Print

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

[LegacyCWAL]

I imagine adventurers of all people would know how to find and disable traps. Or at least have trap avoid

I don't think anything will ever be able to fight a drowning chamber, atom smasher or a sheer 15 z level drop below a disappearing bridge without outright cheating itself

It just requires more thinking/logic than "This tile is a trap."

"The room is 10'x10'. One section of wall appears to be fitted to be moved in and out of its sealed position, by an unseen mechanism. Several hatches are in place upon the muddy, still-damp floor, tightly sealed, with small puddles of water around them."
Drawbridges are almost insanely easy to spot usually...but the insta-retract bridge is kind of defiant of pre-spotting or avoiding consequences, though you might notice the floor ha'ing somewhere to go to [presently not required...]

Of course, once you get up to this le'el of thought, they're probably sneaking and climbing o'er the walls anyway. Or disguising themsel'es as dorfs and hiding in plain sight and  Storing Item in Stockpile. And if you actually wholly seal off your fort, lifting off a tile/pulling some rocks out of the way for a little to slip in. Unless your fort is submerged in magma, then you better ha'e some serious stuff worth hauling away before they seriously bother.

Y'know, this gives me an idea.  I'm sure somebody's had it before, but it hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet, so I'm going to blather on about it anyways

I'm sure that having siegers learn your defenses and take steps to counter them in future attacks has been suggested, but I thought a specific implementation could be counts of how many died and in what way.  So it would not just count deaths, but count deaths by way of:  melee combat; ranged combat; siege engine fire; kill-traps; cage traps; falling or other bridge-related actions; drowning; and burning by magma.  Then the next time, bring along some sort of counter to that defense.

For instance, if a lot of attackers are lost to traps, they might eventually start herding cannon fodder into them to set them off without "real" losses.  If a lot of attackers fell to Marksdwarves in a few sieges, they could bring along catapults that would fire projectiles that could splash through fortifications, or marksgoblins with Pavises.  If a lot of attackers drowned, they might bring an amphibious unit that could destroy underwater buildings.  And if there's a trend of attackers being chopped up by axedwarves, a few adventurers in =steel plate mail= would work them over but good.

Related to this, how is the "reproduction" (for lack of a better term) of lesser demons like frog demons handled?  Because goblin civs are typically led by Demons, so if lesser demons could replenish their numbers in some way, that could lead to a goblin civ having some sort of access to demonic attackers.  Frog demons would be the perfect counter to drowning chambers, for instance.  It could also give another use for snatchers: gain the services of a pack of tentacled horrors in exchange for a meal of freshly-harvested bearded, drunken morsels gathered from a nearby settlement.

[Dwarf]

Maybe old, retiring adventurers and adventurers impressioned by your wealth could decide to settle in your fortress, military immigrants if you want.

[Footkerchief]

I'm sure that having siegers learn your defenses and take steps to counter them in future attacks has been suggested, but I thought a specific implementation could be counts of how many died and in what way.  So it would not just count deaths, but count deaths by way of:  melee combat; ranged combat; siege engine fire; kill-traps; cage traps; falling or other bridge-related actions; drowning; and burning by magma.  Then the next time, bring along some sort of counter to that defense.

For instance, if a lot of attackers are lost to traps, they might eventually start herding cannon fodder into them to set them off without "real" losses.  If a lot of attackers fell to Marksdwarves in a few sieges, they could bring along catapults that would fire projectiles that could splash through fortifications, or marksgoblins with Pavises.  If a lot of attackers drowned, they might bring an amphibious unit that could destroy underwater buildings.  And if there's a trend of attackers being chopped up by axedwarves, a few adventurers in =steel plate mail= would work them over but good.

Excellent ideas.  Also, the game could use civ-specific "traffic designations" so that invaders could try to avoid spots where their comrades died to traps earlier.

[Fieari]

Instead of talking about adventurers, let's talk about Commandos instead.  The motivations become a lot clearer when you aren't thinking in terms of TTRPGs.  Enemy nations would be happy to send a squad of commandos at you.  Bandits would be more than happy to do so.  They aren't just random guys wandering the landscape, they're men with a purpose.

The result would be similar of course.  Champions coming in with the skills to infiltrate, avoiding your traps, sneaking around, staying out of sight when possible, and kicking ass when finally caught. 

They'd be showing up to accomplish a SPECIFIC task, not just indiscriminate destruction (though that might happen as a matter of course).  They'd be sent to steal an artifact, or adamantine stuff, or raid your vault (for when coins actually matter... one day maybe).  They'd be sent to assassinate a noble of yours, probably one of the military ones like Duke or even King.  They'd sneak in, kill anyone who gets in their way, and get out, leaving chaos in their wake.

Adventurer raids I'd object to, since they'd be too metagamey for my tastes.  Commando raids though... that could be awesome.  Of course, the commandos would likely consist of adventurers, and probably got their skills slaying monsters in the countryside...

[Footkerchief]

^^^ Well, pretty much the only "game" thing you can do in Adventure Mode is act as a mercenary or bounty hounter for a civ.  So it wouldn't be at all strange if an adventurer party was hired to make raids against a fortress.

[Granite26]

Truth

What he said... 

[Pilsu]

^^^ Well, pretty much the only "game" thing you can do in Adventure Mode is act as a mercenary or bounty hounter for a civ.  So it wouldn't be at all strange if an adventurer party was hired to make raids against a fortress.

Yes but thus far their motivation for invading was described to be conquest, not acting as mercs. I'm fine with it as long as they don't just suddenly decide it's a good idea to get themselves killed fighting an entire mountainhome for no real reason. Mercs just being hired to harass you a bit sounds a bit hollow though

Mercs supplementing enemy sieges might work too, though personally I'd prefer if race traitors were rare in such scenarios

[Muz]

In a fantasy world, Adventurers = Commandos. Which makes me love the idea I'd love to see how a group of people with a variety of skills would get past dwarven defenses. You could have a guy who blows up walls, a guy who paralyzes troops (with poison, spells, or leg breaking), maybe even a guy who sabotages the traps so they hurt civilians, not the enemy. Or... destroying floodgates. We know how that'll end up

Water/lava traps? Mages can teleport himself and a friend out of them. Some can even cast breathe water and fireproofing.
Armor piercing bolts? Mages can cast Protection from Missiles. Fighters will be blocking them with their shields. Some monks can even deflect arrows.
Walls? If the mage doesn't teleport around it or fly over it, a thief will just climb it.
Death? Well, if you unless you cut the poor adventurer into elven stew, some cleric could come by in the future and resurrect all the dead heroes. Or even turn them into zombies. Unfortunately, they'll be naked

I've always had a distaste for adventurers in most games, because they were too damn powerful. Ever played as a DM and tried to trap an experienced adventurer in a dungeon? They find all sorts of ways to free themselves.

[Neonivek]

Well these are adventurers... not commandos exactly

Their group is based off of what skills, people, and items they got along the way which is also fueled by their personality.

I don't really expect every group to be perfectly balanced or even very balanced (though logically any adventuring group of some legit claim to fame would have to have some trap spotting ability themselves). The team's fighter may actually be the thinker... The Sneaker may not actually be able to spot traps...

Heck they may have a Paragon who is good at everything or a herd of drunks as backup (just like the actual game)

[Footkerchief]

Oh hey, look what I found:

# Core61, ADVENTURER ENTITIES, (Future): Your adventuring group deserves entity status, as it's quite possibly one of the most important groups in all of history. This will activate all of the entity vs. entity and individual vs. entity mechanics in the game and allow you to establish your place in the world as army/entity changes allow you to delegate orders to subordinates and so on. It would be possible for the group to persist between games and adventurers, perhaps even harassing a new fortress when bandits are put in. Related to Core24.

[Neonivek]

Yep I believe that there is something related to that in the current devs too

Adventurer Entities

I: Creation of the adventurer's group as an entity (as with civ/religion/etc.) (part of Core61)
II: Recognition of the adventurer's group entity as an actor in the world and some things related to that, depending on what else is done (part of Core61)
III: Ability for your group members to recognize their relationship with you and stay behind or join you again more fluidly (part of Core61)
IV: Ability to delegate adventurer skills style tasks to group members (part of Core61)

However when someone does a general topic like this that is already in the Devs I like to use this as a brainstorming and expansion topic.

[Footkerchief]

Oh yes, that wasn't to suggest that we shouldn't be discussing it.

[Neonivek]

Oh yes, that wasn't to suggest that we shouldn't be discussing it.

Perhaps, I believe you, but better no one else think of it that way. Especially when you just post it and say nothing else.

I mean in all honesty Footkerchief it is very easy to misinterpret you when you say "Look what I found"

Back to the topic at hand.

Adventuring groups should have some ability however to transcend the diplomacy and relationships of the parent civilisation. Of course their Civs could determine their original alliances but that should be where it ends.

On another note: Adventurers COULD I guess give you a chance to surrender either by giving over artifacts they desire, wealth, or possibly slaves (or heck... they may just want you to surrender). They could also attack you to force you to treaty with someone. Ethics in my mind still plays a large part in Adventuring groups though it would be distilled with multi-species groups.

[Footkerchief]

Perhaps, I believe you, but better no one else think of it that way. Especially when you just post it and say nothing else.

I mean in all honesty Footkerchief it is very easy to misinterpret you when you say "Look what I found"

Right, it was a little ambiguous.  I meant it more to say "Hey, maybe it's not so ridiculous and implausible that bandits would invade your fortress for plunder or glory or sheer bloodlust or military goals or whatever."

[Tack]

*tension rising*

anyway. i like the idea of adventurers attacking a fortress.
however, does this also mean that with the new world mechanics, you'll be competing against other adventurers for missions?