DI for hideouts.

[Lam]

In the discussion about DI, one way to increase settlement is claiming other hexes and building on them. Would building a hideout on said hex generate DI for the settlement? Esp. if the member were medium to higher rep?

If so, would an independent hideout have a DI associated with it as quasi settlement?
GW Blog here

wrote:

Hideouts have limited storage, and they allow characters to be logged out of the game safely.

Are hideouts too small to really develop DI?

Could that DI be used for advancing the hideout and in establishing training site?

OK,that is a string of hypotheticals, but it offers solutions to some of the chaotic community questions.

[DeciusBrutus]

My thought is that building a hideout should allocate DI or cost influence.

[Urman]

I would think that because of their need to be secretive, hideouts couldn't have much public impact. So they might cost (or require allocation) of DI or Influence, but they wouldn't control a hex or provide DI.

[randomwalker]

Hideouts should be on the individual/company level, not on settlement level, which means influence (and not DI) is the relevant 'currency'.

IMO, hideouts definitely should increase unrest if built inside owned territory.

[Bluddwolf]

Hideouts should be similar to setting up an outpost, and perhaps more permanent hideouts could be the equivalent to other POIs.

[Pax Hobs]

randomwalker wrote:

IMO, hideouts definitely should increase unrest if built inside owned territory.

Unless you're using those hideouts in your own territory, possibly to hide armed groups for tactical purposes rather than for banditry.

[Banesama]

Hideouts to store treasure/equipment.

Other Hideouts setup up as traps. Go in, wondering if you will get some loot like the last one. Find a chest, open it. BOOM! Fireball. :P

[Ravenlute]

randomwalker wrote:

IMO, hideouts definitely should increase unrest if built inside owned territory.

Agreed. Look at all the unrest generated in Gotham because of the Batcave.

[Banesama]

I can see it now. A hideout in Pax's territory that is home to a vigilante known as Goblin-man.

A terrifying figure dressed in the skins of goblins that hunts down bandits and corrupt merchants.

[randomwalker]

Ravenlute wrote:

randomwalker wrote:

IMO, hideouts definitely should increase unrest if built inside owned territory.

Agreed. Look at all the unrest generated in Gotham because of the Batcave.

Gotham -does- seem to have very high unrest levels, doesn't it. I would indeed argue that the Batcave contributes its little bit, but the actions of Batman balances that out by a very good margin.

I don't think civilians in general are thrilled to hear about secret military facilities nearby where government sanctioned killers can hide from prying eyes. Secret private facilities (like the Batcave) even less so. There might well be situations where settlements want 'friendly hideouts' (like the batcave) to better strike down on criminals and evildoers. But the main purpose of hideouts is to intercept and rob traders.

[Andius]

Friendly hideouts should definately be an option. Some groups don't really want to announce their presence even if the local authorities are ok with them
being there.

For instance I could see where some groups might enjoy having TEO vigilantes stationed in their hex but not be keen on announcing that fact to all their neighbors.

[Bluddwolf]

I always assumed that settlements would use hideouts in their own territory. It does bring up some interesting questions when you consider laws, corruption, unrest and DI.

[Pax Hobs]

If, like SAD's, constructing a hideout becomes a trainable skill, I suppose it will partly depend on what they attach to the learning of that skill - a particular alignment, a prerequisite bandit-esque skill, etc. As much as I think hideouts' announced functions (hiding combatants, spotting targets, and accessing targets) could be very effective for other uses than banditry, like most things, there is too little information at this point to be certain if that will be allowed.