Print

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

For !

Against !

[Neonivek]

Neonivek, I still don't get how megabeasts, sieges and tunnelers would get inside the fort to flood it.  And why would they flood it?  That's one of the reasons people didn't like the idea of tunneling at first; It would make the fort difficult to recover!  It really seems like you are trying to perpetuate an argument just for the "fun" of it, because there's not really much logic applied there, and you're outright ignoring some of the arguments against tunneling.

Your really ignoring me, ironic isn't it?, when I say I don't think Tunnelers should expose Floods intentionally... If only because there is no way to recover after that leading long established fortresses (unless particularly rare) being ugly! If Toady implimented ways to take back lakes and rivers and essentially restore them entirely then Id have no problem with Flood diggers. That and the ability to swim.
-Magma isn't too much of a deal... Since Toady already confirmed that Magma sources will eventually be just as dangerous to tap as they are in real life. Eruptions are deadly! So people who make fortresses on Volcanos in the future basically will have to have fluid designs as well as back-ups incase of lava breaches.
--On a side note: Interestingly in real life, flooding whole cities by causing rivers, dams, and sewers to back up is an effective strategy that has been done before.

Though realistically the Tunneler probably wouldn't want to flood you so they would hardly EVER do so. As Tunnelers essentially wish to live and adding in algorithms that allows them to know how not only to flood your base but to do so safely is a lot more work. Which basically means the only tunnelers would be those who are Fire or Water immune... Meaning tunneling Megabeasts and Powers who are essentially rare.

As for Sieges and Megabeasts... they break down walls, floodgates, doors, and natural walls either intentionally or unintentionally that can lead to floods. Which I stated. They would do this to get to your dwarves/resources and cause damage to your fortress. They can also burn down wooden fortresses.

I love how he is hinting that me a troll because as you know "Everyone who disagrees with you for more then one post is only doing so because they want to annoy you"... Cut that out!!! We arn't going down that road and we arn't going to sink this topic under a flood of trolling. I don't want to see any more posts on the subject of trolling or who you believe is trolling.

[Dakk]

Ditto, trolling is when you sugest something with the intention to cause drama (and delishus lulz).

This is a valid idea, its realistic to a point, and hell, its dwarfy! Plus i'd love to see goblins acidentally tunneling into the HFS and getting raped by a legion of tentacle demons.

[LegacyCWAL]

I'm more worried about tunnelers flooding themselves.  Seriously, they can't even navigate a covered roadway right now, and it would be pretty damned anticlimactic when they screw up digging in 3D (which, mind you, even experienced players can do sometimes) and annihilate their own siege by drowning themselves in lava.

Yes, but we're talking about an AI here. The computer is able to see damp & warm wall, and to avoid them... if properly coded, the idea of a computer-controled invader flooding himself with lava seems improbable.

Players can see them too, but that doesn't seem to stop us from the occasional accidentally lava-drowned fortress.

[LegoLord]

But I still don't get how tunnelers would get into a fort and then proceed to flood it if the whole thing is surrounded by a liquid moat that goes to the bottom level, and why a siege would get into a fort and then have to break down walls and stuff to get out.

[Neonivek]

still don't get how tunnelers would get into a fort and then proceed to flood it if the whole thing is surrounded by a liquid moat that goes to the bottom level, and why a siege would get into a fort and then have to break down walls and stuff to get out.

Ohh no I never said a Tunneler does this... I said ordinary Siegers could do this.

The Tunnelers would have to get inside... I guess they could swim across the water and start digging. Going back for gasps of air.

[Mechanoid]

For, but only if they:
- Always produce a stone of what they dig through, if a stone can be produced (so gems arn't destroyed, etc)
- Forbid and hide what they dig through (so it looks like a clear tunnel)

[Kruniac]

"hole in your dining room"? What if their's more than one? then it's like holes coming in from every direction. That could be a four front, unavoidable fight right their.

I'm sorry, it just seems... i don't know... too cheap, too tacked on, not requiring effort on the enemy's part to execute, but massive effort to defend against. Other things can be implemented that would be better.

Now if we were talking about super special rare habitat-specific creatures that can dig (tremors worms anyone?), then i might consider it as a legitimate addition to selecting one's terrain. Tremors worms would be a cool addition to say, savage deserts, which would make sense. they'd be the giant eagles of the sand!

If you don't know what i'm talking about, "Tremors" was a movie about giant worms that dig through sand and eat people. I loved it as a child.

That's called a challenge. If you dont like it, dont go to war. Set all of the Civs to your philosophies, and never anger them.

I'm all for any feature that makes the game more realistic and challenging. Tunnelers, along with seige equipment that shatters walls and gates, are needed more so than "harder crops".

[Silverionmox]

Tunneling is only one tactic, to be used in the right circumstances. Every dozen goblins routinely digging halfway across the map is neither fun nor realistic.

[Tormy]

Tunneling is only one tactic, to be used in the right circumstances. Every dozen goblins routinely digging halfway across the map is neither fun nor realistic.

Actually creating tunnels and use those to sneak into the fortresses/castles etc. is under the "surprise attack" category in my book. The problem is that the player can see as the enemy is digging a tunnel... = surprise attack is out of question if we won't have a detailed FoW system.
..of course tunneling should be used together with "above ground" tactics = proper, challenging, well detailed siege system.

[Kruniac]

Tunneling is only one tactic, to be used in the right circumstances. Every dozen goblins routinely digging halfway across the map is neither fun nor realistic.

Why not a "Goblin tunneler" type? If he shows up during a Siege, you can expect some tunneling action.

After watching a human Siege sit on my map lagging me for 2 hours, I really could have used tunnelers. Even if its just to tunnel through a Wall, they need to be in the game.

Most people think of Dungeon Keeper 2 when they think of tunnelers. That doesnt have to be the case. What about simply tunneling under walls? Traps? They dont have to randomly tunnel through one of your -4 z level walls, just bypass a defense or two.

In a game where people cloud the ground with traps, and exploit the shit out of floodgates to use them as doors, I'm surprised anyone would ever complain about the difficulty aspects of a new feature. You found a way to wuss out of the normal game - you'll find a way to wuss out of tunnelers.

[LegoLord]

Hey man, I use exploits like booze cooking cause I think it's funny, not cause it's easy.  Don't go calling me a wuss.  I managed quite well my turn in Mean Little Men, and booze cooking is not allowed in that succession game.  I just like cooking booze because it's so ridiculously unrealistic.  I apply this same logic to a lot of exploits.

[Silverionmox]

The problem lies chiefly with the unresponsive military. It wouldn't really matter if you could send some soldiers to the breach, but most likely they'll be either eating, sleeping or drinking.. and will arrive one by one, with one -iron low boot- and a a wooden sword.

The siegers have the same problem. They can do two things: hang around on a random place on the map and shoot dwarves that happen to walk by, or go straight to the meeting hall until something stops them. To make good use of tunneling, first the AI should be able to recognize weak spots where tunneling might make sense.

(Besides, want a challenge? Don't search for magma.)

[LegacyCWAL]

Tunneling is only one tactic, to be used in the right circumstances. Every dozen goblins routinely digging halfway across the map is neither fun nor realistic.

Why not a "Goblin tunneler" type? If he shows up during a Siege, you can expect some tunneling action.

After watching a human Siege sit on my map lagging me for 2 hours, I really could have used tunnelers. Even if its just to tunnel through a Wall, they need to be in the game.

Most people think of Dungeon Keeper 2 when they think of tunnelers. That doesnt have to be the case. What about simply tunneling under walls? Traps? They dont have to randomly tunnel through one of your -4 z level walls, just bypass a defense or two.

In a game where people cloud the ground with traps, and exploit the shit out of floodgates to use them as doors, I'm surprised anyone would ever complain about the difficulty aspects of a new feature. You found a way to wuss out of the normal game - you'll find a way to wuss out of tunnelers.

You would have a point if "bypassing a defense or two" would make things noticeably harder.  Unfortunately, it won't.  If somebody exploits the AI's stupidity now, then they'll find a way to exploit the tunnelers' stupidity if they're put in.

"Just dig under a wall"?  Put the wall over a moat.  "Just bypass some traps"?  Multiple sets of traps, or station a bunch of soldiers below and behind the traps to massacre the goblins who are piled up in a 1-wide tunnel.

It doesn't take some elaborate megaproject to cause serious problems for a digging AI, just another moat or two and maybe some ballistae in the right place.

[Juason]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I'll throw Dungeon Keeper I and II out there.  Both games were similar to DF in many ways and both had tunneling enemies.  The only reason I didn't like tunneling in Dungeon Keeper was the inability to re-wall. 

But we can re-wall in DF, so I don't see that big of a problem with it.  Even better the tunnels could be temporary in nature, and re-wall themselves after a short period of time.  ie - These roughly worked tunnels lack the reinforcements needed to withstand time...

Granted, I'd like to be able to have 100 dwarves mucking about and getting more than 20fps to achieve this dream...  but ideally guards and patrol routes would mean something.  The enemy can breach your fortress walls at any time, so it would be even more important to prepare traps, patrolling guards, chained wardogs and all manner of nasty suprises.

Finally - include a toggle in the .ini file.  This way people who really want a peaceful game without 50 goblins suddenly burrowing into their dining hall, can

[LordNagash]

I can't believe people are sitting there and actually claiming that 'oh it will make my fortress look untidy' is a legitimate reason for not including sappers in the game. This is Dwarf Fortress, not Barbie Dreamhouse. I realise people like having amazing looking fortresses, and I do too. But this is perhaps taking it too far.

Nor can I believe people are actually talking about abstracting sapping away as 'they make an entrance on the surface and then a while later an exit magically appears somewhere' in the game that simulates whether you get blood on your pig tail coat from the goblin who's first finger, right hand you just chopped off.

As for me, I voted yes. I don't think the most complex simulation of fantasy medieval life ever created would really be complete without including one of the staple elements of medieval warfare, especially the one that would work most effectively against someone living underground.