Yes. People who are unfamiliar with cattle are not very know with how it works. In the game they are only slaughtered as if they were only used for meat, when in real life cattle have many more roles. They even have personality and character. They are usually named after them and they understand it perfectly.
For the United States, you could enable a cattle boom by choosing the state of Texas and unlocking a new type of âcowboyâ worker. It would really be very interesting.
There was a strategy featured by aussie drongo (and talked about on these forums) where you combine the german immigrants with the Delaware age up. Iâll still use the wagons to make mills but dropping some wood on a livestock pen may be worth it instead of eating all the 7 sheep and 6 cows right away.
Arent these guys just for the revolutions? I havenât encountered them while playing as USA, but it would be cool to incorporate!
For the United States, it could be an end-of-game economy and in this case it would be more focused on cattle fattening.
For example, if you move forward with the state of Texas, you can configure the commercial route to receive cows, or you can configure it for each time the train passes, change a cow in exchange for coins (pretending that you sell it as meat), and instead of corrals you will have âCattle Citiesâ. You could investigate improvements like barbed wire that would make cattle cheaper. You could also investigate the âChisholm Trailâ upgrade that would give you access to receive cows for each shipment.
This would be the breed they would use.Their meat was traded:
You would have an economy focused on livestock and you would put agriculture aside a bit.
Actually I think that the breed that predominates as a sacred cow is the GIR. Very similar to the zebu, but it is different in some aspects. Of course there are also zebus in India, so any would be fine.
GYR
Zebu
Of course itâs worth it! Your idea of manure is very good.
Gir are zebus. Zebu is the subspecies of cattle that includes all the Indian breeds. Taurine cattle are the other main subspecies that includes European and Middle Eastern breeds.
I knew that the gyr was a half-race, and I thought the same about zebu. But actually zebu encompasses all these types of hump cattle. Something similar happens with Holstein cattle that are also divided into red Holstein. The simmental does too and many other races.
If anyone is interested in this like I am, I would like you to share your thoughts on sheep or goats. Races for each civilization, with some general description.
Make it simple
1-Find or âbuyâ a cattle
2- Assig it to the livestock pen to fat (while fatting, trickle food)
3- Gets full fat=doesnt trickle food (and now you have to eat it)
Same with sheep and llamas
The truth is that this time I would like it to be more like reality. African cattle are semi-wild and have been very well implemented as a mechanic.
European cattle require more attention because they are more domestic. âThe reinvestment functions as the inputs and the necessary labor, in addition to giving more balance between income and expenses.
The idea is that it does not resemble Japanese sanctuaries or African cattle, but that it is useful being a little lower by default, but can be improved with cards or politicians.
For Spaniards there could be a card called âMestaâ that improves the production of coins with sheep or the limit of these.
For the British many of their fattening cards could become better sheep production. They could have a letter called âCompany of Merchant Adventurers of Londonâ.
The Aztecs could change the cattle for corrals of turkeys, I think it is more faithful to reality.
Although other sources suggest that they did not use it as food.
Although it does not bother me that they use cattle from Europe, it is preferable that it is an animal with more historical precision.
Cows proliferated across Mexico quite quickly so they still make sense for Aztecs. Turkeys are already a huntable, so it would create some confusion. The other domesticated food animal the Aztecs had is the Xoloitzcuintle which would probably be too objectionable to most people.
Its economy was largely based on agriculture. Changes in them may not be necessary with respect to cattle. Although the Aztecs could have a temple where they worship jaguars or something like that, because Iâve always thought they need some flagship building.
What could be done with lakota and haudenosaunee?
A temple like that would be best as a replacement for the âCommunity Plazaâ/âFire Pitâ. The fire pit was kind of a dumb caricature, but the plaza is not a good way at all of replacing it, and a temple would be much more appropriate. It could be much more expensive than the plaza but you could have a starting travois to create the first one. Stuff like aging up and capital upgrades could even be shifted to the temple building.
The Inca could have their own style of temple, and the Lakota and Haudenosaunee could have a Sweat Lodge building. Though Sweat Lodges have some religious and cultural significance so stuff like spawning warriors could be shifted to the town center or tipis or longhouses (where it would fit better anyways).
Sweat Lodge
Incan Inti Temple
Aztec Temple
⊠Or it could start out as a community plaza and evolve into a temple as you age.
I just really donât like the community plaza 
(or the original fire pit)
It wouldnât need to start out as a mega temple like the one in Tenochtitlan. A minor one more on par with a sweat lodge would be a good start, and then that could upgrade as you age. It could have a cost equivalent to something like a Noblesâ Hut but you could start with a travois to build the first one to ease the early game burden. Maybe a bit lower starting resources to compensate for having a better starting building. If aging up were moved to the temple, thereâd already have to be some rebalancing to account for being able to train villagers while aging.
Look at this analysis on the viability of cattle in supremacy. Even in treatise it is not good enough for many civilizations according to this video:
This makes it clear how implausible livestock is at this time. ÂĄThis needs to be fixed!.
i think that its fine that livestock is a somewhat exclusive mechanic to a few civs personally.
This feature came before âThe African Royalsâ DLC, and I hardly ever saw it used at any player skill level. What I think is that they reconsidered and reimagined it. They turned this characteristic into a really useful function with the Africans, because it was without doing anything for more than 15 years.
I think the developers also want it to be useful in general because they created the 7 sheep + a corral card, but as explained in the video, it is not much use either. So the way to make it more productive is to make it useful since the animals are created.
I agree that some civilizations excel in this regard more than others, but that it may be useful in general since almost all civilizations used cattle in their history.
among good treaty players it is something you have to do as British, and its the ideal way to play Hauds (tho almost no one plays them) and China.
in theory you could imagine a supremacy build that involves that + the fattened cows + furmills
something like this could in theory work in high player number games outside of treaty.
as for treaty then something like this is pretty standard for british:
while obviously almost the entirety of the west ended up becoming more and more meat and diary heavy in the periode i still dont think its a good idea to just make all factions want to invest into it, it would dilute the current factions using it and maybe even from future factions that could have unique cowing mechanics themselves.
then there is the balance issue where the truth is that if you add cow ecos to other european factions then you are buffing esp their lategame eco for factions that are typically already having powerful ecos and you are likely also going to make the economy a lot more complicated for factions who partially are liked for their simple eco.
