Print

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

[Vrky]

This is undwarven, but why do we need extravagant entrances? How would bigger entryways possibly benefit the lives of our alchoholic workers?

I agree, small gates are actually much harder to destroy than oversized huge gates. I somehow prefer 'realistic' dwarven engineering approach to a bit cliched standard fiction.
That being said, I do wish for:
1) Doors that are big enough to let caravans pass
2) When sieges are implemented, option to build reinforced, strong entrance doors to our forts, as opposed to standard crappy doors that are used as room entrances.

[ExecratedDwarf]

I'm sorry guys, but there isn't a single realistic gameplay element. We play as dwarves(the fictional bearded kind, not the realistic genetic kind), we use adamantine(the fictional uber metal), we purposefully make steel using nothing but a conventional forge, we have spinning discs stacked ten high. I love what Toady has created with the depth put into materials and their related strengths and weaknesses. But he has created an amazing simulation in a high fantasy setting. After all, this is Dwarf Fortress, not Medieval Human Mott and Bailey. The OP's idea for massive gateways is great. I'd suggest that they could be built from wood or metal bars for the portcullis, and stone, wood or metal for the gate house. They would be a grand entrance, easier for siege animals to penetrate, but they'd be beautiful. I think they would have to be a minimum of 3 deep, 5 wide and 5 tall. That would allow for a minimum one tile "gate house" structure built around a 3x3x1 portal. I'd absolutely use them.

[Kipi]

Actually, are you aware that Toady actually uses (as far as I understood from several posts and interviews) western medieval time as basis for the whole game? He has even determined the exact century, 14th IIRC, as the limit for technology. Most of the unrealistic features (adamantine, dwarves etc.) are just included to make the game more interesting.

It's also good to remember that some of the things are just placeholders and will be improved to be more realistic, like stacking and traps. Also, some things are there just to reduce the complexity that doesn't actually offers anything. Forges and furnaces belong to that category. And even those may beb improved to become more realistic.

[ExecratedDwarf]

Tolkien used Medieval Europe as a basis as well. Hence the good guys only being able to muster a fraction of the forces as compared to the bad guys. It was a historically accurate depiction of what the "great" European cities could field versus the comparatively enormous armies of the East. But that doesn't change the setting. This game offers an excellent blend of realism and fantasy. It reminds me very much of Tolkien in the care taken to stay true to two very disparate realities. And it's that carefully orchestrated balance that puts this game in the same realm as MoO for the game aspect, and the great fantasy authors on the narrative side. And the fantasy aspect, I imagine, is not merely a place holder. And imposing, majestic gateways would make for an excellent addition.

[GreatWyrmGold]

If DF was cinematic more than realistic, master wrestlers would be able to take on armies of goblins, single-handed. Try it some time.

[ExecratedDwarf]

Tolkien was an author, not a filmmaker. But if you're arguing that this game has no dramatic flare, and therefore grand entryways have no place in it, might I direct your attention to the combat reports, engravings, artifacts and legends. People already make complex and often aesthetically pleasing entrances. A new construction to build a gateway and portcullis would fit right in. But if you demand realism, ask that retracting bridges be removed. And even rising drawbridges don't match history. Moats were almost never filled with water, instead being loaded with sharpened logs and refuse. There are few historical accounts of forts having a working drawbridge. They usually had an earthen mound that traversed the pit. A drawbridge would be a far too complex and expensive construction for a fort that didn't serve the king. In fact, stone castles were nearly non-existent. We should be building our forts on a hill, surrounded by wooden pallisades so that we have as real and un-cinematic experience as possible. All dwarves below nobility should be near starvation, and should be ecstatic if they get to live past 20. They should be put into jail for hunting, but only for the short period before they are publicly executed. No worries about tantrums, as they'll be too weak from hunger to care, and if they do still care they'll be the next round of entertainment. I know, you think gates are far too unrealistic, and therefore this scenario isn't enough. But the truth is that even forts were a rarity in the 14th century, most lords lived in glorified hovels, but after much research Toady found out no one wants to play Supa-Fantastic ULTRA-Real Midgets-In-A-Shack. So can we get off this realism kick before you start complaining that the game isn't fun anymore? My vote is for fancy, "cinematic" gates. And I am definitely not voting for your idea that the game be so realistic that the main menu is just a big "The End!" screen.

[Revanchist]

If DF was cinematic more than realistic, master wrestlers would be able to take on armies of goblins, single-handed. Try it some time.

But those are some of the most fun times with my wrestlers... Especially when they wear loincloths. It never ended well.

[DG]

Realism is fun, but fun is subjective.

[10ebbor10]

Dwarf fortress tries to be a more or less realistic game, set in a fantasy environement. So it takes clearly fantastical elements, and allows those to react by clearly defined rules of nature.

So, I say that we need to put this in, but players should not complain when their massive gate is easily smashed in by a giant, or requires more than 3 times the materials as a small one. All things should have good and bad sides. To illustrate it with a quote:

A game where there's one action that is clearly superior is not a game, but a puzzle

So let people build their gates, and let their dwarves admire them, and let them be brutally slaughtered when the goblins come.

[ExecratedDwarf]

Of course they should be vulnerable to siege beasts. Though building destroyers should be changed so that they demolish different constructions in different ways. After all, it's a bit unrealistic that they could destroy a fortified gate, but not the wall next to it. And you can completely stop them with a pile of naturally placed sand. Toady already plans to implement moving parts, and a portcullis is a moving part. But they only make sense if you build them in gateways. A portcullis, for those that don't know, is a lattice of wood or metal that would rise and descend in two vertical grooves cut into the walls of a castle entrance. They were usually built in pairs, with the outer one being up to let attackers in. That portcullis was then closed, trapping the enemy in a confined kill zone. Rocks and fire heated sand might then be dropped on them from the roof or through murder holes. Oil was never used, as it was far too expensive. Archers and crossbowmen would fire at the trapped attackers through arrow slits or the inner portcullis. That seems like a pretty good historical basis to expand upon.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Tolkien was an author, not a filmmaker. But if you're arguing that this game has no dramatic flare, and therefore grand entryways have no place in it...

Never said that, just that DF tends to avoid ludicrous crap. I'd say that enormous doors probably count.

If DF was cinematic more than realistic, master wrestlers would be able to take on armies of goblins, single-handed. Try it some time.

But those are some of the most fun times with my wrestlers... Especially when they wear loincloths. It never ended well.

My point. DF tends to sacrifice cinematic physics for realism.

Dwarf fortress tries to be a more or less realistic game, set in a fantasy environement. So it takes clearly fantastical elements, and allows those to react by clearly defined rules of nature.

So, I say that we need to put this in, but players should not complain when their massive gate is easily smashed in by a giant, or requires more than 3 times the materials as a small one. All things should have good and bad sides. To illustrate it with a quote:

A game where there's one action that is clearly superior is not a game, but a puzzle

So let people build their gates, and let their dwarves admire them, and let them be brutally slaughtered when the goblins come.

But don't prioritize it over something players have a good reason to use.

Of course they should be vulnerable to siege beasts. Though building destroyers should be changed so that they demolish different constructions in different ways. After all, it's a bit unrealistic that they could destroy a fortified gate, but not the wall next to it. And you can completely stop them with a pile of naturally placed sand. Toady already plans to implement moving parts, and a portcullis is a moving part. But they only make sense if you build them in gateways. A portcullis, for those that don't know, is a lattice of wood or metal that would rise and descend in two vertical grooves cut into the walls of a castle entrance. They were usually built in pairs, with the outer one being up to let attackers in. That portcullis was then closed, trapping the enemy in a confined kill zone. Rocks and fire heated sand might then be dropped on them from the roof or through murder holes. Oil was never used, as it was far too expensive. Archers and crossbowmen would fire at the trapped attackers through arrow slits or the inner portcullis. That seems like a pretty good historical basis to expand upon.

Wait, hold on, there are people who don't know what portcullises are? Around here?
Aside from that, sounds reasonable, but portcullis =/= giant door.

[10ebbor10]

Yeah, most Portcullis(es) are pretty small. Actually, most castles were pretty small, most only had a garison of 20-50 people max.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That being said, they didn't typically include forges or farms. Et cetera.
Still, that's what, maybe a craftsman and two farmers per soldier? That's... actually, that's the upper limit to dwarven fortresses.

[ExecratedDwarf]

So your argument is that you don't like them, and you don't plan to use them, so they're stupid and pointless? That seems childish. Do you have any reason besides "i say they be not realistic" for them not to be in the game?

[GreatWyrmGold]

I'm not saying they shouldn't be in the game, I'm saying other things have priority.
It was explicitly mentioned by others that there would be no practical benefit and some downsides to having huge door.