Print

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

[Borge]

I'm sure many would agree a heavily maimed and disabled dwarf is more fun than a dead one. This would also simulate crocodiles and other predators eating your dwarves rather than just killing them and walking away. Sentient creatures could still target the head though, and making eyes, ears, teeth etc. at risk when the head is targeted would also be great.

How horrific/hilarious would it be to rescue a dwarf from the jaws of a large predator or gang of undead ravens only to find him torn to shreds and near death.

[Alfrodo]

This is a result of how targeting works. Though.

The head is considered the highest priority target, when unconscious,  Everything is basically a guaranteed hit.

Also, a crocodile eating someone should be simulated with them eating their corpse.

!!Partly Eaten Therleth Ernuggad's dwarf corpse!!. Fun.

I do like this idea though, But I think it should be more of a [SADISTIC] tag, that would make them enjoy inflicting more pain/damage than necessary...



Also, Implying you can actually kill undead ravens.

[Bumber]

Sentient creatures could still target the head though, and making eyes, ears, teeth etc. at risk when the head is targeted would also be great.

Realistically it should depend on type of attack. If you're using a blunt attack you aim for the head. If you're using a slicing attack you go for the throat. If piercing, you go for the torso. In theory, skulls protect well against edged attacks, which are supposed to make you bleed. If chest and neck are armored, you can cause fatal bleeding by slashing the limbs. Piercing would probably aim for a weak point in the armor instead of going for the limbs themselves.

[Neonivek]

A lot of creatures have specific attacks they do against helpless enemies. USUALLY to snap their necks, crush their necks, choke them out, envenom them more...

Unintelligent =/= without intelligence

[Putnam]

Sentient creatures could still target the head though, and making eyes, ears, teeth etc. at risk when the head is targeted would also be great.

Realistically it should depend on type of attack. If you're using a blunt attack you aim for the head. If you're using a slicing attack you go for the throat. If piercing, you go for the torso.

1. the game does not distinguish between slicing and piercing, or indeed any kind of edged attack

2. stabbing throats is just as good as stabbing torsos

[Bumber]

1. the game does not distinguish between slicing and piercing, or indeed any kind of edged attack

2. stabbing throats is just as good as stabbing torsos

1. Piercing is any edged attack with a significantly low contact area. Less severing, more penetration.

2. Granted that, but IRL you'd still have a small chance at missing the neck (or waste time aiming) even on an immobile target given the spear's small tip, especially in the heat of battle. Stabbing them in the general area of the heart is just easier when given a lack of serious armor. Of course in DF you'd probably just end up hitting their guts.

[Putnam]

1. the game does not distinguish between slicing and piercing, or indeed any kind of edged attack

2. stabbing throats is just as good as stabbing torsos

1. Piercing is any edged attack with a significantly low contact area. Less severing, more penetration.

Yeah, but the game doesn't really know that.

[Bumber]

1. the game does not distinguish between slicing and piercing, or indeed any kind of edged attack

2. stabbing throats is just as good as stabbing torsos

1. Piercing is any edged attack with a significantly low contact area. Less severing, more penetration.

Yeah, but the game doesn't really know that.

It's not a difficult distinction to make. Piercing attacks are all 100- contact area, slashing attacks are all 1000+. (There aren't any vanilla weapons between those values, but an arbitrary value could be chosen for the cutoff.) The game just hasn't had any reason to care yet.

It could even take into account contact area for choosing attack types versus conscious armored opponents.

[IndigoFenix]

I think it would be best if the AI was given a bit of randomness when it comes to attacking any enemy, in addition to the body part priority and difficulty in hitting calculation.  The head would be the most likely target, but there would be a chance of attacking somewhere else too.  This would prevent problems like a creature constantly attacking the steel-helmeted head of an unconscious enemy when they could very easily kill them by attacking their unarmored torso.

[Borge]

Also animals such as crocodiles would just start eating a limb the moment a dwarf falls unconscious. They wouldn't care if they are actually dead or not.

[Alfrodo]

Also animals such as crocodiles would just start eating a limb the moment a dwarf falls unconscious. They wouldn't care if they are actually dead or not.

Crocodiles should death roll them, which kills them, they then will commence the consumption.  That's how they do it in realityville. (See here)

I'd guess that would become a thing if "moves" do.

(Being able to eat parts alive is cool too, though)

[Zammer990]

Having creatures able to tell the effectiveness of an attack based on armour would help a lot with targetting; an unconcious dwarf with a steel helmet is GCS proof - until he wakes up. A dog in real life isn't going to try and bite through a mail shirt to eat something, it's going to go around and nibble your toes.

[Catharsis]

I think there should be some kind of raw info for finishing moves. For instance, the big cats, lions, jaguars, etc, could specifically go for biting the neck (and latching) until bleed out or suffocation on incapacitated targets.

[DVNO]

All I want next version is at least some sanity checking on head strikes. I think if an undead crow hasn't pierced an unconscious goblin's copper helmet with it's beak after x398 times, I think the AI should be able to reason "Hey, you know, I might want to try the /torso/ next ... "  

[AceSV]

All I want next version is at least some sanity checking on head strikes. I think if an undead crow hasn't pierced an unconscious goblin's copper helmet with it's beak after x398 times, I think the AI should be able to reason "Hey, you know, I might want to try the /torso/ next ... "

I second that.  Last invasion, my guys were riddling the invaders full of holes and breaking bones with every swing, but as soon as one of them fell over, they suddenly only try to attack the head and their attacks are all deflected by the helmet, the only decent armor the invaders had.  I've seen people actually faint from exhaustion trying to pulp the head, to have whatever they were fighting wake up and finish them off.  Large creatures like yetis or ogres with thick skulls also sometimes have thick enough skulls that they can't be easily defeated by a blow to the head. 

It would make more sense to aim for the neck, now that we have those, or to try and open an artery somewhere, such as the thigh or wrist.  I think real armored knights would use their daggers to pry into gaps and joints in the armor, particularly the armpit as it was difficult to armor and full of blood.