Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

What do you think of the mining drop rate changes?

I really like the new system.
- 127 (35%)
Better than before, but more needs to be done.
- 93 (25.6%)
It doesn't make a difference to me.
- 41 (11.3%)
The changes don't really address my issues.
- 6 (1.7%)
I don't like it at all.
- 35 (9.6%)
I have mixed feelings on the matter.
- 61 (16.8%)

Total Members Voted: 362


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15

Author Topic: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?  (Read 61294 times)

Eric Blank

  • Bay Watcher
  • *Remain calm*
    • View Profile
Re: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?
« Reply #60 on: May 07, 2012, 10:51:56 am »

I didn't actaully mean that there should be no resource acquisition, just that it shouldn't overshadow other gameplay elements, and that it isn't in itself really valuable or adding difficulty, only making things more tedious. I definitely want to see everything on the dev list happen, and I'm rather happy that certain parts of the industries are becoming more autonomous with the new hauling changes.
Logged
I make Spellcrafts!
I have no idea where anything is. I have no idea what anything does. This is not merely a madhouse designed by a madman, but a madhouse designed by many madmen, each with an intense hatred for the previous madman's unique flavour of madness.

Arkenstone

  • Bay Watcher
  • Perfect Clear Diamond
    • View Profile
Re: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?
« Reply #61 on: May 07, 2012, 10:52:08 am »

The problem with that is, what you're describing isn't a game at all - it's just a construction set. 
And yet I still fail to see how this is a problem...

If you want more difficulty, there's plenty of mods for that.  I know *I'd* much rather spend more time on my military than spend more time hauling, because at least then there's the chance for Fun.
Logged

Quote from: Retro
Dwarven economics are still in the experimental stages. The humans have told them that they need to throw a lot of money around to get things going, but every time the dwarves try all they just end up with a bunch of coins lying all over the place.

The EPIC Dwarven Drinking Song of Many Names

Feel free to ask me any questions you have about logic/computing; I'm majoring in the topic.

Bilanthri

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?
« Reply #62 on: May 07, 2012, 10:56:43 am »

Seems like a move it the right direction to me.

As for furniture issues, two words...Green Glass.
Logged

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?
« Reply #63 on: May 07, 2012, 11:00:00 am »

I didn't actaully mean that there should be no resource acquisition, just that it shouldn't overshadow other gameplay elements, and that it isn't in itself really valuable or adding difficulty, only making things more tedious. I definitely want to see everything on the dev list happen, and I'm rather happy that certain parts of the industries are becoming more autonomous with the new hauling changes.
The problem with that is, what you're describing isn't a game at all - it's just a construction set. 
And yet I still fail to see how this is a problem...

If you want more difficulty, there's plenty of mods for that.  I know *I'd* much rather spend more time on my military than spend more time hauling, because at least then there's the chance for Fun.

But that's part of the point - If the basics of your economy becomes less readily available, then everything "up the line" becomes more challenging, as well.

You can say you want to focus on your military, but without the economics of the military's upkeep, the military is a much shallower game.  If you cannot outfit your military in all steel everything all the time, and have to try to make do with lesser materials, how do you react?  Do you go for just a breastplate and a helmet and an axe and hope for the best?  Or just a shield and sword and leather?  Or do you make a few elite melee specialists and give the rest crossbows? 

You can't discount the aspects of the game you consider "boring" as therefore being "unimportant".  It just means that the "boring" aspects of the game need to be made more interesting - and making them more challenging while stripping away the tedium of micromanagement is what does that. 

If farming is more challenging, or mining is more challenging, and you can't assume you will always have free infinite resources for your every need up the line, and have to decide what functions of the fortress are most important to you, and where you will devote a limited set of resources, then the game as a whole becomes more challenging, the decisions more meaningful, and overall more fun.
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

ZzarkLinux

  • Bay Watcher
  • [IS_BUN:#1]
    • View Profile
Re: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?
« Reply #64 on: May 07, 2012, 11:27:14 am »

But that's part of the point - If the basics of your economy becomes less readily available, then everything "up the line" becomes more challenging, as well.

You can say you want to focus on your military, but without the economics of the military's upkeep, the military is a much shallower game.  If you cannot outfit your military in all steel everything all the time, and have to try to make do with lesser materials, how do you react?  Do you go for just a breastplate and a helmet and an axe and hope for the best?  Or just a shield and sword and leather?  Or do you make a few elite melee specialists and give the rest crossbows? 

NW, I respect your position, and I do like how your avatar etc... matches the style of your posting :)
However, you seem to be very active in promoting attention-to-detail in core parts of the game, and I'm not sure many players would like that.

Be careful with your goals, if you push too hard you might push people away from it.

It's one thing to want an optional feature in the game e.g. Glazing
You can have that, and despite its bugs you can still use it.
But if Toady were to start changing core drastic things in the game such as seiges/digging/beasts, a lot of people may get upset at having to jump through so many hoops just to have the same Fun as before.

I don't want my Fantasy Simulator to be too boring, and I don't want it to be too tedious either.
I think a silent majority may share these same thoughts.

I wouldn't mind if your ideas would be the default setting for the game, I'm fine with that.
But then I want some options next to the "Savegery"/"Size"/"Minerals" bars that also include "BarberShops" scale and "Difficult Mining" scale so I can de-activate those in my DF.
Logged

Arkenstone

  • Bay Watcher
  • Perfect Clear Diamond
    • View Profile
Re: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?
« Reply #65 on: May 07, 2012, 11:46:23 am »

But that's part of the point - If the basics of your economy becomes less readily available, then everything "up the line" becomes more challenging, as well.

You can say you want to focus on your military, but without the economics of the military's upkeep, the military is a much shallower game.  If you cannot outfit your military in all steel everything all the time, and have to try to make do with lesser materials, how do you react?  Do you go for just a breastplate and a helmet and an axe and hope for the best?  Or just a shield and sword and leather?  Or do you make a few elite melee specialists and give the rest crossbows? 
I'd say that I'd rather be working on how to deploy my well-equipped squads to best effect.  Keeping them supplied is another matter, and while dealing with a lack of supplies certainly can be enjoyable, such a state of affairs should be the exception rather than the norm in my mind.  Outside of deliberate scenarios (like turning down mineral frequency, or in a very young fort) lack of equipment should really only be a consequence of a failure to properly prepare (or when something really random happens).
« Last Edit: May 07, 2012, 11:48:20 am by Arkenstone »
Logged

Quote from: Retro
Dwarven economics are still in the experimental stages. The humans have told them that they need to throw a lot of money around to get things going, but every time the dwarves try all they just end up with a bunch of coins lying all over the place.

The EPIC Dwarven Drinking Song of Many Names

Feel free to ask me any questions you have about logic/computing; I'm majoring in the topic.

Arkenstone

  • Bay Watcher
  • Perfect Clear Diamond
    • View Profile
Re: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?
« Reply #66 on: May 07, 2012, 11:52:10 am »

If farming is more challenging, or mining is more challenging, and you can't assume you will always have free infinite resources for your every need up the line, and have to decide what functions of the fortress are most important to you, and where you will devote a limited set of resources, then the game as a whole becomes more challenging, the decisions more meaningful, and overall more fun.
I would prefer then that the challenge came in the form of a cave-in or a crop blight.  Because if the challenge is predictable and constant, all it means is a bit more hassle in setting up a new system to deal with it -after which the game is no more difficult than before.
Logged

Quote from: Retro
Dwarven economics are still in the experimental stages. The humans have told them that they need to throw a lot of money around to get things going, but every time the dwarves try all they just end up with a bunch of coins lying all over the place.

The EPIC Dwarven Drinking Song of Many Names

Feel free to ask me any questions you have about logic/computing; I'm majoring in the topic.

Psieye

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?
« Reply #67 on: May 07, 2012, 12:01:24 pm »

I'm seeing a lot of "that's nice but it's not really what I want out of DF":
I wouldn't mind if your ideas would be the default setting for the game, I'm fine with that.
But then I want some options next to the "Savegery"/"Size"/"Minerals" bars that also include "BarberShops" scale and "Difficult Mining" scale so I can de-activate those in my DF.
This isn't like a mainstream game where what you get is what you must conform to (and ok, this statement is easily shot down). DF lets you mod things to the point where you make the game conform to you, not the other way around. So...

I'd say that I'd rather be working on how to deploy my well-equipped squads to best effect.  Keeping them supplied is another matter, and while dealing with a lack of supplies certainly can be enjoyable, such a state of affairs should be the exception rather than the norm in my mind.
Then make it so. This was exactly how I ran my version of DF: very easy to supply my military, lots of trash mobs to kill so my military is kept busy. It's how I discovered what I wanted out of crossbow squads.


There seems to be some resistance to dabbling in modding. Is this because people feel it would add a hurdle to sharing their DF experiences with others, as you'd need to supply additional contextual knowledge each time? Or is it about not wanting to delve into the perceived complexity of the raws (and I'll admit, some parts of the raws do take some time to get your head around)? I suppose in the latter's case, the modding forum's assumption that everyone wants to DIY could be an issue. But that should mean people make requests for certain simple 'tailor fits' be made for them and somebody else will deliver.

--- Edit ---

I would prefer then that the challenge came in the form of a cave-in or a crop blight.  Because if the challenge is predictable and constant, all it means is a bit more hassle in setting up a new system to deal with it -after which the game is no more difficult than before.
Yes, that challenge will be in minecart accidents and incidents (the latter being things you couldn't have easily foreseen). Cave-ins can be prevented with careful attention - if you deem this to be unpredictable enough then minecart accidents will certainly be the non-constant challenge you seek. The game difficulty certainly won't be the same after it's set up.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2012, 12:06:01 pm by Psieye »
Logged
Military Training EXP Analysis
Congrats, Psieye. This is the first time I've seen a derailed thread get put back on the rails.

slink

  • Bay Watcher
  • Crazy Cat Dwarf
    • View Profile
    • Slink's Burrow Online
Re: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?
« Reply #68 on: May 07, 2012, 01:51:44 pm »

I'm seeing a lot of "that's nice but it's not really what I want out of DF":
I wouldn't mind if your ideas would be the default setting for the game, I'm fine with that.
But then I want some options next to the "Savegery"/"Size"/"Minerals" bars that also include "BarberShops" scale and "Difficult Mining" scale so I can de-activate those in my DF.
This isn't like a mainstream game where what you get is what you must conform to (and ok, this statement is easily shot down). DF lets you mod things to the point where you make the game conform to you, not the other way around. So...
I think part of what's bothering people is that the drop rate, and the material dropped, has never before been something we could control.  Correct me if I am wrong on that.  We can mod inclusions to be mined out and reactions for the materials once mined, but we cannot change what happens when the pick hits the rock.  We have no gut feeling that this will change.  Some are already viewing with mixed feelings the decrease in drop rate for ordinary rock.  I don't want to open a discussion on that topic here, but it is in everyone's mind for better or for worse.  The thought on top of that of a materially useless, purely obstructive, product dropping from mining is too much negative at one time.  What we envision is that not only can we not get what we thought we were going to get when we mine a location, we also can't get anything done because of this rubbish appearing everywhere, and we have no faith that we will have control over that part of the game because we never have before.

Edit: Excuse my confusion over which thread I was in.  I think I can be forgiven, given that the post to which I was responding was discussing rubble in the stone drop thread.   ::)
« Last Edit: May 07, 2012, 01:57:46 pm by slink »
Logged
There is only one cat, and all cats are that cat.
Almost losing is sometimes fun.

slink

  • Bay Watcher
  • Crazy Cat Dwarf
    • View Profile
    • Slink's Burrow Online
Re: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?
« Reply #69 on: May 07, 2012, 02:02:36 pm »

Seems like a move it the right direction to me.

As for furniture issues, two words...Green Glass.
Can we make green glass furniture that has a quality modifier?
Logged
There is only one cat, and all cats are that cat.
Almost losing is sometimes fun.

Arkenstone

  • Bay Watcher
  • Perfect Clear Diamond
    • View Profile
Re: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?
« Reply #70 on: May 07, 2012, 02:13:11 pm »

I'd say that I'd rather be working on how to deploy my well-equipped squads to best effect.  Keeping them supplied is another matter, and while dealing with a lack of supplies certainly can be enjoyable, such a state of affairs should be the exception rather than the norm in my mind.
Then make it so. This was exactly how I ran my version of DF: very easy to supply my military, lots of trash mobs to kill so my military is kept busy. It's how I discovered what I wanted out of crossbow squads.
Easier said than done.  I don't want a cakewalk, nor do I want a grindfest.

The thread seems to have moved over to the philosophical side of things, but I guess that's fine as this is a derail thread anyways.


Now, I think the problem here is we're discussing two different kinds of difficulty.  On the one hand, there's the "you must hit the target exactly right" sort of difficulty.  On the other, there's "you need to spend time just getting to the target".

The latter sort is not inherently bad, nor the former inherently good; each one must be balanced both individually and against each other.  But with DF in its current state, it's easier to adjust the former without feeling like you're 'cheating'.  By that I mean modding in weaker enemies just means you're not a good player, while modding a reaction to make extra stone is definitely more than just a crutch.  Some people like to build megaprojects with some difficulty.

And some things (like mining speed) are just hard to mod without affecting other aspects of the game (such as movement/combat speed).


In this specific case though, I like the fact that Toady was able to find a way to decrease the number of boulders lying around without adversely affecting construction and smelting operations much.
Logged

Quote from: Retro
Dwarven economics are still in the experimental stages. The humans have told them that they need to throw a lot of money around to get things going, but every time the dwarves try all they just end up with a bunch of coins lying all over the place.

The EPIC Dwarven Drinking Song of Many Names

Feel free to ask me any questions you have about logic/computing; I'm majoring in the topic.

Rage Machine

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?
« Reply #71 on: May 07, 2012, 02:19:54 pm »

Well ignoring all of that arguing and BS i actually like this idea. that meta-gaming of levelling up miners was really annoying, also i like that stone and ore will no longer take stockpiles the size of my fort.

also as for ANYONE who builds with stone, all i have to say is OH GOD WHY!?!?

seriously blocks are so much faster and one dedicated mason can make a fair few very quickly even at a low level, 2 make a decent amount and i have never managed to exhaust 3 masons.
Logged

Noodz

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?
« Reply #72 on: May 07, 2012, 02:43:11 pm »

I like this change. I honestly don't think it will affect large outdoor structures, all it will do is require a few masons working 24/7 on making blocks. It will reduce stone available for stone furniture/crafts/mechanisms (if i understood that correctly), but it will hardly make building a good fort impossible.

Maybe what is ticking people off is the uncertainty. Probabilities are strange things and maybe people are scared of how a cluster of 4 native platine might mean anything from 4 platinum boulders to nothing.
Logged

Tarran

  • Bay Watcher
  • Kind of back, but for how long?!
    • View Profile
Re: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?
« Reply #73 on: May 07, 2012, 02:46:40 pm »

I'm not sure I especially like the change for several reasons:

1: A percentage chance--especially against the player's favor--makes it easy to get luck screwed at the worst possible times. Sure, if you are lucky and always hit a boulder 1/4 times you get the same amount of stone. Chances are, though, you might fail again and again and again and again and... get very little material. Likewise, you could get lucky (likely much rarer) and score lots of boulders. It leaves too much to chance.
2: Rare stone and ore might get really screwed over by the change, due to the above reason. Mine a cluster of 5 *insert rare stone/ore here* and roll within the 75% fail rate? Well, sorry, you're not getting anything. Tough luck with that Platinum cluster!

Other than that, it's a good idea as far as I can think of, I just do not trust the percentages at all.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on anything I've said.

Also, partially ninja'd.
Logged
Quote from: Phantom
Unknown to most but the insane and the mystics, Tarran is actually Earth itself, as Earth is sentient like that planet in Avatar. Originally Earth used names such as Terra on the internet, but to protect it's identity it changed letters, now becoming the Tarran you know today.
Quote from: Ze Spy
Tarran has the "Tarran Bug", a bug which causes the affected character to repeatedly hit teammates while dual-wielding instead of whatever the hell he is shooting at.

Martin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Mining Drop Rate Change: Good or Bad?
« Reply #74 on: May 07, 2012, 02:46:56 pm »


I'd given the mining thing a bit of thought over the years and here's what I'd prefer to see (and others have already touched on). Mining is currently imbalanced as the only penalty for poor mining skills is speed and lack of drops - and sometimes you *want* a lack of drops, so that seems odd. And there's a conservation of mass problem that everyone notes. I don't really like the fewer drops because of this.


I'd prefer to see rock replaced with three items: boulders, rock, gravel. A legendary miner would produce only boulders. Envision them as quarriers that can remove an entire block of stone at once. A boulder could be broken into (for example) 4 rocks (4 rocks would stack in a stockpile tile), each of which is ¼ the volume and ¼ the mass of the boulder. And a rock could be broken into 4 gravel (16 gravel would stack in a stockpile tile) which is similarly ¼ the mass and volume of the rock. Masons could break boulders into rock and rock into gravel and would do it on-site. The stone stockpile would hold all three items, and you could set it up so that when the mason breaks the boulder, the 4 stone remain in the tile and are accepted into the stockpile - no extraneous hauling needed, unless you want it.


Miners at lower skills would produce primarily gravel (and a lot of it). You could clear rooms, but would not get much usable rock in the process. This seems appropriate. As they skill up, they'd produce increasingly more rock (1 rock, 12 gravel; 2 rock; 8 gravel, etc), and then increasingly more boulders, but always the same ultimate volume. In the case of metal ores, they only ever produce 'ore', which is the size of gravel (16 drops per tile) and gets processed as it currently is, with each ore producing a fraction of a bar of metal. This would open the possibility of furnace operators gaining skill as well - by extracting more metal from the ore as they skill up - but 16 ore would at the lowest level produce one bar, as it is now, but a legendary operator could get 4 bars, maybe. Gems would work similarly, but they would drop some variable number of gems (1-4?) and the rest would be gravel - but again 16 drops per tile. The number of gem drops could be based on miner skill. Coals would drop 16 ore as well, and each ore would do the job of a piece of coal now. Flux stone would need to be converted to gravel to work in reactions - again one gravel per bar in the reaction. So in the case of coal and flux, you get 16x the output as you do now, which seems reasonable - coal mining should be much more desirable than it is now as it was a critical industry for millennia, but doesn't produce enough output now to be sought after or efficient. The hard thing should be the metal, and there you're limited to one(ish) bar per tile.


A more interesting approach to ore would be for any gravel to produce a small amount of a variety of metals - maybe based on the ratio of ore squares on the map. If you have a lot of gold, the generic gravel would produce more gold. If you have a lot of hematite, it'd produce more iron. But you'd only get 1% of a bar max or so per gravel. That way, if you didn't want to exploratory mine, but were digging out a vast area, you could turn your output into gravel and slowly convert it into metal. That'd be a fairly big departure for the game though.


As to mining speed, I would argue that legendary miners can't work any faster than novice - but they produce more desirable results. If you just want to clear a room and don't care about having material to use, then draft the fortress and mine it out and then deal with the gravel. If you want material, then use legendary miners - and if you want it done quickly, well, you better have a lot of them. Mining should be hard. It should take a lot of time.


In general, blocks and furniture would require boulders to produce while crafts would require rock. You should get more crafts than floodgates from a given amount of stone, and perhaps two blocks per boulder. Gravel would in general be useless (except as noted above) but could be used for road building and construction. I'd like to see road construction require two gravel for each block (with wheelbarrows, it wouldn't make the task any longer.) I think it's fine if it's just a pure waste product, though. Once you get to legendary miners, you won't produce any that you don't explicitly ask for.


I would also argue that the mason job be split in two - into stoneworker that does all of the workshop work, and the mason who breaks stones and does construction, and that construction done with rough stone take notably longer than construction done with blocks. There should be a benefit to setting up a block industry. Having masons run between workshop tasks and construction tasks with no way to designate one or the other is frustrating.


Now, this would all have been impossible before the hauling fixes. With the changes to hauling, the amount of hauling from this goes up only slightly. Legendary miners create almost no more work (one boulder per tile, or possibly two jobs for gems. I assume one hauler would shovel 16 ore into a cart and treat it as one job). Unskilled miners create as much hauling work as legendary miners (where now they create almost no work). It requires many more miners than currently, however, and would create some additional unskilled mason work if you need to break boulders into rock for crafts. But hauling was 50% (at least) of our labor before. With these changes, it should go down to 20% or less, and I would argue that what we gain in hauling should go back to balancing out other parts of the game. It's just odd that in the amount of time it takes one hauler to put a seed away, my legendary miner can clear out a dining room - and yet that dining room would take 5x longer to smooth. Gravel and rock could be carried by hand so you can clean up without an infrastructure, whereas boulders would require a wheelbarrow or cart.


What we get:


More realistic mining results
Better gem/ore/coal/flux output and balance.
Greater penalty to using unskilled miners.
Slightly more use for masons.
Greater challenge in the early game getting furniture/block production going and clearing space. A big fortress will require a big workforce.
Greater challenge to making an efficient hauling setup.


I'd propose something similar for the wood industry as well. With a tree producing one log. One log is needed for furniture similar to the boulder, but could be broken down into 4 boards for use with crafts, etc. One log would produce 4 charcoal, ash, etc. to keep coal mining more productive once you hit a seam and to reflect the greater mass/volume to stone over trees. Because woodcutters gain no quality benefit for skills, they would get faster with skills. For construction, because you have a 100% success rate even at novice with woodcutting over mining, and because woodcutting can be done more quickly with practice, your best bet to getting an early fortress going is wood rather than stone. Once you've gotten minimally situated, then you'd probably move over to proper stone working.


Finally, if we gain volume calculations, I like the idea of making movement through full tiles (full of stone, gravel, bins, whatever) proportionately slower based on volume than over clear tiles. Again, I don't think this would have been viable before the hauling changes.


Not sure what Toady has in mind overall, but this is what I'd like to see as a general direction. And a number of other people have touched on these as well. Regarding the overall game balance, players that want more military involvement still need to balance that against hauling and other things, and it's not that hard to balance them. Rather than build large constructions and megaprojects, make a simple fort that produces a ton of roasts and processes goblinite like nobody's business - and it doesn't matter what the mining changes are, you can still easily run (and support) a military-heavy fortress. If you want to build that tower to the clouds, you're going to balance away your military for masons. If you want to do everything, then the challenge comes in how to make everything work within your resources. Typically the limitations within the game aren't the number of dwarves or even resources in most cases - it's management. It's keeping production chains running, designating building and mining, and dealing with the various issues that occur - like moods and when invaders screw up your production or kill your soaper.  I have some legendary experience with that, I can tell you.


Changing things like the frequency of mining drops isn't going to radically alter the game. It shifts the resource balance a bit, but doesn't do anything (good or bad) about the management issue. So don't sweat that too much as a resource shift doesn't change the game, just the pace at which certain things happen. The hauling changes massively shift the resource balance (enough that I'd argue other things need to get harder) and probably has a neutral effect on management - adding management around the carts/wheelbarrow while removing it from the sheer logistics of the job and some of the stockpile changes (most of us design fortresses around hauling more than any other thing which is another management impact, which would be nice to change). But adding depth to mining without adding management should be a net plus if we can find a way there (which is what I was aiming for above - particularly with all gravel being able to be turned into metal, and some of the other tweaks around coal, flux, etc).


And part of the game is invoking your own sets of guidelines to shape the game you want. If you want a military challenge, then don't turtle up underground with a massive trap gauntlet to hide behind. Instead, build a functional town where there are no remote-control levers to lower the gate are at the gatehouse and where everything is building destroyable and where fliers/swimmers can path inside. Even with 200 dwarves that'll be a challenge in the later game. Or if you want that challenge along with the economic stuff, turn off immigration. Getting 7-10 dwarves to do all of your production and prepared to fend off a couple of gobbo squads once they start dropping kids is pretty damn challenging. But even in that case, outfitting your fortress with steel isn't too hard if you make good use of the trade caravan.


Oh, and hey all.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15