40d Talk:Trap design

Editors & Contributors - Please include diagrams or clear and well-sized http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Images images if appropriate. For diagrams, use standard Dwarf Fortress symbols for your diagrams - an x is an up/down stairwell, a ╬ is a fortification, a ▲ is an up-ramp/slope, etc. etc. For screenshots, use the standard tileset, not a custom one that few may recognize.

Please do NOT add a "theoretical" trap design, that you have not actually tested, unless you are 100% sure it will work.

If your suggestion is lengthy and complex, consider placing it on your User: page with simpler explanation and a link here.

Lastly, if you can keep similar or alternate suggestions grouped within like subsections/topics/categories, that would be a good thing. Future wiki users and DF players thank you.

New Pages, new organization

There had been about 5-6 pages on "defense", and articles and advice on various topics were scattered and repeated across all of them. This is an effort to re-organize them into 4 tightly defined and user-friendly topics using current DF wiki naming conventions - a General guide and overview Defense guide, and 3 articles on specific design - layout and architecture (Defense design), traps (Trap design), and specific advice on organizing your military (Military design).

Discussion from any pages removed or renamed will be placed (or linked) under one of those four.--Albedo 06:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dragonfire Pillbox

Does anyone know if this will/not work? Do captured dragons flame at kobolds/orcs/siegers? Can this also be used w/ fire imps? (I think the answer to that last is "no" - iirc, imps need to have a path to their targets, which would require that a trap be much more complex - but still possible.)

If there is no confirmation, we should probably delete the design, unfortunately.--Albedo 12:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be lame. It would totally work. Just nobody has done it yet.--Zchris13 22:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The only thing "lame" would be including a design that is based on guesswork and doesn't actually work. I've read forum articles about this same set-up w/ fire imps NOT working - because they need a path to their target. And some creatures don't attack goblins unless they're modified to do so - very disappointing, but true. I just don't remember if the same is true with dragons or not - do you?--Albedo 08:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work. Dragons don't flame at goblins. Already tried with one. It flamed at my dwarves over the channel when I ordered a squad to execute it, though.

Was he tied to a chain?--CrazyMcfobo 18:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, was he tamed? You'd need a Dungeon Master for that, but that way at least they wouldn't kill your dwarves. (Actually, screw it. It doesn't work, even if it is tame. Nearly lost my dragon that way. Maybe some modding would be necessary. So help me, I WILL build this) Mythsage

Tame dragons definitely will breathe fire at goblins under the right circumstances. In my case, this was chaining them up outside and pulling a lever to release them when a siege arrived - flames everywhere. --Quietust 23:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

But will they do so without a path? The general consensus seems to be otherwise.--Walliard 07:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Weapon trap 'Spike strips'

Despite the image, no, its not for wagons, but rather its an idea I have for killing animals like maybe unicorns. I'm in an area with plenty of unicorns (didn't bring along hunters and its still my first year of the fortress), and stuff made from unicorn parts are generally valuable, right? Also, knowing from the entry saying that they are rather dangerous, I have an idea of a way to get materials from them with minimal risk to the dwarves. My idea is to have an area of weapon traps, most likely single weapon traps to minimize corpse mangling, and maybe have them in rows or a grid in an area so that the animals will cross and die. This could also apply to huntable creatures that are able to move fast like gazelles. I haven't actually done this and so I don't know how effective it would really be. Of course though, there is no real substitue for a good hunter as far as bringing back an intact corpse 100% of the time.....as long as the corpse isn't the hunters....--Smjjames 18:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you care if the corpse is mangled? Does that stop butchering or something weird like that? Anyway, while they require reloading, stonefall traps tend to leave intact corpses. --Squirrelloid 10:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Odd preference, agreed. Perhaps to avoid additional cleanup? Meat, skin and bones certainly aren't affected by loss of every limb and the head - a corpse is just as productive, either way. (And you get 1 meat and 1 bone from every body part, so if meat is your goal...) Of course, that was over 4 months ago, and the phrase "I haven't actually done this" is a hint.--Albedo 14:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd been away from the game for awhile, so I couldn't remember if it interfered with butchering (and the fortress i came back to gets nothing larger than a fluffy warbler, so corpses for butchering... uh... what?) But yeah, just started a new game, splattered corpses butcher just fine. --Squirrelloid 15:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bridge Land Mines

Pretty sure this is another Guessworked idea, as you can't build anything directly on a bridge.
Nominate for removal unless someone's got proof otherwise. -Edward 00:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the masses of text I copied/pasted when re-formating the previous jumble. I'm going to guess(?) that the OP meant a constructed span, and not a retractable/drawbridge, since he mentions a length of "at least 20 tiles" and that would be the max for two retractable bridges if they met in the middle. That would allow you to build the pp's on the span, but it would also mean that the collapse would take down the span, right? Dunno, never gone there myself. If you're sure it's faulty, scratch it. Or, better, rewrite it so it would work - on solid ground, for instance, with channels on either side. The "knock your enemy out" ploy should be represented in some form.--Albedo 01:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess that could've been faulty wording on their part. I wouldn't really know anything about developing/deploying traps that aren't simple and straightforward, as my fortress design sticks to the KISS principals. -Edward 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If the bridge was made of constructed walls (on the Z-level directly below) instead of floors, then the mines wouldn't punch holes through it. --Quietust 16:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Mousetrap

I don't think this would ever actually work, since I'm pretty sure the only creatures that pull levers are the chasm-dwelling Gremlins. Also, the creature would have to pull the lever and then step off of it and wait long enough for the spike to hit it (since there's a 100 tick delay), making it quite likely to miss entirely. The "landmine" is far more effective in general (since it's a guaranteed kill), though it won't catch kobolds (but certainly will catch goblin thieves), and the term "suicide booth" is more apt for a chamber dwarves (particularly nobles) can use to kill themselves. --Quietust 13:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

But what is not as well known is that Thieves also have a rather annoying tendency to 
pull levers they come across, or let animals out of cages.

All depends on the veracity of this assertion - never heard of this, but that doesn't make it false. Needs verification, and then be included in thief article. Verification discussion belongs in talk:thief, and has been started there.--Albedo 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the editor who added this was mistaken. No support - not deleting, but hiding this trap design (via <!-- ... -->), pending any future discussion.--Albedo 05:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nov 2 revision

Question for Albedo

There were a variety of changes there, some of which were arguably called for, such as the conversion of the water trap diagram to the standard tileset (I got carried away and didn't see a way to fit a full description of every single thing into the summary box afterwards). I would like to understand which parts you didn't like, and which other parts, if any, you would be OK with me adding back in. Was it mainly the changes to the section headers you found problematic? I can extend this question with the specific changes if you'd like.

Thanks. --HebaruSan 15:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes - the scale of your changes were hard to follow via the "compare history" function (as, I can imagine, mine were for you), and your edit notes didn't mention any graphic change (or the subsections changes either). I only made the 3 changes I listed in my own note: 1) Taking a cue from your edit note, I took the section about scattered traps and made "trap strategies" its own subsection, and moved that above the other two, since it can be applied to either/both. 2) I also moved the "intro" from "linked traps" up into a true intro for the article as a whole, with some additional text - now visible just below the TOC. & 3) Not being aware of the graphic change, I used "undo" to replace all the individual designs in the TOC - easier to find what you're looking for that way (for me at least).
I would have kept the graphic standardization if I'd seen it, but... well, the wiki doesn't display any sort of cut/paste very well. Being a big supporter of standardization in graphics, I've dove in and replaced that just now (I think? Please check/correct). Anything else that wasn't mentioned, or any disagreements w/ those changes? What was your original critique re the individual traps listed in the TOC?--Albedo 20:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Upon further consideration, I agree that it does make sense to have TOC entries and #anchor links into the specific designs, so I'll make sure to leave the headers alone. I think my "critique", such as it was, would have been that some of these sections seemed to be using other mark-up to simulate a "definition list" (Basic traps most of all). But that doesn't outweigh the usefulness of a good TOC.

Glad to see the graphics back! They look right to me. Most of the other changes were attempts to clarify the text, so I may go back and see if any of those can be brought forward under the existing headers. And in smaller chunks. :) --HebaruSan 01:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm

I think boiling Zinc can be used as a substitute to the old myth of booze "explosions" or in place of Steam that used to be able to do damage. Zinc boils with magma because the boiling point is right under the temperature of magma. – unsigned comment by 80.47.246.19

It might be interesting to trap all invaders in a shallow pit, possibly by a retracting bridge trap or some such thing, and then do whatever you like with them - you could let them starve (if in fact they do), unleash Morul into the fray and have him chain up billiards-like chains of goblin death (if, again, it is possible to kill a goblin with another flying goblin), etc. – unsigned comment by 71.198.202.206

...What? You're kind of switching between making no sense and being completely uncertain of common DF knowledge.... I also think you intended to make this an entirely new section. ~ Midna 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)