Print

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

[Mr S]

Ejem. This must be made into a succesion fortress.

I am thinking that instead of one, really big embark, you can use several adyacent embarks, which each fortress retired. (in the next version,
obviously). Maybe three 4x7 embarks, or three 4X4 +two 3*6.

I wanna go in adventurer mode with a necromancer, two humans, a dwarf , an elf and four kobolds.

I don't recall reading anything about adjacency in the next release.  Different parameters to abandons/retires/reclaims, and the types of sites that are allowed to be reclaimed have been mentioned.  However, there still hasn't been an exhaustive amount of information released.  I do believe that the artificial borders for site definitions have not changed, or at least aren't mentioned.  Toady has also stated that neither the max site size nor cross map-zone site claiming code have neither one been touched for this release either.  What he has stated is that, with multi tile trees and some of the interesting geographical topiary they create, that the zone borders have been prettied up to make them more "organic" and not so obviously blocky at map grid lines.

[Aklyon]

You sir, are awesome.

[PeridexisErrant]

Yep, that map is of exactly the world I mean.  There's a pretty good spot on the western end of where the mines should go.

Re: adjacency and claiming - you could do most of the work in separate embarks, turn them to lairs, and then do a big reclaim and connect it up - but it seems easier to just do it all at once.  It would indeed make a brilliant succession fort though. 

The other idea I'm excited for is to block off the surface and use revflood, then export the map for Fortress overseer and make a movie of walking through Moria. 

[ORCACommander]

adjacency still can not work because of region borders. player made sites currently can not cross region borders so there is no way to connect the tunnels between the regions. as for connecting in region via lair i am not sure.

[Vattic]

Is there not a utility that can edit tiles? I know there was for 40d. If there is then you could edit those on the edge of the map to join up the sections. You'd at least be able to travel through in adventure mode.

[wierd]

You can edit the tiles with tiletypes in dfhack, sortof.

With the Embark command, you can overlap several embarks, but I dont think you can overlap over coarse map page boundries on subsequent embarks.

[Vattic]

You can edit the tiles with tiletypes in dfhack, sortof.

As flexible as For Each Tile?

[PeridexisErrant]

I think I'm going to request a script or plugin to magically complete all current designations - it'd be pretty helpful for testing this map. 

adjacency still can not work because of region borders. player made sites currently can not cross region borders so there is no way to connect the tunnels between the regions. as for connecting in region via lair i am not sure.

The whole map is 12x7 embark tiles, which fits within one region tile (16x16) so no region-linking is needed - or, as you say, possible.  However, you could embark on parts, then mark as a lair (in dfhack; lets you embark again overlapping instead of a reclaim) and then do the massive embark and dig through the two-tile walls.  With the amount of fiddling required, it would likely be easier to just do the single big one.  Linking smaller embarks has the disadvantage that it might leave some areas inaccessible - the endless stair for example is a very long passage, and it would be easy to lose access in a partial map. 

Actually:  I realised while writing that you could also do sequential partially-overlapping embarks to link without ever doing the huge one.  With enough repeats, the whole thing could be done with 2x2 embarks at a cost of tedium. 

You can edit the tiles with tiletypes in dfhack, sortof.

As flexible as For Each Tile?

It looks a little less flexible, but has the advantage of working with 0.34.11 - they might be pretty similar actually but I've not used either. 

[ORCACommander]

ah i was mistaken on the scale you wanted to go for then.

[krenshala]

where DID they release the Balrog, anyway?

Well maybe in the mithril mines as they found that, got too greedy, then dug too deep.

But I don't really know

General consensus is they found it in the Foundations of stone. Which is the lowest place in Moria, so it makes sense. Clearly, the adamantine shaft must be dug there.

From what I remember from LoTR and the Silmarillion, the balrog was released at the deepest point of Kazad-dum because they were digging up mithril as fast as they could.

[Thormgrim]

where DID they release the Balrog, anyway?

Well maybe in the mithril mines as they found that, got too greedy, then dug too deep.

But I don't really know

General consensus is they found it in the Foundations of stone. Which is the lowest place in Moria, so it makes sense. Clearly, the adamantine shaft must be dug there.

From what I remember from LoTR and the Silmarillion, the balrog was released at the deepest point of Kazad-dum because they were digging up mithril as fast as they could.

Yeah, I'm wondering where on the map that would be.  I'm not really sure on the map where the Mithril even is...

[avdpos]

Yeah, I'm wondering where on the map that would be.  I'm not really sure on the map where the Mithril even is...

isn´t that pretty obvius?
mine for the DF equivalent of mithril - candy. As far as I have understood it has all characterisitcs of mithril... In fact it was the first thing I thought of when I heard about it. Why call it mithril was the first thought that popped up my head..

And a wonderful map!
I have never seen that map before and I have read many books about Tolkien and his middleearth.

would love to do this embark...

By the way, how many levels high have you made the big hall (you know the hall in which the fellowship first sees the Balrog in the movie)

[PeridexisErrant]

Only one, because dwarves are freaking idiots when it comes to channelling and requiring supervision would defeat the purpose of the premade map. You can create a derivative from the source maps though - if it's substantially different I'd love to include a copy with due credit but of course this is optional.

In other news, while the cropped map works fine and so does the top of the big one, I've had some issues with the bottom half - the designating not matching the plan. It's relatively minor, just some misplaced halls etc near the east gate, but occurs even if just doing the single level from source. Can anyone confirm if this is just my laptop or something that needs a proper fix?

[Dragor]

I've tried the croped and full brueprint and your work is truely awesome ! I've already found a cold moutain and begin to dig the Moria in it with 100 miners blessed by dfhack "startdwarf" and "fastdwarf" scripts. It will be a nice place for future embarks.


I can confirm the issues with the full map, and the problem is located on the 3rd layer (starting from top), so on the top half blueprint.
I've found that the upward ramps of the 3rd layer don't match the downward ramps of the 2nd layer, and the downward ramps of the 3rd layer don't match either the upward ramps of the 4th layer.
I'll try to correct the blueprint as I think it just must be shifted from one tile upwardly, but I check because it's seems that the shift it not present everywhere on the 3rd layer.


By the way, the full map need a 13x7 embark instead of a 12x7 embark :
--The full map reach a maximum width of 575 tiles (4th layer).
--A 12 wide embark has a width of 12 x 48 = 576 tiles.
---BUT the border of the map can't be designated.
---->So 574 tile left, one missing for the full blueprint.


Edit : I've corrected and checked the 3rd layer.
Here is the fixed version : http://dffd.wimbli.com/file.php?id=7929

[Mr Space Cat]

Yes. All of my yes.