I do not take the sites as they appear in adventure mode to be a literal depiction of what the sites actually look like.
They appear the same way when you reclaim world-gen forts. As to your hidden doors, there's sometimes parts of forts/hillocks that have no access, but those are usually residential areas. I learned of this through rather unfortunate experience in adventure mode. hell, in one fort I found a whole huge section of fortress by accident while expanding my catacombs, set up in the same semi-centralized manner, with no connections to the rest of the fort. It was nothing but apartments.
It was 'intended' in that Toady One released a feature that was deliberately non-functional with major effects on the world.
He rushed it out was the problem. It seemed to work fine when he released it (which was what everyone thought at first,) hence the issue. And it didn't affect just goblins, any attacking armies always won while playing fort mode. But hey, only human. Shit happens like that sometimes.
I do not have a problem with regular military conflict. It is just I am kind of attached to my dwarves (I like to draw them) and I do not want them dying off as a result of routine jack-a-mole attacks by contrived enemies who for some reason seem to think my fortress is the worst thing in existence.
Alternatively, they're trying to snuff a stronghold and/or seize the immense wealth that often builds up under player supervision compared to world-gen forts, or the guys attacked because "Hey, look! Some random shitheads, let's kill'em and take thier stuff!
" while going to pick on some hamlet or something, only to be shown the error of thier ways in the form of horrible maimings and most of thier friends dying.
If you have adamantine in particular, there's suddenly incentive for
anyone to want you dead so they can take it. Attack frequency ramping up because of finding the stuff would certainly give me an incentive to look for it.
If there is a grand goblin siege that is a world-historical event and some of my favourite dwarves die in it then I can fondly remember my dwarves as dying characteristically in a grand historical event.
That's a sentiment I can't exactly fault. Dying in battle (especially a particularly epic battle,) or of old age are the only acceptable outs for my soldiers, which generally means I turn off vampires so they don't get murdered in thier sleep.
However if we have an endless array of enemies arriving then we end up with a situation where I lose my relationship with my dwarves and I tend to feel like I have insignificant dwarves I do not care for dying in insignificant attacks that are of no consequence and carry no meaning.
Most players do stop caring about the majority of thier dwarves, at least to such a great extent, especially after they have 50+ (simply because there's so many,) and instead keep thier focus on thier founders and soldiers/craftsmen who impress them in some manner - producing artifacts that have value to them, killing some big beasty or enemy leader, attaining legendary status, stuff like that. And people being killed by random shit is par for the course in a general setting like DF's.
I lost a founder because he got stuck in a tree (don't activate soldiers who moonlight as fruit tree pickers kids,) and someone else was killed by a random giant flying squirrel. The most likely thing to kill a dwarf seems to be vampires, followed by were/forgotten beasts, then regular animals, with the lowest cause of death being enemy attacks. At least that's the impression I've been getting from a particular thread. And obviously that doesn't include the inevitable fatalities of construction accidents of various sorts, inattentiveness to supplies, and something like a troll going on a rampage because someone forgot to plug a hole in the wall to the caverns.
In the far future of the game we may have to worry about disease, famine may be far more of a problem, and other stuff like that, far more than even the most malevolent enemy race.
Obviously if you want regular conflicts you have to place yourself on the front line; that is just realism.
It also handicaps the degree of freedom the player has in where they set up a fort, which in a sandbox game is kind of a dick move (in my opinion anyway.) Someone shouldn't be forced to toss out a dozen otherwise good worlds just to get enemies right next to the type of area they wanna settle. I shouldn't have to keep settling in forests or grasslands between my civ and literally everyone else possible in that direction when I want to settle on a tundra or along savage mountains on the far side of that area.
You seem to be arguing on principle (which I can't fault in a broad sense, but it basically amounting to stuff I've seen elsewhere of "It's too gamey/simulationist! Must be immersive/realistic!") People forget that not everyone is going to agree with that sentiment, and may feel some "non-immersive" elements are needed as a concession to gameplay to make sure everyone's at least partly covered and don't have a reason to complain.
I wasn't saying "INVADERS IGNORE EVERYONE ELSE BECAUSE I DEMAND ENTERTAINMENT," I was saying "an option of some sort for people who would rather fight other organized people, not zombies/animals/werecreatures/megabeasts, and without my choice of embarks being handicapped to "where the enemies are."" Since everything else is already covered either in world gen settings or the int. settings. Just like with almost everything else that can conceivably show up to kill you.
That way, it would default to a certain "immersive" manner, while people would be able to adjust thier amount of conflict to thier liking in thier own games without having to fuck around with populating the world with nothing but hostile/OP races (who will fight eachother more often than you,) or finding places where the enemy has nobody else to attack
but you.
There wouldn't have been at least one thread complaining about the matter if those people were satisfied with the way things are on the conflict front. Your personal preferences dictate nothing's wrong, and that's fine. But other people disagree and it's because of thier own preferences.
However, this may ultimately prove irrelevant next release, since part of the issue may be an at-present unresolved bug in army pathfinding causing the shortage of armed conflict which I think is slated for mending next release (which is probably just a month or two away!
)