Print

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

[Impaler[WrG]]

Currently levers are semi-magical able to act at infinite distance with no real drawback, their are obvious reason why we don't want to force a physical connection between a lever and what its linked too.  But why not require that some rope or chain be consumed in the process of linking these distant points.

It would make things slightly less magical while providing a new use for rope/chain which is currently only useful for restraining things (prisoners & animals).  The number of rope units needed would be proportional to distance but modest say 1 unit per 10 tiles distance beyond 1 (so an adjacent lever requires no rope).  Distance would be a simple summation of the difference in position across the 3 axis, so point (3, 5, 10) and (7, 2, is 7-3=4, 5-2=3, 10-8=2, 4+3+2= 9 distance for 1 unit of rope.  All types of rope would be equally effective for now but some day their might be speed bonuses if some ropes are given better 'stats' then others.

The dwarf linking the lever will need to bring the rope to the lever and/or linking target and 'attach' it as they do the mechanisms.  When de-linked about a quarter of the rope would 'explode' out of the lever and another quarter from the linked object and would be reusable, the rest would be lost.  Their have been ideas that mechanisms will need more maintenance and 'oiling' in the future, if so then a periodical replacement of these ropes as they rot or vermin gnaw at them could be another source of maintenance, metal chains would of course be immune to this wear.

EDIT:  Due to a great deal of ERRONEOUS (and frankly stupid) speculation that their should be a physical connection required between levers and the things they trigger let me repeat categorically that not what I'm proposing, ropes & chains would simply be consumed in the linking process just like mechanism are currently consumed, that is ALL.  Any thing else is a ludicrously BAD idea and I would ask that people NOT speculate on it in this thread.

[Grek]

Alternate plan: The lever requires 1 rope and has to be adjacent to the thing it's connected to. For greater distances, you must hook it up to a pair of gear assemblies connected by an axle.

[Draco18s]

Alternate plan: The lever requires 1 rope and has to be adjacent to the thing it's connected to. For greater distances, you must hook it up to a pair of gear assemblies connected by an axle.

If I'm not mistaken, that's what this suggestion is AVOIDING.

And for a damn good reason:

Explain how you'd link a floodgate without leakage.

[Warlord255]

I'd be all for a 1 rope/chain per 10 tiles thing. Though one asks what might happen with the deterioration of said chains/ropes over time, and that could be problematic for either fortress maintainence or the proper functioning of adventure-explored forts.

[Aldaris]

Thus you have to invest in the more expensive metal chains, although I'd say that GCS silk wouldn't wear a noticable amount, making that an option as well.

[Leartes]

I think it wouldn't be bad if the rope deteriorates over time and dwarfs with the mechanic labor on go around and check them from time to time to keep everything going.

Same for traps by the way, so if you got a big maschine running all the time or have tons of traps you would require a squad of mechanics. This could also be an easy way to improve the mechanics skill without creating tons of crap mechanisms.

EDIT:
That said, i am totally for ropes and chains used as links - just thought a step further ...

[Dvergar]

I like my magical levers! 

I would rather have a gear and an axle that would go in between the floor and the roof of the tile above.  So in game terms it would simply be a building requirement.

[Drake1500]

I like my magical levers! 

I would rather have a gear and an axle that would go in between the floor and the roof of the tile above.  So in game terms it would simply be a building requirement.

So are you saying that you need to build a gearbox and then link via axle, or what here? The forced link with gearbox has already been shot down, as floodgates would then leak.

Personally, I agree with the idea for rope/chain so far. A little bit of abstraction, but that's a-OK with me.

[HatfieldCW]

It could even be scaled to the operation.  A floodgate could swing open and shut with just a rope on it, but a 9x9 bridge would need several iron chains to raise it up.

[Shaostoul]

As cool as the idea is, to have chains and ropes running all over the fortress, we can't put tubing or something similar in walls for making it so we don't have entrances every where if we have external things that are hooked up...

Is all of it hooked up to the lever or do you want to have the chains/ropes running every where?

I think it'd be an inconvenience until a better method of tracking items and items having an actual space value would be put into place.

To incorporate it, other things would need to be added.

[Drake1500]

As cool as the idea is, to have chains and ropes running all over the fortress, we can't put tubing or something similar in walls for making it so we don't have entrances every where if we have external things that are hooked up...

Is all of it hooked up to the lever or do you want to have the chains/ropes running every where?

I think it'd be an inconvenience until a better method of tracking items and items having an actual space value would be put into place.

To incorporate it, other things would need to be added.

Actually, the idea is to just have the rope as part of the linking process, being in the lever. The rope wouldn't actually show up on the map.

[Untelligent]

I like levers the way they are now. Tying a bunch of ropes between a lever at the bottom of the mountain and a noble execution floodgate at the top of my redundantly tall tower seems a bit unrealistic.

[kenken244]

Then just don't put it at the bottom of your tower, put it at the top.

[Untelligent]

But all my dwarves hang out in the bottom and lower third.

[Shaostoul]

Ya, I'm content with the way levers are now.