slaughtering chickens with cavalry?

Recommended Posts

It seems like everyone uses cavalry to slaughter the chickens at the civic center. It seems very unrealistic and I wonder if any ancient civilization actually did that? So right now realism in 0 A.D. totally ends at 0 seconds into each game. (Yes, there are plenty of other unrealistic things in the game, but this stands out.) It would seem natural to balance the game so that using the women to slaughter the chickens is the best thing to do. It should be a waste to use a cavalry man for that. He should use his greater speed and ability to kill to hunt larger and more dangerous or difficult-to-hunt animals further away and more spread out, and his strength as a man to handle large animal bodies. Women should be at least as fast as men at handling animals as small as chickens. And their slower walk speed should not be a problem at that distance. How could this be achieved?

The idea that I came up with is a more numerically explicit division of labour. The idea behind the game seems to be that men do not really want to do light female work and hence do it slowly while women can not really do heavy work and hence do it slowly. Right now, work rates are set per unit type. I would like to classify tasks numerically instead. An example:

• picking berries/slaughtering chickens/gardening: 1 % heavy, 99 % light (I imagine the heavy work to be carrying the food baskets that the women have been filling.) So having only women doing such work would be a good choice for a player.
• collecting meat from larger animals: Numbers depend on animal size. Having cavalry hunting them, driving them towards the nearest dropsite, killing them and collecting the meat would be a good choice for a player. A few women could be sent to help gather the meat if the animal ends up dead close to a dropsite. (Women picking berries should automatically switch over to gathering meat from an animal that is killed nearby, to get the meat before it decays. Then they automatically go back to the berries.)
• cutting wood: 75 % heavy, 25 % light (I imagine the ligth work to be clearing smaller vegetation that is in the way before cutting the big trees, removing small branches and picking up small pieces.)
• mining: 90 % heavy, 10 % light (I imagine ligth work to be picking up and sorting smaller pieces as well as carrying water and other supplies to the men.)
• construction work: Numbers depend on construction material (building with more stone is heavier work than building with wood).

Work speed for every unit gathering from a resource site should depend on how well the composition of units gathering from that resource site matches the above numbers. So 9 men and 1 woman on a mine should be better than 10 men while 6 men and 2 women on a tree would be better than 7 men and 1 woman. But since woodcutting is mostly heavy work, having only men on a tree would still be reasonably fast and be the best choice if the location is exposed to raids.

Share on other sites

That reminds me that the slaughter animation should be done with the cavalry dismounted. @Alexandermb ?

I suppose that the logic behind the current sexual division of labour is because the citizien soldier concept. Then, like mostly males where the soldiers in ancient culture, you have to represent somewhere women. So let's create a women unit. I don't really know, maybe an older member team can explain.

I would say that historically, both genders have worked in every field, specially slaves. Except hunting, specially big animals, that have had a special status, and it have been done mostly by men. But sexual division of labour is a cultural thing

If we keep Citizien soldier concept, my opinion it's that cavalry should be only able to hunt wild animal, and not to gather domestic ones.

Share on other sites

My main question is, why chickens? They're so small and easy to overlook, especially by new players. They were already widespread during our timeframe, but I think the starting animals should really be goat, sheep or pig, depending on the civ. Then later you can research cattle tech at coral and start training cattle as well. I think chickens were kept mainly for their eggs and cockfighting... Of course they were also eaten, but so were ducks and geese (the latter probably being more common).

As av93 said, division of labour is primarily defined by culture. I think women in most culture engaged in most economic activities except hunting, construction and things like blacksmithing, but even that varies per culture.

Share on other sites

I agree that the starting meat animals should be goats, sheep or pigs. That would be a quick and easy fix. Domestic poultry could be something that we just imagine exists at the houses and are below the game's scale of simulation. The chickens could be reused as wild animals in a suitable biome, like the peacocks. It makes more sense to use cavalry to collect wild birds because they are far away and spread out. The actual meat gathering should be equally fast for women and cavalry. The advantage for the cavalry should be the mobility.

Share on other sites

Actually I think cavalry shouldn't be able to gather meat; they can't gather any other resources either. Horses were expensive and were typically owned by a wealthy leisure class; cavalry formed the elite. Yes, they hunted, but that basically meant scouting for, chasing down, and killing animals; the horsemen wouldn't butcher up the animals themselves; menial tasks were done by their footmen, servants, serfs, slaves, etc.

And yes, replacing chickens with sheep or goats, depending on the map, would be nice; especially in combination with D1718.

Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nescio said:

And yes, replacing chickens with sheep or goats, depending on the map, would be nice; especially in combination with D1718.

That makes me think the most terribly military strategy: Go enemy base with archers, kill the animals, defend the corpses so they don't gather them, Run.

2 hours ago, av93 said:

That reminds me that the slaughter animation should be done with the cavalry dismounted. @Alexandermb ?

Possibly do it when dismount/mount can be acces to, right now is just an instantly transition between cavalry and infantry gathering animation.

3 hours ago, odalman said:

So right now realism in 0 A.D. totally ends at 0 seconds into each game. (Yes, there are plenty of other unrealistic things in the game, but this stands out.)

As you mentioned realism isn't exactly yet a thing in 0 A.D. Somehow realism in 0 A.0.D is achieved by mixing the ideas of multiple mods (some have good things as they also have exagerated things)  for me the realism hit or priority is standarize humanistic and animals speeds and weights between movement speed & attack speed but thats what is good of 0 A.D. if you reach the knowledge enough to make a mod like Delenda Est or @Angen batallion mod, it just becomes matter of time to adapt and enjoy (kinda like skyrim but in RTS). Personally i like your point i don't consider cavalry enough in my skirmish games (often i don't even train them and just traint ranged units and defend a base with walls) and considering it could be possible  (i hope) someday to make units mount/dismount from horses it wouldn't be needed cavalry gathering, instead it will be the same "Human" gathering.

Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alexandermb said:

That makes me think the most terribly military strategy: Go enemy base with archers, kill the animals, defend the corpses so they don't gather them, Run.

Exactly... Depriving your enemy of huntable animals would be a pretty cool raiding strategy... If defensive gameplay can become a little more fleshed out, we can have more realistically strong walls and relatively weaker gates, focussing the attacks on vulnerable spots, defending would become easier. But turtling throughout a game is lame and unrealistic, and when the defenders venture outside of their walls to hunt, but can't find anything, that's a point to the attacker. That's also why I would like to see farms become bigger, so that they are much more difficult to wall off with houses, and are forced to the outer edges of your settlement. Even outside of your walls, because it wouldn't be economically feasible to build a wall around such large fields. If destruction by fire becomes a thing, then burning down enemy fields would become a glorious sight. For the same reasons the main deposits of stone and metal shouldn't be close to the starting CC. Significantly larger deposits of mineable resources should be located at such a distance that large scale mining requires players to venture out of their base. With stronger walls, short term defense of vital structures around your main CC and your units is possible, but with the burning of fields, killing of all huntable animals and no access to larger deposits of ores, they would eventually "starve" to death, and attacking a walled enemy would start feeling more like a siege than a mad rampage.

Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

For the same reasons the main deposits of stone and metal shouldn't be close to the starting CC.

That's something I've wanted for a long time as well, but it's possibly hardcoded in map files (@elexis?). Village centres have 72 attack range and 150 territory radius, so putting the metal mine and stone quarry independently of each other at a random distance between 100 and 200 would be a great improvement.

12 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

That's also why I would like to see farms become bigger

Perhaps someone (@stanislas69?) could make an actor that is 0.3×3.0 the current size, to allow mods to experiment with long and narrow fields?

Share on other sites

Not hardcoded in map files. It's defined in maps/random/rmgen-common/Player.js

There are functions named like "placePlayerBaseChicken".

Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nescio said:

the horsemen wouldn't butcher up the animals themselves; menial tasks were done by their footmen, servants, serfs, slaves, etc.

And yes, replacing chickens with sheep or goats, depending on the map, would be nice; especially in combination with D1718.

Maybe 'at the dawn of civilization' (which the beginning of p1 could represent) horsemen weren't that decadent/social roles were not that differentiated and everyone just pitched in what they could?

I think it's nice to have some animals around to get started, and I frankly don't care too much if it's chickens or goats, sheep...

6 hours ago, odalman said:

right now realism in 0 A.D. totally ends at 0 seconds into each game.

Whenever I read 'realism' in this forum, I wonder when I will have to take care of what goes into my units (water?), and what comes out of them (latrines!). Oh, and those sore feet! And the STDs. And all the invalids turned beggars...

47 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

That's also why I would like to see farms become bigger ... the main deposits of stone and metal shouldn't be close to the starting CC.

Gee, do you have some terrible ideas!

There's already some maps (that are supposed to be 'interesting' I guess, with uneven terrain like Hellas or Lower Nubia ...), where building already is a real pain; with bigger farms I'd probably just stop playing those.

And I'm fine with some starting minerals. After all, I imagine my peeps had a reason to build their CC where they did; though historically I believe the main thing would've been (fresh) water...

Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

Maybe 'at the dawn of civilization' (which the beginning of p1 could represent) horsemen weren't that decadent/social roles were not that differentiated and everyone just pitched in what they could?

Not really, and neither is this the dawn of civilization... Although the abstraction of hunting horsemen doesn't really bother me too much. It's not like they never hunted... Generally speaking there would just have been other less noble foot companions. Also, for most urbanized civs, I doubt that hunting was even that important to begin with, in terms of supplying the community with protein. None of the cultures represented in the game were hunter gatherers... Again, the abstraction doesn't really bother me too much though.

44 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

Whenever I read 'realism' in this forum, I wonder when I will have to take care of what goes into my units (water?), and what comes out of them (latrines!). Oh, and those sore feet! And the STDs. And all the invalids turned beggars...

There's different ways of depicting realism... You have to keep in mind who's perspective you're playing the game from, because it's more from the perspective of a monarch than it is from the perspective of a person digging latrines or treating STD's... It's kind of a straw man to compare people wanting a little more depth with adding utterly trivial stuff like latrines and sore feet.

44 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

There's already some maps (that are supposed to be 'interesting' I guess, with uneven terrain like Hellas or Lower Nubia ...), where building already is a real pain; with bigger farms I'd probably just stop playing those.

But you can change the map size of random maps? The problem with Lower Nubia isn't it's size but some passibility issues. Hellas is gorgeous, but yes, there could be more space between cliffs and the likes. I also think clumps of forest in maps in general are placed around too randomly. I think there should be large forested areas and large open spaces distributed evenly, so that the edges and the centre of the map would be more forested and the areas were the beginning CC's spawn be less forested, for example. Or a streak of forests down the centre of the map, like in the Nile Valley or Middle Eastern maps with a river or two running the length of an otherwise parched map.

44 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

And I'm fine with some starting minerals. After all, I imagine my peeps had a reason to build their CC where they did; though historically I believe the main thing would've been (fresh) water...

I'm not against some starting resources. I just think starting alluvial deposits should deplete quicker, and much larger (nearly undepleteable) shaft mines should be placed in mountainous or rocky areas away from the starting CC's. This provides an actual incentive to fight over something. Control over the mines would become really important. Whatever the case, those stone and metal mines in front of the CC (even the trees) can be pretty annoying. They mess up your first building placements, and for neurotic town planners this is horrible. My non-existant OCD kicks in when I can't put important structures exactly where I want them before waiting 20 min for the mines to deplete. Just move them to the edge of the terrain... dropsites really aren't that expensive... A Civic Centre shouldn't be the centre of mining activities anyway.

Edited by Sundiata
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Not really, and neither is this the dawn of civilization...

I don't wanna argue now over those ~few thousands of years.

But the starting CC and the initial nine units are actually the beginning of our civ in the game...

27 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

There's different ways of depicting realism... You have to keep in mind who's perspective you're playing the game from, because it's more from the perspective of a monarch than it is from the perspective of a person digging latrines or treating STD's... It's kind of a straw man to compare people wanting a little more depth with adding utterly trivial stuff like latrines and sore feet.

Ofc I wasn't 100% serious. But I did read suggestions for provisions and ammo. Isn't collecting some rocks for slingers also trivial?

33 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

But you can change the map size of random maps? The problem with Lower Nubia isn't it's size but some passibility issues. Hellas is gorgeous, but yes, there could be more space between cliffs and the likes.

I think my settings are fine for most maps, while adjusting the size of certain maps doesn't really go together with 'random'.

38 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

I'm not against some starting resources. I just think starting alluvial deposits should deplete quicker, and much larger (nearly undepleteable) shaft mines should be placed in mountainous or rocky areas away from the starting CC's. This provides an actual incentive to fight over something. Control over the mines would become really important. Whatever the case, those stone and metal mines in front of the CC (even the trees) can be pretty annoying. They mess up your first building placements, and for neurotic town planners this is horrible. My non-existant OCD kicks in when I can't put important structures exactly where I want them before waiting 20 min for the mines to deplete. Just move them to the edge of the terrain... dropsites really aren't that expensive... A Civic Centre shouldn't be the centre of mining activities anyway.

Hm. I think this pretty much comes down to your preferences, especially wanting to change how mines work. For me, control of the deposits is already important, and my whole 'game plan' might center around making sure I have enough minerals (metal, mainly).

While I do feel a bit of your town planner's pain, I basically go with 'fff' (form follows function), and whatever is pressing at the moment.

As for your last sentence, I believe there are plenty of historic examples for settlements starting, thriving and dying depending on the available mining.

Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alexandermb said:

Possibly do it when dismount/mount can be acces to, right now is just an instantly transition between cavalry and infantry gathering animation.

Yeah, I know, was me who proposed this "hack". I was proposing the same for the slaughtering animation, although it could look very bad if the animal moves while being killed, and then the cavalry unit have to move

Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gurken Khan said:

I don't wanna argue now over those ~few thousands of years.

lol...

1 hour ago, Gurken Khan said:

﻿ But the starting CC and the initial nine units are actually the beginning of our civ in the game...

Sure, but they are already fully established cultures... It's not like they start in the stone-age...

1 hour ago, Gurken Khan said:

Ofc I wasn't 100% serious. But I did read suggestions for provisions and ammo. Isn't collecting some rocks for slingers also trivial?

Not my suggestions. I'm not in support of provisions and ammo. Collecting rocks for slingers is indeed trivial i.m.o

1 hour ago, Gurken Khan said:

I think my settings are fine for most maps, while adjusting the size of certain maps doesn't really go together with 'random'.

That's a weird remark? Some maps are very open and flat. Some maps feel more constricted because of big forests, lots of cliffs/mountains/rivers and other features. Some maps are naval maps. There's even that map with rising water levels... Jebel Barkal sandwiches you between the Nile and a murderous AI, and that has turned out to be a very interesting illustration of how strongly maps can differ from each other, keeping things spicy... I really appreciate the variety in maps, and hope these developments continue. Adjusting the size of a map is a feature that's there so you can adjust the size of a map to your personal liking... How is that a problem?

1 hour ago, Gurken Khan said:

Hm. I think this pretty much comes down to your preferences, especially wanting to change how mines work. For me, control of the deposits is already important, and my whole 'game plan' might center around making sure I have enough minerals (metal, mainly).

It's definitely about personal preferences, but I often think expanding for resources, especially in team games, often isn't worth it. I'm not much of a competitive player, but in my experience it's easy for the enemy to overstretch themselves, for short term gains.

1 hour ago, Gurken Khan said:

As for your last sentence, I believe there are plenty of historic examples for settlements starting, thriving and dying depending on the available mining.

You can't equate a Civic Centre to a mine. They're two completely different structures with wildly different functions. A CC functioning as a mining camp is not an abstraction I can get down with. A town dependent on mining doesn't make it's town centre a mine.

Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Sure, but they are already fully established cultures... It's not like they start in the stone-age...

Sure, not the stone-age, but with those few people and only one building in the beginning I wouldn't call them fully established either.

41 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

That's a weird remark?

I probably only wasn't clear enough about what I meant; ofc there's no problem with being able to adjust the map size. I normally play with randomly picked maps, and then, of course, if I don't know what map is going to come up I can't make preemptive adjustments. Probably should change that approach anyway, guess I'm currently missing out on naval maps...

45 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

You can't equate a Civic Centre to a mine. They're two completely different structures with wildly different functions. A CC functioning as a mining camp is not an abstraction I can get down with. A town dependent on mining doesn't make it's town centre a mine.

Just put up an extra storehouse.

Anyway, I'm fine with blue cav being able to hunt anything, including chickens. I don't know if the suggestions in the OP would add much to the gaming experience, while it certainly would change the current eco. And while the current eco might be full of inaccuracies and peculiarities, I wouldn't really know where to start or end or really make a meaningful suggestion.

Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

Just put up an extra storehouse.

What's wrong with actual mines to mine? Apart from the insane art work that's involved of course...

27 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

You know the island wasn't a mine right? The mines were undersea... The actual island featured:

Quote

"...apartment blocks, a school, kindergarten, hospital, town hall, and a community centre. For entertainment, a clubhouse, cinema, communal bath, swimming pool, rooftop gardens, shops, and a pachinko parlour were built for the miners and their families."

As you can see, "town hall" and the "community centre" are completely distinct from the under water mines... The town hall and centre are the centre of a mining community with homes, infrastructure and amenities for the mining families...

Edited by Sundiata
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

As you can see, "town hall" and the "community centre" are completely distinct from the under water mines... The town hall and centre are the centre of a mining community with homes, infrastructure and amenities for the mining families...

Yeah, well. So we don't have mines right now, only pick-axes and dropsites; if the community will be happy with the introduction of actual mines I guess I'll be fine with it.

Among the aforementioned dropsites is the CC, which also serves as a hospital, maternity ward (clone lab?), barracks, stables, archery range, bunker, research facility... I don't think I wanna argue now on how comparable the CC is to a 'town hall' or 'community centre'. I just wish you many games full of happiness about your town building and gathering situation.

Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

Among the aforementioned dropsites is the CC, which also serves as a hospital, maternity ward (clone lab?), barracks, stables, archery range, bunker, research facility... I don't think I wanna argue now on how comparable the CC is to a 'town hall' or 'community centre'. I just wish you many games full of happiness about your town building and gathering situation.

True... Thanks anyway

20 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

Yeah, well. So we don't have mines right now, only pick-axes and dropsites; if the community will be happy with the introduction of actual mines I guess I'll be fine with it.

I'm just a dreamer, don't mind me too much   Though several other people have also expressed interest in mines, it all depends on a small handful of overworked volunteers. I don't mind waiting a few years if it's ever implemented, so you're probably fine. Enjoy your mine-less games and resource gathering abstractions while they're still here

• 1
• 1
Share on other sites
• 1 month later...

I enjoy RTS as an visually-appealing abstraction and don't care for the realism. 0 A.D.'s development is going strong in spite of the realism has become my takeaway.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.