Topic: Hunting other tribes' pack animals
SandJ Topic Opener |
Posted at: 2019-10-09, 16:02
So, I'm a hunter and I'm looking at the animals the other tribes use for transporting goods. They look like food on legs to me. I wonder if they'll miss one...?
Top Quote |
trimard |
Posted at: 2019-10-09, 16:53
I'm fan of the idea of the concept! Really fun! Could be a new cool sort of war But I doubt the effect will be strong enough to motivate the devs. Most roads that are accessible by the enemies are generally those that don't need a pack animal anyway... Maybe on some special scenario it could be more useful though? Top Quote |
niektory |
Posted at: 2019-10-10, 09:16
I don't think it makes much sense though. Hunting wild animals in another tribe's territory is fine - it happens in the wilderness so it doesn't attract attention. But attacking a busy road would surely be noticed and the hunter "dealt with". I imagine the roads and buildings are protected by nearby military sites. Top Quote |
WorldSavior |
Posted at: 2019-10-10, 20:03
It could work like this: If a hunter enters territory, he is treated like a soldier, so the defenders swarm out to intercept him. The hunter could eventually have some very low fighting base stats. A problem could be that one can lose hunters easily, but maybe it's not such a big problem.
Could be funny
Or even don't change the state of the road...
Hunters could also hunt animals of the same race. Maybe sometimes it could be even helpful if hunters could hunt their own pack animals... What about a trigger which turns "hunting own animals allowed" on if one needs it? And if hunters can hunt pack animals or soldiers could fight hunters, why shouldn't soldiers be able to destroy any building, not only ports and HQs? Maybe they should? Wanted to save the world, then I got widetracked Top Quote |
teppo |
Posted at: 2019-10-12, 13:27
Does this mean that one could use hunters to prevent the enemy soldiers from healing? Hunter probably avoid battle (=run away), so the soldiers would need to travel long distances. Would soldiers always hunt the hunters, or only after the hunter has irritated the tribe by killing a carrier animal?
One could also decide that this is not possible. Atlanteans do not eat horses, barbarians do not eat oxen etc. In case of escaping carrier animals that would not work. Top Quote |
NotYetTakenUserName |
Posted at: 2019-10-15, 20:14
They should be elite fighters. Being used to deal with boars any human is just easy prey for them. Sneaky they are, good at evading plus a deadly weapon, just lacking helmet and shield. It's my opinion, plus I don't share it. Top Quote |
WorldSavior |
Posted at: 2019-10-17, 17:14
Yes, hunters are as overpowered as the Earth is flat... However, they cost just a tool, so for balancing reasons they should be very weak.
Not easily, because animals have to be in the territory. And it would be easier to prevent from healing by sending soldiers, because you can control them more directly than hunters.
"Always" would be more logical Wanted to save the world, then I got widetracked Top Quote |
teppo |
Posted at: 2019-10-17, 18:20
In the context of hunting enemy carrier animals, that is not really a problem Top Quote |