MKMoose

And all of that can basically be collapsed into my "some items like the shield may still retain some debuffs". It's not about large-scale choices on allowing the player to fail or whatever. It's about a simple design decision: given a specific design goal, do you want to punish the undesirable action or reward the opposite? Starvation - increasingly punish eating too little or reward consistency and variety? Weeds - kill off crops overrun by weeds, or give the player a benefit for removing weeds? Animal health - allow animals to starve and even die when neglected, or boost their productivity when fed consistently and cared for? Death - penalize the player for dying, or reward long-term survival? Creative building - penalize the player for spending time on building (i.e. hunger increase for chiseling), or additionally reward the player for it? Temporal storms - punish the player for hiding, or reward the player for engaging with the storm? Damage types - penalize the player for using the wrong damage type, or reward them for using the optimal one? Progression systems - create problems when using early-game items, or add more benefits to late-game items? Terrain traversability - focus on making some areas deliberately poorly traversable, or on ensuring that certain areas are as engaging and pleasant to move through as possible? Off-hand - penalize having items in the off-hand, or reward two-handed item use? This reward-punishment dichotomy is absolutely everywhere. In many cases, people just make the wrong choice when making suggestions, and that can often be seen in how the suggestion is received. I've just seen a dude suggest adding rats and mice with the only provided justification being that they should eat crops - but how about we maybe think of any benefit to the player? In many cases, developers also make the wrong choice, and are sometimes then surprised or confused when people don't like changes. A lot of the time, both a reward and punishment is preferable, because they can address slightly different problems and can create a deeper system when combined. In some cases, only rewarding the player for voluntarily putting in the effort is practically the objectively correct answer. In certain situations, implementing neither is the best solution. Merely penalizing the player is rarely the correct answer. Letting people enjoy mechanics really isn't that complicated. To a large extent, it's just about framing - psychologically, a reward tells the player "do this more often", which builds more consistent behavior, whereas a penalty just says "stop this" or "avoid this". We tend to perceive benefits more positively and seek them out, but also may get discouraged when losing them or lose intrinsic motivation as a result of consistent rewards, especially if they are seen as controlling. Penalties and punishment trigger stronger avoidance but don't actually teach the player what they should do instead, and don't build consistent habits - they can be a strong short-term motivator, but do poorly for long-term learning. These distinctions matter even if the end effect is ultimately the same. And regardless of whether you're rewarding or punishing, here's my simple recommendation: keep the scope targeted and intentional. A blanket debuff for simply having an item in the off-hand (which applies at all times regardless of what that item is) is not targeted and intentional, which makes its effects disconnected from the benefits of off-hand items. Besides the psychological framing I've mentioned above, there's also the balancing perspective - it is more straightforward to balance weapons as equal in one hand and buffed when dual-wielded (and then estimate the value of the buff to compare with other items that can be used in the off-hand), and I think it would also be more intuitive from the player's point of view. I think that in the majority of cases it is possible to easily determine which items should get the two-handed buff so that they would make sense in gameplay, both by analyzing existing gameplay patterns and by drawing from a realistic perspective: relatively obvious buff: a bow should be buffed with an empty off-hand, because it realistically simply requires a second hand to draw (and it's also probably the strongest candidate for an item which can only be used two-handed, which could be implemented by requiring the player to hold arrows in the off-hand), a spear used in melee combat should naturally get a buff when two-handed, an axe, a pickaxe, a saw, a shovel, a scythe, a hoe, an oar, and a fishing pole should quite naturally be buffed by the empty off-hand, because realistically they are generally more efficient with two-handed use, and there are no major conflicts with any other game mechanics asking the player to use their off-hand (additionally, I think it would be a good thing for theming and player engagement to incentivize stronger focus on separating tasks - when you're chopping wood or mining or fishing, make it look like it, instead of jumping in and out of it), buff when two-handed wouldn't make sense or isn't needed: a shortsword has no business being buffed when two-handed, because it can't really be two-handed - even if you try, you reduce your own reach by keeping both hands on the hilt, a spear and a sling shouldn't require an empty hand for throwing, which would also differentiate them from the bow, a knife is generally a one-handed tool, and it should be that way in the game as well, a chisel cannot be buffed when two-handed because it requires a hammer in the off-hand, several tools like a prospecting pick, a cleaver, a wrench or a crowbar just don't really need any buffs when two-handed, in part because they are only used intermittently, debatable cases: a falx is a bit unclear - I would personally love to see it get two different attacks (one-handed slashing, two-handed chopping, and similar distinctions could be made for some other weapons), but that would take a combat rework first; in the meantime, given that the falx and spear are the primary melee weapons in the game, I think that it would seem reasonable to contrast the two of them by making the falx work the same with or without an empty off-hand (and thereby also indirectly incentivizing the use of shields and other off-handed items), a hammer could potentially be buffed when two-handed for forging as a way to encourage collaborative multiplayer forging, but it's not really necessary and could be seen as penalizing solo players who need to use tongs at the same time, so I would lean towards avoiding undesirable incentives and not giving it a buff when two-handed, whether shears can be one-handed realistically depends on the shears - I would lean towards making them one-handed, although their current gameplay function of chopping branches off of trees tends to disagree, it really doesn't matter much for a prospecting pick whether it's two-handed as long as it's frequently used together with the pickaxe and the shovel which are both two-handed. In some cases, especially those where it can't be clearly defined whether an item should be one-handed or two-handed (hammer, shears, prospecting pick), separating out a light and heavy tool variant is an option if there is a good gameplay distinction that can be made out of it. In the case of the prospecting pick, allowing it to be used for regular mining albeit less efficiently than a full pickaxe seems like a reasonable idea, which would also make it a more enticing item to pack when travelling. The simplest way of implementing most of these is increasing mining speed and damage when using two-handed items with two hands. Some items like a bow or a fishing pole might need special effects. It doesn't seem to me that this would be a significant issue. Granted, I may be biased as the kind of madman who binds the hotbar to [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Q, Z, X, C, V] and keeps the button to switch hand contents under the thumb, so I have the fastest off-hand in the West, so to speak. Doesn't work in some games that require the left hand to manage significantly more than movement and hotbar, but it works out very well in this case for me. Regarding baskets or bags in the off-hand, on the assumption that they can only be carried in the off-hand as I've described: pick up: [RMB while looking at the bag], just like the existing bags, and probably only when the off-hand is already empty, OR [switch hand contents while looking at the bag], set down: [Ctrl + RMB while looking at a viable location with empty main hand] (may or may not allow to switch to another item in-place), OR [switch hand contents while looking at a viable location] (should also allow to switch to another item in-place). Does it take any more than this? I would have to watch a new player interact with it to see how it feels, but I think it would work quite fine. Managing other items in the off-hand like lanterns is a slightly more complex matter, and it might be useful to just get some sort of modifier to pick up items into the off-hand or place them from the off-hand, but the current functionality is also quite fine by itself, and adjusting it to prioritize taking items like lanterns into the off-hand in line with the above controls would be fine as well. Point given, belts and similar stuff should just stay in their clothing slot. But I do think that belt attachment slots could be used for some purses or pouches that can hold a larger variety of items in small stacks, in large part to solve the problem of completely filling up four backpacks with jewelry and butterfly pins in RA, one or two of each per slot. But regarding the lantern, I think that having more limited dedicated slots for light would produce a more intentional balance than just allowing to hold light in the hotbar. If a lantern could produce light in the hotbar, then there would be almost no reason to ever hold it in the off-hand (especially as long as the hunger penalty is in place), unless its light level in the hotbar was completely neutered. If you only have two or three slots which can hold either a pouch or a lantern, then it's a much more meaningful choice.

One thing that I don't get about this whole discussion is just, why does everything need a penalty? Two-handed weapons and several tools could get a buff when using them without anything in the off-hand. Even if it produces the exact same end effect, it is prudent to frame things in the way you want them to be received by the player. Why just punish them for using a feature, when you can reward the player for using the feature intelligently? I think it would work nicely to promote a "I need to do work here, so let's set up and put away unnecessary items" kind of mentality by limiting the buff to specific tools and weapons, which the current off-hand penalty doesn't achieve at all. Some items like the shield may still retain some debuffs, but I don't think that should be the norm. A secondary benefit of buffing the active tool instead of just applying a broad debuff is that the effect becomes limited in scope to the activity the player is currently doing and only applies when the player is actually doing something, rather than making for this passive, nagging penalty at all times even if the player isn't actually using whatever they have in the off-hand. And regarding the torch, I think that (even without implementing the above) it would be a perfectly suitable solution to just remove the penalty and give the player more useful items to put in the off-hand to serve as the tradeoff themselves. There is a range of things that this could include: a knife, ideally both for combat and for cutting or harvesting things, a walking stick, greater variety of weapons and combat-related items that can be used in the off-hand, like a dagger, a small crossbow, different types of shields, baskets, bags or pouches that can hold items the same way that bags work in the bag slots. Any item the player has equipped takes away the option to use all the other items, but it is a choice that the player makes and benefits from, instead of just having to put up with a debuff no matter what. And if you want to bring up that the player shouldn't just be able to have something in the off-hand at all times, then go back to the first point about buffing certain tools or weapons when the off-hand is empty. Remember that specific items can apply a small penalty if it makes sense specifically for them. I think that dedicated ways to store specific items are likely an excess of complexity, and the hotbar is a somewhat gamified but simple, flexible and arguably necessary solution in a game that wishes to satisfy the preferences of more casual players and especially builders. I've had a very similar concept to what you're proposing, which started off from the idea I've mentioned to hold baskets in the off-hand. I would bring this set of changes to the table: Reduce the generic bag slots to only one back slot for backpacks only (including possibly frame packs and similar stuff, and likely also skeps or whatnot) as the primary determining factor for bulk transport. Add two or three belt attachment slots which could hold a purse or pouch for small tools and items (larger number of slots but greatly reduced stack size, potentially all the way to one), a girdle for larger tools and ideally something else as well, a quiver (possibly giving a draw speed bonus alongside arrow capacity), maybe herb or seed bags, maybe also lanterns, some Jonas tech or improvised devices. Change baskets and linen sacks to be carried in the off-hand. Naturally, some rebalancing may be necessary. In a system like this, the off-hand could play a much more interesting role than it does currently - for example, you could greatly increase your carry capacity with a linen sack on a stick or employ the off-hand for any range of purposes, but at the cost of possibly forgoing a different belt attachment in favor of a lantern. This way, the off-hand becomes involved in multiple context-dependent choices at different scales, the first when you're deciding on what to carry in the longer term courtesy of the overlap between the benefits of off-hand items and belt attachments, and the second on a more moment-to-moment basis.

Try this command: /giveitem lore-book-aged-orangebrown 1 s[] { category: "archives" } The book will automatically give you the next page you're missing from any series in the "archives" category, so you don't need to (and can't though it's possible) specify an exact piece of lore. Regarding customizing the command:

This is, indeed, the correct answer. Verified in practice and in the code - besides the firepit cost, there is no efficiency difference between different configurations of charcoal pits (or at least, there shouldn't be). That said, the inefficiency of small pits is not very significant - a tiny 2x2x2 charcoal pit (8 stacks of firewood plus a firepit) loses just 1.5% efficiency to the firepit (i.e. provides 1.5% less charcoal for the same amount of firewood as a maximum-size firepit would give), whereas a larger 5x5x5 charcoal pit loses a completely negligible 0.1%. The difference is so low that it effectively doesn't matter in practice as long as your charcoal pits are not laughably small. Even the smallest possible charcoal pit - a single stack of firewood with a firepit on top - loses 11.1% efficiency due to the firepit, which is nontrivial but not all that much. And by the way, the wiki is inaccurate since 1.21.0-pre.1 - each stack of firewood now produces 4 to 8 charcoal, 6 on average.

A single set of regular sails should provide 20 kN (up to 5 sets in a full windmill), whereas a single set of large sails should provide 25 kN (up to 10 sets in a full large windmill). It can vary somewhat due to a few factors (mainly how high the windmill is built and how much resistance is added on by other components), but as a general rule, a single full windmill (100 kN) is roughly the minimum to operate a helve hammer at tolerable speed without upgearing, though something more like 200-300 kN per helve tends to be recommended in order to allow faster operation at lower wind speed. When you upgear it once, you increase the speed five times, so the required power is increased proportionally - at minimum about 500 kN (five full windmills) per upgeared helve, but ideally at least twice that. Note: it used to be that upgearing the helve wasn't generally recommended due to its resistance increasing with speed. This has been removed in 1.22 as it was causing some problems, so upgearing is more viable now.

I was mostly in agreement with this a month ago, but as I've been looking into the features we have in VS, I've been increasingly disliking most arguments about anachronism. Restricting some features is naturally necessary to keep the game somewhat cohesive, but there is already quite the number of features that realistically have appeared around the time where firearms became common or even later, for example: bone meal, which wasn't really a recognized thing until the 17th century if I recall correctly, complete suits of plate armor, which only properly appeared in the 15th century, the cementation furnace, which comes from the late 16th century at the earliest, chromium tanning, discovered in the 19th century (this one really kind of baffles me). If we were to also consider planned features - most notably rail transport (roughly 16th century or later, though initially only on wooden rails, whereas iron rails apparently come from the early 18th century and steel rails were first produced in 1857) and the atmospheric engine (invented in 1712), mentioned by Tyron as the highest tier that VS may reach (steam engines more generally starting from around the 16th century but initially simple and inefficient) - then it's easy to get the impression that the target endgame time period seems to be around the 16th century or later, which would make it possible to introduce flintlock firearms with little to no concern about anachronism. And that's the flintlock, whereas earlier forms of firearms appeared in Europe at least in the 14th century, or in China as early as the 10th century.

As a general rule, the ToS or EULA for games and similar products prohibit the usage of one account by more than one person. Even if account sharing is not explicitly prohibited by the agreement, as is the case of Vintage Story's Terms of Service, the agreement can often be considered to implicitly prohibit it, if only because it's made with the person who registers the account and not any third parties. Even if it could be argued that you wouldn't be technically breaking any rules, account sharing is generally inadvisable, especially outside of immediate family or household. If your friend wants to try out the game, it may serve as encouragement that the refund policy for Vintage Story is significantly less restrictive than that of Steam and most similar services.

One thing that I think needs to be given enough consideration is that having to always carry water can easily end up even more boring than having to always carry food - while some juices and alcohols increase that variety somewhat, they cannot get even close to the variety that a culinary system can provide. It is worth noting that water content in food translate pretty much 1:1 to hydration, so it is possible (albeit rare in practice) to subsist on a diet of high-water foods with no additional water intake, especially when avoiding heat and physical exertion. Even foods with pretty average water content like cooked rice or beans still apparently have something like 60-70% water while providing ~100-140 kcal per 100 g, meaning that eating ~3000 kcal of them in a relatively high-calorie diet suitable for the seraph would provide you with ~1.5-2 L of water daily, drastically reducing the amount you need to drink separately. If you eat more vegetables and fruit or other high-water foods, then that can make it entirely viable to live with no additional water intake on top, though most people will also eat a lot of low-water foods. Naturally, separate water intake is more controllable and can be safer. I personally think, and I've seen quite a few people as well as at least one of the devs express similar sentiments, that thirst would likely be more fun as a nutrition-like hydration feature closely tied to heat and mostly limited to hot climates and the summer season, as a special challenge of sorts similar to how cold temperatures are generally limited to cold climates and the winter season. Regarding clean water, I have some doubts about how interesting it would be to actually engage with. One thing I will note, though, is that disincentivizing drinking water from random puddles may be a great way to increase the value of juice, alcohol and other drinks. I remember saying somewhere that a sufficient way to improve the nutrition system would be to just add a nutrition-like fat mechanic, maybe sugar as well, and possibly to separate protein away from nutrition, in the extreme case ending up with a fat-sugar-protein trio of special nutrition-adjacent mechanics with completely unique effects caused by surplus and deficiency, as well as unique consumption mechanics. The primary concern with this kind of mechanic and many other suggestions is that it's just another stat to track, which can easily end up pretty boring. An arguably better alternative that I've thought of recently would be to split satiety into the three primary macronutrient types - carbohydrates, proteins and fats - which would all fit into the single satiety bar, applying various effects depending on how much of each the player has. This would inherently create a tradeoff between the choice of which macronutrient to prioritize at any given time, since the total of the three macronutrients would all fit under a single maximum, making this system potentially much more interesting than just keeping a few extra bars at a high enough level. An additional improvement coming from changes like this could be that late-game large-scale food production wouldn't be going largely to waste, and instead food quantity itself could function similarly to current nutrition - the player may be able to survive on a smaller quantity of food than currently required, but eating more in the long term could provide various buffs. I'm ultimately unsure of what the best solutions might be here, mainly because they are closely tied to the intended gameplay experience, the intended level of realism, the food sources implemented in-game, and a multitude of other factors. Either way, somethingg to introduce more meaningful differences between food categories and make starvation less binary could be very useful in the long term. The main potential problem here is that injuries go well beyond the scope of the initial encounter. If the player were to take a week of debuffs to recover from a seemingly minor encounter with a wild animal, then that can easily feel dispropotionate or unfair. It would require a whole number of concurrent changes to many fundamental systems in the game, including death, entity AI, health and damage balancing, damage mitigation in combat, movement and/or world generation changes to mitigate excessive risks of fall damage, kind of just everything. Most of these would be changes that I would actually be very interested to see, but I frankly doubt that the devs have much interest in this kind of work. While I do somewhat agree with the idea, I don't really see the premise or goal. Why should subsistence on gathering be disincentivized and hunting forced? Foraging shouldn't be completely sufficient all the way into the endgame, that much is natural, but I would actually argue that gathering should be a fundamental part of the game supplementing other sources of food with additional variety that can't be easily obtained from farming. While foraging wouldn't be something particularly efficient, I do think that it should be reliable, to create a balance where the player could survive easily once they get a minimum grasp on the basics (keeping the game more approachable and reducing frustration with death spirals), but would be incentivized to invest in other food sources to reduce the overall time spent on food, increase the time that can be spent between meals, and overall gain more time for other activities, creating a better sense of progression.

The game keeps track of the last state in chunks which are not rendered and fast-forwards to the current time when you visit the area again, so your crops should grow perfectly fine. If they don't, that would qualify as a bug to be fixed.

If I recall correctly, the trigger only goes off on blocks adjacent to the block you mine. Your existing mines will not collapse by themselves, and if you expand them, the risks are the same as in a fresh mine, so you can try it in an existing world with little to no risk. I'm kind of biased against it, but my honest recommendation would be not to bother, because I think that cave-ins are a buggy and unfinished mess that should never have been added to the game in this state. If you want to try it either way, keep in mind that support beams only work one way, though I don't remember which way at the moment.

That's the (black) sheatfish. Oversized like several other fish, but it's in the game. Not to be confused with the white sheatfish, which I think should be wallago attu, although I don't feel like it looks much like it. Considering that some trees have different generators for different species, I don't think that these should so specific. In the case of maple, for example, acer platanoides is just the Norway maple, and there seems to be at least the Japanese maple (acer palmatum) as well, if I recall correctly. Should probably just be acer, unless you were to list out all individual generators. The same applies to at least oak and pine as well, and maybe something else. These seem like they're in the wrong category. These are also in the wrong category. Maybe except vines, which don't really fit anywhere. (okay, I've now found that these are at least 2.5 years old, just like herbs) Consider sharing this somewhere in #wiki-and-translations on Discord, on Crowdin, or on the wiki, to give the translators a consolidated resource where they are presumably more likely to find it.

Note that Red Ram has elaborated on the mechanics briefly in the Armor Rework Wishlist topic, and Balduranne has mentioned in the Discord that Maltiez is not involved in the armor rework.

The funny thing about blister steel is that it needs to be at least 801 °C to work it on an anvil, just 1 °C above the temperature limit of a coke-fueled forge. I'd imagine that it's an intentional way to make bellows a hard requirement to produce steel without making the temperature threshold too much of a nuisance. Once refined, steel needs 751 °C, 1 °C over the limit of a charcoal-fueled forge. Iron blooms need 700 °C, whereas regular and meteoric iron need 741 °C and 738 °C respectively.

There is no bed in the vanilla game that requires cloth. There is a wooden bed that only takes a piece of linen.

I do want to note that this one is, as far as I can tell, pretty much fictional, at least with rings of this size. And at this size of individual rings, it would also be ineffective against most types of attacks. Some examples of Japanese mail are visually kind of close, but it's much smaller scale, and its actual chain instead of individual rings attached to a backing. It is likely that "ringmail" comes from a Victorian misinterpretation of simplified depictions of mail as large adjoining rings like in the Bayeux Tapestry. Left - piece of Japanese twisted mail sewn to cloth backing; middle - Bayeaux Tapestry fragment (11th century); right - photo from a reenactment of an 11th century battle in Poland. I feel like this would only make sense if different types of mail are unlocked at different points of progression or have in some way notably different characteristics (presumably riveted mail would be better), because otherwise I'm not sure that the granularity is worth it for products so similar both visually and practically. I'm not sure that the devs would want to split chain into further subtypes, but it is an interesting possibility, and one of the many occasions for making progression more technology-oriented than metal-oriented.

Do note that there seems to be some kind of combat rework and new weapons planned for 1.23 (links are to some more or less vague Discord messages by the devs). Details are naturally scarce as of now, but it does seem like the devs are attempting to address several of the larger long-running complaints about armor, weapons and combat in general. I've myself argued for various kinds of block, shove, and other secondary actions (likely involving the off-hand), so I do very much support both of these ideas. I think what this comes down to is that "games are a series of interesting choices", and at a low, moment-to-moment scale in combat, the player needs to be able at any given decision point to perform multiple actions that result in different outcomes in order for combat to be engaging. As it stands currently, the player can both move and attack at the same time, and attacking at best boils down to a distinction between melee and ranged attacks. Even between melee and ranged combat, there is really not that much meaningful distinction, and many people tend to use just choose one and use it whenever possible (especially if they choose melee and don't take any ranged weapon), which seems to be largely caused by very high, unrestricted player mobility. I personally think that making monsters in isolation more dangerous and fragile, while giving the player reliable ways to protect themselves and making attacks more risky in various ways, would create a more dynamic combat system where the player could remain potentially near-invulnerable as long as they're vigilant, but any attack would come with risk and have to be more carefully timed and aimed rather than spammed. While it could inevitably end up being a somewhat more difficult, high-skill system in certain contexts, I personally tend to enjoy combat significantly more in cases where careful defense is the default and attacking is a risky extension, over situations where continuous attacking is the optimal solution. Variety in these systems comes not just from different ways to deal damage and various ways to balance resistance with debuffs, but also from fundamentally distinct combat styles that prioritize different methods of avoiding damage, each of which should have clear flaws and strengths, for example with stuff like: mobility - natural high-risk style reliant on avoiding attacks by staying out of range, reliable against enemies which are mobile themselves, but struggling against some difficult-to-avoid attacks and particularly durable enemies, range - spears, pikes and bows primarily, dependent on maintaining distance to the enemy and dispatching them without close-combat danger, but very risky when fighting larger groups or more mobile enemies that can catch the player without a close-range melee weapon in hand, as well as producing a distinct type of ranged-on-ranged combat, shield blocking - reliable and much lighter than dedicated armor, but needs directional awareness (fundamentally most useful for enclosed spaces), and takes up the off-hand, parrying - high-risk, high-reward, where failing to block an attack can have heavy consequences, favoring controlled, single-target fights, but with almost no drawbacks, using stunning weapons, e.g. maces - a natural safe option, trading damage and potentially some up-front risk for greatly reduced long-term danger in a fight, as well as allowing more breathing room when facing larger groups (needs to be effective at weakening multiple enemies, but should not allow excessively easy stunlocking on single targets), using utility or incapacitating tools, e.g. traps, pocket sand, mobility options, and other kinds of devices - frequently single-use items, extremely effective as a method of escaping an encounter or exposing an enemy for an easy kill when used well but taking more creativity and adaptation to specific situations and various enemies' vulnerabilities, using some kind of deterrents to keep enemies from approaching or at least make them less immediately aggressive, e.g. a torch - some more engaging options to avoid combat for players who simply don't wish to engage with it, which are also important to accomodate in a system like this in some capacity, face-tanking in heavy armor regardless - expensive, more debuff-heavy, potentially countered by some weapons and attacks and not sustainable in long-term combat due to exhaustion and chip damage. Now, you could justifiably say that mobility, range, shields, hiding and heavy armor are already in the game, which means that we do already have most options from these. That's partially true, and I want to point out what I think holds back the current options: mobility is universal and available at all times, even midway through attacks, so you can't choose between running and attacking an enemy to keep them back - you can just do both at the same time with almost no drawbacks, so there's no actual separate options (even the ranged accuracy penalty isn't actually all that large, and still allows to hit relatively close-by targets while running or walking or to stop for a split second to hit a more distant enemy - I'm not saying that archery on the move should be impossible, as it should absolutely be viable in some capacity, but ranged weapons as a whole should make the player significantly vulnerable in some way to present a tradeoff and risk), range matters much less when both the player and the enemies tend to be highly mobile, and actual ranged weapons are by far the most effective when used at very close range while being sometimes very difficult to use effectively beyond ~10 blocks, shield blocking is possible and viable, but the requirement to crouch to make it actually effective makes it often just worse than running to avoid attacks - shields would be much better if it wasn't possible to run and attack concurrently, creating a distinction between staying in range with a shield or more risky weaving in and out without a shield, as well as they could be more interesting if two-handed weapons or parrying created some alternatives to them (and also, having light in the off-hand shouldn't be as ubiquitous as it is now if any off-hand items are to see significant use), hiding is technically possible, but it's boring, mostly just blocking the enemies off, not actually evading them and certainly not scaring them off, and there is seemingly nothing besides sneaking to reduce the likelihood of roaming threats aggroing onto the player, heavy armor doesn't actually provide all that amazing protection (you will survive something like 10 attacks from late-game enemies in steel plate, whereas gambeson with almost no debuffs allows you to survive some 3 attacks), while not having really meaningful downsides or other differences (heavily reduced movement speed, hunger and ranged penalties are very inconvenient, but it's just an annoying numbers game - how about limited visibility, heat exhaustion to disincentivize extended combat as a counterbalance to being otherwise just better than other armor and maybe even serve as something akin to short-term god-mode, slower movement start-up to make dodging more difficult without affecting travel as much, fistfighting/grappling options, vulnerability to some kind of unconventional risks from some special enemies or environmental threats to reorient the focus of combat). True variety can be achieved with, among other methods, a number of significantly different options that can't be mathematically balanced, but all appear strong to different player types with varied preferences and motivations (an insight I got from a recent video by a great fighting game designer, which is not exactly related to Vintage Story, but I think as an observation on gameplay variety it generalizes extremely well). There is a variety of players that a game can account for which might want something easy or difficult, safe or risky, slow or fast, or just cool and stylish, and it's important for the sake of variety to make sure that different options actually appeal to different players, instead of producing a superficially varied system that only a narrow subset of players will actually be interested in.

The thing with wood is that it is actually reasonably well-documented as having been deliberately used for improvised protection, alongside hides, wicker, rope, and some other materials. And also alongside various cloth and fabric. Part of the reason for this is that improvised protection really can be made of almost anything that seems like it could work, and some of the thicker clothes that we have in the game could quite adequately qualify as improvised armor, because it turns out that layered fabric, hides, fur and other stuff can provide protection from some attacks and from the cold at the same time. The difference between improvised armor and clothing made of hide, fur and textile can be blurry due to their other, more important purposes, whereas wood, wicker, cane and rope at least have the advantage of being a deliberate, distinct improvised armor material which wasn't worn regularly. And to leather that also applies well. Tanned leather is flexible and durable, which makes it a great structural component, so it was used very frequently for various straps, belts, lacing and suspension, or as backing for scale, splinted or similar armor. Hardened leather is more tough and rigid but can be shaped easily, which makes it useful for helmets, shields, outer layers to plate armor, and horse armor, rarely breastplates or cuirasses, but it was actually also very common for various cases, containers and scabbards. Both tanned and hardened leather saw significant use in clothing and protective equipment, because leather can easily handle scratches, light cuts, scraping, friction, and other relatively light damage, making it great for stuff like hunting gear, which could also serve some protective role in more dangerous encounters with boars, bears or wolves. But with all that said, dedicated hide or leather armor, beyond relatively rare examples of helmets, cuirasses and lamellar? Largely fictional in Europe, but with at least three important regional caveats that I would actually love to see VS explore if there are significant plans for armor from outside of Europe. 1. Steppe cultures' leather lamellar. Their armor quite frequently used both leather and metal. The leather, apparently, "was first softened by boiling and then coated in a crude lacquer made from pitch, which rendered it waterproof." Here's the problem: leather decays easily and was used in more significant capacity by poorer troops, while metal was favored by elites which were more likely to have their armor preserved better and was generally more sought-after by archaeologists and museums. Because of this, surviving armor is heavily biased towards metal, even in cultures where there is evidence that leather was likely a relatively common armor material. But, we can still infer quite a lot to end up with leather lamellar. Of the concepts, I frankly don't feel like anything can be considered to adequately represent this type of armor, mainly because of the "pieces, not complete sets" issue I've been talking about - in this case, the vast majority of armor is just on the torso, some extending down below the hips or onto the shoulders and arms, helmet may sometimes be leather or rigid metal instead of lamellar, and limbs are much less protected to preserve mobility. Left/top - recreation of Mongol warriors' armor at the Art Science Museum in Singapore (kinda bad lighting), here also the one on horseback in maybe better lighting and angle (notice that it's basically just a coat-like torso armor extending onto the shoulders and arms as well as well below the hips, sitting on top of silk or other textile padding; the one on horseback has metal lamellar, while the one on foot seems to have leather lamellar); two middle images - illustration of Mongol warriors in pursuit and another illustration of Mongol cavalry (what they are wearing in the second illustration may be a simple tunic, but it may also be a simplified representation of lamellar or other armor which could also be worn with a fabric layer on top, be it integrated structurally, for wear protection, to keep the armor from snagging on anything, or maybe just for aesthetics; in both illustrations, the red or black blobby shape covering the lower part of the armor is just a bowcase or whatever that might be called); right/bottom - Mongolian brigandine-like armor from the invasion of Japan (very similar to some Chinese pieces; a potential heavier alternative to metal lamellar, though the line between lamellar and brigandine is slightly more blurry in this case). 2. Traditional lacquered rawhide/leather lamellar in Asian armor, especially China, Japan and some related regions that developed armor tradition quite distinct from European systems, producing very sophisticated and durable lamellar despite being fairly often made with seemingly "basic" hide or leather. The references to rawhide and leather are inconsistent, and I suspect that many actually refer to the same thing. But the caveat is that producing this armor was hardly just "tie some leather scales together to make lamellar" - it was a large amount of manual labor, advanced lacquer technology to make that hide last (which in-game would likely have to be some kind of more advanced mid-to-late-game unlock), and common use of plate breastplates, helmets, mixed metal-hide lamellar and other iron components alongside leather (and naturally, leather or rawhide scales would gradually be replaced with iron for protection, with leather remaining mostly structural). Obviously, all armor could be very advanced, but especially Japanese traditions seem to have been quite exceptional in their craft - seeing some of that complexity reflected in-game could be really cool. Of the concepts, #49, #62 and #63, and potentially some others, are visually notably close to these armors, though they seem to kind of misinterpret lamellar as laminar-like horizontal plates (unless they're actually referencing laminar, but it was rather uncommon compared to lamellar). Left/top - diagram of (likely 16th century or later) Japanese armor, with the numbers explained here (some details may be slightly anachronistic for VS, but otherwise this is a very good reference for the main components of Japanese armor); middle-left/top - 12th century Japanese armor; middle-right/bottom - 16th century dou-maru (the style is similar to what started appearing in the 14th century as far as I can tell; notice that in this style there is so much cord, largely for structural reasons, that the lamellar scales underneath are almost entirely covered); right/bottom - Chinese lacquered leather cuirass with lamellar skirt, or something of the sort. 3. Arctic or sub-arctic cultures' hide and bone armor, combining warmth with protection made with locally available resources. Historically, this is likely the most significant source for armor made of hides, fur and bones. Do keep in mind that Some of these cultures interacted and blended with Steppe cultures, and there is no simple dividing line, so I'm presenting what is basically the two extremes. Of the concepts, #53, #56, #91 (I guess also #99 and #101) have some ideas, but nothing really gets all the way there. Left/top - lamellar-adjacent armor made of bone or ivory, apparently Chukchi; middle and right/bottom - 19th century Koryak or Chukchi armor on the heavier side, in a museum and worn as demonstration (note that the armor in the middle picture is the same as the one on the left side of the right/bottom picture; it is relatively modern chronologically, but exchanging the metal lamellar for a bone or hardened hide lamellar would yield armor quite plausible for the time period of VS; these odd wing-like plates are apparently an actually historical part of the armor, and they could probably be made of hardened leather, reinforced with bone or ivory if needed).

I'm not aware of "bonepipe armor" being a thing outside of certain indigenous groups (e.g. Native American) where it was apparently used predominantly for ceremonial purposes or as a status symbol and not for combat, and surprisingly often dating back to the 19th century and not ancient armor. Using bones in actual armor was a real thing, for example in lamellar armor or as something like splints (kind of like #59 in the concept, but bone instead of metal), but it was more common in sub-Arctic cultures like the Inuit who lived in environments where metal was scarce and large bones plentiful. There's also the relatively well-documented example of Mycenaean boar's tusk helmets, though that's also largely symbolic, expensive, and probably wouldn't work as well with bone. There is evidence for bones being used in armor in some capacity, so I've probably somewhat overstated when saying that it doesn't make sense, but evidence for anything which could really be named "bone armor" is very scarce and regional. Keep in mind that I was mostly criticizing #130, which presents full-body bone coverage, while something like #53 or #56 is a bit more reasonable (though still arguably excessive and possibly weak structurally). I think limiting bones to the decoration layer would be quite reasonable, since that's where people seem to want to see them most either way (especially antlers), but if use bones in actual armor either way, then bone lamellar and some kind of shin or arm guards is the most that really makes realistic or historical sense. And if you want to go fictional, then by all means, though you're largely losing my interest then. I tend to appreciate the historical stuff. Balduranne has said about as much in the original post, but the problem is that these were anywhere from rare to virtually nonexistent in the Middle Ages in most of Europe and Asia, and not exactly popular otherwise either. Leather has seen plenty of use for backing (base material to attach scales, splints or other metal components), various belts and straps (to attach armor to the body), structural reinforcement, or as the outer layer to some armor, but rarely as padding. Fur and hides have seen plenty of use for warmth, but rarely as padding. Reeds and grass I don't think are suitable for padding at all - they might allow you to make something, though even when turned into some cordage or wicker it's not gonna make for particularly usable padding. For a large part of human history, the overwhelmingly dominant material for padding has been textile, be it wool, linen, hemp, cotton or anything of the sort (partially depending on climate), because it's simply the single best kind of material for the role. And in fact, quilted textile was also the dominant primary armor for much of history, especially for poorer troops. There certainly were some possible alternatives, including leather and hides among the more notable options, so again I've probably slightly overstated the "doesn't make much realistic sense", but still, I just don't personally see good reason to create half a dozen extra options where in reality all of them were simply worse and vastly less common than textile padding. Do with that what you will. And for early-game improvised armor, I do want to mention that the stuff in the padding category could end up visually very similar to some of the existing clothing. If that is the case, then why is it called a brigandine? I don't see a defensible explanation for it other than a simple mistake or oversight. Which is fine, it's just concept art, but I just don't want to see it in a finished product. Generally, a brigandine is torso armor, because that's what the term refers to - a specific type of coat of armor (and having looked into it a bit further, this also largely applies to gambeson, which should probably be called something like quilted armor, or gamboised armor as VS does currently, when applied to the full body, as well as a whole number of other terms). Applying it to full-body armor, even if it was constructed like a brigandine all over, would be in most contexts considered a misnomer in a somewhat similar way to describing a complete suit of plate armor as a breastplate, or describing a complete formal suit as a jacket. There are some examples of less historical usage like in the current VS armor, where "brigandine" can refer to a complete set composed of a brigandine with other pieces, but that doesn't call for the other pieces to be constructed similarly to the brigandine. Similar construction methods can be applied to armor worn on the head or limbs, but actual brigandine is fairly bulky and heavy, so similar limb armor would typically be more accurately classified as some type of lamellar, splint, segmented or composite armor, or something of the sort. And to keep this post remotely related to the topic, I would like to bring up some examples of brigandine or similar armor: Left/top - Italian armor featuring a brigandine (typical example of the combination of a brigandine with a rigid plate helmet and limb armor); middle two images - Korean dujeong-gap, showing internal plates and a slightly ahistorical one worn by a reenactor (you can see that where rivets are on the outside, plates tend to be on the inside; red is the more conventional color); right/bottom - part of the Miniature of the Battle of Chiset with various examples of armor, of which at least the red-yellow one on the left side seems to include a brigandine, notably with very little leg protection. Didn't say anything about lamellar being restricted to iron and later - that one should be available in bronze or maybe even copper with no issues. But on the topic of antiquity, the only set of clothes in the game (that I know of) which can clearly be considered to come from that period is part of the "theater" group, which includes clothing used in plays that can only be looted. Almost all craftable clothing that I've looked into (though I haven't checked out everything in detail) seems to fall under either relatively generic, roughly medieval clothing, or sets themed after specific cultures, occupations and social positions which would have existed around the time that the game takes place in. If that pattern is maintained, then Roman, Greek or similar armor will probably not be added. Naturally, I don't want to say anything with certainty unless there is an official dev stance, but I'm personally not expecting it. If it's just the visuals that you're looking for, then you can get practically the exact look with a brigandine, coat-of-plates or similar riveted armor. Example historical reference and a rough mockup that I've made in a few minutes (probably kinda overdetailed, the exact arrangement of rivets probably makes no sense, and there are a few other issues, it's just a quick draft):

It is unavoidable that you're largely correct on herding not being a particularly great fit for the current game mechanics, but the issue that I have with the current mechanics is not that they make hypothetical herding suboptimal - it's that they make remotely efficient herding quite literally impossible even if you really try. There is absolutely no way to reliably keep an animal from wandering off besides a fence, whereas realistically just having perceived safety and a source of food will often make animals stay and return. There is quite a few things that could be considered as in need of some changes before herding and especially a more proper nomadic lifestyle gets introduced, but in quite a few cases I think those are mechanics which can be considered quite outdated either way, especially animal AI and domestication, or features that probably should be eventually implemented on their own either way, e.g. mobile storage. I think a lot just depends on balancing. If farming and animal husbandry are made somewhat more demanding (with a corresponding yield increase, presumably), then you could be presented with two (quite realistic) options: maintain a large farm (or something like a hay meadow) to regularly feed the fenced-in animals to keep them producing, manage a mobile herd that would graze on natural pasture, requiring little to no food input if moved between summer and winter pastures approptiately. You might notice that the latter option would allow managing herds of (within reason) near-arbitrary size with greatly reduced maintenance, which could be a very attractive possibility relative to a more maintenance-heavy conventional husbandry system. At that point, the bigger issue is "what are you gonna do with so many animals", which is where traders are probably the only singleplayer-friendly solution, though larger multiplayer servers like TOPS may also see some proper nomads. Very fair criticism overall, and I appreciate it. Though given that there is this section on the roadmap: I do hope that herding is on the table for the future.

Thank you for clarifying the mechanical side of it! My thought is that it seems impossible to fully disentangle the gameplay design direction from visuals, but either way, really appreciate you chiming in. I'll stop myself from commenting on the mechanics, beyond a small note: I have to say, it does seem like the system aligns very well with my expectations, and I'm glad you're aiming for something more manageable than CO's 3x8 slots. And hearing this makes me very happy, thank you. Just to clarify, though, the reason why I was saying to think about armor pieces and not sets is that real armor was often mixed and developed unevenly due to a variety of factors, for example: even poor early-medieval troops who couldn't afford mail would often wear metal helmets due to the importance of head protection, many centuries before proper plate armor became a thing, more mobile and layered armor on the torso like lamellar or scale was frequently worn together with rigid metal greaves, vambraces and similar pieces, because they were comparatively small, easy to shape and unobstructive, both before and after the advent of full plate harness, armor worn on the torso tends to have the largest variety of designs and distinct types, because it's the largest, central area of the body that can be easily protected with a mostly rigid structure and can bear most of the armor weight without sacrificing mobility. I'm mentioning this simply because I'm not seeing it reflected as much as I'd personally deem appropriate in the concept art. The biggest offender, as I've mentioned, is probably the brigandine layer, which realistically should be just a jacket worn typically on gambeson and mail, and together with partial or full rigid plate on limbs and a helmet, much like in this image: Part of it is just a stylistic choice, and it's probably fair to say that a more set-oriented approach might be more intuitive to someone unfamiliar with historical armor, so I'm not expecting full historical accuracy, but I'm kind of at least expecting armor terms which have a very specific meaning to be used more appropriately. The current iron brigandine set in the game has a quite spot-on torso, an appropriate rigid helmet (which is not part of the actual brigandine - it's just a generic metal helmet, almost the same as in the chain and scale sets), and pretty odd limbs which largely evade my classification but look kind of like they're splinted. Transferring that to the new system would realistically require to keep torso armor as the only piece in the brigandine "set", which could then be supplemented with a helmet (almost always rigid plate) and limb armor (rigid, splinted, or some other types, or nothing at all except for the gambeson and mail layers). Or at least a helmet and leg armor, if the three current slots are kept exactly as they are.

One thing I'd like to mention as well is that I would like to see less armor sets, and more armor pieces. Something like instead of "iron plate armor", instead do "iron helmet", "iron breastplate", "iron brigandine" and "iron greaves". Thinking of armor as individual components and not self-contained sets allows to create a much richer and arguably intuitive system that better reflects realistic and historical armor. So for example, I really don't like this "brigandine": simply because brigandine is not some sort of generic material that can be applied to the whole body (certainly not the helmet), and instead it's only a jacket which can be worn with various limb armor and any helmet of choice. And this concept is also probably not what brigandine should look like, because it often wouldn't have any metal on the outer side. Similar nuances apply to almost all other types of armor, but this "brigandine" strikes me as the worst by far, while the majority of other stuff is acceptable even if not ideal. And maybe I'm just misinterpreting something, but of all of these middle layers: only really the mail and gambeson make perfect sense as an underlayer to plate (usually all three worn together - gambeson, then chain, then plate), while the rest should be the top layer for the most part. And lastly, grass, fur, hide, pelt, leather, studded leather and bone (and maybe also something else) don't seem to make much realistic sense at all [more appropriately, they could be used, but were rarely used as the primary armor material], except fur as decoration [or rather for warmth], hides in certain cases but almost always as the top layer, and leather mostly as backing for scale, structural component, or decoration, only very rarely as the primary component of armor and even then more commonly probably in the form of leather lamellar. Some were probably used sometimes, but they were certainly not common. If this is purely just concept work, then fair enough, but I would prefer only a couple streamlined, meaningfully distinct and historically common choices, rather than a dozen options that serve more to overwhelm a new player than offer meaningful depth. Serious gameplay variety should be reserved for iron and steel in the late game, while visual variety is ultimately the purpose of decorations. But, I quite like stuff like these: because although they can be considered a bit odd with these individual plates, specific shapes (especially the second one looks kinda fictional or modern) and potentially some overuse of leather, they do use clearly identifiable armor components with purpose - the shirt ends below the hips, the chestpiece ends around the waist, limbs and head are protected separately, rigid elements don't impede anything, it all just makes sense and looks good. This one is also really fun: and the couple small caveats are that it seems somewhat anachronistic, could use different greaves and vambraces, and should have some neck protection. Something very similar with earlier lamellar armor would be absolutely perfect. There's this set, among the concepts, possibly hinting at something that at least matches Jonas tech visually, even if it doesn't end up having significant special functionality:

I'm gonna start off by saying that I really like having a dedicated post for a community wishlist, because especially for a rework as significant as armor, it does seem great to have something that the devs will presumably read with a clear purpose in mind instead of small ideas scattered across a multitude of other conversations that almost never get any dev interaction. If I were to point to one thing that I would love to see in the armor rework, it's in-world crafting, possibly on an armor stand instead of the crafting grid, which I originally saw mentioned in this Discord suggestion. Regardless of what exactly gets implemented, I have pretty high hopes for an engaging in-world crafting system. On the progression side, which also impacts visuals quite strongly, I would like to see more historically accurate types of armor with improvements that don't boil down to better metals. Many important milestones in historical armor came from weaving, quilting, leather crafting, fitting, and other aspects of armor design that focused on iterating on the basics, and many of these improvements were largely independent of the metal used in armor - if only because they often dealt with elements of armor that didn't have metal in the first place or served as the backing, padding or attachment system to metal components. Granted, this could be tricky to implement in a satisfying way without first integrating new crafting processes into the broader game, but I do think it would produce a much deeper system with meaningful progression, where improvement doesn't devolve into just getting the next metal tier. Additionally, I think that several armor types like chain, brigandine and plate should be only available starting from iron, maybe even only in steel in the case of plate - besides better historical accuracy, it would mainly serve to streamline early-game armor and avoid overwhelming new players, and only in the mid to late game naturally expand the variety. And in terms of visuals, echoing what @LadyWYT has mentioned, colors and decorations! Arguably much more important for visuals than the underlying armor in many cases, although typically influenced strongly by it. Alwite armor (plate with nothing on top) is cool, but it's just one style of armor, only seriously popular once full articulated plate became common in the 15th century. There's way too many options to comprehensively list for visual variety and decoration in armor, but it's the general direction that counts. Left/top - brigandine with decorated (but also functional) fabric and rivets; middle - mail with a surcoat on top; right/bottom - Ming dynasty statue with highly decorated mountain pattern armour (very extravagant, mostly just to show the high end of what decorated lamellar could look like). Left/top - landsknechte and cavalry in a tapestry of the battle of Pavia, quite suitable for late Steel Age; right/bottom - Japanese doumaru (made of a type of lamellar for the most part, which was dominant in Japan for a long time). You know some nice blogs, I have to say. The Armor in Order post seems to be arguably the most important one from a design perspective, because (as discussed recently in this topic, for example), the current armor system kind of has its priorities backwards, with the helmet favoring as light armor as possible. Some of the realistic priorities could shift due to the supernatural threats that we have in the game, but either way, the importance of different armor segments should be a valuable consideration when balancing their protection and downsides.

It has always been 5% on the first quenching, but most people (including myself) initially assumed it was 0% because of the tooltip, which only starting from 1.22.0 stable finally communicates the risk properly. The thing that I've never liked in RNG-based mechanics is that even a very small chance, multiplied by a large number of players, can produce a significant number of unhappy players. Shattering your first two pieces only has a tiny 0.25% chance, but give this to, say, 10k people, and on average 25 of them will shatter their first two pieces. Some of those 25 people will leave with a sour taste only to be told "well, you were really unlucky". And while it's ultimately not particularly meaningful in the long run, because you're usually gonna have much more iron on hand, I personally don't particularly like mechanics which allow such an obvious risk in the first place (which, by the way, is also why I'm not really a fan of scarcity balancing which is used extensively for things like resin, bees, or fire clay, or even seemingly common cattails - I've watched a new player search for them for almost two hours trying to complete the tutorial, and they just got a really bad world). One thing that has become quite clear based on the community sentiment that I've been seeing is that tempering is kind of a flop. A bit too many people for my taste don't understand what it does and don't know how many times it should be done, some people have complained that it takes too long even in spite of the greatly increased cooling rates, and it's not been uncommon to see people ignore tempering altogether. The benefits that optimal tempering brings over quenching are quite minimal anyways. And people also seem to quite often mix power and durability quenching on the same tool, which is strictly detrimental past the second quenching unless repeatedly tempered in just the same way that excessive durability quenching is an effective durability loss. Even if not rework the system completely, I really hope that they will actually keep improving it rather than leave it as is. Though frankly, I feel like any significant work on it might not make much sense until the fabled heating rework is finally in place.

I feel like it's pretty odd to say that herding would be primarily for people who don't want to enagage with half the game. Historically, even nomadic lifestyles didn't involve continuous movement, as movement was not the goal. Many communities would move between seasonal camps that would be visited annually, so I see no reason not to reflect that in-game. Efficient herding would necessarily require some travel, but it shouldn't be so time-consuming as to prevent the player from engaging with other features in a significant way - it would just require more planning, or a lot of work to set up multiple well-equipped outposts instead of just a single home, and could be adequately done without greatly impeding other activities. Though I could have probably mentioned them more explicitly, secondary goals of a herding mechanic also include improvements to baseline animal husbandry to make managing animals more intuitive and less annoying. With some experience, I can gather a few goats within the first couple days, but I've seen so many newer players confused about the mechanics and struggling to contain the animals, and ultimately most people default to ugly, crammed enclosures. I would want herding to actually serve a meaningful gameplay function and not be limited to roleplay, and I think that would be actually very easy to achieve with the herding staff and grazing once a few broad AI improvements are in place. The exact implementation can vary greatly, but it may be worth mentioning that realistically, herding has likely originated from more or less subtly managing already existing wild herds. The process naturally wasn't as simple as "walk up to the animal and touch it with a stick", so perhaps there's space for some more complex domestication mechanisms (which have been on the roadmap for a while). Also, some animals are known to have historically approached humans first - mainly cats and dogs, but possibly also some other animals in certain cases. The idea of trapping wild animals and shoving them into a fenced-off area is arguably extremely simplistic and unimmersive, at least in the context of early domestication, so I do like the idea to make it more gradual. Buying young animals seems like a good idea, though I'll mention that realistically it often worked and other way around - herders were often highly reliant on a trade network, while static settlements benefitted greatly from the animals. They would trade their livestock and related products for tools, grain, pottery and a variety of other goods, so I think it would be great to reflect that in the game and make sure that more dedicated herders can reliably supply themselves from traders, instead of just becoming independent, especially since herding would naturally involve traveling which would make visiting traders more convenient. That would primarily involve increased trader throughput and increased demand for meat, dairy, fat and hides or related products, because as far as I can find redmeat can only be sold to one trader type, fat can be sold to two (one as part of the longbow), while dairy and hides can't be sold at all (leather can be sold, but making it reliable may require some alternative method of leathermaking).

I greatly appreciate the suggestions regarding predators, and I'm just not a fan of preventing a tile from growing grass permanently. Grass already regrows at a limited rate, so a given area would be naturally only able to feed so many animals sustainably, and no further complications seem necessary to me, especially not permanent consequences. Though it might be fine to just greatly reduce regrowth rates for overgrazed areas, achieving a similar effect while still allowing them to recover slowly. Or if any further complications are still desired either way, then I would initially aim in three possible directions: with the goal of creating a seasonal cycle, just more proper seasonal growth - either something simple implemented as preventing regrowth until the next spring rather than indefinitely, or a more comprehensive rework, with the goal of making the effects of overgrazing more predictable and consistent, something like a large-scale depletion system - managed efficiently under the hood and not on the basis of individual plants, with long-term effects spread out over larger areas rather than concentrated on what the animals happen to eat, with the goal of incentivizing longer-distance travel, some mechanics which would make good grazing areas or pastures much less common and more valuable - keeping the herd constantly fed for the full benefits would require more carefully planned travel between somewhat distant outposts or settlements, not just moving the animals a hundred blocks away to another part of the same expansive grasslands.