Print

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

[SixOfSpades]

I intend to make a Kool-Aid Man megabeast whenever [BUILDINGDESTROYER:3] becomes a valid creature token. All I need is a way for it to shout 'OH YEAH!!' in fort mode as it bursts through the outer walls.

YOU CAME IN LIKE A KOOL-AID MAN

While adding wall-breakers would certainly be more realistic, it would be a great disappointment to add them without also doing each of the following:
1) Adding strength/hardness ratings for all of the possible materials. Granite > Pine > Chalk, for obvious reasons.
2) Allowing natural & smoothed walls (not just constructed walls) to be destroyed as well.
3) Allowing certain creatures to destroy upwards and/or downwards, as applicable. A battering ram can only work horizontally, but a giant mole can dig in any direction.
4) Granting limited wall-(and floor-)destruction capabilities to creatures that are already in the game. Sorry, that 1-tile wall of sand is NOT going to keep out those goblins armed with metal axes.

[Delioth]

I intend to make a Kool-Aid Man megabeast whenever [BUILDINGDESTROYER:3] becomes a valid creature token. All I need is a way for it to shout 'OH YEAH!!' in fort mode as it bursts through the outer walls.

YOU CAME IN LIKE A KOOL-AID MAN

While adding wall-breakers would certainly be more realistic, it would be a great disappointment to add them without also doing each of the following:
1) Adding strength/hardness ratings for all of the possible materials. Granite > Pine > Chalk, for obvious reasons.
2) Allowing natural & smoothed walls (not just constructed walls) to be destroyed as well.
3) Allowing certain creatures to destroy upwards and/or downwards, as applicable. A battering ram can only work horizontally, but a giant mole can dig in any direction.
4) Granting limited wall-(and floor-)destruction capabilities to creatures that are already in the game. Sorry, that 1-tile wall of sand is NOT going to keep out those goblins armed with metal axes.

I think 2) and 3) Are in there on the to-do list (Planned for the same release)

For 1) and 4) I think you have incredibly high hopes- I couldn't see adding breakability ratings for things when we have a full combat  system right now, but you can't break anything (Or maybe Toady will add in breaking weapons and such when he's working on breaking walls, idk).

Also on 2/3, I do believe those are more thought of as digging, as opposed to destroying (Seeing as DF/climbing in DF do distinguish between smoothed natural stone and built walls.)- but still planned for different things- A battering ram can break down a wall, but won't do anything to a mountainside (Esp. when a tile is said to be either 1 or 3 meters wide-don't remember right now, but I know it was determined for minecart stuffs)

[Mapleguy555]

siege weapons like balista's and catapults would make an excellent addition

Have been in since DF2010 (31.25)

[Delioth]

siege weapons like balista's and catapults would make an excellent addition

Have been in since DF2010 (31.25)

(He's saying like enemy ones that function like a real siege engine I.E. taking walls down at range)

[esperandus]

If we are dreaming, Why not apply hardness/strength ratings to other things as well as walls ?

There are already material properties related to shear strength, etc. Simply add limits to each creature indicating what shear forces they are capable of providing, or better yet, a translator that indicates what strength value = which material force value. Then, we have a generic solution, which permits us to predict what creatures can batter down or rend walls, weapons, statues, or really any item.

It has always bothered me that wooden cages can capture dragons , ogres, and giants. Now, If I had to construct giant cages out of steel or adamantine, that might be a different story ....

Re: cooldown - I think something like this is necessary. Alternatively, if we are modeling strength vs. material durability, as above, the unit of definition could be something like "10 strength = able to rend a 10,000 strong wall in 5 seconds' (or whatever - Im not sure the units for shear strength in materials). Maybe there could be a multiplier for size, too, so larger creatures would appear stronger and smaller creatures would be weaker. That way, creatures have built in cooldowns, which are proportional to strength. Dragons could tear through weaker (and indeed, most) materials rapidly, while maybe even weak, smaller creatures could make it through moderately durable materials....if you have them a lot of time.

Anyway, just thinking out loud here...

[iofhua]

I've thought about it and I really don't want enemy siege weapons capable of destroying walls. Trap placement and fortress design are core aspects of the game that get circumvented by something like this. It's not fun if the enemy smashes through the wall and goes straight into your meeting hall when you have a cunningly trapped entranceway that they could have pathed through, but didn't because smashing that wall was a shorter route.

I think siege weapons should destroy drawbridges, maybe even constructed walls, but not natural walls. The only thing that should be able to break down a natural wall is a dwarf with a pickaxe.

[brokegamer]

snibedy snab

I agree, I enjoy the simulation and Fun aspects of DF but after all I would still want it to be a game, capable of providing situations that you need to think tactically to get out of. A monster turning up and burrowing straight to the gooey centre of your fort is no fun in my book, and imagine the repair job if you somehow survive it.

Enemies bringing siege tools to break down or bypass constructions I'm ok with though, it'd be even more interesting if they built them on site; for example a siege tower built to the height of your walls. Anything that can be countered with careful planning and preparation is fine, but terraforming seems a step too far.

[Togre]

You have to remember what happened in real life.  Siege weapons did change how forts were constructed.  An impenetrable fort suddenly became vulnerable.  They developed layered defenses, moats, sally ports, etc.  New designs and new tactics sought to blunt their strengths and exploit their weaknesses.  Even with the advent of cannon forts evolved and coped, so you had the star forts of the Napoleonic era that were designed on mathematical principles to be the most effective and secure.

Yeah, super-powered siege equipment could ruin things, but some of the balancing idea sound intriguing.  Imagine an additional layer--5 or 10 years in, you have mastered the caverns, ambushes and normal sieges, now you face an organized force.

[chevil]

Sieges are too predictable and I would love to see wall destroyers.

It would really add danger and require additional thought in fort design.

Multiple tiers of defense. Obvious weak points. Even bigger need for military. More intelligent trap placement.

[vanatteveldt]

From what I read of the crusaders, they built siege towers on-site, either from available resources or bringing/importing wood etc with them.

Catapults are cool and already in the game. Since they bypass walls they would be fun against stationed archers and above-ground castles. They need to be able to destroy walls.

Battering rams could be used to destroy doors, but I've not heard of them being used against stone walls (?)

Siege towers and ladders to scale walls should also be fun. However, they and catapults rely on above-ground castle like structures, so may have limited use in an underground fortress environment.

Limited enemy digging (sapping), more realistic cave-in behaviours, and firebombs would be very cool for underground situations. Fans of multi-z level fortresses will rue the day that invaders start creating cave-ins, given that a single floor can fall down all floors below it until stopped by a solid wall.

[Manveru Taurënér]

Toady has already stated that enemy diggers will be optional through the raw settings, so no need to worry if you don't want it. That won't stop the rest of us from enjoying it though.

To the person commenting on item wear,

FINISH ITEM DAMAGE, (Future): Fully implement item wear-and-tear, especially during combat. People throwing tantrums should be able to damage items in their square rather than just throwing them.

and knowing Toady it's pretty much a given that different values indicating the strength of an item/material will come as well at some point after that.

Anyway I definitely agree with the OP in that I can't wait to see this in the game either. Getting climbing and jumping enemies in the next version should keep me satisfied for quite a while though. Hopefully the improved sieges won't be more than 2-3 major releases off

[tilly]

I've thought about it and I really don't want enemy siege weapons capable of destroying walls. Trap placement and fortress design are core aspects of the game that get circumvented by something like this. It's not fun if the enemy smashes through the wall and goes straight into your meeting hall when you have a cunningly trapped entranceway that they could have pathed through, but didn't because smashing that wall was a shorter route.

I think siege weapons should destroy drawbridges, maybe even constructed walls, but not natural walls. The only thing that should be able to break down a natural wall is a dwarf with a pickaxe.

This is why as the game evolves so does your basic fortress strategic design; of which, may make a 3 layer wall feasible if not completely necessary along with say a magma interior (sandwiched between the walls) for extra defense. Think about it. Saying you don't want a chance to make fresh and interesting strategies is bland and distasteful. I want epic battles with realistic consequences in a magical world. Where ruins are common among legendary battle scenes with stories to mark some extraordinary happenings. This isn't a game where everything is all calm and peaceful. These dwarfs are always under siege and even if you don't like the fact sieges can destroy walls you could always use DF hack to kill off the siege engines because you dislike the fun of the game. Hell you can even completely mod out the wall breakers like you do aquifers. May I suggest using stronger arguments to not having wall breakers added to the game?

[tilly]

deleted by user. Double post.

[BoredVirulence]

As has been expressed, there needs to be a balance between a single construction being invulnerable, and goblins digging a diagonal across the map to reach your dining hall in optimal time. If enemies dug / deconstructed at a speed less than or equal to dwarves with no skill, and the pathfinding algorithm used a cost that associated with that speed, then we might have something viable. Invaders wouldn't wreak havoc on constructions needlessly, and would deconstruct when it makes for a better path to their goal. Better yet, they would prefer the optimal path which would often require the least destruction.

Problem then becomes performance. That algorithm would be a nightmare without remembering "optimal" paths. With multi-threading, and perhaps a map file that keeps track of common corridors of movement, we might have something workable though. Bonus points if the separate thread for pathfinding takes too long and dwarves occasionally are stumped, requiring time to think of the path, which could theoretically happen.

Short answer, yes it would be good, but Toady must be careful to find an optimal way to do it. Too much deconstruction would be annoying, too little and it will be laughably easy to exploit and wouldn't add much.

[Bo-Rufus CMVII]

3) Allowing certain creatures to destroy upwards and/or downwards, as applicable. A battering ram can only work horizontally, but a giant mole can dig in any direction.

I've been thinking that a FUN monster would be a mindless borer, which on rare occasions enters the map at a randome (x,y,z) and bores its way across in a random (x,y,z) direction.

A mere nuisance, unless you get unlucky and it connects your fort to an aquifer, or it lets your imprisoned vampire out.