Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Concrete walls or pillars can support more then most other blocks.
Use strong heavy blocks to support wood/lighter floors.
I don't follow; according to the wiki the SI of cobblestone is 6, and reinforced concrete is 7. Does it really make that much of a difference? And if it does matter, then why not simply support your structure with metal trussing, which has SI of 16?
Well, see, the philosophy here is that there should be no such thing as the "last block" between you and the horde. If there is, you are dead, regardless of what material it's made of. The horde is not smart enough to purposefully undermine your base and figure out which supporting walls to destroy to bring the whole thing down. It just attacks in blind rage and crushes whatever gets in its way, and neglects to crush whatever doesn't.
It's not very good at figuring out what to destroy, but it IS very good at actually destroying stuff.
So the idea is that instead of building with stronger blocks, you build with more blocks. Stronger blocks just mean the horde takes longer to dig through them, but more blocks means more chances that the horde will neglect to attack a block completely.
Concrete is great, but it costs so much that for each reinforced concrete block you can have 4 cobblestone blocks. So imagine a base supported by 1 concrete column and a base supported by 4 cobblestone ones. Wouldn't you rather be in the cobblestone one?
The other way to look at it is why you are building a wall in the first place. A wall will delay, but not stop the horde, so you also need some way to cause them damage. If you are shooting them yourself, fine, but if you are relying on log spikes, then a wall that holds out longer than the spikes in front of it is a waste. Often, the spikes in a trench in front of my walls fail before the cobblestone does and then the horde just safely demolishes the wall. I'm not sure it'd make a huge difference if the wall was stronger.
I'm not saying cobblestone is definitely better. The above is just kind of thinking aloud. But I do think that many of us use concrete just because it is strongest and therefore best without putting much thought into it.
Also, concrete requires special machinery and a lot of time to cure, which means you can't repair destroyed walls quickly and you have to spend points on unlocking it and building the mixer.
In my opinion concrete is better.
I am not just saying the concrete is better out of habit, I'm saying it out of over 2000 hours of gameplay that includes not only cobblestone and all forms of concrete & steel, but also multiple layers and even ablative coatings of basic wood.
Reinforced concrete (with rebar frames) is hands down the most cost effective wall material. Made with concrete blocks, it is less cost effective, but concrete blocks can be dropped for an instant 3k (nice to keep some on hand for emergencies). If you are going to go for 4 layers thick, use 4 layers of reinforced concrete for 24 thousand hit points instead of 4 layers of cobblestone for 6 thousand.
Now, of course, a 1-layer concrete wall is better than a 4-layer cobblestone. If nothing else, a 4-layer wall takes more than 4 times as many blocks, because of corners. But also, because as soon as the first wall is breached, the Zs are no longer standing on spikes. I think we can safely elimitate that from consideration. I'm suggesting something else: 4 single-wall cobblestone forts instead of 1. As one fails, you move next door via a catwalk. That one has fresh walls, fresh spikes, and the Zs have to spend some time going around to reach your new wall. If you are lucky, maybe they even have to take the long way around the outside of your old fort's wall and walk on top of the spike layer all the way around it.
You did bring up an interesting point about rebar frame-based concrete blocks. I'm honestly not sure what it does to the cost, since we are now comparing iron vs stone, but definitely something to think about. Maybe you can't get 4 cobblestone instead of 1 concrete after all.
Basically, this line of thinking is coming from seeing just how good the hordes are at destroying anything. It feels that stronger and more expensive blocks are not the way to go, and instead we should try to maximize the time that the horde is shuffling to another location all confused and not hitting anything at all.
Let's say, take an apartment building, build a spider-proof lip around it, fill the outside and the parking garage with spikes, and fill any openings with cobblestone or adobe. Then take a building next door, do the same to it, connect the two, then another building, do the same again. So, quantity over quality. Make it so that the hordes are either traveling between buildings, trying to figure out what to hit next, or hitting one of the prefab blocks most of the time, and only rarely hitting one of your blocks. Seems like it'd be better to have many fallback positions than to have a stronger single position, no matter how big the horde is.
The caveat here is: cost of connectors and cost of spikes for each of the multiple locations.
Eventually, a surface structure will be breached. I like to make mine so that if they get inside, it is only to a killbox. I am actually on a grid above them 100% safe and can choose to engage from above, flee, or just wait until morning. The main reason I put spikes outside is to kill zombies and make more spawn; thus, lots of corpses to loot in the morning.
Remember, the horde will follow you, turn that to your advantage.
Why?
The zombies never get to brake any of my walls because they die before they have time to. If they are actually breaking your walls down you don't have enough spikes. You should have enough spikes so you are only picking of the top tier zombies that have lots of health or cops that can damage your walls from afar. 4 or five rows of log spikes (up-graded to iron) and 2 – 4 layers of pointy sticks with barbed wire on top should kill nearly everything that tries to get to your walls.
Right, that's exactly what I'm thinking. Why build something they can't penetrate - that's a fool's errand. Instead, let's build something that slows them down enough to let the log spikes do their job, then let them move on to another wall and spikes. No single wall needs to be super strong - cobblestone or even adobe should do. But there needs to be enough of them to keep the horde occupied and writhing in pain from the spikes all night instead of hitting stuff.
And just to throw in my 2 cents, I surround my walls with a spiked trench and have iron bars in my wall so I can still shoot zombies. most of the work is done by spikes, but i can still shoot the strong ones.
How long does that take and how do I know it's done? (without smacking it every few minutes...)
In other words does upgrading a wood frame through all stages to concrete give you more HP than just making a concrete block and skipping the earlier materials?