Ok the way I've always understood the Civ games is that each unit is representative of a large number of people, so that a worker is not just one worker, yet perhaps hundreds or thousdands of workers. Or a "marine unit" represents several platoons or perhaps hundreds of marines. So when I see a lion unit cut down a warrior unit in half... I have to wonder... Is it an army of hundreds of lions taking down hundreds of warriors? I mean, I can see in a game like Age of Empires this working when it's attacking individual units, but come on! You expect us to by that some lions will take down a unit of warriors representing hundreds of them!? In real life lions probably would'nt even go after such a large and intimidating foe when they could easily attack something weaker. It doesn't bug me too much, it just seems kind of dumb!

Ok the way I've always understood the Civ games is that each unit is representative of a large number of people, so that a worker is not just one worker, yet perhaps hundreds or thousdands of workers. Or a "marine unit" represents several platoons or perhaps hundreds of marines. So when I see a lion unit cut down a warrior unit in half... I have to wonder... Is it an army of hundreds of lions taking down hundreds of warriors? I mean, I can see in a game like Age of Empires this working when it's attacking individual units, but come on! You expect us to by that some lions will take down a unit of warriors representing hundreds of them!? In real life lions probably would'nt even go after such a large and intimidating foe when they could easily attack something weaker. It doesn't bug me too much, it just seems kind of dumb!

It's an army of lions.....

^and maybe a few tigers in there as well

and bears, oh my

lol what is this? 'Animal Farm' ?

And remember that a turn might correspond to a decade of time. So, it's not "army of lions attacks army of Spearmen in a single pitched battle", it's more like "You sent an army of spearmen into an area overrun by wild animals, and many of the soldiers were killed or injured before the animals were brought under control." Not exactly an unprecedented thing, either.

First of all, warriors are simple brutes with a stone axe or a mace. Not really washed up against a Lion. in a 1 on 1 fight the Lion would most likely tear it apart.

So looking at the 3 lions vs 3 warriors, my money is on teh lions.

But since Lions dun really win from them i guess thats where the "higher nubmers" of warriors come on.

Also, not to forget, like all cats. Lions are stealthy hutners, so they can get really close, perhaps even ambush the warriors, in the warriors high number the lion might think its a flok of some sort of animal, but instead of fleeing it fights abck. something it didnt see comming. But since a single lion is still stronger then the warrior, and teh short weapons force the warriors to get well in ragne of them HUGE claws wich can really kill a man in 1 strike i find it not even that unrealistic.

In real life lions probably would'nt even go after such a large and intimidating foe when they could easily attack something weaker.My guess is that the early Christians of Roman times would have a slightly different perspective of "real life lions" than you.

And remember that a turn might correspond to a decade of time. So, it's not "army of lions attacks army of Spearmen in a single pitched battle", it's more like "You sent an army of spearmen into an area overrun by wild animals, and many of the soldiers were killed or injured before the animals were brought under control." Not exactly an unprecedented thing, either.


Very good point! I retract my earlier argument

And cannibalistic monkeys as well...

EDIT: Ow... I was late...

lions with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads

First of all, warriors are simple brutes with a stone axe or a mace. Not really washed up against a Lion. in a 1 on 1 fight the Lion would most likely tear it apart.
Don't underestimate the stone age men. They were quite capable of hunting the larger predators with their primitave weapons. Even as recently as the early 20th century, adolescent males of the Masai tribe of Kenya were required to kill a lion solo as part of their rite of passage into manhood. I actually met a 98 year old Masai man, who was still considered a child because he never took the on challenge. He was forbidden to marry, hunt, have his own house, or any of the other privileges adults had. Today of course hunting lions is outlawed so that rite no longer applies (but I hear it still doesn't keep all Masai from hunting anyway).

Don

In real life lions probably would'nt even go after such a large and intimidating foe when they could easily attack something weaker.

There isn't much weaker creature in nature than humans. No claws, no armour, not very strong or fast. Even our senses like smell, sight etc. are feeble compared to other animals. The only thing we have going for us is our brains. In ancient times, we were easy pickings for animals like lions. If it works like it did in Civ3, then one turn equals 50 years at that point, so I don't think it's all that unrealistic. There was a case in Africa just a short while ago where a tribe of lions killed several people in a village, and the rest of them evacuated the area.

Besides, it's been mentioned in a couple of reviews that lions aren't much to worry about unless you try to send out an unescorted Settler.

:lol: :lol: :goodjob: lions with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads

wouldn't get to caught up in the numbers game. Wild animals are the best new feature- walk'n around, eating settlers, walking around some more.
They are different than the fictitious "barbarians" (how many Huns have you ever seen? now, how many Lions?)
A brilliant move at the Graphic and Strategic level- Lions with banners-gotta like it

There should also be random alien obductions of settlers. I have heard of just about the same amount of animal attacks as obductions on tv.

ok, ok settle down.....complaints like this before the game is played by us shows me that most of us suffer from some form of Adult attention deficit disorder. The game is almost out - be patient, relax soon people soon. go play civ3 or serious sam II or something. lol

Can settlers defend agaisnt the beasts?

woa woa woa....what if....the lions have small pox! They bite one soldier...then escapes back to the woods...but then that soilder infects the whole platoon! Its ingenious!









(remembers that the lion cuts them in half)
Dang it

Can settlers defend agaisnt the beasts?

Settlers can't defend against anything, at least if they're anything like in Civ 3. 0 defence, 0 attack.

Hey if it makes the game more of a challenge - especially early on I'm for it

We don't know how many lions or warriors it is. Could be a pack of lions against a group of warriors.
Who knows? Welcome to the gaming world.

In 1945 a batallion of Japanese soldiers was wiped out by crocodiles. They were cut off from normal travel routes and had to cross a 10 mile crocodile infested swamp at night in Burma. 980 out of 1,000 soldiers died. It's a well documented attack in the official records of the combatants. Here is just one link:

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=54116

Remember that in 1945 crocodiles had not been severly hunted yet, and Burma was a pretty wild place back then. Burmese saltwater crocs would have exceeded 20 feet. Just for fun, step out 20' in your living room, now imaging crossing a swamp at night full of those beasties. And you're tired and hungry and losing the war and far from home in a strange, strange land. Having fun yet?

The shark attack on the Indianapolis is another example of mass animal attacks on a military unit, although in that case the submarine sank the boat.

Here's a single tiger that killed 436 villagers from 1903 to 1907:

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=53281

One of the old paper wargames simulated a wasp attack on troops during a battle in the Indian subcontinent. I couldn't find any web references to this incident, sorry.

As stated above, in game-speak, the lions don't have to decimate the settlers, just reduce it to a size and capacity that can't be scaled on the game. Maybe a few families left deciding "Yep. That's enough travelling for me. I like it riiiighht here", and form an outpost too small to rate a city.

So yeah, I can see lions attacking settlers.

lions with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads

Someone has to do unit graphics for this!

You got it man
And remember that a turn might correspond to a decade of time. So, it's not "army of lions attacks army of Spearmen in a single pitched battle", it's more like "You sent an army of spearmen into an area overrun by wild animals, and many of the soldiers were killed or injured before the animals were brought under control." Not exactly an unprecedented thing, either.

Don't underestimate the stone age men. They were quite capable of hunting the larger predators with their primitave weapons. Even as recently as the early 20th century, adolescent males of the Masai tribe of Kenya were required to kill a lion solo as part of their rite of passage into manhood. I actually met a 98 year old Masai man, who was still considered a child because he never took the on challenge. He was forbidden to marry, hunt, have his own house, or any of the other privileges adults had. Today of course hunting lions is outlawed so that rite no longer applies (but I hear it still doesn't keep all Masai from hunting anyway).

Don

I tought it was the warriors entering the turf of the lions, therefor the lions pick the fight on there accord. Those guys themselves hunt a lion, singled out, with his guard down, so they pick the fight. Its a big diffirence.

In this lion hunt warrior scenario its the lion that gets the drop on the warrior. And stoneage man DID get killed alot be large predators.

a lion can slash open a whole body in a single strike so fast you cant dodge it as a human. Its like 4 razor sharp daggers on each claw, anough biting force to shatter the neck as if its nothing and enough muscle power to jump 12feet with a zebra in there mouth. If stoneage men hunted such animals they did it by singling out the oldest/sickest/weakest. Not by taking on a whole den, wich was curtain suicide.

Masais have also invented spearmen and their warriors got promotion or two. Of course they win the lion.

Well we've seen this thread before. Its not stupid: think of it what else can they put in to 'realistically' model hardship.

They tried putting genital diseases in but that just killed their ESRB rating.

It seems like the thread starter is taking Civ games bit too seriously :D

I think Spatzimaus reply was the most easily understood by common sense. I bet it was not too uncommon for early prehistoric times that large group or even tribe could vanish into thin air, by hunger etc. So Roaming lions are just to add randomness into the game, personally I welcome lions, we have had 3 games worth of abusing barbarians alrdy :D