Print

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

[code99]

Hello everyone,

Ill try and keep this short since my phone doesn't seem to like long posts combined with this forum.
Or i might do a double post, hope its allowed...

Im a new DF player, started yesterday and I've got some questions but first i want to mention that im playing on v0.40.06, i will get the latest version as soon as im able.

1. I've been reading around that dwarfs can't use 2h weapons in fortress mode. Is this still the case in v0.40.xx?

2. What's this thing about not being able to play long term in fortress mode I've read in this other post here? I dont quite understand what the ppl there were talking about.

From what i can understand is that goblins attack others and win 99% of the time and they will eventually kill everyone and game over or something?

Should i be worried about it?

Hopefully my phone will allow me to post this (had some other questions)

[code99]

One other question i couldn't add to the main topic :

I've seen that nice warning when you select a larger embark area about lag and also ppl saying playing on larger area will make the game slow BUT I've been playing on 8x8/9x9 and didnt see much of a slowdown compared to default size.

What's the general take on this? Should i reduce the size? (i think 4x4 is rather small ...)

[Ze_king]

1. Im not sure about this
2. In my experience its all about the number of dwarves you have. If you are using DF starterpack you can set the amount of dwarves you have. I have the default 200 and am getting around 20-30 FPS (originally 60). Its hardly noticeable in this game until you get super low(1-5 FPS).

[Orange Wizard]

Hello! Welcome to the forums. I hope you enjoy your stay. As to your questions, I'll try to answer them in order:

Double posting is discouraged, but it's acceptable for bumping threads, or when you're using a phone/other device that doesn't play nicely with the forum software.

Dwarves can, in theory, use weapons in two hands. What you're probably reading about are pikes, halberds, mauls, and a couple of other weapons. The minimum size for a creature to use those weapons is slightly higher than the size of a dwarf, so dwarves won't pick them up. You can't make any of these weapons by default anyway, so you shouldn't need to worry about it.

In the current DF version, there are a few bugs that cause massive amounts of lag, especially in older forts. A lot of them have been fixed recently, but simulating the entire world in the background still tends to slow stuff down.
Things to watch out for include longer history, higher numbers of civilisations/sites, larger world sizes, and larger embark sizes. There are lots of threads on the forum about keeping framerate up, along with the wiki article.
Population is another big one. Fewer dwarves means more FPS, but also fewer hands to get work done. Play around with population caps and see if you can strike a comfortable balance.

During gameplay, if an army attacks another site, the attacker will always win. Because goblins are more aggressive than dwarves, this means that they tend to wipe dwarves out pretty rapidly. It shouldn't affect your game too much as far as I know.

Embark size is totally dependent on your personal preference and your computer. Some computers run DF better than others, and again, there are loads of forum threads discussing this topic, so I won't go into it here.
I prefer 3x3 - 4x4 myself, seeing as my computer can't handle anything bigger. It sounds like yours can, though, especially if you've got a 9x9 (!!) map and not seeing much slowdown. Just remember that larger sizes will have a noticeable effect on your long-term FPS, so you might want to shrink it a bit. Again, this is totally up to you, so just experiment and see what you like best.

If I neglected to explain anything, or if you have any further questions, I'm sure either myself or another of the fine fellows on the forums will be happy to help you.

[code99]

Thank you for your replies!

@InsanityIncarnate

1. Well, its good to know ... I thought there were some weapons that you could craft that were two handed and because of a bug you couldn't use them.

2. The settings i currently use are as follows :
world size - medium
history - short
civilizations - few
minerals - abundant
rest at medium

population cap - 200
invaders - yes
temperature - yes
(actually everything is yes ...)

and so far I've been using 9x9 embark area ...

Haven't seen much of slowdown but i assume its because i haven't reached that far in-game ...

I might reduce the embark area, i think 6x6 would suffice ... I dont want it to be that small, feels like i might end up with no room to build my mighty fortress ...

Although,  i am new to this game and maybe running out of room is next to impossible ... Idk really ... 4x4 seems very small though ...

[code99]

I apologize for making yet another double post ... I have to divide my posts because my phone browser freezes when i make longer posts ...

What are your computer specs if i may ask ... I find it interesting to see that your computer can't handle more than 4x4 maps ...

Is DF so demanding?

I have an older machine myself but its still going strong these days, i would say that its more than enough to run DF, altho i dont know that much of this game.

My specs are as follows:

CPU: AMD Phenom II x4 2.60 GHz
GPU: AMD Radeon HD 5700 1024 MB GDDR5
RAM: 4 GB DDR2 (this is the weakest thing in my machine)
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64

  Hopefully that should be enough for DF as i intend to play long term ... As soon as i learn the ropes heh, I've  abandoned 4 fortresses so far and built and destroyed countless worlds ...

I have to admit, this game does remind me of The Lord Of The Rings, specifically the mines of Moria heh and the great halls that are located there ... I kinda want to build something like that ...

Thats why i tend to choose locations near mountains so i can dig into and build my mighty city. Also the reason i choose large areas so i have plenty of room to build my own personal "great wonders"

This game is great!

[Miuramir]

1. I've been reading around that dwarfs can't use 2h weapons in fortress mode. Is this still the case in v0.40.xx?

See the Weapon page on the DF wiki for some details.  In stock unmodified "vanilla" DF, dwarves have a list of "native" weapons they can make themselves; none of them are inherently 2H weapons for an average dwarf.  The default assumption seems to be that dwarves are expected to be equipped with a 1H weapon and a shield. 

Theoretically, smaller dwarves are supposed to need two hands to wield some of the native weapons, and larger dwarves are supposed to be able to wield bigger foreign weapons if they get them via trade or conquest.  However, that is currently believed to still be bugged; all dwarves are treated as exactly average size for checking whether they can equip weapons and how many hands they need. 

Without the bug, the weapons with a 2H minimum of 62500 would be usable by a significant fraction of your fortress; dwarves would only need to be 5% above average size.  This includes the 2H Sword, Great Axe, Halberd, Maul, and Pike.  Modding their minimum 2H size requirement down to dwarf-average 60000 until the bug gets fixed is certainly reasonable, especially if you have a particular thematic idea you're trying to set up; but comes with all the usual caveats about no longer running stock. 

Personally, I think the size value difference between "can use this weapon at all, requiring two hands" and "is so big they can use it in just one hand" is far too small.  My experience with actual 2H and even "bastard" (1.5H) swords is that it takes a truly large and burly guy to even make a go of it 1H, and they're less effective than when using both hands.  The fraction of the population that should be able to use a true 2H sword fully effectively 1H should IMO be well under 5%, and quite possibly no more than 1%. 

[Kryxx]

Then factor in the dwarves with a strength of 2.  My cook has a 2 in this embark.

[Spectre Incarnate]

Personally, I think the size value difference between "can use this weapon at all, requiring two hands" and "is so big they can use it in just one hand" is far too small.  My experience with actual 2H and even "bastard" (1.5H) swords is that it takes a truly large and burly guy to even make a go of it 1H, and they're less effective than when using both hands.  The fraction of the population that should be able to use a true 2H sword fully effectively 1H should IMO be well under 5%, and quite possibly no more than 1%.

In real life, that actually depends more on the quality and design of the weapon. An extremely well-balanced two handed sword can be weilded one handed by a 5'  100 lb woman. I know, cause I've done it and boy is it fun. And no, it was not a replica. It was a 5 1/2 foot steel blade hand forged by a real blacksmith. You have no idea how much I wanted that thing... I could swing it like it was nothing.   

[Xinael]

I might reduce the embark area, i think 6x6 would suffice ... I dont want it to be that small, feels like i might end up with no room to build my mighty fortress ...
Although,  i am new to this game and maybe running out of room is next to impossible ... Idk really ... 4x4 seems very small though ...

This is one of the most important, and hardest things to get your head around as a new player, and that's that vertical (z-axis) space is far more important than horizontal (xy-axes) space. This is because it only takes a dwarf one "step" to go up or down a level via stairs. Moving up 10 levels via stairs is just as expensive for a dwarf as moving across 10 tiles on one level. This means that the most efficient fortress design in terms of travel time would be a sphere. Abandon thoughts of large, sprawling forts on two or three levels, because that will lead to very inefficient fortresses.

Is DF so demanding?

Yes. The simulation is very detailed, and the code is not very optimised (since "release", if there is such a thing, is a long way off). DF is very taxing in terms of RAM and CPU, and it is single-threaded and doesn't make much use of the GPU. You may be alright on embark, but run into problems later when you have a) many more dwarves, pets and so on that are all doing pathfinding at the same time; b) much more space dug out for them to try to find a path through; and c) many more items and things using up memory and generating jobs like hauling.

[AdirianSoan]

Personally, I think the size value difference between "can use this weapon at all, requiring two hands" and "is so big they can use it in just one hand" is far too small.  My experience with actual 2H and even "bastard" (1.5H) swords is that it takes a truly large and burly guy to even make a go of it 1H, and they're less effective than when using both hands.  The fraction of the population that should be able to use a true 2H sword fully effectively 1H should IMO be well under 5%, and quite possibly no more than 1%.

In real life, that actually depends more on the quality and design of the weapon. An extremely well-balanced two handed sword can be weilded one handed by a 5'  100 lb woman. I know, cause I've done it and boy is it fun. And no, it was not a replica. It was a 5 1/2 foot steel blade hand forged by a real blacksmith. You have no idea how much I wanted that thing... I could swing it like it was nothing.   

"Real" weapons were surprisingly light; much of a blacksmith's job was getting rid of all unnecessary metal.  Two-handed weapons rarely weighed much more than five pounds, and they were two-handed because they were designed to be used with leverage (using one hand as a fulcrum), not because they were too heavy to be used one-handed.

There are some exceptions, of course - the heaviest known example of a claymore, for example, weighed a little more than twenty pounds.  But these exceptions were rare and typically unique even among the classification of weapon - the average claymore weighed less than six.

Shields typically weighed a little more, averaging around eight pounds.  Maces averaged less than four.  Halberds weighed between four and nine pounds.  Rapiers typically weighed less than three.

A full suit of plate armor weighed between 30 and 35 pounds, so armor, shield, and weapon could be expected to weigh around fifty pounds.  This is much lighter than most people might expect, but try putting fifty pounds of weights in a well-designed backpack and walking around a neighborhood block.

[Miuramir]

Personally, I think the size value difference between "can use this weapon at all, requiring two hands" and "is so big they can use it in just one hand" is far too small.  My experience with actual 2H and even "bastard" (1.5H) swords is that it takes a truly large and burly guy to even make a go of it 1H, and they're less effective than when using both hands.  The fraction of the population that should be able to use a true 2H sword fully effectively 1H should IMO be well under 5%, and quite possibly no more than 1%.

In real life, that actually depends more on the quality and design of the weapon. An extremely well-balanced two handed sword can be weilded one handed by a 5'  100 lb woman. I know, cause I've done it and boy is it fun. And no, it was not a replica. It was a 5 1/2 foot steel blade hand forged by a real blacksmith. You have no idea how much I wanted that thing... I could swing it like it was nothing.   

That gets pretty deep into semantics; I'd normally say that what you had wasn't a 2H weapon, because clearly it could readily be wielded with one hand.  One logical way to define a "bastard" sword or 1.5H sword is one that has enough grip length (and/or a ricasso) that a user can effectively apply two-handed strength when needed, but with a weight and balance such that a reasonable user can still effectively operate it with one hand; which to me seems to be a pretty good fit for what you're describing. 

But my point was primarily that the spread between "This weapon is too heavy / unwieldy, I can't use it at all" and "This weapon is so light / easy to wield that I can use it in one hand" was too narrow.  For a weapon *designed* to be operated 2H, there should be a significant fraction of the populace that can use it effectively 2H, but can't do so (without penalties) 1H.  If only 28% of the population can even manage to wield it effectively at all, rather less than 6% should be able to effectively use two. 

Really, we should get away from relative descriptions, or at least establish a baseline.  DF is unclear about whether a "2H Sword" is from a dwarf perspective or a human one to start with.  Some other systems end up with weird extensions, where you might end up with a "4H" sword that a strong enough minotaur could wield 2H, and so on; this gets unscalable too quickly IMO.  The "right" way is probably to have stats that include weapon length in front of the forward grip, max grip separation, total weight, and balance point; and let the combat kinematics sort it out with limb length, available grips, and strength. 

(Some thoughts on grip separation leverage trimmed out here, as they weren't organized well enough yet.  In general, having two contact points with a weapon gives you a lot more options; in particular, the ability to quickly shift pivot points and mechanical advantage.) 

Then you get into relative length / height issues; IMO once weapons get significantly longer than the user's height, things should probably be handled with polearm mechanics rather than sword ones. 

[Deboche]

I usually play in a 2x2 fortress with a pop cap of 60. 60 pop cap usually becomes 50 dwarves + 20 children or something like that but it's enough to run the whole fortress and have 1 or 2 full squads of military. You don't really need all the space of a bigger embark unless you want to make a megaproject and 1 squad is enough for everything.

And if you start to build your fortress too gigantic, you'll definitely have low FPS. I usually abadon those behemoths when making the central tower because it's already impregnable and it becomes too slow.