Print

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

[Jreengus]

Whats the most important factor when you choose a site?

For me it's running water (over or under ground) and magma. I've also taken a liking to treeless maps recently, for some reason I just prefer importing it to cutting it.

[DJ]

Chasm. The more populated the better.

[Jreengus]

I gave up after my 2nd chasm map, more hassle then they are worth. Ambushes and seiges are good enough for me.

[viskaslietuvai]

A fairly happy place but with some element of challenge. I don't want it to be too easy so I like a chasm or maybe some kind of haunted setting. But I'm not good enough to handle too much. Nist Akath for instance would kick my ass.

[BishopX]

I like a good cave river, with lots of nasty stuff in it. But Magma takes the cake in terms of a requirement.

[Untelligent]

I generally won't embark on a map without magma unless it's utterly awesome in some way (an unsiegable island in a lake, for example).

Other than that, I prefer maps with plenty of trees, or underground water so I can grow my own.

[bhelyer]

If I just went for magma sites, I'd only get a few fortresses out of a world (well, at the moment I'm getting one, because I like to generate a new world for each version). Anyway, I think that if you have enough trees, magma is really optional (though it is great finding a map with magma+all 'modcons').

[JoRo]

I did my first few forts without magma, but now I'm addicted to the continuous smelting.  I don't know if I could go back to no magma.

[Mlittle]

A water source is a must, preferably underground. I like the magma and no trees combo. As cutting trees requires too much time spend above ground, which is not right for a proper dwarf and it makes trade important.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Well, this is an interesting discussion.

Please allow me to add an additional subquestion - what location size do you prefer?

I am currently experimenting with 2x2 locations - not only because of the game speed, but also since I believe they are already big enough; I mean with z-level available, a 5x5 map is really, really huge!

I don't use any prospecting tools, so I don't know about chasms and magma in advance (although the chasm uncovered just under my front porch is good enough a reason for me to abandon).

Currently, I prefer relatively safe sites (calm, wilderness, untamed wilderness) with a single river/brook tile, at least one forest tile and one mountain tile. There has to be at least biome without an aquifer (I tried an aquifer site recently and it is on my abandoning list). Ah, the water should be fresh water

Another thing which is really important for me is the cliff rating: I prefer having at least small cliffs (2+) on most of the map.

And medium temperature (i.e. not scorching and not freezing, thank you).

Deathworks

[Kogan Loloklam]

I like Scorching Sinister Maps with Adamantine and an Aquifer. 3x3s. No lava.

[Sowelu]

I like flat places.  They're faster (less aboveground Z levels allocated), and they look nicer, in my opinion.  Of course I do like building aboveground so that might be it.

[Jamini]

I prefer running water or an aquifer, so that I can prevent my wounded military from an untimely death.

Barring that, I need lots of trees or magma.

[Ed-]

Sand and magma takes the lead

[DJ]

You know, I used to be quite addicted to magma. But now I'm playing a map with a hidden magma vent ( know there's one because I checked with regional prospector), and I got to year 1054 without finding it but I realized I don't miss it at all. If I knew how unnecessary it is, I could've chosen a smaller location and gotten more FPS.