Print

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

[commondragon]

Digging a channel will make a ramp instead

[Chronas]

Thats actually logical if you think about it, digging a traversable incline compared to totally removing a storey of earth from above -it does render 'dig ramp' redunt though

[Myroc]

Yes, I believe this is a new feature, not a bug.

[Burneddi]

I believe it might be somewhat a new feature, but still not working like intended.

For example, if you dig a 1-tile wide channel, it will be filled with ramps. To my understanding it'd look like this:

Code: [Select]

(+ is floor, # is wall and ▲ is ramp) Topdown:
+++++++
+▲▲▲▲▲+
+++++++

Side:
\|If my poor ascii-presentation isn't clear enough, here's how I think it would look like from side in a drawn form:

This is because 1 ramp can logically only face 1 direction, not 2 directions as a "real ditch simulation" would require (because as everyone knows, ditches are U-shaped, or V-shaped, and a ditch is the only thing I can think of this new system tries to simulate). But this is a minor fault.

Here's what makes it stupid.

Code: [Select]

As it would have been in 40d, . is open space:
+++++
+...+
+...+
+...+
+++++

As it is now:
+++++
+▲▲▲+
+▲▲▲+
+▲▲▲+
+++++That shouldn't even be possible! The central ramp should collapse because it is not supported by walls from any direction.

I can't even imagine what that would look like in real life.

Here's my best guess:

But that makes absolutely no sense. How's that a pit? Who the heck would dig like that if they were asked to dig a pit?

Just bring back the old system, this is useless.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

I recall hearing that the ramps are indeed a new feature to get added realism.

Note that a "ramp tile" could theoretically have more than one slope if the need be there. I don't see any problem with that per se.

But I agree that free standing ramps are a little bit odd - but then again, this is just the feeling from previous versions. If you think about it, why should a ramp of solid stone/earth collapse to nothingness only because you remove material from next to it? It is not resting on the neighboring tile but actually supporting itself - so their immediate collapse is actually illogical.

Deathworks

[Grumman]

Burneddi, as much as I dislike this new system, your visualisation of the result is wrong. It would be better to think of the ramps up as pyramids, and ramps down as inverted pyramids, with the points of adjacent ramps joined by ridges or valleys as required.

[Burneddi]

Burneddi, as much as I dislike this new system, your visualisation of the result is wrong. It would be better to think of the ramps up as pyramids, and ramps down as inverted pyramids, with the points of adjacent ramps joined by ridges or valleys as required.

But a ramp is only passable to one direction, is it not?

Therefore you will get "knackered ramps" if you build ramps that require a 180° turn to pass, as has been demonstrated in this picture.

[Jehdin]

Burneddi is right, the new system makes no sense.

Channel:

Ramp:

Thats actually logical if you think about it, digging a traversable incline compared to totally removing a storey of earth from above -it does render 'dig ramp' redunt though

I fail to see how it's logical to dig a ramp down into a hole that you're just going to dump water into...and if you did want a ramp, well, we already had that option.

[King Doom]

It's got to be a bug, it's just terrible. the three tile wide example given is the main problem, you just get a ditch filled with gentle inclines, and it makes channeling pretty much worthless now.

"Invaders, Behold my moat of... uh... shallow... ramps... and ... I... welp, you guys want us to just line up for the random murdering, or want to chase us around first?"

[Jehdin]

It's got to be a bug, it's just terrible. the three tile wide example given is the main problem, you just get a ditch filled with gentle inclines, and it makes channeling pretty much worthless now.

"Invaders, Behold my moat of... uh... shallow... ramps... and ... I... welp, you guys want us to just line up for the random murdering, or want to chase us around first?"

You could still make a magma moat, that should still stop them, bit more complicated than a water moat, though.

You could also just wall off your fortress instead of digging a moat.. It's just as effective.

[SmileyMan]

It's got to be a bug, it's just terrible. the three tile wide example given is the main problem, you just get a ditch filled with gentle inclines, and it makes channeling pretty much worthless now.

"Invaders, Behold my moat of... uh... shallow... ramps... and ... I... welp, you guys want us to just line up for the random murdering, or want to chase us around first?"

I think that was the point of the change, so that digging a 1-tile wide ditch wasn't such an effective instant defence.

If you mine underneath first, you don't get the ramps.  So you can make a decent defensive ditch by digging the far edge first (which will be ramped), then mining underneath to the near edge, then channeling over the mines.  Ascii art examples:

Code: [Select]

... outside ...
...............
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
...............
.... inside ...
Step 1: Dig channels at "^" markers
Step 2: Using ramps to go down, mine tunnels underneath "X" markers
Step 3: Dig channels at "X" markers to complete the ditch.
(optional) Step 4: Fill with water/magma.

One upside is that if your dwarves accidentally fall in the moat, they have a chance to escape, and can get back in if the drawbridge is down.

[Jehdin]

I think that was the point of the change, so that digging a 1-tile wide ditch wasn't such an effective instant defence.

If true, that's a horrible reason for the change, considering the same can be done by walling off the entrance to your fort or forbidding a door.

One upside is that if your dwarves accidentally fall in the moat, they have a chance to escape, and can get back in if the drawbridge is down.

But you could have done that with the old system, without the extra step of mining out where you wanted to channel first.

I suppose it makes some sense that you'd have to build a ramp down to dig out a channel, considering that'd be a pretty deep hole, but having it dig a ramp by default is confusing and makes the channeling option redundant.

[Walliard]

Here's what makes it stupid.

Code: [Select]

As it would have been in 40d, . is open space:
+++++
+...+
+...+
+...+
+++++

As it is now:
+++++
+▲▲▲+
+▲▲▲+
+▲▲▲+
+++++That shouldn't even be possible! The central ramp should collapse because it is not supported by walls from any direction.

The central ramp does collapse (disappear, rather), just as it would have if you mass-designated a bunch of ramps in the old version.

[Grumman]

But a ramp is only passable to one direction, is it not?

No, it is only passable to the upper level on sides with walls, and on the lower level on sides without walls. The number of each is irrelevant.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'd actually describe the shape as follows:

For a normal ramp, with a wall on one side, you get this:
___
    \
      \___

For a ramp with walls on both sides, you get this:
___     __
    \ /


For a ramp without walls on either side, you get this:


____/ \___

[Sutremaine]

You can still have an instant defence by removing ramps as quickly as they appear and then either digging a tunnel out of the channel or creating a ramp on the defensive side.