Print

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

For !

Against !

[RavingManiac]

Strictly speaking, we can't sap goblin towers.  We settle on them and make poor housing plans.

Anyway, what we really need to talk about at this point is how much we, as a whole want tunneling (compared to other siege fixes and additions).

Also, all we need to make farming more realistic is a crude imitation of thermodynamics.  In other words, needing to irrigate a farm regularly rather than just once, and make it so that certain foods give dwarves less "energy."  Wheat, for example;  only the head of a stalk of wheat is actually used, and that's a pretty small part.  Hence a need for more land to feed dwarves on wheat than for feeding them on, say, plump helmets, which have far more usable parts per square meter of farmland (plump helmets are mushrooms).

That just means that plump helmets will get farmed MORE.

[Silverionmox]

Variety is important though, for now only for morale, but later on for nutrition also.

It's the calories that you can get per surface unit that count, by the way, not the size. Mushrooms are mostly water.

[Pilsu]

The second is that it's an ages-old military tactic that has been in use for as long as humanity has used fortresses. It doesn't make sense that it wouldn't be possible in the game.

You don't have a clue what tunneling was for.

only the head of a stalk of wheat is actually used, and that's a pretty small part.  Hence a need for more land to feed dwarves on wheat than for feeding them on, say, plump helmets, which have far more usable parts per square meter of farmland (plump helmets are mushrooms).

So not only would flour be even more useless, you'd make the easiest crop in the game more effective completely ignoring the actual nutrient content of mushrooms?

They're certainly healthy but good luck scrounging your energy needs from them

[Tormy]

Pilsu, what is this crusade of yours against the tunnelers idea? I frankly don't even understand it, considering that...
1. Most of the players would like to have this feature in the game.
2. You should be able to turn it off completely.
Also...
It really doesn't matter that what was tunneling used for in the dark/medieval ages. This is a fantasy game isn't it? Besides, tunneling as a tactic was used to get into the enemy fortresses also.

[mickel]

I don't have a clue what tunneling was used for? Okay. If it wasn't used for sapping, what was it used for? Making cozy burrows for the soldiers underneath enemy lines?

[Neonivek]

I don't have a clue what tunneling was used for? Okay. If it wasn't used for sapping, what was it used for? Making cozy burrows for the soldiers underneath enemy lines?

Well there was no "One use" anyhow.

Some Tunnels were used for ambushes in the wilderness and stuff.

[LegacyCWAL]

This is a fantasy game isn't it?

QFT.  The arguement "but it works this way in real life!" comes up in every discussion (civil or otherwise) at some point, and it irks me a bit when somebody does so without remembering that it is, indeed, a fantasy game.  Even when I agree with the person, I like for people to keep it in mind, even if for only to deflect that kind of criticism before it comes up.

Making cozy burrows for the soldiers underneath enemy lines?

Every now and then, yeah.  I think the Viet Cong did that during the Vietnam War.  WWI also saw extensive use of underground burrows to keep troops safe from the ridiculous amount of artillery that the two sides threw around, though those weren't below enemy lines.

[Granite26]

This is a fantasy game isn't it?

QFT.  The arguement "but it works this way in real life!" comes up in every discussion (civil or otherwise) at some point, and it irks me a bit when somebody does so without remembering that it is, indeed, a fantasy game.  Even when I agree with the person, I like for people to keep it in mind, even if for only to deflect that kind of criticism before it comes up.

I guess I feel that everything should be as realistic as possible, unless it's specifically a fantasy element.

(I'm of the 'elves and dwarves are mammals' school.

[Neonivek]

"QFT.  The arguement "but it works this way in real life!" comes up in every discussion (civil or otherwise) at some point, and it irks me a bit when somebody does so without remembering that it is, indeed, a fantasy game.  Even when I agree with the person, I like for people to keep it in mind, even if for only to deflect that kind of criticism before it comes up"

Always remember, if it doesn't happen in real life people will say "magic arc"... heck even if it does happen in real life you will get that response.

[Chthonic]

I'm in favor of tunnels as part of a broad-reaching development of tactics in sieges.  Especially as the player's ability to respond to threats becomes better (hide the civilians in burrows, muster forces who aren't too busy sleeping or eating, et cetera), opponents need to be able to adapt.

This doesn't mean every goblin should be able to take to the dirt like a hyperactive mole rat on speed . . . but a couple of sappers digging away through a surface layer of dirt to avoid the deathtrap hallway is only reasonable.

There are plenty of suggestions to make it not broken . . . dirt tunnels filling in over time, or even dwarves being able to fill tunnels with crushed rock, tunnels needing supports and bracing . . . and the player being able to figure out where the tunnel is going and plant a little surprise on the other end (say a screw pump hooked up to a magma pipe, which lets loose as the goblin cavalry charges into their invasion-tunnel) . . .

A vote against tunneling is a vote against awesome moments like these.

And if you want to build a beeeeautiful fortress, settle where there's nothing at war with you.  My first successful fortress was a work of art ensconced in a hidden mountain valley, untouched by goblin hands . . . until the dragon came.

[Pilsu]

It really doesn't matter that what was tunneling used for in the dark/medieval ages. This is a fantasy game isn't it? Besides, tunneling as a tactic was used to get into the enemy fortresses also.

It was used to topple the walls. Even then it failed if the fort was built on rock instead of soil. You seem to interpret this as a magical tunnel through the bedrock from which enemies pour right into the chewy center of your home. Hint, attacking from a 2 feet wide tunnel usually isn't much of a strategic move and would do absolutely nothing but aggravate you as they puncture waterworks. They still wouldn't pose a threat

I really dislike people insisting tunneling is realistic and when shot down thoroughly, they revert to lol vidya gaems! Usually coupled with the notion that you shouldn't be able to wait out a siege, showing thorough misunderstanding what a siege is


I find the notion that the player's capability to over engineer his fort should lead to the AI practically teleporting inside it past all the defenses laughable of a game mechanic, especially even when doing so it would fail to do more than give your civilians dabbling wrestling in their skill list before the inept invaders get their inept asses slaughtered. Even if they did pose a threat, what would you really accomplish by charging to the countryside? They still got you where they wanted you, they win by default

[Rysith]

And if you want to build a beeeeautiful fortress, settle where there's nothing at war with you.  My first successful fortress was a work of art ensconced in a hidden mountain valley, untouched by goblin hands . . . until the dragon came.

Or, as you mentioned earlier, embark on a mountain: Goblins might be able to dig through dirt, but good luck with solid rock. That makes sense from a historical perspective, too: that's why so many castles were built on rocky outcroppings (aside from the stability arguments).

[Mephansteras]

Interesting counter-point to the "goblins not tunneling through rock" argument. Even if goblins aren't that great at it, what about goblinized dwarves? No reason they couldn't put that babysnatching to better use, eh?

Imagine if they brought a legendary dwarven miner with them to the siege? THAT would chew through rock fast enough to be a real threat.

[Granite26]

Until Dwarves starve when sieged, a literal siege is dumb.

Besides, if I understand the Baby's First Castle book correct, 'Siegers' shouldn't rush to your front gate to get slaughtered... Could be me though...

[Pilsu]

Until Dwarves starve when sieged, a literal siege is dumb.

You could tie attrition to medicine instead. Only available outside or via caravans

Besides, I can think of several ways to make the player want to break the siege beyond "you die if you don't"

Besides, if I understand the Baby's First Castle book correct, 'Siegers' shouldn't rush to your front gate to get slaughtered... Could be me though...

Which is why sieges are so silly right now. But instead of making them true to their namesake, people have this strange desire to make their suicidal charges more effective instead. As if that'd change anything, the guys don't even have proficient skills