How about a king?

@Fornjotr Why don’t you swap with Lars Løkke. You’d be geat.

1 Like

høhøhø :merry: Danes and their politics… Thanks @Simon_Noval i guess :slight_smile:

1 Like

I think that it is not really necessary for a king to be a leader, a unit superior to the knight and the footman, but that can only be promoted through a single object that drops an enemy leader possibly in a very advanced campaign mission, the abilities that Could have this leader would be state buffers for their peers and villagers, a lot of strength and life, but since it is such a strong unit that has to live with luxuries, which would mean giving a use to refined articles, it is my opinion :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Thanks for replying guys. And ı want to say king and other leaders are just a title to them. The other mobs have their leaders and they are powerful then others. I am asking"Why the humans have not a leader?". Jose_Abreu is explains the situtation. If there was a promotion to be leader or king is makes game better not bad.

1 Like

It gives me laughter since recently creating my town I thought to create a castle and inside to create a kind of real room and apart a room with all the refined objects and what I did was put as property that bed to a heartling that was a knigth Level 6 and I separate it from the other parties and I only have it in that construction, then I saw this post and I called my attention because it was something that caused me to try in the town (after fighting Ogo and taking away his banner), Sina_Gundogdu only wants to give our people a leader who supports our villagers but is a unique unit. :slight_smile:

There is properbly more threads that fit the subject? But here are some of the ideas the players have come up with:

4 Likes

Is it possible to create roles such as a king, valets, queen of course and peasants for next upgrade?

What purpose would those roles serve @Terr4t0r ?

Also I direct you How about a king? <here This is a discussion about the very same suggestion as well as some points and counter arguments and links to a few other suggestion posts asking the same thing.

Also, welcome to the discourse @Terr4t0r :jubilant:

3 Likes

Of course trade already exists, I was suggesting having a leader of sorts could improve trade giving either more options or better deals. no need to add a class without actually adding anything when it can be improved through it.

well i dont disagree but what would the use be? i guess he could orginize stuff to make carpender/mason work faster but i think that would be about it… if they add multiplayer it would be really cool though

there cant be a leader… thats what you dont understand… both races already have leaders you are building a new settlement in their name… having your own king would make you a traitor and be a cause for war with your own faction… which is obviously not in this game…

it would be like what happened to form America… a former British empire separated from their nation with a war…

In Dwarf Fortress that’s not a problem. The existing King merely chooses your settlement as his new home because of its renknown, wealth and glory. Don’t see why that’s categorically out of the question for Stonehearth.

It could boost morale, frequency of trade and overall happyness for citizens while on the downside sieges become more likely. If the king is killed morale would go down and there would be some long term mali. Only thing I could see becoming difficult is to make sure that players dont 't just lock the king up in a safe hole somewhere deep underground so no enemy can get him. Maybe he would demand access to a park or something.

The Ascendancy has a monarchy, and heralds to keep track of towns as they map the country, but it doesn’t seem to have much control over the cities. See the herald’s joke about how there aren’t any taxes.

I have yet to play Rayya’s Children to the next tier, but it was my impression so far that they’re pretty loosely tied together through their trading company, rather than a more top-down government. I certainly might be wrong about this now that they’ve added more.

Were the Ascendancy any larger, I could see them becoming a proper Empire. Then, the rulers of the most powerful cities might very well call themselves kings. They seem like the type to call themselves royalty.

1 Like

Just roleplay

Get some Hearthling with decent stats, rename them to have the word “King”, “Chieftain”, etc in front of their normal name. And then assign them to a bed in a nice house/possible palace, mayor’s office, so on.

2 Likes

I actually like having a queen unit. As others have said, it would be for general buffs for trade or war, the downside would be if the queen hasn’t been within range of another unit for a set period would have a “Forgotten” or “neglected” debuff to productivity/speed etc…

I think it would be an interesting unit, I would place as a tier 3 unit, limit to one, with hefty requirements, but the buffs are worthwhile…

Maybe, that’s my thoughts

Hi all,

I am a political economist so I thought I might give my input on this. The mainstream theory is that the origin of statehood/rulership is in the need for a monopoly on violence. When populations were organized in small kin based tribes most of the rule was based on unanimous votes and there was no hierarchy except maybe elder patriarchs. When societies grew enough, the accumulated wealth made it worthwhile for some tribes to stop productive activities and instead live off raiding.

They became roving bandits. Because they were moving around and never stayed at any place for long enough and thus had a very short time horizon, their revenue maximizing strategy was to extract as much as possible from the area and then move on. This kept on going until one of these roving bandit figured out that by settling down and extending its time horizon, it would give incentives for the local populace to invest in the productive activities (because they no longer feared losing everything every season) and this new stationary bandit could extract more on the long run then by just short term raiding the land.

This new stationary bandit could maximize his revenue by using his monopoly of violence to prevent raiding by other bandits and also by guaranteeing property rights within the land. These two main functions: foreign relations and justice (acting as a judge and contract enforcer), are thus based on violence. A third form of function you could expect from a ruler is to use his monopoly on violence to solve the collective action and provide public goods.

So going back to Stonehearth, based on this if you want to justify a mayor/king in game mechanics you need to give him a job where he has to do one of these things. I dont think there is a collective action problem because the hearthlings are already controlled by the player. As long as they don’t have some form of personal greed or autonomy thats not a problem. On the foreign relation side, having a mayor could make sense if that opened diplomacy options (for the ascendency, maybe claiming independence to the monarch or brokering peace with other factions). At the justice level, if there was crime in the village or event that required the authority of a judge then it would make sense.

Cheers, sorry for the long post!

2 Likes

One such case where I think an authority fits well in the game is due to the new traits that hearthlings have. Imagine you’re mid-game, and a new hearthling arrives but he’s way subpar. For example, he just wants to be a crafter but has poor stats leading him to be grumpy all the time and drag down the morale of your town. Promoting a mayor could give you the option of banishing him.

1 Like

Well yeah that would save the populace the discomfort of having someone kill over. “Hello new guy I see your stats are 1/1/1 and you want to be a Knight…YOU GOT IT! :smiling_imp: Now go take on this camp of goblins alone and see how well ya do. Best of luck!!” pray the replacement that happens to show up the next day doesn’t suffer the same delusion and admire your decorative new tombstone

Ahah I have pity for them, I usually just reload if the new recruit is too awful, I don’t mind having a few grunts but at some point if you cant be a crafter or a soldier you’re no good to me.

1 Like

You know, to solve all this, someone could just make it a mod so it was optional instead of having all this debate…

1 Like