It would be great to get drawbridges and portcullises. I can think of two different ways these could work:
1 - They are place-able like doors. When a hearthling approaches them, they will automatically extend/open allowing the hearthling through, but they will not do so for enemies.
2 - They must be activated by the player to toggle the state they are in.
Some siege weapons for attacking them would be battering rams, trebuchets, and onagers. These would be used by higher level goblins and/or other players in multiplayer.
I envisioned the controls for portcullises and drawbridges a little differently. The player would have the option set the gates manually to either be always opened or closed. However there would also be a check box that if marked would have the gate or drawbridge tied to the Town Defense alert. When it’s activated, the gates slowly come down and the bridges slowly go up. And then when the alert is off, the reverse happens.
That way a small pack of goblins could potentially sneak in without being noticed, but a large army approaching would be noticed. Adds a feel of realism. The player gets to make a choice if the attacking party is worth disrupting town life or if their available defenders can handle things.
Now that I think about it, you probably want maybe a few levels of town defense mode with this sort of thing. Level one is is more of a “barbarians raiding the country side” alert and has hearthlings retreat to within the town boundary but continue with their day to day activity otherwise. Level two “would be town under attack” and has hearthlings run to the town standards and closes portcullises and raises drawbridges.
When it comes to siege weapons, the only way it could work is if building damage/destructibility became a game mechanic.
The siege weapons would be for destroying the drawbridges and portcullises, not buildings. That mechanic is already implemented if treated like doors. In addition, it was rare to actually be able to destroy stone walls, and even if you could, most wouldn’t try. If you destroy the wall, there will still be a barrier of a ton of rubble, and you wouldn’t be able to use the wall after taking the castle/town. In other words, holywood lies.
Okay, I can see that being a simple way to implement it.
On the other hand I am fairly confident that siege weapons were used to occasional bring down walls. Which is why design concepts like concentric walls are a thing in castles. Even if Hollywood lies (yes, I know, it absolutely does), castles would not be laid out the way the are if the only point they expected to be breached was the gates. I know on several occasions castle walls were brought down by tunneling under them, but can we keep it simple for the sake of the game and just chuck big rocks on them?
It just seems odd to me that in game, a massive army can attack your town and the only consequences would be the slaughter of your population and a bunch of smashed doors. Like if you’re playing on hard mode, it would be interesting to see the town take on battle scars as constant waves of attacked cause damage faster than it can be repaired. It adds to the story telling.
Why don’t you build wooden roofs? Because the goblin archers will set fire to them.
I didn’t say it never happened, just most wouldn’t try it. The reason for the designs of the walls was to be sure it was almost impossible to take down, which deterred most from trying to. Once cannons came around though, it didn’t matter anymore. Before that, most castles surrendered due to starvation, which would also be a way to beat down a player in this game. Take their farms to force them to give you what you want.
If you look at a real castle, you will notice that they did act like the only way in was through the gates. I wish I could remember the name, but one castle had 7 baileys, each with an extremely fortified gate house. In other words, force the enemy to take a certain path, and then make that path a slaughterhouse.
But, if it doesn’t make the game unplayable, building destruction would be nice. Only problem I can see is the AI not knowing when to quit and destroying every building in the town.
Luckily they showed portcullises on Stonehearth Dev Stream 308: Malley + Time = Stuff. He shows it at 28:45 and talks about it a bit more at 50:50. He brings it up again at around 57:37 when asked about making it larger and, while he didn’t use the word drawbridge, he alluded to it with his hand motions lol.
Thanks. I usually don’t have time to watch the streams, so nice to hear they are thinking about it.
Np! Figured if I provided time stamps that would cut out havin’ to dig through the rest.
Just saw it, and I was hopping for something much bigger. That is the same size as a double door, and I was hoping for it to be more like 6-10 blocks wide and tall. I want to use a portcullis across a road, and that one looks way too small for a full size wagon to go through.
Yeah same here, that’s what he was discussing at 57:37. Someone commented on the size. He made it that size cause that’s what was requested by another dev, but that it could be made larger even allowing for something like (insert drawbridge motion) lol. We’ll likely get a few sizes and if not I’m sure one of the many amazing modders around here will be able to convert em to a larger size.
I’ve suggested earlier that gates and drawbridges could be made by crafting and placing hinges and then build the gate/bridge sort of like a separate building, extending from the hinge (or hinges if you have more than one aligned with each other). That way you could decide on the shape and size yourself. Sets of models could be used as building blocks instead of single color cubes to give proper details.
The portcullis could be made in a similar way, by placing the lifting mechanic and build the rest from there.
It’s harder to implement, of course, but it would give sooo much more freedom and could probably be used in a lot of inventive ways.
It also makes more sense (I think) to build it in place than to craft it in a workshop and carry it to the right place.