Polls

Default Game Speed

Log in to vote!

Currently Online

Latest Posts

Topic: Hunting other tribes' pack animals

SandJ
Avatar
Joined: 2015-05-08, 22:46
Posts: 4
Ranking
Just found this site
Posted at: 2019-10-09, 17:02

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...?


The Barbarian ox, the Empire donkey, the Atlanteans horse and the Frisian reindeer are all valid animals for putting in a stew or pie. And hunters will cheerfully wander around other tribes' territories looking for animals to turn into food.

How about hunters being allowed to hunt for pack animals?

Just how annoying would that be when you are on the receiving end!

An existing annoyance is to put foresters up against a border to disrupt enemy development. This would be a similar way to disrupt their development by slowing their transport and wasting the production cost of the pack animal. To prevent just turning the victim tribe into a pack animal production machine, when a pack animal is hunted, reset the counter that say the road is a busy one needing a pack animal so it degrades back down to a path.

It is balanced since all tribes could do it to all others (except when of the same race?) and it would only come in to play once you were very close anyway.


Top Quote
trimard
Joined: 2009-03-05, 22:40
Posts: 206
Ranking
Widelands-Forum-Junkie
Location: Paris
Posted at: 2019-10-09, 17:53

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
Avatar
Joined: 2019-06-03, 20:06
Posts: 31
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Posted at: 2019-10-10, 10:16

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
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1271
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: GER
Posted at: 2019-10-10, 21:03

niektory wrote:

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.

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.

*SandJ wrote> How about [b]hunters being allowed to hunt for pack animals[/b]?

Could be funny

To prevent just turning the victim tribe into a pack animal production machine, when a pack animal is hunted, reset the counter that say the road is a busy one needing a pack animal so it degrades back down to a path.

Or even don't change the state of the road...

It is balanced since all tribes could do it to all others (except when of the same race?)

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?


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
teppo
Joined: 2012-01-30, 09:42
Posts: 362
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2019-10-12, 14:27

WorldSavior wrote:

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.

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?

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?

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
Avatar
Joined: 2019-10-15, 18:06
Posts: 16
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Location: right here, most of the time
Posted at: 2019-10-15, 21:14

WorldSavior wrote: ... The hunter could eventually have some very low fighting base stats.

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
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1271
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: GER
Posted at: 2019-10-17, 18:14

NotYetTakenUserName wrote:

WorldSavior wrote: ... The hunter could eventually have some very low fighting base stats.

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.

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.

teppo wrote:

WorldSavior wrote:

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.

Does this mean that one could use hunters to prevent the enemy soldiers from healing?

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.

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?

"Always" would be more logical


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
teppo
Joined: 2012-01-30, 09:42
Posts: 362
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2019-10-17, 19:20

WorldSavior wrote:

Does this mean that one could use hunters to prevent the enemy soldiers from healing?

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.

In the context of hunting enemy carrier animals, that is not really a problem face-wink.png


Top Quote