Print

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

[Uber dwarf2.0]

Ok this is kina hard to say,so if a mountain +1-+9 has alot of ore would a mountain -1-(-9) have more ore than a woodland -1-(-9)?

[Albedo]

Your question is too vague.

Every layer has a basic type of stone or soil.  Some layers typically seem to bear a higher % of ores than others - granite vs diorite, for example.

Forest biomes are going to be on top of soil more often, while mountains have their own "typical" layers associated with them - granite mountains, dolomite mountains, etc.  You don't get a lot of obsidian mountains (but they do exist to some extent.)

You should read the wiki articles on "stone" and "layer".  And maybe the "non-dwarf's guide to rock", if that is helpful.

[dragon0421]

I'd say yes and no. You can only dig down so many levels from the lowest ground level, so a mountain has additional above ground levels of stone that contain ore if you have varying levels of elevation. However this is largely a moot point because on standard size maps you'll never use all of the ore even from a woodland biome.

[Sevrun]

I challenge that idea!

IF I can find the ore I can ALWAYS find a use for it.

[Grendus]

Ok this is kina hard to say,so if a mountain +1-+9 has alot of ore would a mountain -1-(-9) have more ore than a woodland -1-(-9)?

Albedo is right, your question is a bit vague and you'll probably find the answer on the wiki, but I'm going to take a guess.

You will very rarely find ore in "soil" layers, so in that regard mountains, which are nothing but stone layers, will probably have more ore overall than a forest. However, as ore is controlled by the layer it's in not the layers around it, once you dig through the soil layers (which are damn useful anyways) you'll find exactly the same amount of ore in the lower layers of a forest biome that you would in a mountainous biome.

Odds are that unless you're trying to arm an entire army and only have a single vein of limonite, you won't suffer from a severe ore shortage. If you're having ore shortages, do some exploratory mining, it's out there somewhere.

[Albedo]

<nods>

The art of looking at a pre-embark list of layers and deciding whether the prospects are good or not is a bit obscure.  I like to see granite and gabbro, and also sedimentary and flux - but that's sometimes more than I can expect, and often more than many players care to worry about.

I'd say yes and no. You can only dig down so many levels from the lowest ground level, so a mountain has additional above ground levels of stone that contain ore if you have varying levels of elevation.

I think it's obvious that "more layers = more ore", on average, and higher elevations (mountains) ~tend~ to have more layers (not always.)  I thought he meant "likelihood of finding something good". 

If you have a granite layer under a forest, and a granite layer under a mountain, there's nothing (known) to indicate you should expect them to be any different, randomness aside.

[smjjames]

Also, sedementary layers tend to be rich in ores (especially magnetite), but igneous and metamorphic layers can be just as rich in ore. I've had one embark area which had several layers of chalk I think it was and there was something like 10 magnetite nodes in one layer alone.

I've had veins extend into soil, but it's rare for one to be conpletely in the soil area and are partially in rock.

[Albedo]

<nods>

(There's clearly more going on than just what is visible in the RAW files.)