![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
> And drawbridges provide tactical superior positioning just because of their design:
The latter being the actual point of drawbridges, I think :)
"Discarding" sounds pretty negative. On the positive side, small doors also stop spears and define a point you or your enemy must go through - potentially making you or her subject to concentrated arrow fire. I think that's a tactical property of doors we want to keep.
And btw: Is your first example meant to have the upper Clonk shoot down through the drawbridge?
And btw: Is your first example meant to have the upper Clonk shoot down through the drawbridge?
Then it's possible to have the drawbridges with a bigger opening providing more space for transportation (e.g. flying through it with a spaceship) or throwing objects and a wider shooting angle.> And btw: Is your first example meant to have the upper Clonk shoot down through the drawbridge?
Nope. I thought shooting down is impossible anyway? But standing there, the clonk has more tolerance when throwing (in the first example it's only possible when standing directly in the entrance otherwise you hit your own tower and clonk) or may just walk down (and not having the battlement in your way which ends in the well known goofing around of the clonk).
>We probably have plenty other ways to make drawbridges more attractive as an outer defense.
You already gave an example yourself: If you can break down doors a lot easier than the sourrounding towers, you will not want to have a tower as the outer defense
>And a moat still has the upside that it makes it a lot harder to throw flints at the drawbridge. You know, like in real life.
Well, no. At least not if it is the same width as the drawbridge's size. See Clonkonaut's picture
> We have the following selection in terms of side features:
Kinda feels arbitrary ;) This is also limiting tactical options. And there are no reality issues, drawbridges may have arrow slits too.
> * Door: Opens automatically, therefore unusable for cover while shooting
I don't see why you feel this is necessary. Why can't a door be useful in combat too?
> For that, imo you should have to first go onto the roof - which isn't that big of a problem, as that's a semi-protected zone.
Okay. That's just a little modification. What about horizontal extension?
> I argue that this nose thing isn't fun and should be discouraged, if not forbidden.
Well, you say it isn't fun. I beg to differ. Therefore your argument is invalid.
> > I argue that this nose thing isn't fun and should be discouraged, if not forbidden.
>Well, you say it isn't fun. I beg to differ. Therefore your argument is invalid.
Just to add my bit: I think fun for the player in Clonk is to be able to do everything he wants and build is settlement in every way he wants. If the player wants to build a giant aquarium inside a castle hall, why not? If the player wants to use loam to change the shape of his castle or for an additional defense, why not?
@Peter,Clonkonaut:I'd be happy about posts with continuous text that also sum up the (competing) concepts instead of minced posts with a mere clash of words. IMO this method of discussion is not constructive to reach to some solid concept. These kind of discussions always end by slowly fizzling out ("Im Sande verlaufen") because one of the 'combatants' looses interest. Since this is an interesting topic, I wouldn't want that to happen.
As a basis for discussion, you should probably first agree on what are the goals of having a castle in the first place (gameplay-wise) and why before getting to concrete solutions on how to build/use the castle. Otherwise your argument is just about personal opinions and will lead to nothing.
Also, no offense. As someone who is not soo interested in castles, I'd just still like to read up about the current concept without having to follow all argumentation lines. Thats why I enjoyed reading Clonkonaut's original concept here very much and Peter's reply to that.
Yep, I wanted to sum up some of the results in a top level posting. About a basic concept of castles, I thought everyone has an idea of what castles are basically for. But, yeah, okay. Here's what I have in mind:I think many people like Peter's idea of having no entrances at buildings. But some people expressed their fear of having no defense. Basically, castles should provide this. And I think it's not necessary to redesign - like the old knights - every building into a castle part. So it leaves us with these parts: Towers, Walls and something for vertical transportation.
To construct a castle isn't safe and sometimes not easy (misaligned castle parts..). That's what I wanted to simplify.
> I don't see why you feel this is necessary. Why can't a door be useful in combat too?
Well, the base design I would envision would contain lots and lots of doors, just to make barriers and choke points for enemy invasions. For that to actually work, doors must work automatically - otherwise running around the castle will be an endless "open door, close door, open door, close door". Which will quickly lead to everyone leaving the doors open, making them mostly ineffective.
It's the semantics I want to get at: the priorities of doors are in-door use and convenience while still having some passive defense, while drawbridges are made for siege situations in places you don't plan to frequent much.
> Okay. That's just a little modification. What about horizontal extension?
Uhm, the same? As in you have to be in front of the castle to extend it? Did you propose something else? (I would speak even more strongly against it, btw.)
> Well, you say it isn't fun. I beg to differ. Therefore your argument is invalid.
Which one? That I feel nosy castles aren't fun? Or that I think that the technical possibility argument isn't relevant here? This feels like making the argument over a strawman discussion another strawman discussion. I find this rather tiring.
How about we discuss instead whether or not these kinds of castles are fun? I can compile a list of the top of my head:
* It's unnatural. Yes, realism arguments aren't the strongest in the world, but I don't think castles should look like broadcasting towers by default. And they probably will if we encourage this too much, as going up is the cheapest security you can have in Clonk.
* Another looks issue: The new castle part looks pretty isolated. It's not organic growth to me.
* You can actually "over-build" another castle this way. I really want to kill this element, we should fix airships instead.
* It makes for awkward decisions in the "can you shoot through fundaments?" department.
In my mind, that's enough to not only discourage, but actually outright forbid this kind of castle building. But I guess there won't be much backing for that... :)
> otherwise running around the castle will be an endless "open door, close door, open door, close door"
Uhm no. I just wanted a method to lock the door, disabling the automatic movement, so it's not completely useless as defense when operating next to it. Unlocked doors still work automatically.
> Did you propose something else?
Yes, of course? See
> You walk to one tower, select your hammer and it gives you the possibility to 'construct a wall' (or 'transform into wall', 'enlarge castle'). What you get is this:
> The tower is moved by instance [...] and a new wall appeares, providing more space inside the castle. Enlargement doesn't need 'open ends'.
Otherwise expanding your castles means leaving your castle open ended and defenseless against storming and - again - destroys the possibility of expanding while under the possible danger of storming.
By Anonymous ![[gb]](/mwf/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
Date 2010-09-01 15:52
(PeterW, really got to
You have that option: Build a drawbridge! :P
Might be a matter of taste, but I like having clear functionality: drawbridge - manual, door - automatic. Not some kind of semi-inbetween stuff. That way doors stand for a *concept*.
But you must stand outside the castle to do this, don't you? I would find it strange if the enemy was right in front of your castle and couldn't do anything about the castle expanding into his direction.
But going into more detail on the expansion from outside: As long as you're still building the castle part, the defensive features obviously can't move. And afterwards, I would find it pretty strange if they just "beamed" to their new location. How about making it two-step:
1. Construct the wall
2. Move the door/drawbridge/wall/whatever
The second step should be pretty cheap (free?) and also pretty quick - just slow enough so we can show a reasonable deconstruct/reconstruct animation but fast enough so you don't have to leave your castle defenseless for a significant amount of time.
Note that I feel this kind of building *should* leave your castle defenseless for at least some time. This would make investment into a second layer of security more worthwhile and provide windows of opportunity for well-prepared enemies.
> Uhm no. I just wanted a method to lock the door, disabling the automatic movement
You have that option: Build a drawbridge! :P
Might be a matter of taste, but I like having clear functionality: drawbridge - manual, door - automatic. Not some kind of semi-inbetween stuff. That way doors stand for a *concept*.
> Otherwise expanding your castles means leaving your castle open ended and defenseless against storming and - again - destroys the possibility of expanding while under the possible danger of storming.
But you must stand outside the castle to do this, don't you? I would find it strange if the enemy was right in front of your castle and couldn't do anything about the castle expanding into his direction.
But going into more detail on the expansion from outside: As long as you're still building the castle part, the defensive features obviously can't move. And afterwards, I would find it pretty strange if they just "beamed" to their new location. How about making it two-step:
1. Construct the wall
2. Move the door/drawbridge/wall/whatever
The second step should be pretty cheap (free?) and also pretty quick - just slow enough so we can show a reasonable deconstruct/reconstruct animation but fast enough so you don't have to leave your castle defenseless for a significant amount of time.
Note that I feel this kind of building *should* leave your castle defenseless for at least some time. This would make investment into a second layer of security more worthwhile and provide windows of opportunity for well-prepared enemies.
> You have that option: Build a drawbridge! :P
I'm okay with that. Because you just gave your answer to your first argument in this part of the discussion :P
->
> Maybe you want to have a work area where the door doesn't open every five seconds, subjecting you to arrow fire from outside?
Besides - I agree. I'll see to change the concept so that you have to go outside to expand your castle and have then the possibility to move the tower (so you don't need to construct like tower - wall - tower - wall - tower just to be safe in your castle).
Moving a tower inside a castle should be forbidden that'd be strange too :o
/edit
Maybe this should look more realistic ;) Like deconstructing the tower (and leaving a wall) while constructing the new one. This would open the castle during this operation. And a well organised and quick enemy may force you to abandon the construction, gaining access to your castle.
> Maybe this should look more realistic ;) Like deconstructing the tower (and leaving a wall) while constructing the new one.
Yeah, I think this is what I imagined, too. What I'm not completely sure about, however, is what should happen if such a feature move (or a feature construction, for that matter) gets interrupted. Should we leave two half-constructed walls standing around? Should they automatically deconstruct?
> Should we leave two half-constructed walls standing around?
I think this one. Otherwise you have like a 'selfclosing' castle.
> How about we discuss instead whether or not these kinds of castles are fun?
Well, like Newton said this ends in a religious war. I don't want to polarise so feel free to correct my word choice.
You want the conservative castle construction, big bottom, thinner top, everything more or less based on physical laws. Even if that means more limitations, like you said:
> but actually outright forbid this kind of castle building.
More concepts are thinkable like collapsing buildings in midair.
Am I right?
I, on the other hand want some abstract, not everytime realistic and sometimes even awkward looking castles. I don't feel like suppressing some creativity by gaining realism. And I still point out that tactics like 'overbuilding' another castles are already possible but due to practical aspects (duration and material requirement) aren't used. That are just balancing aspects.
To your fear of awkward decisions, I think I can overcome it. Judging from the thickness of that castle part, I think it's pretty clear that you can shoot like this:
img removed
but not like this:
img removed
![[fr]](/mwf/flags/fr.png "France")
- The very know wallhack that is used whit towers would be extended. Using a little hole in the tower (that can be filled whit a bow, a crossbow, or even any weapon that can pass trough. A cannon won't work, a laser beam would). To use it go in the tower (like you want to climb) whit the weapon/ammo you need, if the weapon is ok the hole will be filled whit it, you can aim and fire at a set angle.- For the flag idea ! First you need to craft it, for this you need... (just for the example : a flag, 3 metal, 1 rope, a workshop), then you will have a flagpole kit in your inventory, imagine you discover a neutral setlemment whit anyone in it (owned by the world for gameplay issues), find a good place, and use your flagpole kit on it, first you will build a flagpole (neutral when fully erected). Then you need to raise a flag (just grab the flagpole and use the Own the flag command), then you need to wait 15 seconds, then you will own all the buldings in the zone !
To build a flagpole, he need to be out of any flagpole/flag area of effect, on a valid land, and any ennemy clonk in the area will deny the building processus
Then you need to erect it, if nobody grabs it or if a ennemy Clonk enter in the area of conflict (really tiny, 5-10 clonks by the two sides), the flag will totally stop erecting, and will come back to the state he was before (slower, and neutral in this case)
When fully erected, the flag will own any buildings in is area of effect, if he enter in conflict whit a other flagpole, it's the oldest who own the bulding
The team who owns a flag is able to turn it into a kit, if the flag take too much damage, the pole will break, a breaked flagpole is pretty useless, to repair it you will need 2 metal
To invade a flag, you must eleminate any Clonk in the conflict area, then grab it, it's need 10 seconds to turn the flag to neutral state, and 15 to own it
- We need these buldings to make a castle :
- Decorations
- Walls, towers
- Usable rooms (Storage, alchimical room, kitchen...)
- Usable props (Anvil, oven)
- Misc.
It's all :)
>A cannon won't work
Why not? there are muskets(in our "medival"-clonk-system), so why you wanna permit using cannons? That makes no sense to me.
>a laser beam would
if it's a fantasy styled, magic Lighning cannon?
I would like to allow the scenary designer which weapons are available, the towers must be work with any weapens( if they have the specific defcore entry or sth like this (I#m not a scripter, so dunno ;) )
the flagpoleidea sounds interesting, but I don't understand what it would make be more playable/more fun? I like the system what Zapper has said. "the castle is yours, when no enemy clonk is inside who could disturb you." that's really easy, isn't it? and so there is no need to use such difficult "hold-the-flag"-systems in regular melee-scenarios.
the buildingareasystem sounds like new tactical options. That should be proofed ingame.
>- We need these buldings to make a castle :
- Decorations <- Of course
- Walls, towers <- Yep
- Usable rooms (Storage, alchimical room, kitchen...) <- nope, dont like the Idea of specific functional castlebuildings. I like the written idea by PeterW, all functional buildings without entry, all functional buildings are castlecompatible (you can build a castle wall behind, or the functional building in front of a wall)
- Misc. <- ?
>Why not? there are muskets(in our "medival"-clonk-system), so why you wanna permit using cannons? That makes no sense to me.
I think he meant that you should not shoot through your tower with a cannon. (I have nothing against that, though)
well, So i understood it right. But for me its not cleat why shooting wth a cannon should not be possible? the fortresses and castles I know have loopholes for cannons very often. it would not be understandable for my, why clonks can use gunpowderweapons, but are silly enough to build their loopholes not large enough to use a mighty weapon?
Clonk must not be realistic in every detail. But has to make sense.
Clonk must not be realistic in every detail. But has to make sense.
In real medieval castles, there's a litlle hole in the up of the tower where defenders can fire arrows trought it.Whit a amelioration, you would be able to create a better opening to fire all weapons trought it
For the flagpole idea, it's expensive, it's difficult enough to get a flag to build the pole, and metal need at least a settlement, direct melee battles (a base, a flag, money and flints to buy) wouldn't cause problems.
In other hand, build AND attack melees would be affected, first the starting flag (on the house/office/whatever) is able to control buildings in the area, in a little area but with total control. When the team want to expand his control zone, he need to build a flagpole to control the area.
the flagpolething sounds to me as a very specific goal, but not useable for regular melees.
Regular melees won't be affected, flagpoles don't have direct effects on Clonks, only on buildings
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
