Print

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

[C27]

Remember that walls and the stuff miners swing picks at is exactly the same stuff. It's all rock. I don't think walls should magically be stronger, just because they're walls. If anything, they ought to be weaker, though I do think that block walls ought to be stronger than rough walls.

Should depend on the stone type really.

And if we ever get lime and mortar to hold the wall together, too. And if we have that, we could maybe have concrete that can be poured into place - the Romans had it, why not Zoidberg?

[Seraphim342]

Hmm... should also have different types be more resistant to damage.  Some types should be more or less immune to damage from a certain tier of siege engine. 

Example:

Tier 1:  Vulnerable to building destroyers
Wood

Tier 2: Vulnerable to Battering Rams and Ballistae
Weaker stuff like chalk, ice or glass

Tier 3: Vulnerable to catapults/etc
Strong stones like granite, weaker metals like copper

Tier 4:  Invulnerable to almost everything (Dragonfire?), must be scaled over or tunneled under (unless we get cannons, which I doubt =p)
Stronger metals like iron or steel

Could even add in a little more realism by having the layer behind it affect things as well.  For example, having a layer of dirt behind a wall would kick it up to the next category. 

All really depends on how siege engines are eventually implemented, though. 

[10ebbor10]

Nah, that's arbitrary balance. Everything should be able to destroy everything, but it should just take exponentially more time.


((Also, your balancing system doesn't make much sense, nor from a realist perspective, nor from a gameplay perspective))

[Seraphim342]

Yeah, I could see something like that, too, just to make things possible if not efficient.  Realistically though, if you're trying to take down a fortified stone wall with a battering ram the ram's going to break long before the wall does.  Also don't think a troll should be able to punch through a solid meter of even ice or solid glass in any reasonable amount of time, much less stone. 

Far as the dirt backing goes, that's how most forts were actually constructed.  Dirt with a stone shell's actually better than solid stone because the dirt absorbs and distributes the force whereas solid stone would just fracture.  An 18th century french-style fort was usually a meter or two of granite on either side and filled with earth, and most of them could shrug off even a 50-lb naval gun like nobody's business.  Solid shot, at least, explosives were a game-changer.  Even dirt-backed wood was pretty effective against field artillery, though, to say nothing of catapults.  Would be kinds silly to simulate in-game I'll admit, especially not being able to build dirt walls and all.  Still, just tossing out some ideas. 

Either way, I'd just really hate to see wood = ice = granite = steel. 

[Fancy Admiral]

To this suggestion I'd like to add a display interface suggestion:  Have a view mode (a la [D]epot assessability?) which allows inspection of wall integrity.  I immagine ambushes with sappers slowly eroding a wall tile or two to try to break in through other means than the main entrance, but needing to know where to send our recovery team when they are driven off.  It would be a royal pain to search out such tiles by loo[k]ing at each of them to read "Cracked" or "Good Condition" or "Unstable" or what have you.

[Seraphim342]

Might be simpler to just have any damaged wall, regardless of how damaged, show up slightly differently to show a sort of cracked look.  To see how damaged it actually is you'd have to look at it, but you could easily see which ones needed attention. 

[Radiant_Phoenix]

Blinking alt-tile with a number in it.

Not sure what color it should be, though; yellow-on-red is already used for warm stone. Maybe red-on-red?