Why can a Husky carry more (75) than a Timber/Artic Wolf (64)? Illogical

[FreyaMaluk]

This is Rimlogic at its best xD, but seriously I would love that @Tynan could take a look at those values. It makes little sense that domesticated wolves, which are stronger than dogs, are penalized with less carrying capacity.

[Ildac]

It could be that huskies were bred to be work dogs, meant to pull sleds and such, whereas wolves are just wild animals that evolved for the sole purpose of survival.

[Zhentar]

RimWorld Huskies & Labradors are quite a bit larger than their real world counterparts. Their body size is the same value as humans (1.0, compared to wolves at 0.85). You should think of them as equivalent to real world St. Bernard dogs, bred to be strong working dogs and not insignificantly larger and stronger than wild wolves.

[carbon]

I'm pretty sure most of the sizes aren't very realistic if you spend a bit of time looking at them.

Aren't squirrels / rats / rabbits like size 0.20?
Assuming a standard human (size 1.0) is 80 kg, that means you're looking at 16 kg (35 lb) squirrels.

[Zhentar]

The size scales assigned to creatures make a lot more sense on an exponential scale. Squirrels have a size of 0.15; 80kg * 0.15 = 12kg, so ridiculously large squirrels, while 80kg^0.15 = 1.93kg, which is much closer to a reasonable value. The other direction doesn't work out quite as well (size 4 elephants should only be around 5,000kg rather than 40 million kilograms) - but in the real world Elephants weigh about twice as much as Rhinoceroses, which are size 3, so it's clearly not a linear scale.

But for huskies and labradors specifically, that's irrelevant. They're exactly the same size as adult humans, so whether the scale is linear, exponential, logarithmic, or whatever is irrelevant. Other animals with a size of 1.0 include Alpacas (real world average weight: 60-85kg) and Wargs. Clearly, substantially larger creatures than your average wolf.

[NeverPire]

The size scales assigned to creatures make a lot more sense on an exponential scale. Squirrels have a size of 0.15; 80kg * 0.15 = 12kg, so ridiculously large squirrels, while 80kg^0.15 = 1.93kg, which is much closer to a reasonable value. The other direction doesn't work out quite as well (size 4 elephants should only be around 5,000kg rather than 40 million kilograms) - but in the real world Elephants weigh about twice as much as Rhinoceroses, which are size 3, so it's clearly not a linear scale.

But for huskies and labradors specifically, that's irrelevant. They're exactly the same size as adult humans, so whether the scale is linear, exponential, logarithmic, or whatever is irrelevant. Other animals with a size of 1.0 include Alpacas (real world average weight: 60-85kg) and Wargs. Clearly, substantially larger creatures than your average wolf.

Once, don't mix mass and volume.
Second, most of animals have different volumic mass so there is really no sense to look for a global relation.

[Lightzy]

A husky should be able to carry exacly 0 logs. Same with wolf.

I think the wood 'resources' should be done a bit differently and make more sense. Much less quantity, more heavy, and much less needed for construction