single-character game, which would mean no med-evacs like currently which is one of the funnier parts of Kenshi and the soul of the game.

Ah I see. Throw out the heart and soul of Kenshi, start over, and make it a game totally unrecognizable from what we have. This is just a guess, but is your real name George Lucas?

Honestly you're looking for a dev in need of an idea for a new game. Thus this doesn't belong as a Kenshi "feature request" at all.