Print

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

[Silverionmox]

It was indeed implied that the "plant zones" would be able to have their labours, including watering, enabled on an as-needed basis, with dwarf reaction time determined by planting skill. Going through the trouble of building irrigation ditches would probably eliminate the need to let the plants be watered by hand at all.

The water would be similar to Emperor's system, with the difference that water height can be other things than a boolean to start with. The influence of a 1/7 puddle will reach less far than a 7/7 river. It's logical to assume that the topsoil can't contain a significant amount of water, so it's capped at simply being moist or not. Also, it will be replenishable rather than static. The edges of the map ought to trickle an appropriate amount of water at the appropriate depth, just like they will replenish water in the next version.

Thinking further about it, an aquifer on level -7 would still be enough to moisten the topsoil layer, ignoring any rivers. Digging down through the layers would leave behind some water, but it would only fill up until -x levels. An aquifer layer further down would result in a few dry layers on top. That opens up opportunities for digging civs.

[Mephansteras]

Actually, the idea of water level in soil would let us have better modeling of swamps. Instead of just 'moist' or 'dry' you could also have 'saturated' soil which is very poor for growing most things (although some crops like rice would actually require it). That'll help differentiate swamps from forests or scubland.

[NW_Kohaku]

Technically, rice is a very special case, since it needs actual controlled flooding.  The reason that rice paddies are so small is that, to get maximum benefit, they take FAR more labor (the water level must be very precisely maintained at all times, and that means that the soil must be perfectly level, as well,) than your typical wheat "sew the seeds, let them grow, and harvest them" method that is used in DF. 

If anything, the way to model rice farming is to make special farm plots that would have to be kept at 2/7 water level (above the soil) at all times, while involving some system where the water would either be consumed by the plants occasionally, or require a changing of water, so that one would have to spend more time babysitting the farm. 

I'm just having trouble with this idea for irrigation, though.

In Emperor, there was no real risk of flooding being caused when you messed around with constructions.  An irigation ditch could never flood.  In dwarf fortress, being a little too slow on the floodgate lever, or making a mistake in setting it up, can lead to all kinds of Fun.

The way that a system of irrigation would have to work so that dwarves could use it without constant direct intervention would be to have a simple ditch (with occasional planks over them for dwarves to cross) that would have a special kind of "irrigation water" level, rather than digging actual channels and filling them with 7/7 water.  You'd then need to have something that just plain prevents the water source from flooding, while letting out just enough to fill that irigation ditch with the non-flow caclulating special "irrigation water".

While this can work... really, if you do this, I don't see much difference between just having a sign put up that says "you have to have a resevoir within X number of tiles for this farm to work".  It basically just doesn't seem much different from the bucket-brigade idea, except requiring less labor (which isn't terrible in and of itself), and requiring some special ditch designation to be dug around your farm plots.

[Silverionmox]

I'd prefer to integrate the systems as much as possible, instead of making several nearly-identical designations that logically ought to function the same. A ditch is made in-game by the "channel" command after all. All it should take to maintain a certain water level in the ditch is a pressure plate linked to a floodgate, after all. (Currently the water flows very slowly like jelly in narrow channels anyway. I once made a maze of channels, and it took literally a decade to fill.)

[LordDemon]

One thing most people seem to think is that any increase in farming difficulty will add to micromanagement.

I think this can be ignored, if each farm plot will work as single unit, and will contain a shed or other storage.

The farmers will store farming related stuff into the shed (much like into a stockpile). This includes whatever fertilizers and tools are needed, and likely a barrel of water for irrigation. The dwarf working on the farm will use these in the work, and takes care of the farm. Player would get some input on situations when looking at the farm, but mostly dwarfs working on farm would decide themselves if the farm needs irrigation, fertilizer A, fertilizer B or weeding.
Only effect to player would be some sort of notice on the farm, or in the alerts.
"Farm soil ph low" or "Farm water status low". Even in these cases, player only needs to check if there is proper materials available (water, barrels, fertilizer), or is it a matter of dwarf being unable to get to farm.

I don't think it would add much management, if the dwarfs would decide the required jobs themselves. This could also play with the skill: Legendary farmer would know immediately when soil PH rises, or water level drops.
Dabbling farmer would get the first clues when the crops would turn brown, and had already suffered from draught.

[NW_Kohaku]

I'd prefer to integrate the systems as much as possible, instead of making several nearly-identical designations that logically ought to function the same. A ditch is made in-game by the "channel" command after all. All it should take to maintain a certain water level in the ditch is a pressure plate linked to a floodgate, after all. (Currently the water flows very slowly like jelly in narrow channels anyway. I once made a maze of channels, and it took literally a decade to fill.)

I just really can't get behind this.  Either the water will be filled once, then ignored, or you will have to constantly go back and refill it, because you know you can't trust dwarves not to drown themselves.  It would also essentially just require a moisture system based entirely on proximity.  There's pressure plates, but I can't really get behind requiring complex pressure plate systems on such a basic process as farming - this game eats the noobs alive as it is.

Also, you can be surprised by water sometimes.  The last well/resevoir I dug for tapping into a stagnant pool, I counted out the tiles, but forgot to factor in the rain. (It was basically a rainforest biome. CONSTANT rain all spring and summer.) I didn't think there was enough water in the pool to fill up my 3x3x3 resevoir plus the ten tiles of channel to get there since it was only about 20-25 tiles large, but apparently, it was REALLY raining.  Because my dwarves were slow to switch that lever back to close the floodgate, I wound up with a flooded staircase (which was fortunately fairly deep, and didn't lead to anything but it still got all muddy) and the stagnant pool STILL had 3/7 and 4/7 water levels. (And quickly refilled back to 7/7.)  That water was rushing, too, since I had no diagonals to cut flow, and it was going downhill.

I can sort of get behind a special "irrigation ditch" that doesn't actually cut into the tile below it.  (Probably be best if it required a wall below it, though.)  It's not ideal, but it's the best way to have irrigation, since you don't irrigate with 10-foot-deep trenches a dwarf can drown in (which is what channel gives you), and a sluice or a special pump for filling it.

All told, however, I'd still be just fine with no true irrigation whatsoever, just make farmers use buckets and a well, rain, or maybe an elaborate system to re-muddy the soil by dumping water from above or the sides.

[lucusLoC]

i think i would prefer the proximity to water method, mixed with the bucket/flood method. you have dry, damp, moist and saturated. saturated should probably act lie a veeeery slow aquifer.

a ditch would irrigate the water around it, 2 tiles away would be saturated, out to 5 would be damp, and out to 10 would be moist. plants would have a moisture tolerance. flooding a tile would bump it to saturated, and it would dry out slowly. one bucket would raise the water level of a tile by one, and it would dry out as well. perhaps flooding with only 1/7 of water would only move the tile to damp, instead of saturated.

different soil types may dry out faster or slower, and may affect the distance for water levels.

i really do not want a special case "irrigation ditch" unless we actually decide to make dirt in a tile x/7 and can make the ditch that way.

i think the best solution is to have floodgates be manually operated from the tile above (no lever necessary), and be able to set the water level that they will let pass. this will make it easier to control the flow rate, and open the door for rice patties, 4/7 swimming pools and other such fun things. this would make it very easy to control the moisture level, without having to resort to special case and one use mechanics.

[CobaltKobold]

It is very very easy to use systems to fill a place to exact, uniform (1-6)/7 water. Potentially as easy as a lever, a [bridge/door/floodgate], and a supply control (manual pump or lever-hooked up.

1/7 water's a bit of a bugger for that it evaporates, though.

Supply reservoir squares: depth*X
Output/gate squares: (7-depth)*X

[G-Flex]

No system should require mechanical systems to be set up in order to provide the appropriate amount of water to a farm. Seriously, having to micromanage water depth to that degree, or expecting everyone to mess around with precise pressure plates, is kind of off-the-wall.

[lucusLoC]

exactly, that is why i think a floodgate should be able to do it, without even hooking it up to a lever. dorf comes by, sets the level, walks away, just like a real farm. of course you could still get yourself in trouble, but that should always be a possibility.

[Shades]

No system should require mechanical systems to be set up in order to provide the appropriate amount of water to a farm. Seriously, having to micromanage water depth to that degree, or expecting everyone to mess around with precise pressure plates, is kind of off-the-wall.

All you do is build two floodgates and make sure the space between the flood gates is seven times less than the area you want to flood. Open the first flood gate to fill the resviour, open the second to flood the area, job done.

Sure you can use pressure plates and the like to improve the system but you don't need to, and two flood gates is hardly micromangement.

[Caledonian]

Rice doesn't require saturated soil, and actually does less well in it than it would otherwise.  It can tolerate saturated soil, though, which is why paddies are used:  it's a weed-control measure.

[NW_Kohaku]

There is a difference, however, between a soil moisture level, and an actual RIVER running beside a farm.  Maybe the major channels supplying the water for irrigation will be large, but you don't dig a canal deep enough you could drown in it up to every single stalk of corn.

Sure, a sophisticated "sprinkler" system where water falls from above might be possible if you really want it, but we shouldn't make watering only be feasable by 10-foot trenches filled with water.

Again, I'd really rather just go with a bucket brigade system. After all, one of the complaints was that farmers basically just plant their crops and wait.  Watering is one of the few things they can do that actually occupies their time.  If the water source is pulled in closer to the crops, that winds up shortening their haul time, and it's all the better.  A proximity-to-artificial-river system, however, is just something I can't see as reasonable.

[G-Flex]

This brings to mind another disadvantage to underground farming: Underground, it never rains, so it makes sense for moisture to be a more pressing issue.

However, I don't think requiring complicated channels and floodgate mechanisms should ever be necessary just to get a simple farm off the ground. If irrigation of that sort is necessary, it should be made easier: Right now, there's no way in the game to represent a shallow ditch.

[Silverionmox]

Complicated? A single full 1*10 ditch with a 7 square moisture spread would moisten 350 squares on its own. Double the moisturizing range, and it would be 1092 squares... for just one unremarkable channelette that even an untrained miner can dig out faster than cats breed. A channel replaces a lot of manual labour by the dwarves with a bit of planning by the player, which is just the effect we need. If you consider the bucket brigade a more economical use of dwarfpower, that'll still be available as well.

Considering their depth, most irrigation (or drainage) ditches afk are just the height a dwarf would drown in. A dwarf that can't swim nor pull himself up on the edge, that is. While the dwarves wouldn't get much bang for their buck by learning to swim (short legs, ya know), grabbing the edge is a trick they will master soon enough. And that's assuming a full ditch: a climate that needs irrigation ditches will usually see them no more than at height 3-4.

Finally, why shouldn't plants be able to use the moisture from non-irrigation ditches?