Print

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

[Jweathers131]

How Large to do make your embark areas?
 
I have been using a 5x5 area for a while and started with a 4x4 but now I am thinking of using 6x6.
Suggestions, Comments, Or Opinions

[Erkeric]

I make mine 5x5 or 6x6 normally. I'm pretty used to low FPSs due to my old pc and have a bad habit of making new worlds after about 2 years in fortress mode anyways so the FPS drop(if any) doesn't bother me. I just don't like feeling I'm limited in size with a smaller embark.

[MrWillsauce]

3x3

I expand downwards, not sideways.

[FrankyPlaysGames]

It depends. For me, if I want to squeeze a river or another biome into my embark I'll do it, but usually I go 4x4, no lag issue or anything, I just find it simple.

[Oaktree]

3x3 for the most part currently.  Can get parts of two, and sometimes three biomes in that size for a variety of surface and mineral features.

Seems to be a good size for my preferred fortress footprint of ~100 dwarves in terms of the edges not being too far away, but also not squeezing the fortress design either.  And my current designs are more vertical in format in any case.

[i2amroy]

It depends. For me, if I want to squeeze a river or another biome into my embark I'll do it, but usually I go 4x4, no lag issue or anything, I just find it simple.

THis right here. A 4x4 ensures that I can run larger fortresses (140+ dwarves, sometimes as many as 220) without any serious problems. Recently I've been experimenting with smaller long-term fortresses (pop cap 50 and then slowly birth more inhabitants) and as a result I've been experimenting with some 5x5's.

[Deathworks]

Hello!

Usually, I go for 3x3, especially ever since we can set the height of the map and distance between the cave layers in world gen - with lots of vertical space, I get a lot of interesting exploration. However, my two most recent fortresses have been 5x5, the first because I wanted to experiment with minecarts, thus needing horizontal distance to make them interesting, and my current one because I am doing a surface village (not in the sense of forbidding digging, but focusing on living on the surface) which by its nature requires more space.

Yours,
Deathworks

[XXSockXX]

For me it's 3x3 too usually. I mostly go for longrunning forts with a huge population and use vertical designs, so this is a good FPS/space ratio.
2x2 has too small a surface and feels too limited.
I have a 4x4 fort running now, but I'll see how that goes, I used 4x4 when I started with DF and always ran into FPS problems after a few years. I've improved my designs since, so maybe it will work out.

[NightlinerSGS]

8x8. Everything else somehow feels cramped to me. I also add more layers between the caverns so I can go deeeeeep if I want, or just build Moria or whatever.

[Sutremaine]

4x3.

3 tiles wide feels a little cramped, and 2 tiles high fits entirely on my screen. As for depth, I generally prefer shallower maps (magma depth in double-digit numbers), as 100 levels is really enough to work with. I rarely used even the old 15 levels, even on flat embarks.

Depth is important. On my current map, the second cavern layer is 54 levels high, and the single large column I've opened the sides of runs right from the ceiling to the water. Whenever a dwarf is traversing it the framerate halves from ~80, and they do this rather more often than I'd like. That number of mostly-full levels leaves a lot of space to work with, and a lot of minerals and gems if the layers in the cavern area happen to hold them.

[Darnis]

I started doing 6x6 or 7x7s and... never digging down.. I build a small 20 by 20 tower near a suitable map edge, preferably outside of the haunted biome.. Works pretty well..
Pretty good fps  35-39ish, year 10 for this one..

[slink]

5x5 for me, usually, although I have done 3x3.  I like the odd-numbered dimensions.  Historically this was because I could center mega-constructions more neatly, but I haven't built anything large for what is probably real-life years so I am not sure why I continue the practice.  *shrug*

[moki]

3x3, because I hate low FPS. In my last fort, it didn't even drop below 80 until there were 220 dwarves and I started pumping magma all over the place. Sadly, the magma got into places where it's not needed, if you know what I mean, so that didn't last long. With my old machine and before v31, I regularly got around 10FPS in mature forts... I don't even know how I could  keep playing when even the simplest projects take hours of real time.
4x4 gives decent speed too, but I rarely use that much space. Even 2x2 works, but gets quite challenging when invaders basically spawn out of nowhere right at the fort's gates.

[DS]

I used to do primarily 4x4 or 3x4, but recently I've found that I really prefer 2x3 or even 2x2, for the perpetually high FPS. My fortresses expand vertically, not horizontally.

[Itnetlolor]

Depending on resources or exploitable areas, I range between 3x3 and 6x6. Averaging on 5x5. I like to make the most of the forests in order to craft anything that requires wood at my beck and call (and in case I decide to build airships and such in the future, I want a supply source). In any other case, I like to have plenty of area to work with, as well as plenty of a heads-up when invaders come along. Plus, if a fort lasts long enough, I want to be able to work on expansive projects.

I go all directions with this, upwards and outwards, and digging deeper if I need to. I still haven't adapted to taking advantage of cavern systems yet; so I still seek water sources (brooks/rivers) and surface magma (volcanoes). So yeah.