Dwarf Fortress Bug Tracker - Dwarf Fortress
View Issue Details
IDProjectCategoryView StatusDate SubmittedLast Update
0000673Dwarf FortressDwarf Mode -- Embark/Setuppublic2010-04-06 17:102011-04-07 16:13
ReporterGRead 
Assigned ToFootkerchief 
PrioritynormalSeverityfeatureReproducibilityrandom
StatusresolvedResolutionunable to reproduce 
PlatformOSOS Version
Product Version0.31.01 
Target VersionFixed in Version 
Summary0000673: On embark screen neighbours are listed as 'No Trade' without apparent reason
DescriptionOn the embark map, your neighbours screen will list when certain civilizations will not come to trade. However, the selection of just where they won't come to trade can be nonsensical

I have had my own civilization listed as 'no trade' when embarking right on their doorstep. Similiarly, I have had locations within the borders of a human empire listed as 'no trade' for the humans. Just south of the humans was a small forest, surrounded on all sides by the humans grassland. The elves would come to trade there, despite not trading in any of the land surrounding it.

I am submitting this as a bug despite being unsure of the proper qualifications for trading, as I have yet to figure out any rhyme or reason for what areas will be No Trade. It seems to be figured by biome, but otherwise lacks any discernible rules.
Steps To ReproduceGen a world. Tab to the Neighbours panel and start looking. There will be areas where the various civilizations there will be listed as 'No Trade'. Some of these areas will seem reasonable, such as no one wanting to visit your fort in the terrifying desert of bloody death. Some of them will be nonsensical, such as the humans refusing to visit you in the forest three squares south of their civilization, but being perfectly happy if you move to the hellish swamps of despair, fifty squares to the east.
Additional Information
Tagsembark, trade
Relationships
related to 0000945resolved Toady One Temperature Settings in world gen behaving strangely 
Attached Files
Issue History
Date ModifiedUsernameFieldChange
2010-04-06 17:10GReadNew Issue
2010-04-06 18:04GReadTag Attached: embark
2010-04-06 18:04GReadTag Attached: trade
2010-04-07 12:45MisterstoneNote Added: 0001827
2010-04-10 10:09MisterstoneNote Added: 0002597
2011-04-01 13:16FootkerchiefIssue Monitored: Misterstone
2011-04-01 13:16FootkerchiefNote Added: 0016955
2011-04-01 13:22MisterstoneNote Added: 0016956
2011-04-01 13:24FootkerchiefTag Attached: AWAITING UPDATE
2011-04-01 13:25FootkerchiefRelationship addedrelated to 0000945
2011-04-01 13:26FootkerchiefNote Added: 0016958
2011-04-07 15:09GReadNote Added: 0017177
2011-04-07 16:13FootkerchiefNote Added: 0017178
2011-04-07 16:13FootkerchiefStatusnew => resolved
2011-04-07 16:13FootkerchiefResolutionopen => unable to reproduce
2011-04-07 16:13FootkerchiefAssigned To => Footkerchief
2011-04-07 16:13FootkerchiefTag Detached: AWAITING UPDATE

Notes
(0001827)
Misterstone   
2010-04-07 12:45   
I have had the same issue myself. Sometime I will put a site cursor right in the middle of bare plains, between three human settlements, and still get the "no trade" status marker for humans on the embark screen. It is very common on the world I genned. I can upload a save that demonstrates this easily if desired.
(0002597)
Misterstone   
2010-04-10 10:09   
I just noticed that the problem exists on about 1/3 to 1/2 of the world map. And get this: the problem never appears in the southern half of the map! In the north, no civs will ever trade at any site location, but in the south this problem does not appear. I wonder if temperatures are involved?

My world params have higher than normal temps (95 max temp instead of 85, and weighted towards hot).

I've seen this appear on at least 3 different maps so far, but they were created with the same or similar worldgen parameters. I will try to test it out a bit more.
(0016955)
Footkerchief   
2011-04-01 13:16   
Reminder sent to: GRead, Misterstone

Is this bug still present in 0.31.25? Does savagery account for the discrepancies?
(0016956)
Misterstone   
2011-04-01 13:22   
I have not seen it recently, maybe this is gone now.
(0016958)
Footkerchief   
2011-04-01 13:26   
I'm guessing it was related to 0000945.
(0017177)
GRead   
2011-04-07 15:09   
Haven't been able to reproduce this lately either, so I have to concur. Seems to be gone.
(0017178)
Footkerchief   
2011-04-07 16:13   
Okay, cool, thanks for the update.