Print

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

[Leonidas]

Try this experiment.  Clear a big space on the floor, out of the way.  I used 6x10.  Pile up next to it enough rocks to build the bridge, and enough blocks to build the bridge.  Make sure that you have only one dwarf with architecture and masonry labors enabled, and give that dwarf nothing else to do.  Shut off all other architecture and mason jobs so that your mason has nothing to do.  Then exit-save and make a copy of the whole game folder.

Now run both games, side by side if you like.  In the first game build a rough rock bridge in that space, carefully using only the rocks that are next to the bridge.  In the second game, build the same bridge but out of the blocks that you've piled up.

Now let both games run.  See who finishes the bridge first.  If you want to be extra-scientific, note the dates of various events, such as when construction actually starts, when the bridge goes to the first stage of post, when it goes to the second stage of posts, and when it finishes.  Also note any breaks that your mason takes along the way.

My data:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Oddommanang is a Legendary Mason +1, Proficient Building Designer.  He's flimsy and very weak.  He's building a 6x10 drawbridge.

Block Bridge
15 Felsite    Begin work
19 Felsite    Bridge goes to first construction stage of 6 posts.
20 Felsite    Bridge goes to second construction stage of 15 posts.
22 Felsite    Bridge complete .

Rough Rock Bridge
15 Felsite   Begin work.
25 Felsite    Bridge goes to six posts.
1 Hematite    Bridge goes to fifteen posts.
6 Hematite     Bridge complete.

I ran both scenarios twice, and these are actually the better data for the rough rock bridge.  The other time, the mason loaded up all the stones into the bridge and then took a three-week break.  I've read that stones are much heavier than blocks, so it makes sense that picking up 16 stones will make a dwarf tired faster than lifting 16 blocks.  But breaks have some random component to them, so I don't have enough data to prove that lifting heavier objects will make him tire faster and therefore take a break sooner.  It would make sense, but I can't prove it.

The summary is that the block bridge took 7 days to complete, while the rough rock bridge took at least 21 days (and longer when the mason took a break).  Blocks aren't just lighter and easier to store; they cut bridge construction time by two thirds.  And they probably cut other construction time by a similar amount.

I encourage you all to test this in other situations, maybe with a line of workshops or constructions.  For now I'll assume that in all situations where you have a choice between rock or block, the block builds three times faster.

Edit: Updated the wiki article on blocks.

[Untelligent]

The problem is, is the extra time it takes to haul the rocks to the masonry, makes the blocks, and haul the blocks back to block storage worth the shorter build time?

[Vehudur]

The problem is, is the extra time it takes to haul the rocks to the masonry, makes the blocks, and haul the blocks back to block storage worth the shorter build time?

Yes this.  I imagine that comes down to the efficiency of your fortress overall, too, however.

[meto30]

Carving the blocks from stone is a very good practice for masons, so people should have all their stoneworker dwarves making blocks when there are no tasks pending. If masons are skilled enough building blocks will take such short time that hauling takes up most of the labor required; this can and should be remedied by having stockpiles of desirable rock types near the masons' workshop, and burrow-restricting masons when the situation calls for it. I, for instance, stockpile microcline near my masonry manufactories, and have my masons sculpting blocks in free time(which is nearly all the time now that I have masterwork furniture for every room in the fort).

[Internet Kraken]

Congratulations, You proved that in a controlled environment with a large supply of premaid blocks readily available, that they are superior to rough blocks.

This doesn't, however, change the fact that they are still horribly inefficient for regular fortress tasks when you actually take into account how long it takes to produce them. And when you have forts that have limited building space, making room for more masons workshops to pump out stone blocks is a pain. In the end, stones are simply better to use since they are quicker and easier. Blocks have more value. You should only use the latter if you're concerned about the value of constructed walls. That's it.

[KaguroDraven]

Eh, I don't really use masons too much anyway after the first year or two. I generally have enough metal to do everything they can do better, except for walls of an aboveground base, but I don't do much with those and what I do do I tend to finish quickly.

[meto30]

Congratulations, You proved that in a controlled environment with a large supply of premaid blocks readily available, that they are superior to rough blocks.

This doesn't, however, change the fact that they are still horribly inefficient for regular fortress tasks when you actually take into account how long it takes to produce them. And when you have forts that have limited building space, making room for more masons workshops to pump out stone blocks is a pain. In the end, stones are simply better to use since they are quicker and easier. Blocks have more value. You should only use the latter if you're concerned about the value of constructed walls. That's it.

I have my masons working full-time with blocks, and I have never run out of blocks(excluding that time when I was building a scaffolding tower). Constructing a block should not take up much time as long as hauling is streamlined and masons don't have extraneous duties - which usually means burrow restrictions, labor specializations, and dedicated mason training. Which is, by my experience, much more efficient and faster than not micro-managing.

[Internet Kraken]

Congratulations, You proved that in a controlled environment with a large supply of premaid blocks readily available, that they are superior to rough blocks.

This doesn't, however, change the fact that they are still horribly inefficient for regular fortress tasks when you actually take into account how long it takes to produce them. And when you have forts that have limited building space, making room for more masons workshops to pump out stone blocks is a pain. In the end, stones are simply better to use since they are quicker and easier. Blocks have more value. You should only use the latter if you're concerned about the value of constructed walls. That's it.

I have my masons working full-time with blocks, and I have never run out of blocks(excluding that time when I was building a scaffolding tower). Constructing a block should not take up much time as long as hauling is streamlined and masons don't have extraneous duties - which usually means burrow restrictions, labor specializations, and dedicated mason training. Which is, by my experience, much more efficient and faster than not micro-managing.

There is no logical reason as to why building with blocks would be quicker than building with rough stone. Because in the end, somebody has to haul that rock. With blocks it's hauled to the workshop, converted into a block, and then hauled to the building site. With stone, it's hauled straight to the building site. Basic logic will tell you that building with rough stone is more efficient for that reason.

Building with blocks isn't horribly inefficient, and it does increase value so it has benefits. But when you have limited space or have dwarves constantly being killed by zombie whales, using rough stone just works to your favor.

[Vehudur]

(...)  But when you have limited space or have dwarves constantly being killed by zombie whales, using rough stone just works to your favor.

[Leonidas]

There is no logical reason as to why building with blocks would be quicker than building with rough stone. Because in the end, somebody has to haul that rock. With blocks it's hauled to the workshop, converted into a block, and then hauled to the building site. With stone, it's hauled straight to the building site. Basic logic will tell you that building with rough stone is more efficient for that reason.

What if you personally had to build a bridge out of stone?  How much easier would it be to start with round boulders versus rectangular blocks?  One way or another, if you're going to build a bridge IRL then you're going to need rectangles.  You can make those rectangles at the quarry, or you can haul the heavy raw stone and make the rectangles on site.  But one way or another, the raw stone must be cut into a usable shape.

Building with blocks isn't horribly inefficient, and it does increase value so it has benefits. But when you have limited space or have dwarves constantly being killed by zombie whales, using rough stone just works to your favor.

Think through the numbers that I posted.  If you make your 6x10 bridge out of stone, that's two extra weeks that you've tied down your mason.  Even if it's a break even when you add in the time to make the blocks, the mason gets experience for making the blocks and none (so far as I can tell) for the extra bridge-building time.  And you can make the blocks in advance, maybe while your miners or haulers are clearing the space, so the end result is often a much faster bridge.

[meto30]

Congratulations, You proved that in a controlled environment with a large supply of premaid blocks readily available, that they are superior to rough blocks.

This doesn't, however, change the fact that they are still horribly inefficient for regular fortress tasks when you actually take into account how long it takes to produce them. And when you have forts that have limited building space, making room for more masons workshops to pump out stone blocks is a pain. In the end, stones are simply better to use since they are quicker and easier. Blocks have more value. You should only use the latter if you're concerned about the value of constructed walls. That's it.

I have my masons working full-time with blocks, and I have never run out of blocks(excluding that time when I was building a scaffolding tower). Constructing a block should not take up much time as long as hauling is streamlined and masons don't have extraneous duties - which usually means burrow restrictions, labor specializations, and dedicated mason training. Which is, by my experience, much more efficient and faster than not micro-managing.

There is no logical reason as to why building with blocks would be quicker than building with rough stone. Because in the end, somebody has to haul that rock. With blocks it's hauled to the workshop, converted into a block, and then hauled to the building site. With stone, it's hauled straight to the building site. Basic logic will tell you that building with rough stone is more efficient for that reason.

Building with blocks isn't horribly inefficient, and it does increase value so it has benefits. But when you have limited space or have dwarves constantly being killed by zombie whales, using rough stone just works to your favor.

But seeing as blocks are much lighter than their raw block counterparts, hauling blocks should be much faster. Although, I have not actually tested for this.

Keep masons' workshops near the quarries. Your statement is based on the asumption that the workshops are far from the original path dwarves should've taken when building with rough rock. This shouldn't be so from the beginning - when the masons are working in the same area as miners, the hauling labor generated(assuming the stockpile is also present) will only be across a short distance. If the masons are working in a secluded or otherwise not-so-easy-to-access place, such as somewhere near other industries, hauling becomes a serious problem(and causes traffic jams!), but if I remember correctly masonry output is unrelated to any industry I know of, so there is no reason to place masons' workshops near other workshops in the first place.

[Vattic]

I dislike using rough stone but do because of ease. I think I'll make more effort to use blocks.

Keep masons' workshops near the quarries.

I've often built a masons workshop in recently dug rooms and got them building statues to clear space for stockpiles. Similarly to clear and build the furniture for dinning rooms and bedroom complexes; Very little hauling when putting the furniture in.

[tolkafox]

I usually have a team of dedicated haulers that would {gladly} haul stone around instead of sitting in the meeting hall twiddling their thumbs, I think hauling more stone to make blocks would be great use for them.

It might just be me, but I have personal stockpiles near and below (for bonus customization) their respective workshops, so hauling for me has never been an issue. The craftdwarves move at most 10 spaces from their workshop to grab their material, then 10 more back to their workshop to actually get to work. I guess it would really be an issue of fortress planning and efficiency, not the use/non-use of blocks.

I'm glad you told me that blocks have far less construction time than rough stone, now my two tiered outside walls surrounding my fortress don't seem so daunting anymore. I think I'll arrange the walls and carve the mountain to resemble a castle fortress that goes into the mountain this game. Parapets are a must

Oh yes, and before anyone complains about my dedicated haulers, I value them greatly and won't change my mind. How or when or if you decide to come up with a team is up to you, I just always manage to work them out near the beginning.

[Untelligent]

Carving the blocks from stone is a very good practice for masons, so people should have all their stoneworker dwarves making blocks when there are no tasks pending.

What if I don't care whether my masons are skilled or not and they NEVER have no tasks pending once I enter the "cover the map with megaprojects" phase?

[tolkafox]

Carving the blocks from stone is a very good practice for masons, so people should have all their stoneworker dwarves making blocks when there are no tasks pending.

What if I don't care whether my masons are skilled or not and they NEVER have no tasks pending once I enter the "cover the map with megaprojects" phase?

Take the time it takes to construct your megaproject, divide the construction time (including scaffolding if you plan on taking them down) by 3, then ponder on if your time saved was valuable or not.

Here's an interesting thought, do blocks decrease removal time as well? I never actually managed deconstructions, so I wouldn't know.