You don’t have a gun in this scenario Vlady, you’re unarmed and it’s up to your two choices to protect you
Either way, it's rat and hunter, unless the hunter has significantly limited ammo, in which case I'll take 20,000 rats.
The problem with this is that the hunter alone can't protect you against the 50 hawks, even if the rats can take out everything else.
While we haven't identified how much ammo the hunter has, he can start whittling away at the hawks, while the rats start dragging down any other hawks that come in to attack. Again- hawks have fairly weak bone structures and it doesn't take much to fuck up a wing.
How can you have any pudding if you won't eat your meat?
You don’t have a gun in this scenario Vlady, you’re unarmed and it’s up to your two choices to protect you
Either way, it's rat and hunter, unless the hunter has significantly limited ammo, in which case I'll take 20,000 rats.
The problem with this is that the hunter alone can't protect you against the 50 hawks, even if the rats can take out everything else.
While we haven't identified how much ammo the hunter has, he can start whittling away at the hawks, while the rats start dragging down any other hawks that come in to attack. Again- hawks have fairly weak bone structures and it doesn't take much to fuck up a wing.
I think most of the rats will be busy taking out the larger animals, while the hawks will take out your hunter pretty quickly unless his gun is actually an M2 Browning mounted on a big rock that he can just spray blast all those hawks into the afterlife in short work. In this scenario, can I have the hunter with a giant flamethrower with unlimited gas?
You don’t have a gun in this scenario Vlady, you’re unarmed and it’s up to your two choices to protect you
Either way, it's rat and hunter, unless the hunter has significantly limited ammo, in which case I'll take 20,000 rats.
The problem with this is that the hunter alone can't protect you against the 50 hawks, even if the rats can take out everything else.
While we haven't identified how much ammo the hunter has, he can start whittling away at the hawks, while the rats start dragging down any other hawks that come in to attack. Again- hawks have fairly weak bone structures and it doesn't take much to fuck up a wing.
I think most of the rats will be busy taking out the larger animals, while the hawks will take out your hunter pretty quickly unless his gun is actually an M2 Browning mounted on a big rock that he can just spray blast all those hawks into the afterlife in short work. In this scenario, can I have the hunter with a giant flamethrower with unlimited gas?
Also, the hawks don't have to get low enough to the ground to be pulled down by your rats if their only objective is to kill you and maybe your hunter protector.
You don’t have a gun in this scenario Vlady, you’re unarmed and it’s up to your two choices to protect you
Either way, it's rat and hunter, unless the hunter has significantly limited ammo, in which case I'll take 20,000 rats.
The problem with this is that the hunter alone can't protect you against the 50 hawks, even if the rats can take out everything else.
While we haven't identified how much ammo the hunter has, he can start whittling away at the hawks, while the rats start dragging down any other hawks that come in to attack. Again- hawks have fairly weak bone structures and it doesn't take much to fuck up a wing.
I think most of the rats will be busy taking out the larger animals, while the hawks will take out your hunter pretty quickly unless his gun is actually an M2 Browning mounted on a big rock that he can just spray blast all those hawks into the afterlife in short work. In this scenario, can I have the hunter with a giant flamethrower with unlimited gas?
All he needs is a pump shot gun; hawks are unfortunately pretty easy to take out and 50 at one time isn't enough to make a serious difference. Just watch a hawk dealing with a mockingbird and you see how fucked those guys are- the bigger the hawk, the more they might be able to do slashing with talons/beak, but the less maneuverable they become very quickly. Smaller hawks are way more maneuverable, but also less likely to cause any harm more than a cat scratch.
How can you have any pudding if you won't eat your meat?
Having read all of the defense of why the rats are superior, I believe the correct answer is the rats and the hawks.
I initially chose hawks and gorillas because I mis-judged the sheer volume of rats in my considerations. Felt like the king of the jungle could mash everything else, but there would be too many rats.
You don’t have a gun in this scenario Vlady, you’re unarmed and it’s up to your two choices to protect you
Either way, it's rat and hunter, unless the hunter has significantly limited ammo, in which case I'll take 20,000 rats.
The problem with this is that the hunter alone can't protect you against the 50 hawks, even if the rats can take out everything else.
While we haven't identified how much ammo the hunter has, he can start whittling away at the hawks, while the rats start dragging down any other hawks that come in to attack. Again- hawks have fairly weak bone structures and it doesn't take much to fuck up a wing.
I think most of the rats will be busy taking out the larger animals, while the hawks will take out your hunter pretty quickly unless his gun is actually an M2 Browning mounted on a big rock that he can just spray blast all those hawks into the afterlife in short work. In this scenario, can I have the hunter with a giant flamethrower with unlimited gas?
Also, the hawks don't have to get low enough to the ground to be pulled down by your rats if their only objective is to kill you and maybe your hunter protector.
Again, it comes down to the maneuverability question. If we're talking larger hawks/eagles, I will clearly defend myself by laying lower, requiring the eagles to soar in over the rats, at which point they are getting dragged in. Smaller, more maneuverable hawks like a Coopers or even a kestrel just don't have the ability more than to be annoying to a human.
How can you have any pudding if you won't eat your meat?
Having read all of the defense of why the rats are superior, I believe the correct answer is the rats and the hawks.
I initially chose hawks and gorillas because I mis-judged the sheer volume of rats in my considerations. Felt like the king of the jungle could mash everything else, but there would be too many rats.
This would be my second choice if human has very limited ammo and we can't have 20,000 rats.
How can you have any pudding if you won't eat your meat?
Even without maneuverability, 50 hawks are going to kill your human protector, even if he takes out 10 of them. Then there are 40 left to harrass you while your rats are gnawing on the other animals. If you go ahead and put the hawks on your side, then they'll take out that hunter with the gun and then hang out with you while your mass of rats do the grunt work.
Hunter is the only one who can hit you from a distance, so you need him on your side.
And hawks aren't really that dangerous to a person. Eagle-sized guys would be more dangerous, but they are slower and not very maneuverable.
For example, these guys are pretty small and so they aren't going to cause fatal cuts very easily:
Here is a bald eagle, which demonstrates more of the lower maneuverability of something that large.
Remember that because of this, such a large bird is only going to be able to come in one at a time, which also makes things difficult for them to do damage without being taken out.
How can you have any pudding if you won't eat your meat?
#1 GOAT