View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0004713 | Dwarf Fortress | Dwarf Mode -- Buildings, General | public | 2011-06-23 22:22 | 2014-01-21 19:02 |
| Reporter | Khym Chanur | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried |
| Status | new | Resolution | open | ||
| Platform | x86 (AMD Athlon 7550 Dual-Core) | OS | Mandriva One | OS Version | 2010 (2.6.33.7) |
| Product Version | 0.31.25 | ||||
| Summary | 0004713: Bridges ignored by building destroyers | ||||
| Description | To test building destroyers I gave a bunch of wildlife [BUILDINGDESTROYER:2]. They'd destroy things like rock floor grates but totally ignored bridges, whether they were raised or lowered. The raised drawbridges were out in the open, so when raised could be attacked from any direction, but the destroyers just ignored them. | ||||
| Tags | bridge, bridges, building destroyer, BUILDINGDESTROYER, Intentional/Expected? | ||||
|
|
Might be 0003256, but I suspect it's an AI tweak to prevent them from accidentally stopping themselves from accessing your fortress. |
|
|
I think building destroyers can't destroy bridges, in the same way they can't destroy constructions. |
|
|
Ah, good catch - RAISED bridges are apparently indestructible (like walls, as you said). Khym, are the bridges in your case raised or lowered? It seems like in your test they were only ever raised. |
|
|
Lowered bridges are also ignored, and I use this as one of my standard methods of sealing fortress entrances. |
|
|
Yeah, both raised AND lowered bridges are ignored. |
|
|
I assume that ignoring bridges is intentional, simply because handling them could wind up very complex. A bridge might be desirable to destroy if it is raised, since it might open a new path, but it might be undesirable to destroy when it's lowered since that might remove a path. In short, the "attractiveness" of the building depends on its state, and that state might change after the building destroyer has targeted it but before reaching it. So it's safer to simply ignore bridges completely. All in all, the logic for building destroyers might need to be changed somewhat, they would need to consider the case of, "when if this building wasn't there" when path-finding, and then mark any building they would pass through on their path for destruction. They would need to consider _any_ combination of buildings existing or not, which ends up as a huge number of combinations, and quickly becomes infeasible. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011-06-23 22:22 | Khym Chanur | New Issue | |
| 2011-06-23 22:25 | Khym Chanur | Tag Attached: bridge | |
| 2011-06-23 22:25 | Khym Chanur | Tag Attached: bridges | |
| 2011-06-23 22:25 | Khym Chanur | Tag Attached: building destroyer | |
| 2011-06-24 05:45 | Logical2u | Note Added: 0018031 | |
| 2011-06-24 10:12 | bowdown2q | Note Added: 0018034 | |
| 2011-06-24 19:31 | Logical2u | Note Added: 0018039 | |
| 2011-06-24 19:31 | Logical2u | Tag Attached: AWAITING UPDATE | |
| 2011-06-24 21:17 | Quietust | Note Added: 0018041 | |
| 2011-06-24 23:19 | Khym Chanur | Note Added: 0018042 | |
| 2011-06-25 01:50 | jfs | Note Added: 0018043 | |
| 2013-09-22 17:35 |
|
Tag Attached: BUILDINGDESTROYER | |
| 2014-01-21 19:01 |
|
Tag Detached: AWAITING UPDATE | |
| 2014-01-21 19:02 |
|
Tag Attached: Intentional/Expected? |
