Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: Metalless fortresses, a good thing.  (Read 3861 times)

LordBucket

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Metalless fortresses, a good thing.
« on: August 12, 2008, 10:26:46 am »

I'm finding that fortresses without metal can work extremely well. Metal industry is kind of a lot of effort, and metal isn't really all that much better than easier-to-get alternatives. Often, metal isn't even as good as the alternative.

Swords, for instance. Obsidian is way easier to get than steel, does just as much damage, and I can easily count on the fact of having several highly trained stonecrafters with every fortress by mass producing stonecrafts to clear out my hallways. Consquently, it's easy to get masterpiece obsidian swords, whereas it's difficult, expensive and time-consuming to get even "superior" quality metal swords. Plus, if I lose a legendary stonecrafter to a mood, it's not a big deal because I probably have two or three more. Losing a legendary weaponsmith...that's an unhappy thought.

Traps? No big deal. Stonefall traps, and wooden corkscrew traps work perfectly well. And like stonecrafts, a highly trained carpenter to give quality bonuses to your wooden corksrew is much easier to get than a highly trained metalsmith. Plus, personally I tend not to go overboard with traps anyway. Having a 10x3 row of serated steel discs makes sieges silly easy. But again, if you want traps...you don't need metal, and it's a lot less effort to use stone and wood.

It's not like anyone needs metal for trade goods or improving room values. There's always a massive surplus of stone, and I tend to find statues unneccesary anyway. Just make a room a couple squares bigger and engrave it. Poof! More valuable.

Armor is the only thing...but I've been playing mostly metal-less fortresses lately, and I really don't miss it. Maybe leather and bone armors aren't as good as steel, but it's cheaper, faster and easier to make them, and personally most of my millitary tends to be marksdwarves anyway.

....

Plus there are a lot of other benefits to avoiding metal:

 * More flexibility in map locations since you're less dependant on magma, or if you don't have magma, you don't need to cut down an entire forest for fuel
 * An extra 1000 points at start since you don't really need the anvil
 * Pretty much an extra useful dwarf at the start, since there's no reason to invest in any of the metal-related skills
 * No need to dig out the entire map looking for ore, and consequently less having to deal with stone all over the place
 * No need to deal with smelting goblin gear. I know a lot of people think of this as a great source of iron rather than something that needs to be "dealt with," but you do need to wait *years* for the goblins to give you iron in any meaningful quantity, by which time you can easily already have all your legendary stone, leather, wood and bone crafters cranking out masterpiece weapons, armor, bolts, traps, shields, etc. So instead of burning up ten pieces of charcoal or depending on a magma smelter to get your one or two iron bars from a dozen goblin items, you can trade them away and increase your total exports.
 * -=Amazingly=- less time and effort spent training skills, and much better synergy with skills you're training anyway. All of my fortresses have highly trained masons, stonecrafters and carpenters, and these are the professions that are taking over most of the work the metal industry does.

Metal really doesn't seem to be very worthwhile.

Thoughts?

sweitx

  • Bay Watcher
  • Sun Berry McSunshine
    • View Profile
Re: Metalless fortresses, a good thing.
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2008, 10:52:49 am »

I think your current arguments are based on "features" in the game that Toady said would be nerfed in the future.

1. Obsidian sword - I forgot where, but I think Toady said that obsidian sword is only supposed to be  a stop-gap measure (it should break a lot more frequentlly then, say, steel sword)
2. Traps - currently traps are overpowering, so technically anything you use in them will work, regardless of power.
3. Armor - It is difficult to get high quality armor without metal.  Only way is to have masterwork leather or bone crafter to get armor similar in quality to a no-quality iron armor.
Quote
* More flexibility in map locations since you're less dependant on magma, or if you don't have magma, you don't need to cut down an entire forest for fuel
Generally, my need for magma isn't due to metal, but the need to generate obsidian and glass.  If Toady "fix" the obsidian sword, you'll need a steady supply of obsidian to keep up with your sword manufacturing.  But yes, you'll be less dependent on having to find a specific site with minerals for metal.
Quote
* An extra 1000 points at start since you don't really need the anvil
With stone-crafting and cooking, you can easily get your first anvil from the first caravan (if somewhat lucky), or the second caravan by request.  So I don't pack an anvil anyway.
Quote
* Pretty much an extra useful dwarf at the start, since there's no reason to invest in any of the metal-related skills
I tend to build a furnace + forge and wait for immigration.  Never start anyone out with metal-related skill.  So not much of an issue.
Quote
* No need to dig out the entire map looking for ore, and consequently less having to deal with stone all over the place
True, finding ores are difficult sometimes. 
Quote
* No need to deal with smelting goblin gear. I know a lot of people think of this as a great source of iron rather than something that needs to be "dealt with," but you do need to wait *years* for the goblins to give you iron in any meaningful quantity, by which time you can easily already have all your legendary stone, leather, wood and bone crafters cranking out masterpiece weapons, armor, bolts, traps, shields, etc. So instead of burning up ten pieces of charcoal or depending on a magma smelter to get your one or two iron bars from a dozen goblin items, you can trade them away and increase your total exports.
True, I generally focus a lot on high quality leather armor near the beginning.  And transition over to metal armor over time.  But if you play-out your siege well, you can get a crap-load of iron by 3rd year.
Quote
* -=Amazingly=- less time and effort spent training skills, and much better synergy with skills you're training anyway. All of my fortresses have highly trained masons, stonecrafters and carpenters, and these are the professions that are taking over most of the work the metal industry does.
True.  But then again, those armor are inherently inferior to basic iron armor.

Quote
Traps? No big deal. Stonefall traps, and wooden corkscrew traps work perfectly well. And like stonecrafts, a highly trained carpenter to give quality bonuses to your wooden corksrew is much easier to get than a highly trained metalsmith. Plus, personally I tend not to go overboard with traps anyway. Having a 10x3 row of serated steel discs makes sieges silly easy. But again, if you want traps...you don't need metal, and it's a lot less effort to use stone and wood.
I don't like stonefall traps.  I like all my traps to be made of green glass, or even clear glass...
Invisible death dealing saw blades...
I like glass industry.
Logged
One of the toads decided to go for a swim in the moat - presumably because he could path through the moat to my dwarves. He is not charging in, just loitering in the moat.

The toad is having a nice relaxing swim.
The goblin mounted on his back, however, is drowning.

Jingles

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Metalless fortresses, a good thing.
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2008, 12:15:07 pm »

Glass swords would be cool.  Like sword-chucks cool.  Oh, glass sword-chucks would be cool.

Right back on topic.  As it turns out my most succesful fortresses have nothing to do with metal industries and if they are set up then it was only because I wanted to round out a fortress.  The truth is you can get really high quality steel armour from dwarf trade caravans and everything else too. (I just get annoyed at the brackets indicating its imported)

In fact every fortress I started with metal in mind has been quickly abandoned.

Haven

  • Bay Watcher
  • Studiously Avoidant
    • View Profile
Re: Metalless fortresses, a good thing.
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2008, 12:29:14 pm »

Personally, I've done a lot of low-metal forts before. Mostly armorless, and almost all of my military were marksdwarves. My defenses worked with a few cage traps and a lot of stonefalls being replaced with the weapons from my first few goblin seiges. However, defense was mostly in the hands of my crossbowdwarves. I don't really use swords at all, though I imagine you could compensate for any breakage introduced in future versions by simply mining more obsidian.

But the armor issue intrests me. Personally, I'm pretty sure metal armor would work better, but I'm not sure at what point that would become true, as I've always kept my marksdwarves nice and safe behind fortifications. Now, the wiki says bone and leather are the same 50% material modifier, so that would mean it would have to be masterful (x2 bonus) in order to match up to basic iron armor. Not a lot to gain there. But as I mentioned, fortifications give an absolutely wonderful armor bonus of 'not-getting-hit-at-all'%.

So without metal, your melee military suffers. Therefore, it's best to break out the needlessly complex traps. But what else is metal really needed for? Traps can easily be replaced with water traps, pit traps, or possibly natural flow magma traps (diverting flow requiring iron or better without bauxite), and by the time you engage your foes in hand to hand combat, something's gone wrong. In short, metal isn't good for much practical work in your fort that can't be done without.

However, one place metal shows it's worth is in trade goods. Stone mugs aren't exactly at the same level as Aluminum ones, so you find yourself with much faster value gains in metalworking, assuming you find the proper ores. Even iron can contribute to wealth a good deal faster than stonecrafting. Of course, without magma, this requires either deforestation or a coal vein somewhere. But trading away goblin goods doesn't seem to increase export values, mostly due to them being imports already... Or else you could just trade the same junk back and forth with the caravan.

In the end, while low-metal forts can be every bit as productive as a metal-centered fortress, there isn't a lot of disadvantage to adding some metalworks on the side, if your biome allows for it. Desert forges may find themselves out of luck, but most can manage to hunt down some coal, or spare some extra trees from their forest biome.

On another note, metalworking is DWARFY! Surely your little pixeldwarves feel diminished, working with rocks and wood like primitives when they could have wonderful metal! What kind of omnipotent all-caring invisible guiding force thingy would you be, not giving them their metal-based pain-inflictors?
Logged

Brendan

  • Bay Watcher
  • fa/tg/uy
    • View Profile
Re: Metalless fortresses, a good thing.
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2008, 12:31:21 pm »

It's a lot easier to manage as a metalless fortress than as a woodless fortress. Metal doesn't really have anything exclusive to it. You can make weapons out of wood and bone and stone (crossbows and those macahuitl-esque obsidian swords) and there is very little you need metal for. The only thing I ever thought you needed metal for was a chain for a well, but it turns out you can just use rope. If you ever desire metal you can just take goblin weapons and armor and melt them down.

Woodless is much more difficult because you can't make beds, you can't make bins or barrels (well, you can, but out of metal, which requires much more micromanagement), you have to use bone to make your practice bolts (I guess this is fine if you can fish, especially if you're by the sea) and you can only make bone crossbows (no obsidian swords) without metal. Sure, you can import wood, but then you have to ration it, and if you don't have any lignite or coal or magma you're going to need to burn it down into charcoal so you can make things out of metal to make up for the fact that you don't have wood...

So...Woodless AND Metalless would equal much FUN (in the losing sense).
Logged

Idiom

  • Bay Watcher
  • [NO_THOUGHT]
    • View Profile
Re: Metalless fortresses, a good thing.
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2008, 02:37:03 pm »

Non-metal forts should see more obsidian tipped spears, and a lot of bone crossbows and crossbow bolts.
Logged

Kagus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Olive oil. Don't you?
    • View Profile
Re: Metalless fortresses, a good thing.
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2008, 03:31:17 pm »

Trade goods are dominated by either mass stone crafts or expensive cooking.  Metal doesn't make much sense to trade away, unless you've got more of it than you could possibly handle.  And in any case, most of the really expensive metals come in nugget form, so the raw stone is as valuable as the smelted bar.  You get to use the stonecrafter efficiency bonus applied to the metal's worth.

The only real decision is between metal and wood.  All other materials and associated points are moot in one way or another.

For trees, you need to pay just as much attention to where you're settling as a metal-based fortress.  If you're lucky, and you settle in a well-watered forest, you could get hundreds of trees to make stuff out of.

However, and this is important, trees require three years to grow from a fresh sapling before they can be harvested.  And that's only if the sapling survives, which means it does not get stepped on too much and is in a not-too-crowded area vegetation-wise. 

You also need make more things out of wood, including not only bins and barrels and beds, but also shields and trap components.  For this, you need a team of woodcutters who will have to venture into unprotected areas in order to harvest your lumber.  There are only two ways to avoid this, fencing and treefarming.  Fencing requires a vast supply of materials (stone would be the wisest choice), a significant period of time and a workforce of laborers to build the wall.  Treefarming requires either an underground pool or river, which will not only cause you to go scouring even further for the perfect wood-based spot, but will also limit the number of "natural" trees you can harvest for the early fort.  Furthermore, it requires you to dig out a massive area underground for an effective treefarm, which will yield a staggering amount of stone.

So in order to have an efficient and safe wood-based fortress, you will need either A) a dense forest without an aquifer (you need to get to the stone for fencing), or B) a mountain with an underground river, or an underground pond with some other replenishable source of water (aquifers work, but are a pain to manage).

So there's not as much freedom in location choice as one might suspect.  And although it does remove the "need" for magma, a chasm is always fun to have.  There's another checkbox on your location list, if you're that kind of person.


Then there's the metal-based fortress.  The metal-based fortress will need wood, especially early on.  However, a "starter pack" of wood can be purchased with leftover points from a sold anvil at the starting screen, so the tree density of your chosen location is not as important.

And here's the metal-based "however".  Metal is rarely found in quantities significant enough to power a fort for any length of time.  You need either a fortress or a large starting area in order to get enough for most of your purposes. 

Except for magnetite.  Magnetite appears in several massive clusters that will provide all the metal you will ever need, and it will even provide a very valuable and useful metal at that.  But for that, you need a sedimentary layer.

So there's our first metal-based location list item, a sedimentary layer.  Now for the second.

Magma.  You *will* need magma.  A charcoal industry will strip your forest of trees before you know it, and coal is never found in any appreciable amount.  You will require magma to power your furnaces, which is not only another checkbox on the list, but is also a hazard due to its inhabitants (and its temperature, but that's just more FUN).

So there we have it.  Magnetite and magma.  Kinda has a ring to it, doesn't it?  Anyways, those are the basic requirements for any metal-based fort.  With that, you can make any weapon or armor, and also supply your dwarves with iron bins and barrels.  Wood is still needed for beds, but that's all it's needed for, and you can usually get enough wood through trade to at least take a bite out of your bed requirements.

If you want a bonus, get a flux layer along with the magnetite.  This will grant you access to the most powerful alloy in the game, steel.  However, this also requires carbon, so we come right back around to coal/charcoal shortages.

If you are fortunate enough to get coal veins along with everything else, you will have access to enough steel to equip your favored warriors.  However, that's a very rare spot that quite a few people would love to get their hands on...

For charcoal, don't even bother.  You need the wood for beds, so you can't spare any for making steel.  You'll have to import bituminous coal (three bars of coke per stone) to get your extra carbon.


So there you have it.  A wood-based fortress is easier to get up and running, but will be difficult to sustain.  A metal-based fort will be much harder to set up properly, but will sustain itself quite well once you get going.  Both types require special locations to function perfectly, and both types can "make do" in less optimal locations.

The only fort type that provides near-perfect freedom when picking a spot is the merchant fortress.  Harvest plants, cook plants into expensive meals, trade meals for whatever building materials you can get. 

Flexible, but dreadfully inefficient.

Ryo

  • Bay Watcher
  • Store item in stockpile
    • View Profile
Re: Metalless fortresses, a good thing.
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2008, 03:51:31 pm »

On another note, metalworking is DWARFY! Surely your little pixeldwarves feel diminished, working with rocks and wood like primitives when they could have wonderful metal!

I'm agree about the wood, but what kind of dwarf would feel diminished working with rocks? They're dwarves - they're flammable little rock freaks!

But anyway - I think that metalless fortresses can be great, but I still prefer to make fortresses with metal. Partly to make stronger weapons (for when I don't choose a place with obsidian) and armour. Also to satisfy noble's demands and sometimes quickly boost the value of rooms/wealth of the fortress.
Logged

Deathworks

  • Bay Watcher
  • There be no fortress without its feline rulers!
    • View Profile
Re: Metalless fortresses, a good thing.
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2008, 04:06:15 pm »

Hello!

I do not feel strongly either way in this issue. Instead, I make do with what I have (unless it is an aquifer, curse them!). Since I play rather slowly, I actually have only very little metal handling in my fortresses (my current one is a quick starter having a little bit of silver bar production in year 3 - and I have never built a magma forge or got adamantine; although I did have a mayor who demanded adamantine items a few days after he got elected...). Because of this, I kind of have some experience with metalless fortresses.

My personal experience is that they are not so problematic if you place them in a calm area with at least one heavily wooded tile and definitely no aquifer (did I mention that I hate them?). Besides producing beds, barrels, and bins, the prime product of my carpenters are menacing spikes - and I usually build a mechanics workshop early on.

Layers of weapon traps make good and reliable defenses for your early years. And if you place some traps near the borders where wildlife is spawned, they even can do some hunting for you.

My current fortress is in such a location and I found that I can even let an immigrant hunter do his thing. He has some thirty kills now, deer, cougars, foxes, and if he hadn't ran out of ammo during the hunt, he would even have had a black bear (red hind leg, unconscious, but fled before the hunter could get new ammo from the stockpiles).

Marksdwarves do not suffer from the lack of metal that much. Turtle bone bolts are as much possible as wooden bolts, and once you got enough trade goods, there are always imported bolts if you really want them.

Other than that, wood and stone can work just fine to set up your infra-structure. At least, that is my experience.

Deathworks
Logged

Quiller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Metalless fortresses, a good thing.
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2008, 04:42:55 pm »

Of course, you don't necessarily have to base your fortress on anything.  My first fortress of the z-level era was by a sedimentary mountain.  The mountain was basically made of flux, and had rich veins of hematite and magnetite and several veins of bituminous coal and lignite.  I produced enough steel so that my soldiers could have steel armor and weapons and didn't need any large scale metal productions past that.  I traded a few dolomite stone crafts for all the wood that the elves could carry, and that was generally enough to keep up with beds, barrels and bins, I could get just about anything I wanted from the human and dwarven traders inventories with a few prepared meals and some goblin gear.  Only thing I was truly stuck without was glass.

I guess the point is that you can be metalbased enough to arm and armor your military, wood based enough to keep up with your wood needs, and make your fortress wealthy via other means.  You don't really need to base your fortress around anything.
Logged

Ashery

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Metalless fortresses, a good thing.
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2008, 07:08:30 pm »

I guess the point is that you can be metalbased enough to arm and armor your military, wood based enough to keep up with your wood needs, and make your fortress wealthy via other means.  You don't really need to base your fortress around anything.

QFT

There are no requirements for any fortress, really. Especially if you drop the anvil and take along any material that you know will be lacking.

While still being new to this game, my first real fort (I had played through a couple prior but quit prior to the end of the first year) was in a magmaless neutral-evil forest that had an aquifer. I did, however, have flux, and combining the 5x5 wooded area and a couple veins of lignite and coal there was more than enough fuel to get massive steel production going by the third or fourth year. Wood collection doesn't require any fancy fencing, just stick a two two man squads on patrol near the area you're cutting down. Disable wood hauling on the wood cutter and set up a few designated wood haulers.

My current fort is probably the richest (resource wise) I've played yet...and it's treeless and I only brought along ~17 logs (I could've brought more, esp since I didnt even use that damned anvil until winter of the first year ;p). There's technically one square of forest that has quite a few trees, but it's hard as hell to generate an embarkable area without *any* trees and the desired magma/savage location. So instead I'm playing it more as a treeless challenge than anything. Just waiting on the discovery of a lignite/coal vein before I start up massive steel production. Shouldn't matter too much though, as iron plate/shields should be enough protection for training my early military training.
Logged

Haven

  • Bay Watcher
  • Studiously Avoidant
    • View Profile
Re: Metalless fortresses, a good thing.
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2008, 08:29:05 pm »

So...Woodless AND Metalless would equal much FUN (in the losing sense).

Beh! I disagree. Imports can have more than enough, and even without beds at all, things can be done with stone alone... I did a desert fort, and found that woodless sans magma generally equals metalless by definition. Nothing left for fuel.

And as the hands-off challenge shows, stone can be done without as well. Too bad there are no stoneless locations.

As for dwarfyness, sure they like working with stone, but metal is the spice of life! It's the difference between bread and butter and *Dwarven Sugar Biscuts*. The difference between Ecstatic and Slightly-less-Ecstatic
Logged

Boatmurderer

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Metalless fortresses, a good thing.
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2008, 05:07:49 am »

If you get a location with a solid enough aquifer below deep enough soil, it might as well count as stoneless.

Good farming, though... Very nice pig tail clothing industry.
Logged

Dareon Clearwater

  • Bay Watcher
  • [PREFSTRING:colorful underwear]
    • View Profile
Re: Metalless fortresses, a good thing.
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2008, 05:09:03 am »

You could simulate stoneless by embarking with an aquifer and never digging past it, yes.  Or on a glacier and only dig/build in ice.  Still, that's a choice you'd need to make personally, the game won't make it for you.
Logged
It's like you're all trying to outdo each other in sheer useless pedantry.

Dasqoot

  • Bay Watcher
  • He-wenching for the cause.
    • View Profile
Re: Metalless fortresses, a good thing.
« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2008, 05:44:30 am »

I think metal ore/bars need to be way easier to get from trading. When I ask for nothing but calcite and iron bars, I will get 2 or 3 calcite and 1 or 2 iron bars for the first few trading rounds. A bar of metal is a very heavy item, but i think 2 or 3 bars of iron would be just as easy to transport as a huge barrel of wine. Why do they never bring bins of metal, only cloth and leather? In many ways, especially quantity, trading for metal should be changed.

Iron and steel are fun, and training the different types of smiths is also fun, but you just have to be at that absolutely perfect spot or your metal industry will be a few gold rings and native aluminum mugs a year for way more effort than they are worth.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3