Topic: About the fish - self-breeding?

Thanks Martin, for the valuable info!
Always good to have someone with know-how (i.e. code-literate) around

BeniH wrote: Yes it is desired, because currently its possible to run out of meat.

Hehe, "decisions" are not made by one man alone, BeniH, even if he much desires it
For the record: We acknowlage, you desperately desire a breeding option.;)

Count me in the "Aye voters" - although, it seems for slightly different reasons.
I do not think that the breeding will help you much, if you primarily want it, because you need venison.
At least not in quantities like the piggeries can give you.
A reproduction rate that high, would simply be a little too much.
You would need a huge area dedicated to forestry and animal hedge, to have your economy live on that meat alone.
OKay, every bit helps, true. But do we need it for this purpose?
I always run out of meat with the Atlanteans, but who cares -- they breed fish.
Barbarians breed some species of animals, so I never run out there.
And the Empire has the piggery -- that is a challenge, because wheat is wanted everywhere -- and you need much space.
So the Empire (that I prefer and play frequently) is at an disadvantage there.
If Nasenbaer was around (he's the one who has done the inter-tribe balancing), he would surely jump in here
to tell you, that this is a needed compensation for some advantages that the empire has in other aspects (i.e. evade training).
I tend to think that it leads to the Empire depending more than any other tribe, on a favourable map.
But that is an endless topic (the balancing), and we need not discuss it here.

I am voting pro, because I like to see some animals in the landscape, and on most games (without barbarians) they get extinct sooner or later.
I hope that auto-breeding can guarantee that you see an animal now and then.
If the animals then are living in suitable environment for the species, and you can use this for your economy's benefit, then all the better.
I know that WL can never simulate the complexity of ecological interdependencies,
but I welcome each step in this direction.

Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills.
I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino).

Top

Quote

Just my 2c: I am and have been for the longest time an avid enemy of randomness in games. And so I am also against making randomly breeding animals. For the reasons I suggest you search for tree cycle in the bug tracker and in the forum. I will not veto such a change though if it is desired by many.

Top

Quote

SirVer wrote:

I am and have been for the longest time an avid enemy of randomness in games.

That's what I meant with "I don't know if this is a desired feature". Indeed, there are people that also dislike too much randomness - for computer games as well as for board games (e.g. me ). So in my opinion, the animal breeding should either be a well-defined one or the feature should be left out. But if animal breeding was based on defined rules, you would be able to manually construct the needed conditions and to produce "animal breeding zones" - maybe even within your urban areas which might not be that realistic. It would also make Nasenbaer's game balancing need further adjustment which is a quite difficult thing.

The overall question I have about this is: do we really need this feature? Barbarians already breed animals via the game keeper. The Empire has its piggery and therefore is independent of wild animals. And the Atlanteans breed fish. So each tribe has a never ending amount of either meat or fish - and you do not need both of them to keep your economy running. So, a kind of auto-breeding animals would be nice, could increase realism, should be well-defined - but after all, it isn't really necessary.

Top

Quote