It could cost gold and food at the same time. The corrals would cost more wood. Many things would have to change to give balance and utility at the same time.
Indian sacred cows could generate wood with the ‘herding’ card. Its limit could be increased to compensate in case the European cattle have more viability. Also export if it makes sense in any way.
For Japan I do not know if they need any compensation because they are a very strong end-game civilization, but if it were the case, they could increase the income of the sanctuaries for domestic animals.
For China, maybe some card that allows to receive water buffalo for each shipment, and / or when building a town. Villages could be configured to generate a very small amount of exports or food.
They are just ideas that occur to me to compensate other civilizations in some way. There could be many more ways with better historical argument.
My thinking was that while the late game or treaty livestock economy is good for europeans/china , it does take time and is a little impractical to get started for non-treaty games (i still use them, but whatever).
Raising the floor while keeping the ceiling the same by loosening the restrictions on cattle(by enabling them by default in small numbers in age 3.
Haudenosaunee and Lakota do have problems with late game economies for wood and coin respectively, and co-incidentally they are the only native american civs with corals.
“Animals and their ‘products’—in particular milk, leather, fur, bone, wool, and silk—were and remain constitutive of national identity and imperial power. They operate as tools of domination to control territories, humans, animals, and ecosystems. Animal colonialism also served as a pretext for conquest itself: as the imported cattle multiplied, more grazing land was needed, justifying further expansions. According to colonists, farming established legitimate legal entitlements to the land, which was conceptualised as a res nullius (empty thing) remaining common property until put to use. This was the Lockean idea that men acquired civil rights when they appropriated tracts of lands to themselves and used them productively. As Virginia DeJohn Anderson has shown about North America,4 by making agriculture the sole measure of use, colonists denied native peoples of New England and Virginia such as the Algonquians, Patawomecks, Powhatans, and Wampanoags any claim to the hunting lands essential to their way of life (and of course they did farm, but very differently from Europeans—using smaller, unfenced parcels and growing other varieties of crops among other differences.)”
Could the Lakota and Haudenosaune natives replace cows and sheep with buffalo and deer?
It does not appear to me that they have used cattle. I can’t find a source.
I cannot find a clear explanation of the use of cattle by the Aztecs, Haudenosaunee or Lakota, but what is certain is that cattle of all kinds were everywhere in the American continent. Perhaps the cattle for these civilizations (except Aztecs maybe) can be used in another way as tallow and skin, in addition to meat.
Another way that Native Americans could get more out of cattle is with an enhancement called smoking. This would translate into a cap of + 10-20% (maybe?) Of meat that the animals would give, but the fattening time would be the same as in a normal cap.
They could also use them as work animals in agriculture, which means that they could increase the production of the crops while they get fatter.
Regarding the use of races, I think that the Spanish could have their own variety of cattle. They were pioneers in bringing cattle to the new world and it was cattle fit for the tropics. They could resivir cows with each dispatch of the metropolis by advancing with a certain politician or using a certain card.
They could trade it with the natives in exchange for experience or coins.
By appearing this building (farm) will generate free cows and its process will be accelerated if there are villagers working in it.
Imagine that you build farms and configure it to generate cows automatically. By the time the hunt is over, it is inaccessible or it is very risky to go towards it, the farm will have generated some animals that will replace the hunt.
To be frank I was a bit disappointed that it was Mexico, but seeing its mechanics and artistic style I am emotional.
Since they are making cattle actually have a utility for the new civilizations that are emerging, I would like it to be the same for the civilizations that came out before the African DLC.
Now that the new arriving civilizations have an efficient livestock utility. Don’t you think it’s time for other civilizations to be able to use it efficiently too?
Africans with an upgrade can replace their sold cows with a calf. Mexicans can generate free cows. I think my proposal doesn’t sound so crazy anymore now.
En tu caso yo diría que estas entre la genialidad y la locura
Es una buena opción pero hagámosla mas inmersiva, ¿Qué tal una carta de la metrópoli que habilite la creación automática de ovejas en el corral y mientras mas animales estén engordando en el corral mas rápido se crean las ovejas?
I thought about that and was going to propose it until I saw that Mexico aria this. He was going to propose it for the Portuguese civilization, which I think was his livestock for the consumption of meat.
Once again they spot the key problem of a mechanic, this time being livestock, and the problem being having to hand-pick fattened ones and micro villagers constantly in the late game (aoe2 farms), and give the solution only to the new civ (can you imagine only one civ in aoe2 can auto-reseed farms?)
Cmon this is not a good way to improve the game Something should be generally viable first, then get unique bonus for some new civs.
African cattle must also be managed. You should look at when it is appropriate to sell it and before the improvement that grants replacement calves you must create the cows. It is also a non-tedious micromanagement.
If they give astronaut skins to the explorers, better give the skins to the cattle by showing them of different breeds. Just as they did with the yamas of the Incas.
I think it would be more suitable than an astronaut in the seventeenth century
Even wild and domestic pigs could be added at the same time. Same with cows. On the map of texas instead of adding abandoned or lost cows, they could add herds of cows as if they were herds of any other wild animal. In other words, you would hunt them down instead of capturing them.
I just noticed that African cattle are more productive than standard cattle. Around 30-32% less than African livestock, this means that African civilizations have a more relevant livestock economy than I thought.
The standard fattened cow produces 0.45 of influence per second.
The fattened African cow produces 0.65 of influence per second.
(0.4375 / s) This is the value that I had proposed for the production of European cattle, so I was very close. (Of course, this value is completely converted to food per second and not to influence. So this means that if it is 30% less than African cattle it would be 0.30625 / s.)
However, cattle could produce what I originally proposed, but reinvestment would increase by 30%. We would go from reinvesting 20 food + 15 coins to reinvesting 30 food + 20 coins per cow (An approximate).
With the reinvestment mechanism it could be balanced more easily, also the cattle would not gain weight while producing.
European cows could cost 80 food + 20 gold for a better balance in the standard game.
There are two very marked differences between agriculture and livestock:
Agriculture makes better use of space and land so you will have more food than what livestock would generate. But it requires more manpower.
Livestock can be managed by fewer people, but it requires a lot of land to graze and a lot of inputs. You also have to wait around 2 years for a cow to be productive, while crops take months and can be more renewable.
So cattle could be said to be more expensive so it would make sense that they cost coins in addition to food.
Gracias por responder.
Entiendo la lógica detrás de tu razonamiento, pero lo preguntaba mas en el sentido de gameplay.
Ganado y Corrales:
Para mi el Corral debería tener una mecánica de producción de oro que evita que engorde el ganado y una tarjeta similar a barbacoa. (México)
El ganado tendría que costar 80 o 100 de oro.
PD: En mi opinión, parece contradictorio crear vacas a base de comida, si tengo alimento no necesito las vacas y si necesito las vacas es porque me falta alimento.
Great research and suggestions, especially the background infos are top!
I do think the main points holding livestock back are
the heavy upfront investment (Livestock pen + sheep or even 1 card) to get started
high micro invstement necessary to make them useful in lategame
No real potential to upgrade (except for fulling mills)
I do think a good idea to maybe make them a bit more viable is to give them some immediate bonuses (similar to mexico or african civs, where they immediatly gather ressources).This would have heavy balance implications to, so probably its best to keep them untouched and change minor things.
The main problem with livestock in the game is the entry barrier not their economic potential.
Cheapen livestock pens; 200 wood is a lot in the early game and that’s when the benefit of investing your easy to collect food supply (hunts) is the most beneficial
Uncard requirements for making cows (make them fortress age).
It’s good to make livestock when you’ve already got a food surplus and the earlier the better.