Print

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

[New man]

Assuming you retired the fort, based on how Toady has talked about patrols being aware of bridges, I expect this to work. However, Toady has also said armies don't yet need a bridge to cross a river outside a site.

To cross rivers, yes. But seas ? My question was if you build a fortress which creates a channel between two sides of a sea (not a river) and after that retire (or not), will armies take this into account for trade or war ?

How about adding ships for trade and travel in Adventure Mode and navies for war at sea? Also, I want sea megabeasts and pirates. Pirate navies may make raids on seaside towns or hamlets. I think, adventurer may make his pirate band and be bad boy

[Trif]

How about adding ships for trade and travel in Adventure Mode and navies for war at sea? Also, I want sea megabeasts and pirates. Pirate navies may make raids on seaside towns or hamlets. I think, adventurer may make his pirate band and be bad boy

1. This is a suggestion not a question.
2. All of this is planned for some point in the future.

[Kyphis]

At some point, will we be able to have a big bag (or mule, or other storage system) and just tell our buddies to take what they want/need?

I'm not sure how equipment for companions will work out.  I don't think it'd be good to have to micro-manage all of your companions' stuff, since it makes them like play toys and I don't think they'd appreciate it, but I haven't set anything up yet.  If we ever do that "create and play a party" feature, you'd probably have an option to micromanage things.  All that said, if the first equipment related command is to hand somebody a single item, I wouldn't be surprised, and that's slow-motion micromanagement, if the items are accepted.

I can picture it now... "Urist McDwarf offers apple to Legolas McElf" "Legolas McElf Declines apple" "Urist McDwarf offers apple to Legolas McElf" "Legolas McElf Declines apple" "Urist McDwarf offers apple to Legolas McElf" "Legolas McElf Declines apple" "Urist McDwarf knocks Legolas McElf to the ground!" "Urist McDwarf offers apple to Legolas McElf" "Legolas McElf gratefully accepts apple"

[LordBaal]

As Cruxador post the question I get it exactly the other way around, instead of micromanagement it would help to not micromanage anything, you'll simply have a mule (other animal) carrying the stuff for you, and your followers (or the ones you select) get access to all the weapons/equipment/food you have there and pick up things according to their needs/desires/skills, hence some peasant that doesn't have a bow can reach into the bag and pick up a bow, to help you out in fights instead of fighting with it's bare hands.

[Cruxador]

As Cruxador post the question I get it exactly the other way around, instead of micromanagement it would help to not micromanage anything, you'll simply have a mule (other animal) carrying the stuff for you, and your followers (or the ones you select) get access to all the weapons/equipment/food you have there and pick up things according to their needs/desires/skills, hence some peasant that doesn't have a bow can reach into the bag and pick up a bow, to help you out in fights instead of fighting with it's bare hands.

Yeah, that's what I was going for. I sort of figured that just handing over an item would be the first way to do it, since it's probably the easiest to implement, but I was wondering what else was on the table. Sounds like not much is planned out in particular yet.

[LordBaal]

Nope but having mounts and pack animals on adventure mode will be really cool. I haven't played adventure mode much to this date, I can count my adventurers with the fingers of one hand and I would have spare fingers. Not because I dislike it, but rather I was waiting for being able to retire and go back to fortress before doing it.

In any case pack animals and such are crucial for several adventures careers, and like everything else, from mating behavior of jellyfish up to a great unifying quantum physics theory, eventually it will be in the game.

Once it's done, it will be more realistic that reality, and then one day, we'll realize we are actually the simulation, dwarves are playing with us and Toady is God.

[Osmosis Jones]

Assuming you retired the fort, based on how Toady has talked about patrols being aware of bridges, I expect this to work. However, Toady has also said armies don't yet need a bridge to cross a river outside a site.

To cross rivers, yes. But seas ? My question was if you build a fortress which creates a channel between two sides of a sea (not a river) and after that retire (or not), will armies take this into account for trade or war ?

Interesting question. From memory, doing that in the present game already does something similar; your fort can be used to connect two previously disconnected regions for trade/civ contact. That said, the system in place now is a lot more rudimentary than the updates Toady's making...

[Putnam]

The end is finally in sight. It took a long time, but the last devlog (as of 3rd March 2013) shows that a few things are also going to be fixed. It looks like certain regions will become more habitable.

When you say some reaction things will be fixed, are those to do with the new combat system or the building reactions (i.e. custom production of gauntlets or boots or whatever it is that is bugged)?

Definitely the new combat system; "reaction moments" have been mentioned.

[smirk]

Assuming you retired the fort, based on how Toady has talked about patrols being aware of bridges, I expect this to work. However, Toady has also said armies don't yet need a bridge to cross a river outside a site.

To cross rivers, yes. But seas ? My question was if you build a fortress which creates a channel between two sides of a sea (not a river) and after that retire (or not), will armies take this into account for trade or war ?

Interesting question. From memory, doing that in the present game already does something similar; your fort can be used to connect two previously disconnected regions for trade/civ contact. That said, the system in place now is a lot more rudimentary than the updates Toady's making...

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's already the case. If you find a sea separating two continents and can span it with a single embark, the game will consider it "bridged" even if you don't actually build a physical bridge or tunnel. So if you abandon and re-embark somewhere on continent A, civs from continent B can show up if they're in range.

Of course, Toady's probably altering a lot of code to get changes in, so this might get broken/taken out for now. No way to be sure 'til release.

[arkhometha]

Assuming you retired the fort, based on how Toady has talked about patrols being aware of bridges, I expect this to work. However, Toady has also said armies don't yet need a bridge to cross a river outside a site.

To cross rivers, yes. But seas ? My question was if you build a fortress which creates a channel between two sides of a sea (not a river) and after that retire (or not), will armies take this into account for trade or war ?

Interesting question. From memory, doing that in the present game already does something similar; your fort can be used to connect two previously disconnected regions for trade/civ contact. That said, the system in place now is a lot more rudimentary than the updates Toady's making...

Yes you can do this, use forts to connect islands. But post world gen, almost nothing happens, so that isn't very important. Also, armies and caravans just jump over rivers, so I guess if the game does this post world gen they would just over using sites.

[greenwatering]

Assuming you retired the fort, based on how Toady has talked about patrols being aware of bridges, I expect this to work. However, Toady has also said armies don't yet need a bridge to cross a river outside a site.

To cross rivers, yes. But seas ? My question was if you build a fortress which creates a channel between two sides of a sea (not a river) and after that retire (or not), will armies take this into account for trade or war ?

i don't think they make tunnels under seas, only under mountains.

[CaptainArchmage]

More progress devlogs. I like it when stuff gets done and "ready to go".

Assuming you retired the fort, based on how Toady has talked about patrols being aware of bridges, I expect this to work. However, Toady has also said armies don't yet need a bridge to cross a river outside a site.

To cross rivers, yes. But seas ? My question was if you build a fortress which creates a channel between two sides of a sea (not a river) and after that retire (or not), will armies take this into account for trade or war ?

i don't think they make tunnels under seas, only under mountains.

This deserves a question.
Are we going to be able to dig (or are dwarves going to be able to dig) tunnels under the ocean to connect regions at all, if not in the coming release in future versions? It seems pretty appropriate for dwarves to colonise a land and dig a tunnel back to the mountainhomes.

How long do you think it should take to dig a tunnel between Diamondforge and New Boatmurdered as a function of distance in region tiles between them and dwarves working?

Are we going to be able to name our fortresses "New <insert fortress name here>"? What about completely custom names, as we can do for military squads? As indicated in the previous question, you'd be able to have a fort named "New Boatmurdered".

(if its not too much to do, I'd actually put a request in for at least a "New <fortname>" this release. Yes, I know there's a forum for dat.)

The new combat changes, does this mean dual-wielding dwarves in fort mode are going to use both their weapons in combat, allowing berserk sword-wielding squads and dual-wielding shieldhammer* dwarves?

*Shieldhammer dwarves as in dwarves carrying two shields for defence and bashing skulls.

Back to tunnels, if a civilisation has colonised two mountain ranges, will we see dwarven tunnels underneath non-mountain biomes?

[Inarius]

CaptainArchmage, this (about tunnel) has already been asked (by me).

If I, as a Dwarf, build a fortress which creates a tunnel under a portion of water between two places (which would be, otherwise, very distant, and suddenly becomes much nearer), will the game "knows" it, and will friendly army could use it to travel to the other side to attack sites on the other side ? I mean, even if i retire, for example ?

(3rd of March)

But I think this is a quite important question, with some important consequences. (will we see armies travelling in one or two updates, and using our tunnel ?)

[CaptainArchmage]

Whoops sorry @Inarius.

I think we already have armies travelling in the upcoming release, just avoiding our fortresses. I don't know how easy it would be to have an army march through a dwarf fortress, but I think there could be some interesting collisions if our fortress is built over a road and the army needs to use it. It would be a potential source of !!FUN!! and siege weapon use.

[Caldfir]

It might be possible for a retired player fortress to be used as a connection in this way, but not during play.  In fact it would probably work to just claim a site that spans the two continents and do nothing about tunnels or bridges. 

That is to say, if fortresses spanning continents are considered to be a "connection" at all ever then it is likely to be all of them always regardless of local constructions.  Otherwise fortresses simply aren't considered connections at all.  For the upcoming release it is almost guaranteed to be one of these two. 

In the future, when armies are moving during play, and it becomes possible for one to march through your fort, it might be addressed (getting a reasonable hierarchical path grid for the fort surface wouldn't be too awful) but essentially the issue is getting the army to march through the fort in a non-insane way, when the fortress might be designed in a number of pathological ways.  It isn't impossible, but is on the level of difficulty of a full pathfinding rewrite (in fact, to do the desired task efficiently, some kind of room-based pathfinding algorithm would be almost a necessity) so it won't make it in as something Toady "forgot to mention".