Print

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

[Pilsu]

Fortification mechanic can't really be used for this seeing the ease of firing through at targets is based on distance

[Shurhaian]

That problem will always be there, too, until such time as special wall designations(engraving and fortification) can have their "active face" specified. For engravings, this is the engraved face(one side, other side, both sides, plus treatment of corners); for fortifications, this is their bias(one way, other way, no bias/straight channel). As it is, dwarven preferences for which side they work from will almost certainly screw up your attempts at getting the right face carved unless you do crazy micromanagement(which might not even be practical if you're trying to treat walls along the main entry to your fortress).

Not sure if fortification bias should work additively(impose a penalty of X tiles for people trying to shoot form the wrong side) or multiplicatively, but I think additively makes more sense. The mechanic as it stands could be largely reused - just with there being an advantage to the people hiding on the right side due to the specific manner in which the slot is carved.

With murder holes, it's pretty much a given that you want to shoot down, so getting the designation right isn't the issue, but that notion of bias does still need to be there. It also needs to restrict vision pretty much to the vertical - people standing right over the hole can see anyone in the tile beneath(and maybe the surrounding tiles), and maybe vice versa, but anyone who's on the next tile over gets no benefit from the murder hole at all(and, conversely, cannot be attacked through it except by e.g. dragonfire billowing out).

[Foehamster]

Not sure if fortification bias should work additively(impose a penalty of X tiles for people trying to shoot form the wrong side) or multiplicatively, but I think additively makes more sense. The mechanic as it stands could be largely reused - just with there being an advantage to the people hiding on the right side due to the specific manner in which the slot is carved.

I'm not sure fortification bias makes sense unless some spiky obstruction keeps people on the wrong side from getting right up to the arrow slit, and still in that case the difference is the distance.

[Iden]

Not sure if fortification bias should work additively(impose a penalty of X tiles for people trying to shoot form the wrong side) or multiplicatively, but I think additively makes more sense. The mechanic as it stands could be largely reused - just with there being an advantage to the people hiding on the right side due to the specific manner in which the slot is carved.

I'm not sure fortification bias makes sense unless some spiky obstruction keeps people on the wrong side from getting right up to the arrow slit, and still in that case the difference is the distance.

Fortification bias makes perfect sense. If you're really set on having your fortifications on ground level (Z), then you should probably have a trench dug in front of it to prevent anyone from getting up to it. Personally, what I do is make an above-ground gatehouse or a cavernous defensive area where I have a 2nd-story fortification (Z+1) and a trench dug out next to the building itself (Z/Z-1). Trench on a 2-story building is to keep enemies from entering a blindspot beneath the 2nd-story archers.

Ideally, this would mean more line-of-sight from inside, and harder to hit from outside.

Also, ideally, somebody would be shooting at them from inside to make sure they didn't get that close, anyhow.

[Shurhaian]

Arrow slits aren't straight holes cut in the channel, AFAIK; they're tapered, spreading out on one side. Sure, someone who gets right up to it can still fire through them, but they might not be able to do so as well as people standing on the correct side.

The argument that this only does so much to someone right up against the slit would be an argument for multiplicative rather than additive benefit/penalty. Then it's up to the defenders to keep the enemy from GETTING right up to the slit.

A trench makes sense for outer walls, but somewhat less sense for a gatehouse(and to the best of my knowledge, trapping the enemy between two portcullis with the defenders able to shoot through arrow slits and murder holes was not uncommon, though I can't recall the name for this structure offhand).

[BradB]

Not entirely on topic of murder holes, but I thought I should add this in.

If we ever get large kegs for liquid storage, they should be linkable to "break" when triggered. You could mount it on the roof of a 2-z high corridor and dump big kegs of magma on people. They'd be a great new trap that isn't made of trap-specific items like saws and spikes, and is rather a normal construction cleverly turned deadly.

[Iden]

Not entirely on topic of murder holes, but I thought I should add this in.

If we ever get large kegs for liquid storage, they should be linkable to "break" when triggered. You could mount it on the roof of a 2-z high corridor and dump big kegs of magma on people. They'd be a great new trap that isn't made of trap-specific items like saws and spikes, and is rather a normal construction cleverly turned deadly.

I think rather than "breakable", it would be better to simply make them to be opened by traps. Lid is popped, they are already open and a trap knocks them over, stopper is unplugged from keg/barrel. I think simple things like that would be easier and more believable. I don't really see a keg of magma working - it'd need to be mostly just a small containment room of bauxite or something, with bauxite mechanisms, rather than a keg.

Arrow slits aren't straight holes cut in the channel, AFAIK; they're tapered, spreading out on one side. Sure, someone who gets right up to it can still fire through them, but they might not be able to do so as well as people standing on the correct side.

The argument that this only does so much to someone right up against the slit would be an argument for multiplicative rather than additive benefit/penalty. Then it's up to the defenders to keep the enemy from GETTING right up to the slit.

A trench makes sense for outer walls, but somewhat less sense for a gatehouse(and to the best of my knowledge, trapping the enemy between two portcullis with the defenders able to shoot through arrow slits and murder holes was not uncommon, though I can't recall the name for this structure offhand).

Arrow-loops [after the crusades, AFAIK] looked much like this. I'm not even sure about the smaller horizontal cross-piece there, even. "The interior walls behind an arrow loop are often cut away at an oblique angle so that the archer has a wide field of view and field of fire." (Wikipedia quote) Thus improving the effectiveness of anybody using the fortifications. An obvious advantage over basic slits in the wall that could only fire directly forward through the walls.

When you're next to it, you can fire out of it. Typically arrow-loops were never at ground-level (pic). Being higher up gave you a better line-of-sight of the battle-field (man-sized objects, and even horse-sized objects no longer could block your view of the field), and increased your firing range. It also prevented anybody from coming right up to said loops and firing back inside. Though why you'd want to walk right up to an arrow-loop, anyway, in order to find out that there isn't a person aiming at your face is beyond me. Maybe stupid goblins might want to try it, but I sure wouldn't.

To me, ground-level fortifications are a flaw in fort design. I tend to err on the side of cavernous entryways, once I have time to excavate them. However, I do understand what you mean here. In a small hallway, especially early on in fort history, perhaps ground-level fortifications are necessary inside. Well, sometimes you have to. And you still get benefits for that fortification. Though at which time you'd preferably want the drop on anyone inside your halls, so you'd be closer to the fortification than they are, and they'd be hurting because they'd need to run at your position and have a bow in order to even attempt to stop you. Chances are they'd fail.

Though, to be on the safe side, even inside, you should do something in order to try to prevent such a scenario though. Even putting trenches along fortifications to prevent invaders from getting close. Filling said trenches with magma is optional, but highly encouraged. Maybe you can scare an enemy into falling into one while he dodges arrows coming from behind the fortifications.

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

What do you think the odds of this happening is?

[SirHoneyBadger]

Forget about arrows.

Get yourself a little cart and stick a bunch of long steel spikes on the heavy metal plate you've attached to the front of it. When the goblins come by, shove it through the bars at them 60 or 70 times, or until it just stops being funny anymore.

No ammo needed, no accuracy needed, and no risk of the cart being used against you--but you will need a mop.


If Go-Cart Of Pokey Death (tm) seems over-complicated, just put a nice heavy stone pillar at the top of a ramp. Try to wait until the first goblin is actually peeing his pants before you roll it down on them. You might want to put some handles on that pillar, because it's going to be a bitch to get unstuck.

[The Architect]

While a "murder hole" persay is not an actual mechanic, the same effect is achievable through proper building. I really like your idea, but here is a way to accomplish the same thing with the current version (to hold you over for the time being).

Cut a hole in the floor of your archer's post (directly over the entrance or wherever you wish the enemy to walk) and have a fortification surrounding this hole. Your dwarves will be firing at point-blank into the enemy. They should be utterly unable to miss, as they can only fire at enemies visible from the hole and thus either directly underneath it or one space away diagonally from the dwarf. The only danger is that the enemy might leave the square before the bolt hits, but that seems unlikely.

[SirHoneyBadger]

You're still on this whole "let's waste arrows when we have heavier, nastier, reuseable crap that can't be shot back at us" kick, huh?

Arrows would work. You're absolutely right about that.

But while you're shooting arrows point-blank out of murder holes with great precision and success, your archers have that much less mildly aerodynamic expensive *-{*ammo*}-* to travel the 100+ yards of atmosphere you need it to, and the immense piles of rusty unsellable useless junk lying around your Fortress, none of which is actively involved in killing and or maiming the bad guys...aren't getting any smaller. 

[The Architect]

You're still on this whole "let's waste arrows when we have heavier, nastier, reuseable crap that can't be shot back at us" kick, huh?

Arrows would work. You're absolutely right about that.

But while you're shooting arrows point-blank out of murder holes with great precision and success, your archers have that much less mildly aerodynamic expensive *-{*ammo*}-* to travel the 100+ yards of atmosphere you need it to, and the immense piles of rusty unsellable useless junk lying around your Fortress, none of which is actively involved in killing and or maiming the bad guys...aren't getting any smaller. 

Huh? Sorry man, I think you have your forums mixed up. This isn't about your stone dropping idea from the other thread, this is a response to the original poster here who suggested traditional murder holes. I gave him a way of getting what he wanted with the current version.

While a "murder hole" persay is not an actual mechanic, the same effect is achievable through proper building. I really like your idea, but here is a way to accomplish the same thing with the current version (to hold you over for the time being).

I really don't know what you are responding to.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Yeah.

No.

See, "Arrow Slits" are when there's an arrow  >>>---D  slit.

"Murder Holes" are when there's a hole...that you murder people through. Thus the name.

Murder + Hole = MurderHole. They're friends, see?

I get that there were arrows involved in the initial idea, and it's a great idea. I'm all for it, sans the arrows. Or, alternately, with arrows that I can replace with scary shit.

[The Architect]

I'm uninvolved in that entire discussion. The only comment I made, and the only one I intend to make, is an on-topic attempt to help the original poster get what he wants without waiting for it to be implemented in a new version. I hope it has been helpful.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Nor was I involving you, The Architect. Not in a direct manner, anyway. I think you're possibly misinterpreting my comments as being directed at you.
I mean absolutely no offense, but they are not.

On the contrary, I agree with your assessment, and feel it requires little or no additional explanation or comment.

However, I do feel that the OP's suggestion of arrows is inefficient and self-limiting. As I also feel the OP otherwise has a lot of potential, I comment in a manner I hope will further my end of a more exciting environment for potential creativity.