Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: wolfwood296 on July 25, 2012, 11:55:05 pm

Quote from: Lightningfalcon on July 25, 2012, 11:43:41 pm

It's less of a kaboom thou, and more of chemicle warfare.  At least until we get to the point where we have actual explosions in dwarf fortress.

naa i like the idea of a catapult throwing creepers, this would mean that it would be more risky to use cause you have to sacrifice a creepers to use it, and it could also hit other creepers (explosive chain reaction  )

Would it actually be possible to mod catapult's to use creepers as ammo?  Or would we just have to stick with bridges?

Catapults are in every way, shape, and form hardcoded.

And that fixed it, thanks you very much. All i needed to do was fix con to contype and put the whole body + plans in each caste. I guess the system can't handle adding a body part after the body.

Meh, the system's pretty good once you understand what you're doing. You're new; it happened to everyone. Except those who don't mod.

For example, toy axes and hammers would help them start training in being axe dwarves and hammerdwarves.

Anyways...toys would probably have some kind of SKILL or TRAINS token. For toy weapons, it would be the weapon skill; mini-forges would probably train some kind of smithing skill. What skills would the other currently-implemented toys train, and what other toys should there be?

The idea is that you'd ask for a dwarf and pay some price to get the dwarf. The question is what SOP should be for the payment--a one-time "fee"? A minimum level of annual tribute? A certain level of housing and other amenities for the dwarf? Some combination thereof? Obviously, this would be scaled in, uh, scale based on the skill of the dwarf (a novice cheesemaker might only cost a couple of mugs, but a legendary mason may take masterwork silver serrated disks or somesuch), and the SOP wouldn't have much effect on dwarves who independently decide to come and help your fort for a price.

Colonization: I'd be interested to hear this idea, specifically how it differs from the current system in game terms.

They should be useable.

It's cool. It can be made into cheap swords. It;s magma-safe, which means that ONLY dragonfire destroys it (and that stuff can destroy steel, and allegedly COTTON CANDY! Dragonfire doesn't seem to follow normal temperature rules). You can make it in infinite amounts, as close to your workshops as you like. It's more reason to use magma. And did I mention it was cool?

How will we get rockets, colony-building equipment, agricultural materials, genetic engineering equipment, etc? Space colonization isn't just a "pick and an anvil" deal, you know.

Something just occurred to me: Instead of colonizing another world, build a spaceship or -station capable of indefinitely sustaining human life. Like a nuclear submarine, but more self-sufficient. Thoughts?

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on July 25, 2012, 09:22:43 pm

MrWiggles beat me to it.

If you don't like dwarves hauling stuff from construction sites, don't let dwarves haul the items or don't build in areas where stuff's being taken away from. That's control. If you don't like not being able to control every litle thing your dwarves do, play another game.

Setting construction above hauling would have at least as many problems as setting hauling above construction does now.

*FACEPALM!!!*

The POINT of this ENTIRE thread was that the dwarves were INEFFICIENT at hauling stuff away from build sites. I never said that I didn't like that they hauled stuff away. Also, isn't DF about MICROMANAGEMENT? As in, "the player controls the little details"? The job suspension problem is less of a detail and more of a headache, if you ask me. That's all I'm trying to say. Actually, here's an example of what I'm trying to say (based on reality)-

So instead of hauling making construction less efficient, you want construction to make hauling less efficient.

My father owns a general contracting business. What do you think he would say or do, if i asked him what the construction workers do when a large stone is blocking a construction site? He would laugh at me, then ask me, "Why do you ask such stupid questions?" What do you think the foreman would do or say to a worker who goes, "Oh no!!! I can't build here because a HUGE rock is in the way!!!"? He would fire him. That's what.

And THAT is the point of my thread.

Anyway, it's kinda sad that a race as hard working as the dwarves can't take two frikken seconds to move something that's blocking a build site, but decide to suspend the construction instead.

Erm, they don't want to piss off the dwarf hauling the item for cutting off his path, nor the guild associated with said item. Which in the case of a rock, might be HIS VERY OWN GUILD.

Quote from: MrWiggles on July 25, 2012, 10:00:14 pm

And you've walked into ass hat land.

Excuse me? Let's get one thing straight- You aren't going to call me an "asshat". Do you understand me?

Let's get one thing straight--you aren't going to BE an asshat if you don't want to be called one. Do you understand me? 

Seriously, let's stop. It's poor analogies on all sides, MrWiggles and I on one, DwarfMeister on the other. DwarfMeister wants hauling jobs to be interrupted for construction; we Wiggles and I think that the opposite is fine. That's all that this is ever going to be. MrWiggles, you have my emotional support, but you can handle DwarfMeister. I'm leaving this thread.