Print

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

[Conradine]

Questions about size.

First, can someone explain me precisely the relationship between strength and muscle mass / size?
Second, can a demigod adventurer with maximized starting strength and trained to the limit exceed the normal size limit for his race?
Third, there's any other way to increase ( without modding ) the size of an adventurer?

Last, can the biggest rhinoceros man be large as an elephant man?

[Ziusudra]

I don't know how muscle and fat affect size.

Third, there's any other way to increase ( without modding ) the size of an adventurer?

Some appearance modifiers will increase their size, such as tall, broad, large, etc. These are applied randomly, the chance of them appearing can vary by population, and of course only happens during character creation.

[BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:LENGTH:90:95:98:100:102:105:110]
[BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HEIGHT:90:95:98:100:102:105:110]
[BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:BROADNESS:90:95:98:100:102:105:110]

From the raws for rhinos (the animal) we can see that a dimension can be increased by as much as 10% but those are very unlikely, the 2 or 5 are much more likely. I don't know how exactly these stack, if the max from all together is 30% or 33.1%. And I don't know how these chances carry over to the animal person - especially since creatures like humans don't hav the length one - but they don't seem to be removed by the animal person variation.

Last, can the biggest rhinoceros man be large as an elephant man?

For rhino man to wear elephant man armor, that would be a 41.6% increase in size which even from appearance modifiers, muscle, and fat together seems unlikely. Theoretically from the appearance modifiers, the largest rhino could be slightly larger than the smallest, scrawniest elephant - but getting all 6 modifiers at max/min is so unlikely as to be functionally impossible.

[eerr]

"tall, broad, large"
These are derived attributes that come from the average dwarf comparing themselves to the creature. That change happened in a previous version.

[Ziusudra]

"tall, broad, large"
These are derived attributes that come from the average dwarf comparing themselves to the creature. That change happened in a previous version.

For the second time in as many days I ask if you got any thing to back that up? From the 50.09 raws:

   These body modifiers give individual dwarves different characteristics.  In the case of HEIGHT, BROADNESS and LENGTH, the modifier is also a percentage change to the BODY_SIZE of the individual creature.  The seven numbers afterward give a distribution of ranges.  Each interval has an equal chance of occurring.

   [BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HEIGHT:75:95:98:100:102:105:125]
      [APP_MOD_IMPORTANCE:500]
   [BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:BROADNESS:75:95:98:100:102:105:125]
      [APP_MOD_IMPORTANCE:500]

Though apparently I was wrong about the 25% being less likely than the others.

[eerr]

I should be quiet and let the modders work. They know more than I do.

I meant more that 'tall' is an adjective derived from some internal number or numbers... and if those numbers are literally called tallness, then... I'm not sure what to say.
I thought some of the elf adjectives like broad were, in older versions, hardcoded. but we haven't been in that era for ages.
I don't think you can make a dwarf with the adjectives of an elf in vanilla adventure mode, but I could be wrong.

I also thought it was relative to the race doing the examination, since that update.

Is that not the case?

edit: ah I must have had poor reading comprehension, sorry.

[peasant cretin]

Questions about size.

First, can someone explain me precisely the relationship between strength and muscle mass / size?

Weight increases by 10 urists for roughly for every 250 points of strength.

So a creature (dwarf/elf/goblin) at 60K adult size, who is neither tall nor broad (height 100/broadness 100)...

[BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HEIGHT:75:95:98:100:102:105:125]
[APP_MOD_IMPORTANCE:500]
[BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:BROADNESS:75:95:98:100:102:105:125]
[APP_MOD_IMPORTANCE:500]

...at 1000 strength, will weigh 74-76 urists. I say *roughly* every 250 points of strength, because a 60K adult sized, 100 height/100 broadness, 4500 strength creature will weight around 215-220 urists.

This is only true if in the tissue_template_default, the [THICKENS_ON_STRENGTH] token is active for muscle.

If as a modder you make that token inactive, then every 100 height/100 broadness 60K sized creature will weigh 74-76 urists no matter what their strength is.

I guess the interesting thing is how this affects charge attacks.

Excluding mutual entanglements where both units fall to the ground, charge checks first for who is bigger urist-wise. if everyone is the same weight, then charge defaults to checking for who is stronger.

[peasant cretin]

"tall, broad, large"
These are derived attributes that come from the average dwarf comparing themselves to the creature. That change happened in a previous version.

For the second time in as many days I ask if you got any thing to back that up? From the 50.09 raws:

   These body modifiers give individual dwarves different characteristics.  In the case of HEIGHT, BROADNESS and LENGTH, the modifier is also a percentage change to the BODY_SIZE of the individual creature.  The seven numbers afterward give a distribution of ranges.  Each interval has an equal chance of occurring.

   [BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HEIGHT:75:95:98:100:102:105:125]
      [APP_MOD_IMPORTANCE:500]
   [BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:BROADNESS:75:95:98:100:102:105:125]
      [APP_MOD_IMPORTANCE:500]

Though apparently I was wrong about the 25% being less likely than the others.

Whichever the descriptive term (dwarf is broad, is tall, is thin, is short, large/small, etc) this is relative to all other dwarves who are the mean (100 height and 100 broadness).

[Ziusudra]

I've been doing some poking around with DFHack.

A dwarf with 112% height and 110% broadness gets a total of 123% increase to base size 73800. So they stack multiplicatively (1.12 * 1.10 = 1.232) rather than additively (1.12 + 1.10 = 1.22). (Although she has a smaller current size despite having above average strength and seemingly normal fat; I can't figure out why.)

Rhinoceros people do inherit all three BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER tokens from the animal, so the max would be 110% * 110% * 110% = 133% (1.331) to base size 2041550 and would be described as "very large". (Or 129% if the 110 is not inclusive to the extreme range.)

A large (110% total) rhinoceros woman with 1688500 base size and the (max starting) 2000 strength has a current size of 1734310.

So a max starting base size and strength rhinoceros person might start with size about 2087360, I think. Still short of wearing elephant person armor by about 150000 and even doubling their strength to 4000 (the soft maximum) would seem to leave them too small. (Assuming size gain from muscle is linear.)

The fat template does hav THICKENS_ON_ENERGY_STORAGE similar to THICKENS_ON_STRENGTH for muscle, but I still don't know if or how that affects size, so that might be part of the current size of the rhinoceros woman above. (Though, adventurers always seem to start with 500000 stored fat, which seems to be the average.)

As for BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER, from this post I'd guess the chance of a 133% to be: 1/6 for the highest range, times another 1/6 for the highest number in that range, then cubed for getting it on all three dimensions, so maybe 0.002% chance. (Though it depends on which numbers are inclusive to which range.)

I've also noticed a bug with the way size is included in the appearance description. A dwarf with both dimensions in the range of 96-104 will not hav any mention of size. This includes not mentioning if they are muscular or fat. But then if either dimension are out of that range but still in the range of 91-109, they will then be described as of average size (or just muscular and/or fat if either of those apply). Only when either or both dimensions are outside that range are they described as short, tall, thin, broad, small, large, stout or lanky (and muscular or fat as applies).

[peasant cretin]

An edit to my above post and an answer to:

...(Assuming size gain from muscle is linear.)

For a 60K adult sized, 100 height/100 broadness, 1000 strength creature, with the muscle [THICKENS_ON_STRENGTH] token *active*, but with the fat [THICKENS_ON_ENERGY_STORAGE] *off*, weight increases by 10 urists for every 250 points of strength.

Code: [Select]

strength bodyweight at 60K size
1000 74 urists
1250 84
1500 94
1750 104
2000 114
2250 124
2500 134
2750 144
3000 154
3250 164
3500 174
3750 184
4000 194
4250 204
4500 214

But with the fat [THICKENS_ON_ENERGY_STORAGE] set to *on* there's that 6-8? urist variance.

also the relevant numbers for a "dummy/test unit":

Code: [Select]

muscle [THICKENS_ON_STRENGTH] token brackets *on*, but fat THICKENS_ON_ENERGY_STORAGE brackets *off*

[BODY_SIZE:12:0:60000]

[BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:HEIGHT:100:100:100:100:100:100:100]
[APP_MOD_IMPORTANCE:500]
[BODY_APPEARANCE_MODIFIER:BROADNESS:100:100:100:100:100:100:100]
[APP_MOD_IMPORTANCE:500]

[PHYS_ATT_RANGE:STRENGTH:1000:1000:1000:1000:1000:1000:1000] <= edit with the strength numbers you want, but the same across the span

^this is what I use for damage testing, so there isn't noise from height/broadness or the unknown extra urists from fat...as well as:

Code: [Select]

[PHYS_ATT_RATES:0:NONE:NONE:NONE] <= no attribute gain
[SKILL_RATES:0:NONE:NONE:NONE] <= no skill gain

so there is only "first spawn first swing damage" for the weapon being tested.

[peasant cretin]

I've also noticed a bug with the way size is included in the appearance description. A dwarf with both dimensions in the range of 96-104 will not hav any mention of size. This includes not mentioning if they are muscular or fat. But then if either dimension are out of that range but still in the range of 91-109, they will then be described as of average size (or just muscular and/or fat if either of those apply). Only when either or both dimensions are outside that range are they described as short, tall, thin, broad, small, large, stout or lanky (and muscular or fat as applies).

Yeah that makes all the non-description units in adventure mode suspect when scouting enemy profiles, since you dont know how big they are, especially if you are kind of cherry-picking which melee bandits to fight first at the very beginning, to skew your force transfer down to as minimal as possible if using a melee-only character.

But finding a way (at least for modding) to make it more "readable/scoutable" would be good. I haven't been persistent in testing it, but I have tried very high numbers for [APP_MOD_IMPORTANCE:9000] to push that to the very top...the consistency is meh...

[Urist Sonuvagimli]

I mostly play adventurer mode, so here are my two cents from that experience:

1. Effective Strength seems to be both VERY dependent on the size difference and independent from it based on what you are trying to do. The tiniest, scrawniest dwarf adventurer can achieve "Superdwarven" strength to easily hold mountains of loot without being slowed down, collapse heads with the punch, lop off giant tiger heads with the axe or spear the brains of the megabeasts with ease. However, even the strongest biggest meanest Superdwarf will never be able to wrestle the smallest horse - all of your attempted joint locks and chokes will fail with the message "You adjust your grip of the horse's throat". The very same weakest horse can easily break said Superdwarf's spine in two if it decides to wrestle back, or trample him to dust if it decides to charge and connects. Same goes for any animal that is the size of or bigger than a cow. Cue the "strongest dwarf vs weakest horse" gigachad meme.

2. Muscle mass mostly means thicker and heavier tissues. It does not affect the strength per se, BUT - every creature with large muscle mass you will encounter in vanilla game will usually be big enough to be the case for point 1 above. Thicker tissues also means slashing/piercing attacks are less effective, and blunt attacks can be outright useless. Go ahead, compare the amount of time it takes to kill a "tall muscular goblin" with a silver warhammer to the guts vs a "frail rhino". Also, charging the said "frail rhino" even as a "tall muscular" rhino man is a bad idea. HOWEVER, biting and shaking will fold that rhino's spine no problem regardless of its size, that is, if you can get a good latch before rhino breaks it (bites are counted as wrestling).

3. Deriving from the previous fact that Muscle mass does not affect the in-game strength per se, being swole in adv. mode can be a boon but has its trade-offs. Muscles have weight. Weight slows any unit carrying it down. So at some point the effective "thrust-to-weight" ratio of that unit will get pretty low. A muscular, tall starting adventurer will not be able to reach the sprint speeds of 4.000 and above, since at some point he will get too swole for it. In the past versions of the game (0.34 to 0.40 something) this "suffering from success" effect could be observed on zombies - prior to 0.44 zombification boosted the creature's strength and muscles TREMENDOUSLY. As in zombie chickens ripping apart giant lions and breaking elephant femurs with their pecks. This, however, also increased the creature's muscle mass so much that it was effectively immobile and anyone could just outwalk it. Zombified cheetah not catching up to a crawling goblin was a sight to behold.

Hence, points to take:

1. Size directly correlates with tissue thickness and affects the creature's wrestling power, charging power/resistance and max sprint speed and tissue thickness. It does NOT directly affect the strength of the weapon swings or unarmed blows.
2. Amount of muscles (""musucular description") does NOT directly affect the strength of the weapon swings or unarmed blows. It, however, correlates directly with Size and tissue thickness - bigger size = more meat on the bones between your blade and the organs. Hence more muscles = Thicker tissues = primarily bigger size relative to avg. = more wrestling power, slashing/piercing/blunt resistance and charging power/resistance
3. Thicker tissues have more weight than thinner tissues. Weight will slow that creature down. usually it is not too significant, but can be noticeable. Neither size nor tissue thickness will save the creature from spine fold from biting and shaking once the biter latches on firmly. Size WILL make breaking the bites from smaller creatures almost guaranteed though.

Rule of the thumb formula for decision making:

Bigger Size = Thicker tissues = More wrestling power, slashing/piercing/blunt resistance and charging power/resistance.

[Digganob]

So a max starting base size and strength rhinoceros person might start with size about 2087360, I think. Still short of wearing elephant person armor by about 150000 and even doubling their strength to 4000 (the soft maximum) would seem to leave them too small. (Assuming size gain from muscle is linear.)

Just some trivia really, but I have done tests confirming that the armor sizes available to a creature are dependent on the average size of its species, which is itself dependent on the average size of its castes (acting as if each caste were exactly proportional to each other caste). Fun fact, the weight of the armor itself is actually dependent on the size of the smallest caste, presumably to prevent ant men workers from falling over if they wear a helmet which is dwarf-weight.

Thus, regardless of how large an individual creature in a species may be, it will never be able to wear the armor of a species which is around a seventh (roughly) larger than its own.

[Halae]

Bigger Size = Thicker tissues = More wrestling power, slashing/piercing/blunt resistance and charging power/resistance.

There's an interesting thing that builds off of this concept, weirdly enough; it apparently turns out that the calculations for piercing and spread of force - which is what makes edged weapons, whips, and that sort of thing work - still apply to fists and other body parts. Thus, if you want to make a character a high-damage striker, you're best served by having as small a body as possible while maintaining the same damage level.

That said, I'm not sure the tradeoff is usually worth it; I don't think anybody is ever going to contest that a punch from an elephant man is scarier than a punch from a spider man, and I expect the spider man is much more vulnerable to hits, but it IS fascinating to think about utilizing this somehow, like how you can multiply your strength score into the stratosphere if you get resurrected multiple times, in which case a little spider dude is inevitably going to end up punching like a bullet instead of how an elephant man moves like a glacier with an agenda.

[aradar]

Size == power, more size = more power, and something great to tweak the size of are things like hands,feet, cuz it's one thing to get punched by a fist the size of a regular fist it's a totally different thing to get punched by a fist the size of a semi truck 😍

Urist mc one punch punches the dwarf, he's propelled away by the force of the blow 🤣😍

But if you really want to get your dudes running around like they're right jacked and when you read their description it says they're rippling with muscle or whatever the description is when they're really jacked make an alcohol with a syndrome that buffs their broadness to around 3,000 4,000,speed2-3000 , strength 3000 and you can punt giants with a dwarf then