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
...but when I see these kind of comments (for any game that uses base defense, from Rimworld to 7 Days to Die) about having "gamey" defenses, I just feel compelled to chime in that historically, that is EXACTLY what every defensive compound in history has going for it. The key features of almost any castle, bunker, or other fortification includes a nearly unassailable, unscalable perimeter 99% of the way around. But they still need a way in and out of the castle/bunker/whatever, so they have to have an entrance that is easy to traverse, so they make that entrance as favorable as possible to the defenders....ideally a long, open approach with no cover that the defenders have multiple lines of fire, from heavily entrenched positions in cover that can fire on any part of the approach.
The idea was to make the fortification so appallingly punishing to attack anywhere else that they'd either have to suck it up and suffer through the intended accessible entrance, or do something terribly clever to counteract the unassailable perimeter elsewhere.
I'd imagine the biggest difference with rimworld vs. real life there is that in real life situations, most of the defenses were historically defender-controlled, rather than autonomous (like the turrets, which would likely have an issue in real life reliably determining friend from foe without a human operator, or the non-human-sprung traps). You don't want your allies dying or being injured to the defenses meant to help them, so you'd want human oversight (drawbridges, lever operated trapdoors, boiling oil...or any other human operated defenses).
If anything, rimworld is TOO EASY to just bust right through solid stone walls in a way WAY shorter time than should be doable. If enemies in Rimworld feel like going through your multiple meters this stone wall using their steel knife, it takes them mere seconds to burrow all the way through.
Again, if you find it more fun to go full walled (which certainly has it's serious benefits, such as predator denial and tamed animal safety), then awesome. I'm just here to pedantically point out that it's not terribly gamey afterall to offer a seriously dangerous approach to the enemy that they'd HAVE to know is weighted heavily in the defender's favor.
EDIT: wait? manhunter animal attack hostile mechanoids? I thought non-player-controlled animals just ignored mechhive mechs?
You're right tho... I wasn't really taking a position on the kill zone path topic, I was being funny/contrarian to make it more enjoyable to read. It's pretty gamey what I'm doin' with the walls, so I'm not really judging, honest.
At this point, I mostly keep my walls to a single block wall, with wooden traps completely covering both sides. I'd say I'm marking off close to half of the map. And yea, I'm a big ol' animal ♥♥♥♥♥... so the extra safe grazing space is really nice.
I will also place fencing behind the walls (6 cells or so)... just to minimize the re-build time for the pastures, and sometimes the fence makes it. :)