Bay 12 Games Forum

I finally got around to getting the answer to a question I'd put to myself earlier.  The wind is blowing off-shore, and looks like it will continue to do so for the reliably forecastable future (most of the rest of the week).

Better news than it might be for those on land (already dealing with cool temperatures, rain[1], etc), but not particularly good for the fishing industry and wildlife in general.  (Not that I'm sure there's yet news on whether there's the more troublesome radionucleides adrift.  Everyone's saying just saying "radiation".)

[1] Might also be good for limiting the spread of nasty particles, at the expense of being bad for concentrating the 'fallout' into a smaller area.

As I was first writing this, I realised that I was unsure as to whether (in my own mind) exactly how many distinct item types there were (it could be anything from four to eight, by the most widely-varying interpretations I ran through).  That's "Items" as opposed to other 'thing types'[1].  So I started this post again.  Hopefully I've made it more readable without so many striekthroughs.


However, concentrating on the main are of contention, I suspect that the very first of the object types is what might be termed "Construction Materials".  This includes raw stone, stone blocks, raw logs, wood blocks, metal bars and a couple of other materials.  There's a reaction to get stone to stone blocks, wood to wood blocks, ore-type stones to metal bars, all internal to this category.  There are also reactions to get stones, wood, etc into one of the other categories of Item (e.g. Trinkets and Wearables: that being one of the "may be one, may be two categories" questions I couldn't definitely answer but not relevant to this discussion).

The way I see it, Stone Block -> Carved Stone Block needs to be internally set up to be a Constructable -> Constructable reaction, much as Raw Stone -> Stone Block is.  But the code defining this transition might be a bit obtuse to easily convert, especially as it was a very early implementation (way before I was playing DF) and possibly a little too embedded in archaic side-code.

Alternatively, it's not just one "Constructable" category, but a "Raw Constructable" and a "Processed Constructable", stones and logs in the first category and the various blocks and bars in the second.  And there's no means to convert PC -> PC.  This might be supported by the windmills needing logs, can't use wood blocks, and pumps need blocks, can't use raw-types.  Although that could as easily be encoded in without any basic RC/PC division, much as you can't build windmills with stone vanes (or indeed any stone at all, even what might be considered the 'supporting' piece).


My take, probably is wrong in various key ways, certainly isn't something that Toady doesn't know (even if correct), but might be a handle on why it's not a trivial change.



[1] e.g. "Agents" (beings, creatures and vermin instances), "Natural Landblocks", "Fauna" (pre-harvesting), "Free liquids" (liquids in containers are Items after their own 'harvesting'), etc.

If dwarves have no qualms with killing elves in cold blood, then they shouldn't have a problem with slavery. But they should only be able to enslave invaders, which would be especially relevant with the army arc.

The bar against slavery could be "would not force to work in captivity an otherwise worthy being".  They obviously do not have problems with getting livestock to pull carts (although there's no sign that anybody does that at the moment) so if they consider goblins and kobolds (and elves? and humans?) as 'lesser' beings, which would probably be covered by an additional racial attribute, then they wouldn't have any problem putting one of them in/on a treadmill any more than a beast of burden.

As an extension of that, goblins and kobolds could have war carts drawn by captives or (if I'm right in thinking they don't have a bar against captivity, I'm not looking at the raws first to make sure) even their own/their equals.


But then there's also non-slavery subservience, e.g. a term of punishment (for offenders), indentured servants (darn tooting near slavery, but of limited term so probably Ok) and various other forms of employment-like contract to "do as asked".

One composite design of several tricks I use is basically as below (although finessed more, a longer range and varying according to local geography and geology).

  v target zone v (usually longer)
#             
#                        H<--    X
# ################\   ___DEPOT__ X
# ####################  ###### ##X
# ###############################X
#                                X
#################################X
#################################X

The target zone is entered from the side (into/out of the screen), sometimes the target zone is an actual "tongue" of rock, with the sides also channelled down towards the lower area (stone gathering level), but which can be additionally protected by lowerable bridges if I don't fancy the flyable gaps.

The siege engine(s, usually three, staggered) sit on the same level as the target zone floor, the depot is below.  By the time enemies are within 'scare' range of the siege engine, they're not shootable, and I might well have raised the bridges (one from the depot to the outside world, one from the inner fort to the depot)

I can have any siege operators (I must admit I've not used them much, recently, but when I do it's almost exclusively catapults, despite the 'glyphs' I drew the siege engine in) practice constantly, the stones they use hit the end and are available for further use by siege operators or other stone-users.  I can pause them when attack is obvious, if I want instant response, but it gives them a chance to get their reload speeds up through loads of practice.

Alternately:
                 ######
##################___##   <- 'practice' hole, for when facing north
...........v     HS^S##
...........v     H<+-X#   <- Siege engine, set either to north or west through fortifications
...........v     HS|S##
#################H#####
     
^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
kill-zone & sunken approach

(Seconded on the catapults through fortifications, BTW.)

I've also done the following:
                 Raisable bridge
                     |
                     v
#############################
                    __  H<--X
###############\     #  ####X
###################### #####X
#side view############      X
############################X


Top view

############################
++++++++++++++++v   =+  HSSS
++entryway++++++v   =+  H<--
++++++++++++++++v   =+  HSSS
#############+++############
           #+++++#
(usually   #+++++#
 depot has #DEPOT#
 bridges   #+++++#
 and moats #+++++#
 for both  ###+###
 inwards and outwards access,
 as well, but this is simplified)


Bridge up for training (also protection from ranged enemies who might turn up and look dangerous), bridge down for sending all shots straight down the corridor at enemies.


Staggering the siege engines might go as follows:

#############
####SSS######
   H<--SSS###
   HSSS<--SSS
   H...SSS<--
##########SSS
#############

In response to the the largely ninjaing post from tolkafox, about staggering, channels in front of fortifications, etc, you can always train your SOps on catapults, with spare (or recoverable) stone, even if you're going to be using a ballista or three in your main defence in which you can't engineer a reliable  ammo-recovery system.  Same skill, and all.

(But for a ballista version of the staggered defence, watch out for that 1x3 space to the side of the forward engine, with the rear engine shoots through it.  Better put a restricted zone.  Also directly in front of the middle one, possibly, just in case the forward gunner decides to wander through those tiles to man his own weapon.)

I don't think Toady is against engraving blocks, I've asked him about this.  Unfortunately blocks are an artifact of the early game, and apparently that requires that they be re-written if engraving would happen.  Not a simple change, I guess.

It might be assumed, then, that engraved slabs could be a vanguard addition to the code that will later allow old-style blocks (constructable, but not engravable) to be removed and new-style blocks (engravable and now also constructable) to be swapped into their stead.

I haven't lost a dwarf to magma for a very long time.

My current method is engrave to smooth (as well as all the rest, because I like it looking neat) a particular tile diagonal to the mamgaduct's end and/or the magma source, then fortify it.  This configuration may well slow down the flow.

On one recent occasion, when doing this, the fortification carver had just finished the task, released the magma, was wandering out and a dog (not now sure whose) wandered down into the magmaduct from the ramp up to the final planned mamga workshop's "mamga-hole" channel.  They jiggled for position a bit, as they passed, but the dog went off to investigate the slow but perilous wave-front even while the engraver departed for whatever the next job was.

The dog appeared to sniff the 1/7th, then wandered out again without any apparent or undue hurry, and had suffered absolutely no health damage from the encounter.  The engraver was well out of the area by this time.


The only thing I'm really worried about is the engraver going to sleep in the magmaduct, there just appears to be no chance of any magma injuries, except on purposethrough a very unfortunate set of incidents involving stupidly assigned burrows, locked doors, false exits and confusing tunnels, honest guv.

Not going to happen. It would be far too easy to train engraving if constructed items could be engraved. You can always just renew and rebuild.

As I read it, it's a matter of "make block -> engrave block -> build structure with a particular engraved block" (possibly to be followed by "-> dismantle structure back into engraved block -> build new structure with engraved block).

Not "make block/use stone -> build structure -> engrave structure", to be followed by "-> dismantle structure back to bare block/stone -> build new structure -> engrave new structure".

Plus, as already said, engraving is easy to level-up.  (Annoyingly so, especially for dwarfs who you're just temporarily drafting into the Smoothing Squad, but who you're just waiting to take up their actual and originally qualified-for position for the magma/glass/whatever industry, once you get it up and running.  You may then have to track down your weaponsmith/whatever (or refer to your original notes, review the nicknames or just use Dwarf Therapist) to get back to your more ideal plan.)

Well this has been spoken about a fair bit.

But still, god I would love for suddenly all the corpses to rise and start attacking the fortress as zombies and skeletons. Would be so awesome.

Unburied or otherwise badly respected corpses[1] should attack the fortress (depends on biome type/relative proportion/exact location where felled, and possibly factors relating to what the trigger is for them to rise).  But properly tomb-buried or (to some extent) suitably commemorated fallen dwarves, pets, war animals, etc that died exhibiting great valour should do what all great warriors do and arise in times of trouble (c.f. Drake's Drum, King Arthur asleep under the hill, etc) in order to help their own side, or at least rally them in ghost form.

They should perhaps be less likely to be helpful if they were the sole dwarf sent out to deal with the siege, of course.  There might be a balancing act needed on the various variable conditions so that one couldn't just have a Undead Shock-Troops Factory by sequentially sending individuals out on suicidal mêlée charges, shortly afterwards wiping out the opposition with the bowdwarves that had been previously held back and then burying the fallen in massively over-engineered and decorated tombs in the expectation that next time you need a handy force to deal with an awful foe you'll get some magically re-animated armour and weaponry automatically stomping into battle for you.


[1] Could also count for hunters not paying due service to the spirits of the wildlife animals they kill.  "Oh great moose, you were a great foe, and I take your corpse into the fortress only so that we may feed.  Unless it happens to rot because some berk has cluttered up the butchers and forgotten to tell the cook to make lavish meals.  Or your fine hide becomes untannable because someone forgot that Urist The Tanner is also on military duty this half of the year.  And as for the bolts we'd be making from your bones, hell, I'm sure they deliberately miss the target and break them on the range walls...  And so, great moose, I lay you at peaceful rest, and if your spectral form ends up manifesting itself and killing me in some absurd way, I'll bloomin' well materialise myself next to your restless spirit and chop your ghostly legs off one by one, so help me Armok..."