Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mickel]

Let's assume a "priority" slider on stockpiles. This would be the priority to keep that stockpile filled. So if there are several stockpiles accepting the same material, it will go to the highest priority one (if it's not too far away).

An alternative would be to be able to designate, say, "local", "global" and "depot" stockpiles.

The way those would work would be that a worker gathering materials would put them in the closest stockpile, Haulers passing by with a free spot take them to the closest "global" stockpile on their way, or, if none is available, to a "depot" one, from where another hauler will take it to the global.

When a material is then needed at a workshop, a request will go to the nearest local stockpile, and if the material is not there, the request will go to the nearest global stockpile. The first available hauler will take the material from the global stockpile to the local one, or a depot along the way.

[nidpants]

Necroing this under Footkerchief dogma. 5 year old thread, no responses, brilliantly simple idea.

Stockpiles are currently one of the most unwieldy messes to deal with in fortress mode, and this would drastically simplify the use of input/reserve stockpiles. I know that "Take From" chains have been liberated in the next update, and I'm as anxious as the next overseer to see all the changes to mining and hauling, but I just want to make sure this is at least at the top of the suggestions forum since it's such a small fix.

My vision is literally just an integer attached to your stockpile that defaults to 0, and you modify to (+8 to-7) or (+100 to -100) or whatever.

Having  a simple priority number attached to stockpiles: +1'd

[Intrinsic]

+1 sounds like a simple and elegant solution.

[Maklak]

Well, it could work by higher priority stockpiles scavenging for items outside stockpiles first and lower priority stockpiles taking any surplus. This fix is rather simple. If you want to, you can also have your high priority stockpile taking from lower priority ones.

[greenskye]

Agreed. The new stockpile changes should alleviate some of the problem, but priorities would be perfect.

[nidpants]

@Maklak
I think both would occur actually.

If there's a spot open in a higher-priority stockpile, I imagine the job it creates presumably treats all lower-priority stockpiles as if they don't exist. This basically lets input  and specialty stockpiles always be stocked while general or reserve storage can be neglected. In practice, stockpiles you HAVE to keep full (i.e. inputs near the forges, stone piles near that megaproject, food for prisoners/burrowed dwarves) would stay full. If somebody wants to get ambitious and have layers and layers of stockpiles, good for them.

The advantage of this over Take From chains is that a stockpile doesn't need to be integrated into a chain to function. If the parent stockpile is moved, the child has to be reintegrated blah blah blah. <NINJA EDIT> This would be especially cumbersome given that a child can have multiple parents and vice versa. Severing a chain with multiple dependencies from one node is a huge pain to repair</NINJA EDIT>

Code: [Select]

q > navigate to new stockpile > t > navigate to parent stockpile > enterversus

Code: [Select]

q > navigate to new stockpile > +/- assuming +/- manages stockpile priority