I probably expressed myself poorly (english is not my language).
I didn't theorize anything, I just expressed what Jorb already said before.
Supports supporting other support's don't check for each tile (like the support itself does) only if there is or not a support on its radius. Which means that if you have a line of 10 supports and every one of them is inside the range of the next one, you can destroy one by one without causing cave-ins and leave just one last support.
That is what I wanted to say. And that would be terrible because you would be able to clear a huge room and remove all supports but one. This is non-sensical.
Here's Jorb's own quote from this thread
here although it was mentioned before somewhere else in more detail - I can't find it though, I'm sorry. Maybe it went to the archives or Hel?
jorb wrote:Because if we "fix" it that means you can remove all minesupports save the last.
Also,
Enjoyment wrote:DaniAngione wrote:I see no reason why this is such a big complaint anyway... If one wants to take advantage of some of the benefits of having a settlement in a mine, for example, they better deal with some drawbacks too
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
Oh, the reason is that we should build double the amount of supports we actually need... And can't remove useless ones... It's not a game-braking thing but it is annoying, when you trying to build something in mines...
Yes, I understand that
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
What I usually do is "play" the mine-field game to reach the most optimal spot for a support instead of building one on the safest short distance (inside the radius of the last one.) I know it can be annoying for some - but it works. I've managed to build a long road underground on W8 (like 3-4 grids long) and each pillar was distant enough from the last so the radii would touch but not intersect. It's just about patience, I guess.