Editing Waterproof conduit
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
As an alternative to the waterproof conduit, [[bridge|bridges]] can be built over water and [[conduit|normal conduits]] built upon the bridges. This costs far less steel than the use of underwater conduits—ten times less to be precise. However, this technique has some drawbacks: | As an alternative to the waterproof conduit, [[bridge|bridges]] can be built over water and [[conduit|normal conduits]] built upon the bridges. This costs far less steel than the use of underwater conduits—ten times less to be precise. However, this technique has some drawbacks: | ||
* Bridges are somewhat costly in terms of [[wood]], which can be a problem in [[biomes]] where trees are scarce. | * Bridges are somewhat costly in terms of [[wood]], which can be a problem in [[biomes]] where trees are scarce. | ||
| − | * The bridge-and-conduit combination takes far longer | + | * The bridge-and-conduit combination takes far longer to construct than waterproof conduits do (mostly because of the bridges), making this a questionable option for colonies short on building labor and a terrible option in emergencies. |
* The length of bridge used for the conduits can provide an unwanted route to [[raiders]] who would otherwise be slowed by the body of water, though scattering [[Spike trap|spike traps]] on the bridge can turn this problem into a defensive advantage. | * The length of bridge used for the conduits can provide an unwanted route to [[raiders]] who would otherwise be slowed by the body of water, though scattering [[Spike trap|spike traps]] on the bridge can turn this problem into a defensive advantage. | ||
* The bridge-and-conduit combination is far more vulnerable to fire (from e.g. a short circuit). An underwater conduit that catches fire will go out almost immediately, while a bridge with a conduit on it will often continue to burn until the destruction of the conduit and possibly the bridge along with it. | * The bridge-and-conduit combination is far more vulnerable to fire (from e.g. a short circuit). An underwater conduit that catches fire will go out almost immediately, while a bridge with a conduit on it will often continue to burn until the destruction of the conduit and possibly the bridge along with it. | ||