Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Deathworks]

Hi!

It seems as if no one has suggested it, so here goes:

How about animal feeding buildings, like plates for cats and dogs and those bigger things (I forgot the word) for mules and cows?

Taking the example of plates, you would first require to construct a plate made of wood, metal, or stone.

Then you build the plate on an empty tile.

Finally, you 'q' the plate and select what food it should stock or if should be empty.

Foods for plates could be raw fish, meat chunks, or milk.

Animal Caretakers will refill empty plates.

Cats and dogs regularly get hungry and will visit plates to get satiated.

====================

This would have several advantages:

* It adds another level of depth to the game as animals get more realistic (especially having your cattle live from thin air and still reproduce on sight feels odd).

* It is a subtle way of controlling animal movement. Since animals will visit their respective feeding stations, by placing them with consideration, you can influence where the animals roam. For instance, in a deep fortress, you could lure the cats into an area around the chasm by putting all plates there so that they will no longer hang around the river. This is not absolute, however, but would still be effective, I assume.

* It also adds to the happiness of animal lover players, giving them a happy thought when they see a cat feeding.

Deathworks

[Haedrian]

It'll also lead to a huge amount of animal butchering. How much meat do you get from one horse? 10?

So after it has eaten 10 meals, you've already lost the reason for keeping it alive.

That's the main problem. I think they should go out to the wilderness and eat there.

Added: trough?

[ August 12, 2007: Message edited by: Haedrian ]

[Sappho]

Naturally, cows and horses and mules will eat grass, cats will eat small critters they catch, and dogs will hunt animals for food.  The only reason animals require feeding by humans in our society is that we cage them up and don't allow them access to their natural food source.  I always figured that in DF, the animals roam around and catch their own food.

The point about feeding making animals worthless for food is a good one as well.  Unless meat becomes far more valuable than fish or vegetables or cooked meals, there would be no point to raising animals for food.  Interestingly, this is true in the real world - the amount of grain it takes to feed one cow until it is ready to be slaughtered could feed many people, and the meat we get is only about 10% of the food value of what the cow ate.  But humans need to eat meat to be completely healthy so we make the trade-off (why we feed cows corn which humans could eat instead of grass that humans can't eat is a whole other debate all together that I'd rather not get into right now!).

I might see animals needing to eat but choosing to do so outside, sort of like dwarves will go drink from the river if they don't have booze or a well.  The feeding items would be necessary, then, if the animals were kept inside and not allowed out - if the dwarves don't feed them, they starve.  It would still be unbalanced to feed them dwarf food though.  I think it would work better if the dwarves have the option to go outside and collect grass, or fill the troughs with pest corpses, or something like that - feed the animals what the dwarves can't eat, thereby converting it into edible food (like cows raised on grass in real life convert the inedible grass to human-edible meat).

[Surma]

If I remember correctly, this was in quite a while ago... and it caused far more trouble than the realism was worth. That being said, I believe (and am probably mistaken) that Toady was planning on revamping the animals to eat 'correctly'  

edit: I hate misspelling stuff >.>

[ August 13, 2007: Message edited by: Surma ]

[mickel]

Given that there's useful stuff growing in the cavern, there could also be stuff growing there that's useless to the dwarves, but edible to animals. Especially animals that are less choosy about their foods than mules, cows and horses. Goats are a better choice for dwarves, I think. They're quite similar, too. Squat, bearded, gruffy and smelly, and resilient.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

I see. Though I do find Mickel's idea quite interesting. Actually, this is how it could work out:

Mules, cows, goats and the like, that is animals that are used for food production, would require grass or other plants that are not edible to dwarves. So no food is lost in their feeding.

Cats and dogs, which are generally not considered food, but rather pets and additional fighting power, could still use food edible to dwarves. This kind of makes them a luxury but then you have to decide whether they are worth it or not for yourself.

By keeping the amount of food consumed low, you may be able to keep things from becoming too great a burden.

This way, filling your fortress with chained war dogs at every corner would be much more challenging (especially since the chained animals would need to be fed in some direct fashion since they can't visit communal feeding stations).

Thus, I still think it is a neat idea.

And yes, trough was the word I simply couldn't remember. Thanks.

Deathworks

[Yucca]

Why not have pastures.  They could be built like farm plots on muddy tile.  They would require an initial seeding, but are more or less self sufficient afterwards.  Cave grass seed could be brought along with the intial load, or purchased from dwarven caravans.  More livestock requires more pasture squares.

The situation could be made more realistic by saying that if you don't have enough pasture for the livestock they "overgraze" and ruin the building, losing the seed.

Pastures would be an atlternitive to having the animals graze outside.  It would be safer for the animals (no wolves, etc) and keep them closer to the butcher's.  These benefits would balance the need to dedicate resources to pastures instead of just letting them run free.

--
Y