Print

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

[praguepride]

What odds are acceptable for a fortress to be breached by a tunneling creature?

*blink blink*  what? 

What odds are acceptable? 23%

I think a bit of clarification is in order. In what way is this different from the 16 page discussion on tunnelers like...two threads away from this one?

[TheToeBighter98]

A new tactic to fight tunneling surprises would be too completely dig out the layers just beneath the surface, and connecting them to supports connected to levers.

That, or just pockets of suicidal magma.

[Iden]

Iden, how about about supply convoys ( war realism, ftw ) and the remaining trees act as obstacles ( physically, and visually... ) , and other ways for the AI to tempt fate, and resources, to get in.

Like Siege Towers, they like moving stairwells, or if they are tipped over, bridges, maybe ramps, if they land on a wall.

Rafts, boarding planks, or bridges ( if something big throws it ) .
Grappling hooks, biting harpoons with ropes ( personally large enough for a ballista ) , or rocks with ropes and a catapult.

Erm, large and meaty steeds that can launch themselves over broad moats, and/or high walls in one bound.
Maybe large flying steeds?

In another thread (I don't recall which one -- im too tired to recall or bother looking for it -- but it was about tunneling and siege) I posted a bunch of stuff, and a lot of interesting things came up.

Convoys would be great -- for long lasting sieges. Otherwise they're not really necessary, y'know? Disrupting enemy supply trains would be a fun way to help save your own butt. Right now Toady's working on more military stuff, and eventually it will be possible to worry about the really complex stuff like long sieges, supplies, troop movements.Eventually you should be able to build an army, build siege towers, siege weapons, ladders, rams, etc. and bring them with you, setting them up safely outside enemy territory and rolling them in while in formation.

However, i'm currently addressing the near-future. Right now we don't even have movement, we just have our own places under siege. This is just basic stuff to improve the game as-is, not taking into account possible changes. Though I would love to see the expansion into broader ideas, such as you suggest, in the future after more stuff has been implemented.

Trees in fact should be obstacles for siege towers, engines, and weapons movement. You'd have to cut them down or move around them. Though, trees do not affect Line of Sight in Fort Mode. So unless that was to be changed, it doesn't make much a difference, really, other than being obstacles for movement.

Advanced techniques for siege would have to be assessed by Toady, though I do think some sort of grappling should be implemented. Mostly by elite squads of soldiers with amazingly high Ambush skill. They should be able to employ grappling hooks to use to scale walls. They should also use AI to attempt to pull levers near gates, in order to let their friends in. Though, of course, this could be overpowered, and would indeed be somewhat rare.

Somebody in one of the threads I refer to (one of these days i'll find it and link it to you guys -- just not right now --  there's a grand quote about what i'm about to mention) mentions how somewhere he recalls reading (possibly in one of Toady's bloats, about things he'd like to see possible) something about Elves mounting Flying Eagles and dropping down inside an above-ground fort, in order to stealth and ambush people. Personally I think that would be truly awesome - and I hands down want to see it happen. I just hope it's not easy to piss of the Elves enough to make them want to do it, is all.

Sieges:
Well if the fortress is aboveground, then it is quite likely that if they can find a quite corner where they don't get killed by bolts that they will merrily dig a tunnel under you walls.
In any circumstance really, if the enemy clearly isn't getting in via any visible entrances, then they will look for alternatives, probably just sit outside for a few years, killing anything that isn't protected by the fortress. Maybe pelt you with arrows on occasion. If the fortress doesn't seem to mind being cut off, which would probably be worse than it is now, then they will probably resort to tunnelling into the fort, which would take a while. If the fortress failed to dislodge the siege, and the siege fails to dislodge the fortress, then a tunneller breaching the fortress is basically inevitable...

First off, if there is such a corner, the defenders are doing a poor job and deserve to fail. Secondly, you start digging from outside the firing range of archer fire and any siege weapons. You'll just be mauled with arrows and lose men if you start from inside. Not unless your plan was to distract the defenders and draw as many of them as possible to that spot so you can mount a flanking action and scale the walls somewhere else in hopes of getting up that side of the wall and securing it for yourself before reinforcements can get back to repel you.

Tunneling could be inevitable. But there should also be a chance of quitting the siege. After a couple of years, if no progress is made, eventually the attackers will get tired and give up (if they're not starving you out and theres no sign of it). The only advantage you have at this point is that you can get reinforcements while they likely can't. If no reinforcements can come to your aid, you're best of giving up as you'll lose more men than they will and be unable to recoup your losses in order to overcome them. If you have reinforcements, and don't mind losing the men, it can be an option. Though only a desperate one. Chances are if they're not goblins being led by demons, they probably don't care about killing you enough to waste that many lives needlessly.

What odds are acceptable for a fortress to be breached by a tunneling creature?

*blink blink*  what? 

What odds are acceptable? 23%

I think a bit of clarification is in order. In what way is this different from the 16 page discussion on tunnelers like...two threads away from this one?

Personally, if you ask me, the quantification of such a number can never be a correct representation of what it should actually be. No, i'll agree to a point it shouldn't be a larger number than any of the other options present at any given time. But given the variability of circumstances, fixing a value to such can simply never be correct. It should always be a variable -- one that is always less probable than any other option before the other options have been used and discarded from choice. It also should be a variable, at times, that should be impossible (0%). It should also never be 100%. It should never, and can never be the only option. Worse comes to worse, there are always at least3 options whenever digging may be considered: Quit the Siege, Wait out the siege (attempt to starve them out), Dig.

This does not make it 33%. Different circumstances may altar values. Digging needs digging tools -- no digging tools, no chance. Is there enough food, or supplies coming soon, in order to feed your men while they wait out the siege? Easily if there are no supplies coming, and supplies are low, waiting out becomes a lower % (probably 0%), and the other two would inherently increase %. It would be between digging and quitting, more likely than not. This also doesn't make it 50%. There are other factors, including some random factors, that would modify any numbers. So at any given time it could be any number. But weighing all options before have been tried, digging should never be considered a majority at any time.

So 23% would probably be a bit high of a number, when the siege is started. Other things should always be tried first. Though over time, the army might get desperate and be more likely to try to dig, or they might just give up.


Edit: Sorry for the unadultered bold earlier. I had a major headache, it eluded me. Just getting to fix it now. ^^;

[RAM]

I can't help but think that anyone who is familiar with dwarves would consider charging down the trade tunnel to be the absolute last resort...

[Idiom]

What odds are acceptable for a fortress to be breached by a tunneling creature? The odds that it should are inevitable. But someone already beat me to that.

Should depend on sieger equipment, and the material they are tunneling through. From soil, to bedrock, to reinforced bedrock, to walls reinforced with metal, to adamantine bunkers. Obviously a copper pick isn't going through all that before it is a XXCopper PickXX, whereas a steel steam powered drill machine should get through all but the last. If they come under equipped, they will come back with better next year.

[Iden]

I can't help but think that anyone who is familiar with dwarves would consider charging down the trade tunnel to be the absolute last resort...

Well, that's definately the dwarfy thing to do. Without a doubt, actually. But it also depends on the circumstances.

A dwarf, in my general opinion, is happy acting against all odds. But never with guaranteed suicide. They'd pull something nutty out of their beards before ensuring death. I mean, theres no point in dying if you can't take most of them with you, and if it's guaranteed suicide, those odds don't sound good enough. Against all odds? "Good 'nough for me, lad!"

A room full of baddies and almost no chance of making it out? That dwarf's there! But a room full of certain doom? That's when you find another plan! Including flooding, blowing stuff up, sapping, magma, digging a new tunnel in an dropping boulders in, flooding from a river infested with carp, just damn well throwing some carp in, or running within sight and just plain flagging the guys until they leave their hall of certain dwarfen doom and enter your hall of certain goblinoid doom.

Actually, in leiu of this... I think we should petition Toady to add the potential for Dwarfs to flag and moon (taunt) enemies with rude gestures. In fact, that'd be the funniest way to break a siege: Pull a Mel Gibson and flag the entire enemy army.

==

Though seriously. "Charging down the trade tunnel to be the absolute last resort..." for whom? Attackers or Defenders? Or either/or?

As the attackers, after blowing off some steam and not holding a successful siege for months, you may just say "ah it's not worth it anymore" rather than lose more and more men attempting to push on over into the enemy fort. The costs eventually may not be worth it. That's not Dwarfy at all. That's just foolhardy. If you're stuck, you're stuck, go home and pay those bastards back for it later. Though I must say, this would probably come months after trying to charge down that tunell in the first place and getting pushed back. So maybe you were right after all.

Now, if you're defending, you're food is all but run out and you have no choice but to attack now or lose your fort in a downward spiral of unhappiness and starvation? What kind of a dwarf are ya? What are ya waitin' fer? We be some thirsty dwarfs. You should be the first Dwarf down that tunnel trying to break out! That's the real dwarfy thing to do. ("Pssst... hey guys.. I hear our scouts said those goblins have a wagonful of ale out there!")

[RAM]

I was thinking that the first thing that attackers usually do is charge down the trade tunnel. But the average dwarf probably has it trapped, rigged to flood, rigged to fill with magma, covered by fortifications,and covered by siege engines, rigged to collapse, and ready to unleash a canine horde. And then there is whatever special surprises they have for the traders they don't like...

Once they see that the dwarves have been mining the thick layers of blood smears(the 'other', 'other' iron ore...) some attackers may go looking for an alternate means of access...

[Tormy]

I am 100% for tunnels that exist like chasms, etc, that are hidden while being dug, until discovered.   Realism, the excitement of suddenly finding a large weakness in your fort's defense, etc,  is key.

This. Some additional notes:
1. In a siege, tunnelers shouldn't dig tunnels all around the map. They should dig 1-2 main tunnels towards the player's fortress if it's possible.
2. Individual creatures, such as giant worms should be allowed to dig countless number of tunnels, because it would be "realistic" like that.
3. We will need to have some different TAGs in regard to materials&tunneling ability. Examples [TUNNELER:HARD] -> This creature can dig through all materials, [TUNNELER:SOFT] -> This creature can dig through soft materials only.

If you don't like these ideas, that not a problem at all, since IF tunneling will get implemented, you will be able to remove it from the game anyways.

[praguepride]

Hmmm

Swiss Cheese Map? Pass. Will tunnelers drop ore? What happens if the tunnelers breach HFS? Will there be mess ups because the tunneler hit magma/underground water? It would be frustratingly hard to move fluids reliably because all it takes is a screw up in the AI to breach your magma/water pipe (or your preperations for said pipe) and fubar a lot of careful planning.

I don't know about you guys, but I often spend HOURS designing my base from the embark. It's hard enough when HFS and other hidden map items disrupt all your hard planning, but now to have wandering monsters just chew through your base... that's not fun. That's not even Fun. That's "game frustratingly throw your laptop against the wall because you realize you just wasted 4 hours and then due to shitty AI your base flooded by a random worm."

[Randominality]

Hmm I'm generally against the swiss cheese mountains that would come with tunneling creatures. However if they were restricted to only tunneling in a small area, or if only seigers could tunnel through smooth or constructed walls  then i suppose I'd be happy.

[Hyndis]

Hmmm

Swiss Cheese Map? Pass. Will tunnelers drop ore? What happens if the tunnelers breach HFS? Will there be mess ups because the tunneler hit magma/underground water? It would be frustratingly hard to move fluids reliably because all it takes is a screw up in the AI to breach your magma/water pipe (or your preperations for said pipe) and fubar a lot of careful planning.

I don't know about you guys, but I often spend HOURS designing my base from the embark. It's hard enough when HFS and other hidden map items disrupt all your hard planning, but now to have wandering monsters just chew through your base... that's not fun. That's not even Fun. That's "game frustratingly throw your laptop against the wall because you realize you just wasted 4 hours and then due to shitty AI your base flooded by a random worm."

Exactly why it would be a horrible addition.

Though I do agree that there needs to be some sort of thing to punish the player for cheesing the siege AI, which is why I think it could be handled well enough simply by using negative thoughts.

Who would be happy with an enemy army at the gates? Probably no one. The longer the army is laying siege, the more unhappy people will be. Dwarves being dwarves, an unhappy dwarf may eventually go berserk or fling himself into the magma pit. Or even fell moods.

[irmo]

What are the odds of losing a game of chess?

The odds should be very low if you defend against it properly, and very high if you don't. When tunnelers show up on the map, whether as part of a siege or just a random tunneling beast, they should behave in some suitable way, and if you kill the tunneler or redirect it away from your fortress, you don't get breached. Otherwise you do.

It seems one of the recurring fallacies of game design is that it's possible to balance out very game-upsetting events by giving them very low probabilities. (You see this in a lot of tabletop RPGs: "I rolled a natural 20! That's an automatic critical hit!") This is "balancing" in the statistical sense (the expected value of screwage due to the planet exploding for no reason equals the expected value of screwage due to your dwarves needing to eat), but certainly not in the perceived-fairness sense. Perceived-fairness balance consists of having good or bad stuff happen in response to making good or bad moves.

It also leads to a game where, most of the time, nothing very interesting comes out of these random rolls, because any dramatic result has to be infrequent.

(Negative thoughts? Um, legendary dining room. Try again.)

[LegoLord]

I am totally in favor of crazy tunneling everywhere. I also want unrealistically frequent hair trigger cave ins and plate tectonics.

Dude, plate tectonics have been proven to be nonexistent for years.

How about ruptures?

He's being sarcastic.  He means the opposite of what he said.

[DanielLC]

He was? I'm in favor of unrealistically frequent hair-trigger cave-ins.

Perceived-fairness balance consists of having good or bad stuff happen in response to making good or bad moves.

True, but building a single line of defense is not generally considered a good move. Leaving cage traps randomly inside your fortress is a good move. Having armed dwarves on duty and patrolling the fortress at all times is a good move. Placing a steel-lined panic room in the middle of every floor into which you can retreat and from which you can flood the rest of the fortress is a good move. When the over-world arc is complete, retreating, rearming, and retaking your old fortress may very well become the best move.

It should always be possible to keep your fortress, but it should be hard. If defending against sieges is easy, than why have them at all?

Also, I'm against the idea of having animals that only dig through dirt. There's only a small layer of dirt. It will take a lot of creatures a long time to make cottage cheese of a mountain, but it will only take a few creatures to cover the surface in interleaving tunnels. If they dig without leaving tunnels, however, I'm all for it.

[RAM]

It should always be possible to keep your fortress, but it should be hard. If defending against sieges is easy, than why have them at all?

To give your dwarves a reason to stay indoors over winter?
So that you won't feel like the neighbours are avoiding you?
Because killing things is almost as much fun as fun is?
So that Armok will have enough sacrifices?
Because otherwise their wouldn't be any reason to build traps?