Print

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

[profit]

Notes this thread is becoming toasty warm with all the flaming going on.

(I think it's correct to use the term flaming if people are committing personal attacks, correct me if I am wrong of course)

Anyhow..  Tunneling is not a horrible option for certain races, and if we can repair the breaches with constructions its not that horrid...  I would have to immagine tunneling would be extremely slow as well so probably not the enemies first attack strategy when they pull up on a fort... Maybe one if they cannot get in easily any other way... like say you have a magma moat 10 squares wide or something.

[Vattic]

I have no problem with tunnelling so long as the tunnellers also get the wet/hot warnings and stop digging and if we get the option to fill up tiles with dirt or rocks, that way with a little work we can always repair mess caused by sieges.

Another thing that is worth considering is how sieges would deal with built walls, I like how they did it in LotR with some explosives but that's another questionable subject on here (gunpowder) but then siege engines should do some damage to walls, this has all been covered before I believe.

The reason I support tunnelling is that say you were playing as humans or any other race for that matter and dwarves invade it would be really odd if they didn't dig, wouldn't you dig into enemy fortresses while invading as dwarves?

[Tack]

Don't make this into another tunnelling argument. I just want to say that.

a) the monguls rarely used siege weaponry until the later dynasty in which they actually go refined by incoming civilisations.

other than that, i reckon that goblinies should actually make an attempt to climb your walls, or go over your moat, so that you aren't sitting there in a useless fortress.


[toad: pointless insult removed]

[G-Flex]

The main problem with tunneling, in my opinion, is that it PERMANENTLY displaces dirt and rock. You can't get it back. Eventually, assuming tunneling happens at all regularly, your fortress map becomes an unsightly spiderweb of tunneling.

[Silverionmox]

If they start tunneling in random places with random destinations, that will happen. If the AI is made sufficiently smart it will only try to tunnel for minimal distance in the same weak spots, so that doesn't need to happen.
Random tunneling is the most important argument against sappers, I think.

[Leerok the Lacerta]

Perhaps we can restrict tunneling to "evil" areas, since people who build in evil areas tend to be the ones who are seeking a challenge. This way, people who like peace can continue to build in neutral and joyous areas without invaders disrupting the integrity of the land and players' fortresses.

Would this be an acceptable compromise?

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Not realistic, so not acceptable

Why wouldn't the goblins sneak their sapper into YOUR fortress if it's wealthy enough?

It's better than try to conceal a siege convoy through a dwarven civ

[Granite26]

Perhaps we can restrict tunneling to "evil" areas, since people who build in evil areas tend to be the ones who are seeking a challenge. This way, people who like peace can continue to build in neutral and joyous areas without invaders disrupting the integrity of the land and players' fortresses.

Would this be an acceptable compromise?

Well, I like 'build well within the confines of your civilization and you are safe, build on the borders and it's more risky' style of play.  'Evil' areas seems to be gamey but placement would be a good option.

[Leerok the Lacerta]

Not realistic, so not acceptable

Why wouldn't the goblins sneak their sapper into YOUR fortress if it's wealthy enough?

It's better than try to conceal a siege convoy through a dwarven civ

My excuse for goblins being able to dig only in evil zones is that perhaps they have more resources in such areas.

It may not be realistic, but not all gameplay elements are required to be realistic. This difference in evil and non-evil areas should satisfy the types of players who choose such areas in which to play, or so I would hope.

Evil areas, with their skeletal elks and zombie eagles, generally seem to be the domain of challenge seekers. My guess is that they would be less likely to object to sieging civlisations being able to tunnel.

Players who seek to build in peace generally will choose non-evil places to play and seem more likely to prefer not to have their fortresses disturbed in such a permanent manner.

Therefore, I believe that making digging siegers part of evil biomes only would cater to both sides of the digging siegers issue.


It would be nice, too, if one were able to refill the soil areas, but I guess that feature will come around later.

Perhaps we can restrict tunneling to "evil" areas, since people who build in evil areas tend to be the ones who are seeking a challenge. This way, people who like peace can continue to build in neutral and joyous areas without invaders disrupting the integrity of the land and players' fortresses.

Would this be an acceptable compromise?

Well, I like 'build well within the confines of your civilization and you are safe, build on the borders and it's more risky' style of play.  'Evil' areas seems to be gamey but placement would be a good option.

This idea is a better one. Playing too close to a goblin civilisation would, indeed, be asking for advanced sieges. A proposal that is both realistic and gameplay enhancing.

[Tormy]

Not realistic, so not acceptable

Why wouldn't the goblins sneak their sapper into YOUR fortress if it's wealthy enough?

It's better than try to conceal a siege convoy through a dwarven civ

What are you talking about? What is not realistic? If you meant that tunnelers are not realistic, you gotta be kidding. Digging a tunnel is not rocket science you know, so even low tech races and specific entities [giant worm is a good example] should be able to dig tunnels.
There can be restrictions / race in the vanilla game of course [like X race is not able to dig through hard materials for example].

[Granite26]

Context...  It was a reply to the comment directly above

[Tormy]

Context...  It was a reply to the comment directly above

Ouch...in that case, I shut up.  Yeah that would be unrealistic indeed, "Surroundings based" tunneling restrictions makes no sense so I agree with the war minister. 

[LegoLord]

Yes you can.  Can anyone say:  Great Wall of China? 
That thing is huge, and it was built with the intention of blocking attacks.  They had attacks, but they were able to build it, weren't they

At this point you're just being an asshole.

I'm sorry, it's just that we've had this discussion before and people still think we need tunnelers to make sieges harder.

[Tormy]

Yes you can.  Can anyone say:  Great Wall of China? 
That thing is huge, and it was built with the intention of blocking attacks.  They had attacks, but they were able to build it, weren't they

At this point you're just being an asshole.

I'm sorry, it's just that we've had this discussion before and people still think we need tunnelers to make sieges harder.

Bridge builders, construction destroyers and siege engines won't solve the problem. See my reply in the other topic.
I just don't really understand you to be honest. You could turn off this feature. Lot of people would like to see tunnelers in their games, do not forget about that.

[LegoLord]

Well, I'm just saying that they should be pretty low priority.  Really, adding tunneling is like sugar being added to apple juice.  The other siege improvements are the juice.  It doesn't need to get much sweeter; it's sweet enough(does what people really want).  But y'all want a lot of sugar in your juice(want fancy stuff that doesn't add much).