Print

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

[Urist Tilaturist]

I would settle for them just actually appearing. Baby steps.

That just seems like a bug fix, really. Adding sappers and wall destruction would require more serious work and cannot be expected until DF2016.

[Bartok]

Has anyone tried changing the value to 2 instead of 3?

[MDFification]

I would settle for them just actually appearing. Baby steps.

That just seems like a bug fix, really. Adding sappers and wall destruction would require more serious work and cannot be expected until DF2016.

Or a DFhack plugin.

[Urist Tilaturist]

Maybe that is why Dfhack is taking so long to update...

[smjjames]

Check the error log, you might have the error that armies camp forever, so no sieges...

What error log? Also, if it is that error, is there anything I could do about it anyway?

the errorlog will be under in the dwarf fortress folder.
the error I have seen is this: camp order missing parent -- army will camp forever.

I have had large fortresses, with a lot of wealth and not been sieged, and the common feature is this in the errorlog

Even if nobody really knows what's going on with the army will camp forever error, you should still post a bug report IMO, not sure if theres a corelating bug report though.

[Ancalagon_TB]

sappers would totally change the dynamics.  The main strength of the dwarves is their ability to shape the environment.   Sappers would severely diminish the value of this ability

[thegoatgod_pan]

So I am having this too. I specifically chose a site close to a goblin civ, with which I am at war. I rapidly got a king in the first year.

Year 3, no goblins.

I've attacked the humans, hopefully this will provoke a war with them.

[Urist Tilaturist]

sappers would totally change the dynamics.  The main strength of the dwarves is their ability to shape the environment.   Sappers would severely diminish the value of this ability

Yes, and that would be a good thing, because beating up goblins was far too easy even when they did arrive. A squad of 10 legendary dwarves in even steel equipment trashed any number of goblins which arrived.

[The Bard]

All sappers would do is murder you via FPS death with their pathing and leaving tunnels everywhere.

[pisskop]

All sappers would do is murder you via FPS death with their pathing and leaving tunnels everywhere.

Hardly.  If sappers were a thing Im certain both pathing and refilling open spacing would be improved

[Aslandus]

sappers would totally change the dynamics.  The main strength of the dwarves is their ability to shape the environment.   Sappers would severely diminish the value of this ability

Yes, and that would be a good thing, because beating up goblins was far too easy even when they did arrive. A squad of 10 legendary dwarves in even steel equipment trashed any number of goblins which arrived.

Legendary dwarves in steel armor are SUPPOSED to be nigh invincible to goblins, unless you are facing ten weaponmasters all in full steel from the gobbo side there's no way the goblins could match that head on (and dwarves are the only ones who know how to make steel). Keeping in mind how much infrastructure goes into the training and arming of those troops, should the goblins who just found some stuff and decided to attack a fortress really be that lethal to an established military complex?

Sappers or ladder carriers are good ideas to be sure, more things you would have to design you defenses around and safety of walls could only be temporary. But keep in mind that the point of a "siege" is more about isolation than murder, tearing down walls is hard but if it was a little harder to feed and clothe your dwarves without the stuff brought by caravans, being trapped where caravans can't reach could be much more deadly...

Pperhaps a new type of invasion like a "raid" would be where sappers come in, where they focus on breaking through defenses and stealing your stuff rather than just hunting down and killing all the dwarves they find...

[GavJ]

Sieges in real life wouldn't really be a thing if crops could grow without sunlight and nobody needed any fresh water except what they got from brewed mushrooms, and only defenders could dig holes.

The concept of a siege wouldn't make sense anymore. You could stand there for 500 years and still never starve them out. It's either attack or go home.

Unless you add things like sappers.

[Melting Sky]

I would settle for them just actually appearing. Baby steps.

That just seems like a bug fix, really. Adding sappers and wall destruction would require more serious work and cannot be expected until DF2016.

Although there are probably some bugs involved with this, it is also the fundamental change to how sieges are generated and actually simulated that is causing most of the lack of goblin sieges. In the past the goblins were basically conjured from thin air whenever the game determined it was time for you to be attacked. Now each individual goblin that attacks you is actually simulated. We can never go back to the way things were where you would get hit by a 100+ goblins and trolls a year simply because the game doesn't work that way anymore. Getting more goblins to attack is actually a much more serious programing undertaking than most of the other suggestions that have been made since it involves over world pathing, army logistics and site population mechanics etc.

Even if you make the AI target the player way more often than other sites it still won't provide the sort of constant seiges we are used to from the older versions. Adding a building destroyer 3 tag to the game that would allow a creature to destroy any construction would not take much programing at all nor would giving goblins better equipment such as full suits of iron/bronze for their elite or better yet the new divine metal gear if that goblin civ includes a fortress on a demon's spire. Making goblin engineers capable of disarming traps also probably wouldn't be that heavy of a programing task.

Some of the other suggestions such as improved pathing AI and undermining/burrowing are admittedly serious programing undertakings that will need to be part of a serious game version update rather than a quick patch.

[GavJ]

Which is still pretty much a bug or rather an error in design, though... Players want to be attacked. Changing the fundamental structure of the game in a way that makes players not get attacked anymore is making the game less of a good game and may need to be seriously reconsidered, and soon... I.e., that's not just a sufficient explanation or justification by itself to say that it  has changed.

I'm not saying we go back to making them out of thin air. But you also probably don't want the world to simulate goblins COMPLETELY realistically as in treating you no differently than any other fort. You'll need something in between -- adding parameters in that cause them to bias toward your fort beyond its actual strategic value or the actual chance of stumbling across it.

And you say the populations can't support that. Okay, so up the populations and the gobline breeding rate too so that they can!

Etc. etc. Excuses for a boring game don't make the game fun. Fixing the problem makes a game fun.

If there turns out to be no way to really fix the problem, then the feature should be rolled back, honestly. I don't think this is likely -- I think there are probably lots of ways to make it work with dynamic simulation. But IF there weren't, then it would be rolled back, not just "oh well, the game doesn't do what we want anymore" and give up...

(this is all a bit hyperbolic. It's still a fun game. But just less so.)

[GavJ]

More succinctly: Leaving it like it is when a new feature broke something is not something you should do for very long.

If you can fix it easily, do so ASAP.

If you can't fix it easily, roll back the change until you have time to do whatever difficult stuff it takes to fix it.