My two cents after playing for 300 hours.

[Vratislav]

On 8/2/2025 at 1:24 AM, Pentatope said:

Temperate winters lasting 5-7 months may be accurate to the real experiences of temperate regions. Many "warm" regions on Earth never experience any snow year-round. However, I wish there was greater control or at least expanded options as to where I can start my world in the realistic climate distribution model.

Maybe the climate should be defined also on scale "oceanic" - "continental". Oceanic climate is much milder than continental, the differences between winter and summer are much smaller. And vice versa, continental climate may easily bring 50°C differences between summer and winter afternoon temperatures. 

BUT it would be much more appropriate if oceanic climate occured next to the oceans in game. In general, mid-size water bodies should affect a climate even locally. However, this may be a bit difficult task for worldgen. Maybe not as difficult as proper rivers, but still, not easy.

[Ankha]

On 8/1/2025 at 4:24 PM, Pentatope said:

I want to expand on this topic because it is one of my more sour gripes about the game. Firstly, I am definitely influenced by my Mediterranean-pilled climate preferences. I am not a personal big fan of winter's snow lasting 5-7 months (depending on elevation & latitude), as I personally experience winters from December to February. That isn't to say that I believe temperate climates should have snow longevity conform to a Mediterranean climate and weather cycle.

All of that lengthy introduction is just to say, I want to settle down in a location that is slightly warmer than the temperate/default world setting. No problem, most would think to themselves, "Just change your starting climate to 'Warm'". This is where the second disappointment kicks in. At least in my experience playing in the multiple "Warm" worlds I have started, the starting climate is warmer than my preference. Most "warm" worlds are too hot for snow to form during the winter, ergo In both world types, I have to travel 5-10k south or north (temperate and "warm" respectively) in order to reach my desired climate pattern. 
 

Personally, I don't agree/disagree with the sentiment that any "x" starting climate setting is too hot/cold. Temperate winters lasting 5-7 months may be accurate to the real experiences of temperate regions. Many "warm" regions on Earth never experience any snow year-round. However, I wish there was greater control or at least expanded options as to where I can start my world in the realistic climate distribution model. Currently, you are shoe-horned into long winter starting climate vs no winter starting climate, when players should be able to pick a climate with a "moderate winter". (It is not lost on me that many VS players may already consider temperate winters to be "moderate", but I can assure that not all feel this way)

Why is this so important? Couldn't you just spend a few in-game days traveling to a location with your desired climate?

I'm sure many have already identified why this may be frustrating to players or have personally experienced this problem in your games. When you generate the world, all of the story content for chapters 1 & 2 will have generated based on the world spawn. This means, that depending on where those structures spawn, you would be forced to travel a far greater distance than if you were to just stay at spawn. You could remedy this by reducing the distance that these story locations spawn, but you then risk the chance of simply running into them during your 5-10k trek either North/South. Most importantly, the only thing that all of this additional traveling in order to reach your desired climate is doing is bloating your world size & somewhat wasting your time. I say somewhat, because you can technically find/forage for materials during your travel, but if you don't find anything then you don't find anything. Plus, many people wouldn't WANT to spend the first few days of a world walking in one direction straight. Let me tell you, as someone who has done this in several worlds so far, it is not nearly as fun as it sounds. That is also several in-game days where my inventory is severely limited, ergo limited on how many materials I can collect, can't start clayforming b/c it takes up too much space in the inventory, etc. etc. 

These are all minor gripes, but it is something that I hope gets addressed soon. Not that I don't find temperate or hot starting climates fun, I've played in both and can say they both have their ups and downs, but I wish it was easier to get to that perfect sweet spot in the middle. 

I wish to say thank you to all the people who've commented on my post, I didn't know how much feedback I would gain, and I have enjoyed reading everyone's opinions.   Small update on my situation, I've tried the warm start only to feel its not to my liking.  Strange fruits, trees, so much desert, I do prefer the temperate starting fauna much better.   I would just love a winter severity option, and I'd choose a 4 month snow season.  I wonder what the game would be like making it the smallest world size possible. Something to experiment with while I wait for 1.21.  

[Cerehelm]

As for "it's too cold"—the cold itself wouldn't be a problem, but the climate is a bit illogical. I start the game in May (in a temperate climate, on default settings)—everything is blooming, there are blueberries, there's no snow or ice. The following year, although the snow begins to melt in March and disappears completely by April, the first blueberries don't ripen until June (so why were they there in early May the first year?), and pieces of ice on the lake persist all summer—some don't melt until the following winter—even though it's scorching hot, and my crops (on the same lake) suffer from excessive heat

[Echo Weaver]

1 hour ago, Cerehelm said:

As for "it's too cold"—the cold itself wouldn't be a problem, but the climate is a bit illogical. I start the game in May (in a temperate climate, on default settings)—everything is blooming, there are blueberries, there's no snow or ice. The following year, although the snow begins to melt in March and disappears completely by April, the first blueberries don't ripen until June (so why were they there in early May the first year?), and pieces of ice on the lake persist all summer—some don't melt until the following winter—even though it's scorching hot, and my crops (on the same lake) suffer from excessive heat

The ice melting issue seems to be related to the user being far enough away from the area that the chunk is not loaded in memory. Plenty of of long-duration activities are managed correctly for offloaded chunks (bee swarming comes to mind), but stuff from very old parts of the game don't. This is also true of livestock pregnancies -- they don't advance if you are far enough away from your livestock, even though the crops do ripen. Kind of crazy-making.

I hope that this stuff will be addressed in a future dejank release. Ice in the bay in a temperate climate in August bugs me too.

[Cerehelm]

13 hours ago, Echo Weaver said:

Problem z topnieniem lodu wydaje się być związany z tym, że użytkownik znajduje się na tyle daleko od obszaru, że fragment nie jest ładowany do pamięci. Wiele długotrwałych aktywności jest poprawnie zarządzanych dla odciążonych fragmentów (na myśl przychodzi rojenie się pszczół), ale elementy z bardzo starych części gry nie. Dotyczy to również ciąż u zwierząt gospodarskich – nie rozwijają się one, jeśli jesteś wystarczająco daleko od zwierząt, mimo że plony dojrzewają. Trochę to irytujące.

Mam nadzieję, że ten problem zostanie rozwiązany w przyszłej wersji Dejank. Lód w zatoce w klimacie umiarkowanym w sierpniu też mnie denerwuje.

The floe would remain (and slowly disappear) all summer long on the lake where I lived and which I often crossed by raft - so it was almost always close to the player.

[MagpieOAO]

On 7/28/2025 at 10:41 AM, Steel General said:

It is historically accurate that armor hinders healing. A suit of full plate takes several minutes to put on or take off with at least one helper, preferably two.

Full plate keeps the blood in really well, but it's still possible to punch a hole through it, and the wound thus delivered cannot be bandaged with the armor in the way. There is no stuff-through or reach-under: that wound is going to kill the wearer by blood loss until they aren't wearing that armor anymore. In general, if a person survives such a wound, it's because someone else cut the armor off them to get to it. The straps are the first to go, but the deformed metal might have to get removed with metalworking tools - many a noble died while his squires desperately hammered and pried armor panels so they could save him with just a strip of cloth and a quick knot.

Full plate really is a death trap - that's why in later eras they went to just a breastplate, helmet, and some chain on the limbs.

Huh this never occured to me and explains a LOT about armor, its advancement and contemporary design. Thank you for this insight! 

Something as simple as "how do you treat wounds", let alone how do you live in it prepared for a fight hadn't really come to mind. If someone needs to march several days (or ride on horseback) and still be in good shape to fight, light, flexible and comfortable armor which allows you to conduct daily tasks is a must. Let alone emergency tasks. 

[LadyWYT]

4 minutes ago, MagpieOAO said:

If someone needs to march several days (or ride on horseback) and still be in good shape to fight, light, flexible and comfortable armor which allows you to conduct daily tasks is a must. Let alone emergency tasks. 

Typically, you'd have your armor stowed in the baggage train, when possible, and only equip it when expecting a fight. It's not only more comfortable and less stress for you that way, but it's also more comfortable and less stress for your mount as well. And of course, realistically...if you could afford good armor like plate, you'd be able to afford a horse and a servant or two to help with your luggage as well.

Of course, from the videogame standpoint, armor is approached a little bit differently, since the player needs to be able to handle the workload themselves.

[Krougal]

So having finally gotten around to doing the first boss, I didn't find him difficult, but then I have a silver falx and meteoric iron plate.

Just stood there to the side and whacked at him. I don't remember if I equipped my shield or not (it was probably too dark to forego lantern).

I gotta say, I am bitterly disappointed with the heavier armor in general; I've never ran into a sawblade before, but I was taking a pounding and if I didn't also play with hp cranked to the max, I'd have been dead several times over. The rooms full of smaller locusts and drifters weren't any fun either. This is the first time I've made meteoric plate and probably will be the last time as well. I was going to keep the steel chain, but I may wind up upgrading that. I remember being underwhelmed last time I tried full steel plate too.

Yes, sticking and backing up so that the mob can't connect a swing works, if you aren't surrounded and have the room, but it's also just typical gamey cheese.

[Dilan Rona]

If you can stand there with a falx, and tank a RA boss, then the sawblade locust will be no issue (just make sure to scurry away before it can swing that sawblade around though, its got a meaner swing). Ran into more sawblade locusts than I care to count that I just have to deal with sooner rather than later.