Bay 12 Games Forum

90° rotations are relatively easy to implement I think. 45° would require a solution for the discrepancy between ramp length and wall length, if 45° ramps are used. There would be a lot of structural strain, though. I don't know whether stone walls would hold themselves together - and then the axles. Finally something where adamantium would be essential rather than a luxury. Reinforced walls could be constructed with additional metal bars to make it possible to turn them without breaking apart. Turning in the x-y plane would be a lot easier than in the z plane, because buildings are built to withstand a lot of gravity, but little lateral pressure.

Stone drawbridges are probably rare, because bridges that are drawn up also fall down. That leaves metal and wood. Giant gears and chains are likely more fun to transmit power than axles. The mechanic would have to assemble the huge chains in place, from parts.

The biggest hurdle is the lack of lateral stress resistance of rotated constructions. How do you picture it to work with a cave-in system?

That depends on the stringency of workshop setup. I think that it could even be simpler: just build a forge, and if any square in the forge has magma (or acquires it in the future), it's a magma forge.

One-size-fits-all ramps are silly, indeed. Additionally, a ramp useful for a wagon would need to have a gradient less than a stairway. The different variations could be:
- spiral stairs: one square, accessible from all 6, or even 26, sides
- stairs: 45°, one square, accessible from one direction on the floor where it is built, accessible from one direction on one floor higher (possibly more if willing to jump/fall). available in 8 directions.
- slope: the same as stairs, but smooth.
- lower ramp: 27,5°, one square, accessible from one direction on the floor where it is built, accessible from the opposite direction on the same floor if that other square is an upper rampof the same direction. available in 4 directions
- upper ramp: 27,5°, one square, accessible from one direction on the floor above where it is built, accessible from the opposite direction on floor it is built on if that other square is a lower ramp of the same direction. available in 4 directions.
(Access-for-builders follows the access-for-walkers rules.)

Considering the buildings, It might be better to do away with them and define rooms flexibly like bedrooms and dining rooms.

Wouldn't it be possible to treat the height of water tiles in a body of water as a height range, instead of a specific height? So one could have an average brook, with water height varying between 2 and 4, displayed as the average. Whenever something happens that would require a more precise description of water mass/volume, a random number within that range would be generated. Since that happens fairly infrequently, that would allow water surfaces with limited variability of height, and debit, (eg. ponds, brooks, rivers, lakes) to be used without sucking up excessive FPS.

No, let the players find out which setup they like best. The game's an alpha: a lot of unbalancing phenomena are still in waiting in the wings. There's no real reason which combination to prefer above another, so let's experiment. Not to mention that there are serious concerns about rubble locking the game up FPS-wise, and those players might wish to forgo it altogether.

A GENIUS!

I never could resist the opportunity to make use of willing test subjects.

Another approach is to let the masons carve large furniture (doors, statues, flood gates,...) directly from the rock, leaving the rest as rubble. It would require an area to be designated as quarry, and they would go there to carve out the needed items. Smaller items can be carved from blocks, so they are brought to the workshop as normal. Blocks can be quarried with practically no rubble; so a master makes 7/7 blocks, others 6/7 and 1/7 rubble. (Best implemented after wheelbarrows; block requirements for buildings probably should be increased if they become that abundant).

The obvious solution is to put it in the raws, and let the players try them all out.

Also one should keep in mind that Dwarves were practically born for mining(I believe in Norse mythology they actually evolved from maggots that lived inside the giant Ymir's corpse[as in the ground], which would make sense at least, unless I'm confusing things here), so it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that they'd have similar problems with mining that man does.

Their beards could filter rock dust and keep them warm, and their sturdy constitution could absorb the shocks from swinging the pick.

Of course, "swimming through solid granite" might be somewhat of a stretch even for an old dwarf. In this regard I think the "legendary" status is a bit too easy to attain; A year isn't that much for dwarven standards and if every dwarf who mined for a year or more was legendary, there'd be too many legends to be told.

Really, I think that "legendary" status should only be attained by doing something really special like striking adamantite. Of course, I'm digressing from the topic somewhat here.

There is need for distinction: many of the names given to skill levels are also those of social positions or status indications. Urist the Careless who unleashed the demons in The Bells of Madness five hundred years ago might well be legendary, but that doesn't say anything about his skill level.