Print

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

For !

Against !

[EvilMoogle]

Voted 'no' myself, however I do think some "enhanced attacks" should be in.

- There should be ways of dealing with moats, either small "boats," swimming units, or simply building bridges.
- There should be ways of dealing with cliffs and pits (ladders?  Simply a "climb" skill?)
- Traps shouldn't be 100% effective.  Maybe the craftsmanship of the mechanism determines how likely it is to trigger?  Likely a chance of triggering / chance of doing nothing (but may trigger on the next in line) / chance of breaking (thus never triggering until repaired/replaced).  Cage traps should be far less effective.
- Along the same line there should be "scouts" with the army that have higher chances of detecting traps, and the ability to remove them.  This should include "manually triggered traps" (bridges with mechanisms hooked to a lever somewhere) as well.

I think all units should be "building destroyers" to some degree, and I think "building destroyers" should be able to attack constructions.  Maybe even smoothed natural walls.  But it shouldn't be quick for most units (maybe have a battering ram type weapon to allow goblins to damage doors and walls with attacks?).  Part of this would require walls (and other objects) to have various damaged states short of destruction.  And hopefully a "repair" job of some sort.

If you're going to have units that can dig, I think they should only dig a fairly short distance (3 tiles/z levels?) and they need to have some way of knowing (or at least strongly suspecting) that they're digging in the right direction.  Just pathing through the ground right into your base isn't something I'd want to see.

[Andeerz]

If you're going to have units that can dig, I think they should only dig a fairly short distance (3 tiles/z levels?) and they need to have some way of knowing (or at least strongly suspecting) that they're digging in the right direction.  Just pathing through the ground right into your base isn't something I'd want to see.

Hmmm, though I'm all for tunneling units, I follow you big-time here.  It would be great if it's not simply enemies pathing and automatically choosing the most efficient way to get into your fort.  I agree that it should be a general direction thing, perhaps ideally based on intelligence about the layout of your fort or just common sense.  I think that limitations on distance and depth should be based more on things like availability and quality of supports (digging tunnels is dangerous business!!!), and even ventilation.  That way the limits are not arbitrary but are imposed by the skills, abilities, knowledge, and resources of the attacking army, and therefore can prevent a lot of metagaming that I am not fond of, as well as model siege warfare a bit more realistically.  :3 

Actually, I think with realistic digging mechanics and logistical considerations in DF, you (EvilMoogle) probably wouldn't have to worry about it too much, as I don't think it would be possible, let alone feasible, for most armies to try to tunnel into a mountain within the time-span of a siege unless they dedicated a humongous effort tantamount to a mini-mega-project.  Digging through solid rock is different from digging through soil, clay, and less dense materials...

[RAM]

What if they charged in and attacked, and then retreated as normal, only to meet up with the heavier units and supplies that they left behind so as to take the fort by surprise. They then set about building a fort(generally above-ground) of their own and plan their next assault. They talk to the survivors of the first attack to pick a good spot to dig towards. Maybe a fixed siege weapon, maybe a civilian dwarf that they spotted, maybe a lever...
 Once they have chosen their target their will mount another attack to try to reach that point, then dig a ramp downwards in a random direction. If the attack fails then they will dig down from in or near their camp and then try to tunnel their way up once they reach the point...

[Andeerz]

That would be epic-tastic-awesomesauce.  But, dang, we'd need so many things to be in the game first before that could happen. 

[Farthing]

Tunneling is dangerous, but very effective. While it is definitely realistic, I would like to see the enemy able to say, knock-down a wall or break a bridge before they resort to tunneling. While fortress mode obviously doesn't concern itself too much with this, tunneling is fraught with peril, ESPECIALLY sapping, as someone has to trigger those cave-ins. Not to mention the Aquifers, lava pipes, pits and forgotten beasties that might be found.  This is all without mentioning unplanned cave-ins, and assuming the AI can find the areas that actually connect to the fortress. And normally it is slow as a one-legged dog, but again, something fortress mode does away with for the sake of fun.

That said I can imagine some of the enemies using tunneling units as a last resort, or if they are dwarves themselves, as such I am not too heavily against mining units. Again though, would rather see wall/bridge breaking first.

[Andeerz]

That said I can imagine some of the enemies using tunneling units as a last resort, or if they are dwarves themselves, as such I am not too heavily against mining units. Again though, would rather see wall/bridge breaking first.

Agreed.

[SirHoneyBadger]

How about if the game automatically saves your Fortress at the point of any seige? It'd happen after you already knew a seige was underway, but before any damage has been done.

You could then decide to either skip the seige (preserving your pristine structures), or go ahead with the seige, and then decide "if it really happened" at the end.

That would give you all the Fun of a real seige (if you let it go through), without destroying your hard work.

This, ofcourse, could be an optional switch you'd select at the beginning of the game.

[RAM]

People will complain about savescumming, and it would use up some disc space and burn some time while it saved, but otherwise it sounds like it should be fairly easy to program and would make for a useful option. Of course, you will still get the people who want their pristine fort and their sieges too and aren't willing to turn off tunnelling because their should be a better way...

[PTTG??]

Does anyone have a problem with this being (yet another) init option?

[mrbane]

It has to be done properly if it's to be done at all.

I think that tunneling enemy units should only come into play during sieges and not at any other time otherwise you're in a peaceful state, had no aggro, and suddenly find a huge f**king hole in your lower z with the enemy pouring in.

If the Fortress is under siege, it's red alert, all hands to stations, not just cracking on with daily life. So people will be sent off on patrols, guards posted at vulnerable areas, etc. Although vertical digging shouldn't be allowed, as that will just f**k up everything. Horiziontal to breach your perimeter walls would be the most useful approach for the enemy. They breach your outer walls then run riot.

It should be used only as an initial method of entry on a siege, possibly.

Seempels.

[PTTG??]

Look, the whole point of having enemies is so that they can mess up your hard work. It's a bit like not wanting to have enemies in Oblivion because they'll put damage on your precious armor.

There can't be simple solutions like "only horizontal digging" because the game is so open-ended that nobody can guess what players will build. When you build a stupid fotress, you deserve to see it fail in a stupid but entertaining way.

Yes, the way that fortressess are built would change. They changed when we went from 2D to 3D. They changed when the underground got more complex. They will continue to change as time goes on.

It would no longer be true that a single tile of sand wall will protect you from everything, including sieges of Bronze Collossi riding sandworms. It is the entire point of this suggestion that flimsy walls make no sense and invaders should be able to bash right through them.

Now, we already know that a simple modification of the pathing system would be able to compare paths, putting high prices where they might choose to dig, low prices on open ground, and perhaps account for highly trapped or armed locations too.

As such, invaders would only attempt to dig when and where it would work.

With such a system, the most secure dwarf hold would be one that is deep, deep below the earth with a long hallway stuffed with traps. As much as the Goblins would want to attempt to dig their way in, the pathing algorithm would see that the effort involved would be far greater than braving the traps.

So let me ask you this: should a Dwarf Hold built under a mountain be more secure than one built in a hill of sand?

[Andeerz]

:3  You make me happy, PTTG??. 

[Jayce]

I can see people making thier fortresses invicible even with tunnelers,flying units should be able to cross chasms thought with goblins on their backs.

[EvilMoogle]

It would no longer be true that a single tile of sand wall will protect you from everything, including sieges of Bronze Collossi riding sandworms. It is the entire point of this suggestion that flimsy walls make no sense and invaders should be able to bash right through them.

But at the same time can you honestly say that they should be able to dig through three-tile-thick walls of spoiler-metal?

Now, we already know that a simple modification of the pathing system would be able to compare paths, putting high prices where they might choose to dig, low prices on open ground, and perhaps account for highly trapped or armed locations too.

Problem here is it's already been stated as a goal that goblins learn from past mistakes and would choose to avoid hallways where lots of them have died in the past.

And the problem that it makes no logical sense for goblins to be able to path the entire map to find the most efficient way into your fortress.  Coding sense, sure, but not realistic behavior sense.

All sappers in real life had one very common advantage, they knew where they were digging towards (generally a wall or other fortification that they could see).  And even then it was a lengthy process that required lots of support to attempt.

Really the only way I could support it is if they're restricted to digging to points that they've seen in past attacks (entering the main hallway to and getting slaughtered by traps would give them visibility down the hallway a ways, thus they could attempt to dig around the traps).  Even then though I think walls need to have their own defensive components.  I have in the past dug out all the sand walls to replace with constructed stone walls for my own personal sense of aesthetics.

Personally I'd prefer to see sieging goblins act like an actual siege first.  If they're not engaged they should set up defenses of their own and attempt to starve out the dwarves.  While getting reinforced at the same time.  Build some siege weapons and start attacking the doors/walls that are above ground.  Give them scouts that can (with some degree of success) disarm traps they find.

Simply letting them path into your fortress is pointless (and will just be countered by fortresses moving to aquifer maps with 1 tile wide walls of water around the entrance).

[decius]

For, but only after mining, equipment damage, caveins, military, and seiges (at least) are fixed in a good state.

Mining/equipment damage: A copper pick cannot carve away an entire mountain, even if copper picks can eventually wear away granite. The expense of the tools needed to breach defenses needs to be less than the expected benefits.

Caveins: There is no such thing as a sand ceiling.

Military: A good mining pick is a very poor military weapon. A military pick is a very poor mining tool. Compare a bec-de-corbin with a pick-ax. Then try to do anything wearing armor. (Good substitutes include biker's leather, as it is basically modernized leather armor, and hard welder's hoods (Without tinted lenses) for a helmet.) Now consider swinging a pick-ax at someone who has a spear pointed at you, in a confined area. Tunnelers are noncombantants.

Seiges: Tunneling should be pretty far down the list, after other unimplemented seige styles: Attacker constructions and deconstructions, sabotage of food/water supply, intentional flooding, and taking one look at the fort and leaving should all be implemented sanely before tunneling.

While there will be implementation problems if it is ever implemented, including framerate and calculation issues, those need to be addressed seperately. I don't want to see cats changed because of framerate issues, even though I would like to be able to alter them.