Print

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

[voliol]

+1 / PTW

[knutor]

tree planter, a new trade, no seed required
good trees could require potash
also has the bonus feature of removing floating branches, in the performance of his duties
restrict the tree planters creation by embark biome type, maybe +1 -1/month

[Starver]

Long ago, I was thinking of Settlers (v1, not sure if it stayed as simple in later versions).

"Orchard" trees should definitely need a source seed/sapling, though, despite this. It might be an interesting task for a tree-cultivator to hunt down saplings in a designated "no tree" zone and attempt transplant (of a selectable list) into a nursery-zone. Success according to skill, ground suitability and optional additions (not only potash, but water).

For verisimilitude, the full "orchardeer" could even graft cuttings onto rootstock (there are surprising capabilities, IRL, but we needn't think that far ahead...) but at the very least there could be a Forestry task of nurturing such 'in-zone' choices and suppression of unwanted species (including stalking corridors looking for all rogue internal-plant growth and doing something about it for the sanity of the fortress).

(An inate/enhanced skill in the event that you're talking about an elf, naturally, where "Woodcrafter" is going to be along the same lines and without the dwarfish need for a workshop and tree destruction.)

[PatrikLundell]

While tree cultivation (and enslavement, in the case of pointy ears) would be a nice addition, I don't really see it fitting the "old trees should die" suggestion scope.

[Starver]

Not strictly, but arboreal husbandry seems to keep coming up in relation to that idea. Even if just as an abtracted counterpoint.

Never mind, though. Carry on.

[knutor]

My biggest peev, is cavern trees.  Topside, not so much of a problem.  Better control of cavern tree growth, would vastly improve pathfinding, and hidden hole surprised. I could get behind a more-Settler feel. Instead of radius around a hut, like Settler, DF could just use burrows. But not activity zones, because their size is just too small.

[Red Diamond]

While tree cultivation (and enslavement, in the case of pointy ears) would be a nice addition, I don't really see it fitting the "old trees should die" suggestion scope.

Trees dying is a fundermental part of tree cultivation mechanics (if you suck at it). 

[anewaname]

When you destroy the roots of a tree by mining, that should cause the tree to die.

[knutor]

When you destroy the roots of a tree by mining, that should cause the tree to die.

On young ones. A big trunk, should withstand root loss, as it would sink straight down, and start at next lower z level reforming roots. Big trees store far more, lifeforce, than tiny. Remember that one in the movie with those blue people?

[Starver]

Remember that one in the movie with those blue people?

Nope. Never saw it.

[knutor]

Avatar, ha. Finally came to me. What kind of tree in df would that one be? Not many topside highfantasy tree variants in df to pick from. I guess underground ones could be choosen.

[Bumber]

Remember that one in the movie with those blue people?

Nope. Never saw it.

I didn't know they even had their own movie.

[2tussock]

Trees growing thick is perfectly realistic. That's what almost all trees do in the absence of animal grazing.

The bit the game is missing, is grazers eat trees. The only reason trees don't have low branches, is animals eat everything off a tree they can reach. If you keep animals away from trees, the branches on a lone tree reach right to ground level. Savannas have lone, high leafed trees with bare trunks, because the young ones are constantly growing too slowly to avoid the passing animal life eating them to death.

And most of the trees that do get established in savannas grow very quickly in place of an old tree of the same species, and are strongly nurtured by the roots of the "dead" tree. Each species will crowd out young of the same species by blocking light while healthy, but they'll also spend everything on supporting young trees of the right species if they lose their tops. The whole fungus network that connects forests is effectively making each species a massive single life form. Established forests are extremely resilient to everything but clear felling, and will choke out all other life if they possibly can, with active chemical warfare and aggressive teamwork to push extra sugars to the ones on the front lines.

[knutor]

The only reason trees don't have low branches, is (because)animals eat everything off a tree they can reach.

Many people think this is true. It is not. Another thing many people think is true, is that daylight and sunshine, dry stuff. Shaded stuff specifically, does not dry. It just doesnt. It molds.

What prevents low branches forming or stunting, according to "The International book of Trees, by Hugh Johnson" is radiation frost. He also states in that fat book, that what dries trees, is the wind, not the sun/daylight. Air flow patterns and trees are very closesly intertwined.

Vermin do a bunch of eating, so do animals, especially goats. In no way am I saying that they do not. Just that radiation frost(which leads to wet buds, which leads to molded buds, which then leads to the darkside) is the primary killer of low budding.

I like most people learned this, the hardway. I lost a very nice christmas tree, planted it, where a 2story home hindered the springtime breezes.