Print

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

[Zsinj]

The January 2018 update is now live at http://www.indiedb.com/games/king-under-the-mountain/news/january-2018-update-a-dwarfs-hold-is-his-castle

[Imic]

I think I might try this out. Rimworld except with dwarves? This is a sight to see...
As a suggestion, possibly add multiple layers, similar to Z - levels in DF, since a lot of games similar to this don't have that feature, and in my opinion, they suffer for it a bit.

[Mephansteras]

You've probably talked about this and I've forgotten, but what are your plans for wall-destroyers and the like?

[Zsinj]

I think I might try this out. Rimworld except with dwarves? This is a sight to see...
As a suggestion, possibly add multiple layers, similar to Z - levels in DF, since a lot of games similar to this don't have that feature, and in my opinion, they suffer for it a bit.

This is another of those games in the same genre which won't have multiple levels on a 2D map, half the pages of this thread go into some detail on it, though best to probably just go over the previous page. Sorry! For those that absolutely must have Z-levels, I'm supporting Embark which is currently on Kickstarter - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1049608286/embark-3d-dwarf-fortress-meets-the-sims and is in 3D where I think the z-levels make a lot more sense.

You've probably talked about this and I've forgotten, but what are your plans for wall-destroyers and the like?

Ah I don't think I've mentioned that yet actually! While this is primarily going to come down to playtesting and game design balance, I do want there to be the possibility of wall destroyers for enemies besieging the settlement, although always something the player can see, be aware of and respond to (compared to just a random invasion appearing from inside the mountain). Rough plans are that destroying walls will be a last resort for invaders and it will take a *long* time for AI characters to mine compared to the player's characters.

To take it a bit further, I'd love to introduce a limited form of the Nemesis system from Shadow of War/Mordor (as you might have spotted in the original Kickstarter), one feature of which would be where the leaders of enemy invasions are named characters who will attempt to preserve their own life and run away if the majority of their forces are defeated. This could mean that one of these nemeses (on a returning visit) will instruct his troops to avoid your killbox/magma trap (effectively marking an area as out of bounds) and instruct his miners to dig an alternative way in instead, that you'll have to deal with through conventional means.

It's somewhat advanced but I think it's absolutely achievable. Seems a reasonable way to add some intelligence to AI opponents rather than the Orcs Must Die approach to defeating traps.

[Retropunch]

Ah I don't think I've mentioned that yet actually! While this is primarily going to come down to playtesting and game design balance, I do want there to be the possibility of wall destroyers for enemies besieging the settlement, although always something the player can see, be aware of and respond to (compared to just a random invasion appearing from inside the mountain). Rough plans are that destroying walls will be a last resort for invaders and it will take a *long* time for AI characters to mine compared to the player's characters.

To take it a bit further, I'd love to introduce a limited form of the Nemesis system from Shadow of War/Mordor (as you might have spotted in the original Kickstarter), one feature of which would be where the leaders of enemy invasions are named characters who will attempt to preserve their own life and run away if the majority of their forces are defeated. This could mean that one of these nemeses (on a returning visit) will instruct his troops to avoid your killbox/magma trap (effectively marking an area as out of bounds) and instruct his miners to dig an alternative way in instead, that you'll have to deal with through conventional means.

It's somewhat advanced but I think it's absolutely achievable. Seems a reasonable way to add some intelligence to AI opponents rather than the Orcs Must Die approach to defeating traps.

Re; wall destroyers:
I think it's necessary, but they can be extremely annoying as you can get a cascade failure from one breached wall quite quickly. Whilst obviously the player should work around this, they often don't. As you say, I think the way to deal with it is just to make it pretty difficult to get through the walls so it isn't just a sort of 'accident'.

Re: Nemesis function:
Sounds fantastic, and should be implemented in a lot more games. The one issue with this is that it might be quite easy to game if you know this is the case - it'd all depend on how often the same nemesis returns and what methods there are of defeating enemies. If there were a number of different turret/weapon types, it might be as easy as giving the nemesis squad armour that defends against the most used turret/weapon type of the last attack. If it's just zoning out an area it might end up just meaning that the 'default' game play would be that players move their main entrance after each wave.

[dennislp3]

Re: Nemesis function:
Sounds fantastic, and should be implemented in a lot more games. The one issue with this is that it might be quite easy to game if you know this is the case - it'd all depend on how often the same nemesis returns and what methods there are of defeating enemies. If there were a number of different turret/weapon types, it might be as easy as giving the nemesis squad armour that defends against the most used turret/weapon type of the last attack. If it's just zoning out an area it might end up just meaning that the 'default' game play would be that players move their main entrance after each wave.

I think as long as the cost of doing such things is made high enough this is a completely reasonable way to handle just a system. It seems "gamey" but I can see it working in a real life scenario too....moving defenses to render a previous invaders knowledge obsolete.

Another option might be to give their armies buffs or special skills/equipment or even troops.

Maybe you used nothing but fall traps, the nemesis could impart a special bonus that allows most his troops to dodge fall traps or something....that way even if you move the entrance you would still not gain all the benefits.

I suppose the systems utility will depend on it's flexibility and how it can react.

[Zsinj]

Great points both, thanks, I probably need to put more time into considering how players will counter what the AI does.

[Retropunch]

I think as long as the cost of doing such things is made high enough this is a completely reasonable way to handle just a system. It seems "gamey" but I can see it working in a real life scenario too....moving defenses to render a previous invaders knowledge obsolete.

Another option might be to give their armies buffs or special skills/equipment or even troops.

Maybe you used nothing but fall traps, the nemesis could impart a special bonus that allows most his troops to dodge fall traps or something....that way even if you move the entrance you would still not gain all the benefits.

I suppose the systems utility will depend on it's flexibility and how it can react.

Definitely agree with all those points. As you say, the cost of moving entrance would need to be high enough, but if it's always 'optimal play' (in the loose sense of the word) then players would still feel that it's the right thing to do every time they get a nasty invasion even if they couldn't afford to which might get annoying.

It's probably best to have the enemy perhaps use a different area, or maybe take the same area with much higher shielding against those sorts of traps, or perhaps just bring a bigger force back to the same place - with those three options it makes it a more interesting balancing act by the player

[Zsinj]

Yep I'd definitely want to avoid any mechanics which mean having to constantly move your defences around is the optimal thing to do (or anything else that would be annoying for players for that matter).

[Dorsidwarf]

Maybe implementing "siege engines" of some kind that attackers may build to overcome defense they're expecting (Like if they know you run an arrow murder-gauntlet, they make a  wheeled cover to protect themselves from arrowfire - but which splits them into small groups under the covers making it easier to sally forth and fight them in close combat)

[Farce]

I think there's a little gamism vs reality thing about wall destroyers/sappers/tunnelers that makes them a little weird.

In reality you might not know you actually have guys busting in one of your walls someplace - at least, not immediately like games do.  I regrettably haven't checked this game in particular out yet, sadly, so I dunno how you deal with it specifically, but like, when invaders come, you get the little notification, and then even if you can't see them breaking stuff, you can probably see the world tiles getting broken, so you know exactly where it's happening.  The only way you would know in real life that dudes were tunneling or whatever is if sentries or someone saw them and reported damage or weird people in an area, or maybe if you heard them working.

I guess I'm just babbling out a tangent or something, but I guess I'm just thinking it would be cool if you had a fog of war, or maybe even a total blackout of parts of the map your units couldn't see.  That way, you'd have to send out patrols or station guards/guardtowers/whatever, and if you didn't have good enough coverage enemies might slip through.  You might also have groups suddenly happen on evidence of, say, enemy raids or damage or whatever.  Would also make some meta-game stuff like 'how many civvie guys do I have/need and can they support this many military guys' and 'how thin do I spread patrols' and stuff I guess.

Though, I guess it's a moot thing to talk about, since DF sorta already does this, ever since vampires and stuff got in.  I haven't played it in a long while aaa.

[Zsinj]

I think there's a little gamism vs reality thing about wall destroyers/sappers/tunnelers that makes them a little weird.

Yep there's always a conflict in any game design between what's realistic and what's "fun" - while in general I'm aiming to model something semi-realistic for most of the systems in the game, it's more important that it's not an annoyance for the player. There'll always be some game-y shortcuts or things which just aren't realistic, for example the next big feature I'll be working on is growing crops. I'll probably follow the way Stardew Valley/Harvest Moon have crops grow, where you can plant seeds, keep them watered, and they'll be fully grown in a number of days, allowing for several harvests throughout the year. The more realistic approach would be to only sow crops in spring and harvest them in autumn, and while in some ways this can be more interesting to make sure you have a year's supply of food stored away from each harvest (which would be under danger of spoilage/critters/fire or other hazards) with how long a year will probably last in game this would make for extremely slow gameplay where the player probably just fast-forwards through the majority of the year. Instead a sowing to harvest timeframe may be around 10 days, which is still quite a while in game time but not realistic.

That said, if people do want to play with year-long crop cycles, I'll also make sure it can be modded in.

[Mephansteras]

Being able to mod things to be more realistic is definitely a plus. These types of games always have a split between those who want things more gamey and those who want things more realistic.

One thing I'd like to see more of in games like this is the attacking force having a real purpose. Too often it is 'They are here to kill/enslave everyone' and that's it. What about raiding parties who just want to smash and grab what they can before they leave and try not to actually risk fighting if they can help it? Or punative/weakening forces who are there to specifically cripple your military to prevent raids/wars against them? Or a besieging force whose main goal is really to just keep you from leaving to go help the rest of your civ during a military campaign (on either side).

Stuff like that would be neat. Especially if you combined it with different nemesis leaders who have different fighting styles and siege engine/sapper preferences.

This works especially well for differences between fighting dwarves, humans, and orcs. Each of whom are going to have different strengths and weaknesses in combat.

[Zsinj]

Along with the nemesis leaders retreating if things aren't going well, the rest of the invading troops will have morale to make them run away too. And yes the goal won't always be to kill and destroy everything - orcs are to be designed as a raiding race, so they'll just come for the easy to grab resources and be off. More civilised opponents (i.e. the same race as you're currently playing) will demand surrender and their terms, probably also resources and currency, but perhaps more political goals like not allowing you to take other places or cut down more trees (if its the elves that have attacked, probably for the same reason). It can be a lot of fun to recover from mostly disastrous events (I think SimCity and Crusader Kings are good examples of this) which will be the goal rather than settlement-ending game over scenarios.

[Dorsidwarf]

It would be interesting if sometimes raiders just came to burn your crops before they grow /  show up during a harvest to steal them, so that "turtle inside the mountain" doesnt make you immune from all woes