Print

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

[10ebbor10]

And yeah, a neat sketch once in a while and the certainty that stuff will keep going is better than a rival of the Mona Lisa once a month, and being on the verge of burnout every time. Perfectionism sucks.

I wouldn't put it that way. Perfectionism isn't that bad. It's just the enemy of good enough.

Can we have a siege with named characters (and events, obviously) on both sides? Pretty please?

Supporting this the above post.

[ashton1993]

Can we have a siege with named characters (and events, obviously) on both sides? Pretty please?

Supporting this the above post.

I third this what was mentioned previously!

[GreatWyrmGold]

I think I'd prefer to see dwarves in Darker's scrumptious artstyle.

Just to point out, sieging a dwarven fortress typically allows one to see dwarves.

[10ebbor10]

I think I'd prefer to see dwarves in Darker's scrumptious artstyle.

Just to point out, sieging a dwarven fortress typically allows one to see dwarves.

When you can see the White of the enemies eyes, both armies are doing something wrong. Really, decent sieges are boring.

-Throw rocks
-Scavenge food
-Throw back defenders
-Assault
-Repeat untill one of both surrenders

[GreatWyrmGold]

1. It mightn't be the goblins seeing the dwarves, just the players.
2. There's still a dwarf at the catapult or manning the walls or something.
3. Have you seen how some DF players try to break sieges?

[DarkerDark]

I think I'd prefer to see dwarves in Darker's scrumptious artstyle.

Just to point out, sieging a dwarven fortress typically allows one to see dwarves.

When you can see the White of the enemies eyes, both armies are doing something wrong. Really, decent sieges are boring.

-Throw rocks
-Scavenge food
-Throw back defenders
-Assault
-Repeat untill one of both surrenders

True, but I see typical siege warfare as something humans would conduct. They already take a more realistic approach to siege warfare in the game by camping outside your walls and trying to starve your fort out. Goblins on the other hand, we know that in the game they like to charge forward for blood and glory. And realistically, I don't think they'd be the type to wait around for the enemy to die due to starvation or losses through attrition. Their society wouldn't allow it. They'd likely get bored and start fighting with each other until their war-leaders rallied them onwards in search of easier targets to lay waste to... Also, knowing the suggestions that came from Elves of Amanereli, I doubt the players in this forum would have the goblins sitting back tossing boulders and crossbow bolts all day.

Anyways, it doesn't have to be a Goblin siege, I'm still in the early brainstorming stages, so I'm still open to suggestions.

[Aklyon]

Also, knowing the suggestions that came from Elves of Amanereli, I doubt the players in this forum would have the goblins sitting back tossing boulders and crossbow bolts all day.

Are you saying we'd be getting all of the elves goblins killed by accidentally angering the best fighter elf goblin?

[Rose]

I vote for goblin seige purely because I wanna see your take on goblins.

I'm rooting for glam rock goblins myself.

[monk12]

Clearly it should be a combined arms force- Humans for their ability to organize and strategize, Elves for their war beasts and Sunshine, and Goblins for their ruthlessness and great numbers. The Humans are there for the plunder and to strengthen their economic stranglehold on the world, the Elves are their to avenge the rape of nature that has occurred, and the Goblins are there for shits and giggles (but secretly because their Demon General wants to loose HFS,) and the Humans and Elves tolerate the Goblins because they'd rather let them do the dying.

[Dariush]

Clearly it should be a combined arms force- Humans for their ability to organize and strategize, Elves for their war beasts and Sunshine, and Goblins for their ruthlessness and great numbers. The Humans are there for the plunder and to strengthen their economic stranglehold on the world, the Elves are their to avenge the rape of nature that has occurred, and the Goblins are there for shits and giggles (but secretly because their Demon General wants to loose HFS,) and the Humans and Elves tolerate the Goblins because they'd rather let them do the dying.

I am so in favor of this. Also controlling besieged dwarves at the same time would be a verrry good bonus.

[Ghazkull]

so all around goodness?

I'm in favour of that

[Rexfelum]

Well we do seem to be leaning toward a siege, however the content may be.

I just looked back and was reminded that the proper title here is "The Elves of Amanereli: The Caravan."  So what might be next?  "The Goblins of [Dark Fortress name]: The Siege"?

--Rexfelum

[GreatWyrmGold]

I think an idea mentioned earlier bears mentioning again: Two sides.

Some players provide suggestions for the siegers, some for the besieged. Perhaps the players control important dwarves/goblins/fluffy wablers/whatever, or perhaps they just choose a side and start making suggestions for it.

An illustrated battle between the world's craziest, in a world crazier than ours? Sounds good.

[rabidgam3r]

DARKERDARK, START THINE DRAWINGS OF GREAT AWESOMENESS OR I OPEN THE FLOODGATE!

[Urist McDwarfFortress]

Wow! An actual post from DarkerDark himself! TWO!!! And here I figured that this was just on my list of updated topics due to some ultra-necro-bump.

If the new game is going to be in the same world as this game, then it won't really make much sense to have the elves sieging a dwarf fortress, while they have a caravan on the way there to trade. Unless, of course its a completely different dwarven and/or elven nation.