Print

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

[LegoLord]

Ahem.

Goblins will not always be able to be deterred by a small moat.  In fact, at some point in the future, they may even be able to get through constructed walls.  So no, "they're on the other side of the moat, what's there to be afraid of?" is not a valid argument.

[RAM]

Yes, but the argument in favour of this suggestion is exactly that, that there is nothing to worry about. Ironically, this could be a pretty nice feature if done subtly, but the current suggestion is that this be used as a means of stopping people from just raising the drawbridge whenever a siege shows up...

[Aquillion]

New challenge: Dwarves start to get twitchy and paranoid from being surrounded by a hostile army for too long. Now you actually have to do something!

Yes, but this is a challenge that radically forces people to play the game in your preferred way.

Ahem.

Goblins will not always be able to be deterred by a small moat.  In fact, at some point in the future, they may even be able to get through constructed walls.  So no, "they're on the other side of the moat, what's there to be afraid of?" is not a valid argument.

The question of whether the dwarves are in danger or not is a matter for the player's defenses and the fortress.  If the enemy can break through...  then they'll break through, and there's no need for a hamhanded magic force that makes your dwarves go insane, because they'll go insane as a result of the enemy shooting at them.

On the other hand, my feeling is that it should be possible for the player to at least aspire to build an unassailable fortress, one that no siege can ever break.  It should not be easy (not nearly as easy as it is now), but it shouldn't hamhandedly be made impossible by making it so that when you have an invulnerable fortress, your dwarves still go insane from the non-existent pressure of enemies who can't hurt them.

Many people in this thread obviously like the idea of using armies and sweeping away invaders in a heroic charge.  That's up to them.  But that shouldn't be the only solution.  What you're asking for here is just that -- a mechanic to ensure that no fortress, no matter how well designed, is ever able to be (near-)perfectly defended against sieges.

I see that suggestion as being against the spirit of Dwarf Fortress.  The game is not really, to me, about micromanaging dwarves or armies or anything -- it's about aspiring towards the perfect fortress, based on my own intentions and desires.  I can try and make one that's structurally unassailable, or one set up for perfect productivity, or whatever...  and nothing stops me from focusing on it  however I want, and approaching the challenges however I want.

I don't think it should be as easy as it is now to make a perfectly-defended fortress, of course.  Maybe you should never be able to entirely reach perfection, only asymptotically approach it, keeping things interesting.  It's boring if it's too easy to make that perfect fortress.  But the effort of trying is the game of Dwarf Fortress, to me.

This suggest is bad because it is a "Play the game my way or you're playing it wrong" suggestion.  The game should not use hamhanded rules to force players to solve things in specific ways -- it shouldn't say "You MUST kill the siegers or you lose, period!"  That is not the Dwarf Fortress way.  The Dwarf Fortress way is to present the siegers as a challenge or danger, carefully-simulated, and to let the player confront it however they want.

Or, to reiterate:  If the enemy can make it past my moats and traps and devious defenses, then they can make it past my defenses, and will kill me.  That's fine.  If they can't, they can't.  No other mechanics are needed.

Also note, of course, that siegers must have supplies and morale of their own, eventually.  Pulling up the drawbridge and outlasting a siege is an entirely realistic and valid way to deal with it; that's the whole point of a fortress.  The enemy should have various ways to try to get past your moat and so on, but you shouldn't be magically forced to rush out of your fortress and attack them -- that's silly and unrealistic.

[Footkerchief]

... but it shouldn't hamhandedly be made impossible by making it so that when you have an invulnerable fortress, your dwarves still go insane from the non-existent pressure of enemies who can't hurt them.

... What you're asking for here is just that -- a mechanic to ensure that no fortress, no matter how well designed, is ever able to be (near-)perfectly defended against sieges.

... but you shouldn't be magically forced to rush out of your fortress and attack them -- that's silly and unrealistic.

I'm having difficulty seeing any connection between things said by the people you quoted, and the results you're imagining.  Nobody has said that it should be strictly impossible to passively defend a fortress.  Your reply is very eloquent but you aren't responding to specific points.

[LegoLord]

Yeah.  That's all well and good, but when did I say all dwarves go insane from having goblins outside?  Nope.  I said that the current game structure of goblins having no way to cross a moat doesn't really trump the idea of there being a penalty for lockdown, because goblins eventually will have a way to get across the moat.

[irmo]

Yeah.  That's all well and good, but when did I say all dwarves go insane from having goblins outside?  Nope.  I said that the current game structure of goblins having no way to cross a moat doesn't really trump the idea of there being a penalty for lockdown, because goblins eventually will have a way to get across the moat.

And it's not even that they will be able to get through whatever your fancy defenses are, but that they might. If your way of dealing with a siege is to lock yourself in and wait for them to go away, then you don't know what they're doing out there. They might find a way in tomorrow. So your dwarves are still under pressure and should still suffer the psychological effects. What they won't suffer are the psychological effects of getting killed and wounded, so your nigh-invincible fortress still helps a lot.

Aquillion, the idea is not to force you to deal with sieges in a certain way, just to simulate them in more depth. This isn't a "magical force"; it's psychology. You have to keep the invaders from getting in, you have to deal with being cut off from outside trade and resources, and you have to deal with the mental stress of being under attack. If you have a very secure, well-stocked, and mentally stable fortress, you might still be able to just wait out the siege.

[alfie275]

Maybe make it so they only get large unhappy thoughts not just go mad, this might drive them mad though, and only if they are reliant on going over the moat.

[LegoLord]

You mean one large enough that it makes sealing yourself in a challenge, but not so bad that it cannot be overridden?

[SirHoneyBadger]

Maybe there could be a disease involved with this kind of thing.

Humans get "cabin fever" (partly as a result of Vitamin D deficiency, but also partly psychological), so maybe dwarfs that are cooped up in one place, underground, for too long, will start to get more Fell Moods, and just go crazy more often, when they path over the same small area too many times.

There could be medical/psychological *things* you could *do* to alleviate this kind of danger, which would go along with the Health and Medical emphasis we've been seeing lately, that would allow you to build your Fortress in a contained space, underground, if you decide you want to do that--but not without consequences, and not successfully, for too long, without having planned a strategy for dealing with them.

That's something I particularly like, the idea of "by all means, do whatever you want to do in the game, but there's consequences for every choice you make". That to me is a *huge* step towards "reality" in the game.

And it helps maintain the challenge of the game.

[Aquillion]

...what if I mine away the top of a mountain, smooth the cliff face so nobody can get anywhere near it, and set up a meeting spot there, far out of reach of non-flying enemies?  Would that avert cabin fever?

(Cabin fever seems undwarven, though.)

[LegoLord]

...what if I mine away the top of a mountain, smooth the cliff face so nobody can get anywhere near it, and set up a meeting spot there, far out of reach of non-flying enemies?  Would that avert cabin fever?

(Cabin fever seems undwarven, though.)

Dwarves crack more easily than most real people in DF.  No, that wall would not avert cabin fever, because methods for AIs to get over walls will eventually be implemented.

[profit]

Didnt he say avert cabin fever?

  I did not know that that averting cabin fever and being ruthlessly crushed by orcs that scaled the mountain were mutually exlusive.

I use to be apathetic though twords this whole cabin fever bad thought during siege business..... now that I have thought about it though...

It's just a silly hack to cover up a flaw that only exists because the game is unfinished..... When the invaders come pouring over everything but the most well thought out and ridiculously overdone defensive lines this will no longer be an issue.

Till then lets ignore it, and let this silly hack die as its just wasted programming time.

[LegoLord]

Yes he did.

...what if I mine away the top of a mountain, smooth the cliff face so nobody can get anywhere near it, and set up a meeting spot there, far out of reach of non-flying enemies?  Would that avert cabin fever?

(Cabin fever seems undwarven, though.)

[Carcer]

Let’s approach this from a different angle.

If you’re trapped in your house, with no real security (Security gates, bars over the windows, steel shutters, and whatever.) and there are a bunch of people sitting outside who want to kill you, and can possibly get in, you’re going to be terrified.

On the other hand, if your sitting in your house that has bomb proof walls, steel shutters with firing slits over the windows and what basically amounts to a vault door as your front door, and you've got about ten guys in there with you who are militarily trained who have the armour, guns, ammo and "kick-your-face-in" attitude and hordes of loyal attack dogs to fight off the enemies. And you've got enough provisions to last a few years; I doubt you'll be that on edge.

The same should apply to the dwarfs in the fortress. If their defences are weak, they don’t think they have enough traps (Generates negative thought) Have enough of a military compared to whose attacking them (Generates big negative thought) or the enemy has a clear and unobstructed path to them (Really big negative thought) Then they should get scared or go insane, not just because a bunch of scraggly goblins have arrived.

[Footkerchief]

On the other hand, if your sitting in your house that has bomb proof walls, steel shutters with firing slits over the windows and what basically amounts to a vault door as your front door, and you've got about ten guys in there with you who are militarily trained who have the armour, guns, ammo and "kick-your-face-in" attitude and hordes of loyal attack dogs to fight off the enemies. And you've got enough provisions to last a few years; I doubt you'll be that on edge.

Yeah, although you'd still be on edge at first.  So the fearful thoughts should drop off over time as long as the siegers aren't making any headway or killing any dwarves, although the isolation-related thoughts should increase as the siege drags on.