Animal companions

schwert

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
5
I somehow don't like the idea that ranger-type units start with pre-fixed animal companions. In case of rangers proper it's even more stupid, since panthers are not included as free-roaming animals. So, what I propose is to make animal companions selectable (with prerequisites; eg a city with a lion cage can build rangers with lion companions) or joinable (replacing the vile custom of sacrificing the animal to get its totem, at least for non-evil civs). A hunter could get 1 companion, a ranger - 2, and a beastmaster - 3. As for the bonuses the companions provide - that's an issue for discussion. Just stacking the totems is the obvious, though not too subtle solution.
Personally, I think that companions should give a small, flavor-like bonus, but should be able to give their promotions to their new master, a la flesh golem. Furthermore, animals should have their own set of promotions, so that a wolf with combat 1 isn't just wasted when added to a ranger with combat 1. Some promotions, like mobility, shouldn't stack, giving a different bonus (I would think of additional withdrawal chances in case of mobility). Animals should be given the ability to split from their master to conduct some missions (another tweak I offer is to grant all captured animals hidden nationality - it just seems plain logical), getting all the animal promotions of the master unit.
Also, I think animals should be able to build dens within their master's borders, and combat-trained animals should be buildable in cities (eg hunting lodge + wolf cage = combat-trained wolf). These latter might, in particular, get bronze-iron-mithril weapon bonuses (claws, teeth, spikes, whatever) or nature mana affinity (for FoL civs).
I have more ideas on the matter, and a more or less clear understanding of how to do most of these things. I'd like to know the opinion of the community, and, if anyone's interested, I'd appreciate some assistance in making this. Graphical issues, in particular, can be cumbersome.
 
Did I miss something?
Or do you talk about the unit you see with rangers?
 
Hi Schwert. Your post is a bit confusing to me. Let's see if I get what you suggest:

1. Hunter line of units are to work like flesh golems, getting the promotions of sacrificed units, but can only "absorb" animal units.
---
I guess that could be made to work but isn't that sort of how totems work right now?


2. Hunters can join 1 animal, rangers 2 and beast masters 3.
---
If that's the case then either the animals give a lot less of a bonus then the current totems, or the "master unit" needs to be nerfed.


3. Animal units can be split away from the master unit. Sort of like a great general I guess.
---
Why? Animals are a lot more common then great generals so it's not like it's a great sacrifice to lose one. And you would simply spawn a new animal unit, not get the old one back.


4. You also want the option to to build/upgrade animal units.
---
Building animals is sort of odd, since that simply means that each and every recon unit will have the best totem available. Also sort of defeats the idea of spawning animals in the first place. Upgrading animals is a neat idea, since you can already do so with elephants and griffons. Trouble is that none of our local 3d artists have yet to take an interest in creating "battle animals".
 
It would be nice to get a little something extra (other than the name) when your totem is a former pack leader.
 
the major issue with art changing is that a promotion can only change the WHOLE graphic and not part of it, in other words you would need all animals for each art, that is over 50!!!
 
Actually, the kind of art change you suggest is, as far as I'm aware, impossible. The issue is you can only change ONE artstyle... Whereas the animals for Hunters/Rangers are actually separate artstyles from the hunter.... Basically, it's two entirely separate models, put together into one unit.

You COULD do it by merging the models in Blender, but you'd have to do so for every possible combination... I don't think it's worth it.
 
Back
Top Bottom