So in the early game, your tribe's just made the transition from hunter-gatherers to settled, yeah?

Well, the old skills are still there... so how about this: kill a Mammoth, give your nearest city http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/civ4/food.gif in the same way chopping a forest gives http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/civ4/hammer.gif?

So in the early game, your tribe's just made the transition from hunter-gatherers to settled, yeah?

Well, the old skills are still there... so how about this: kill a Mammoth, give your nearest city http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/civ4/food.gif in the same way chopping a forest gives http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/civ4/hammer.gif?

That's a cool idea but I'm not sure it would be technically feasible. Animals are unable to enter cultural borders and it's not easy to determine what the nearest city is from an unowned tile. I'll have a think about it though.

There's working code for that in PAE. Seemed like the decision, in which city the food went, was no problem.

Dedicated stone age hunter units there look a bit like very early javelineers. Maybe they could be part of the skirmisher branch in the unit upgrade chart?

You could use the code from the "Age of Ice" scenario, make certain animals capturable, and allow people to disband them for food.

Or would that not work with the AI?

There's working code for that in PAE. Seemed like the decision, in which city the food went, was no problem.

Dedicated stone age hunter units there look a bit like very early javelineers. Maybe they could be part of the skirmisher branch in the unit upgrade chart?

Ah I see what's he's done. Relatively simple, I'll adapt it and add it in. No need for a dedicated hunter unit or anything though, I'll give the ability to the Warrior. Make them a bit more useful.

Done. If a Warrior kills an animal in 1.18, one city in range (5 tiles) will gain some food. The amount is random; the minimum is equal to the animal's combat strength and the maximum is twice the animal's combat strength.

I've also given Warriors +50% vs Animals so they fare better against the tougher ones.

Ah I see what's he's done. Relatively simple, I'll adapt it and add it in. No need for a dedicated hunter unit or anything though, I'll give the ability to the Warrior. Make them a bit more useful.

Does the Incan Quecha also get this ability? (I can't recall if there are currently any other Warrior-replacement unique units.)

Done. If a Warrior kills an animal in 1.18, one city in range (5 tiles) will gain some food. The amount is random; the minimum is equal to the animal's combat strength and the maximum is twice the animal's combat strength.

Will this scale with gamespeed?

A suggestion: Perhaps these abilities would work better as a "Hunter" promotion, with Warriors getting it free?

If at the beginning the only way to grow is to kill animals later on We could develop a new stone age era.

Does the Incan Quecha also get this ability? (I can't recall if there are currently any other Warrior-replacement unique units.)

Yes it will. It's the only Warrior replacement.

Will this scale with gamespeed?

I wasn't sure if it should or not. Presumably on slower game speeds there is a longer period of time where animals are still prevalent, borders have not expanded so far, and thus there is more opportunity to hunt animals. Many relatively small bonuses versus a few relatively large ones.

It wouldn't be hard to add some minor scaling though. Those of you who play the slower game speeds: what amount seems reasonable to you?

A suggestion: Perhaps these abilities would work better as a "Hunter" promotion, with Warriors getting it free?

I'm unable to teach the AI the value of such a promotion, nor to deliberately seek out animals. The advantage of the Warrior is that the AI likes to send them with Settlers and Workers, so they're reasonably likely to encounter animals anyway, further encouraged by their new bonus vs animals.

Ultimately this feature needs to remain a nice but not necessary bonus, so as not to give the human player too much of an advantage.

If at the beginning the only way to grow is to kill animals later on We could develop a new stone age era.It'd take too many turns to find and kill a useful number of animals.

Unless we make the wilderness so full of animals that things like scouting become impossible and even military expeditions are somewhat endangered.

Let's keep it as a sort of minor 'easter egg' feature, eh?

With my historian hat on, I don't think a prolonged Stone Age of getting food by hunting would work well. And with almost all Animal units being carnivores, hunting them all feels a bit odd, really. Especially if the Mammoth prey is virtually unassailable to a Warrior.

Don't get me wrong, scraping together a few scraps from the kill is fine and all. But the idea of a wider Stone Age era in which the settler/settlement system is predated by a mobile Clan unit that can follow herds and also domesticate the plants it forages is something I mused on a while back.

I've now put some thought to this and put my ideas in a new thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11497718#post11497718).

It probably wouldn't hurt gameplay to introduce some non-attacking "herbivore" game units if there's art for them. Say...

"Antelope/Reindeer:" Strength 1, move 2
"Aurochs/Buffalo:" Strength 2 or 3, move 1 (a bit dangerous to attack)

These units wouldn't menace passing scouts, but would be available for hunting.

It probably wouldn't hurt gameplay to introduce some non-attacking "herbivore" game units if there's art for them. Say...

"Antelope/Reindeer:" Strength 1, move 2
"Aurochs/Buffalo:" Strength 2 or 3, move 1 (a bit dangerous to attack)

These units wouldn't menace passing scouts, but would be available for hunting.

Yeah it makes sense to add a few more 'neutral' animals like the Mammoth, but which are somewhat easier targets. I'll see what art is available.

It'd take too many turns to find and kill a useful number of animals.

Unless we make the wilderness so full of animals that things like scouting become impossible and even military expeditions are somewhat endangered.

Let's keep it as a sort of minor 'easter egg' feature, eh?

I think it would be good to have kinder a more tribal feel at the start. I do feel that civ does start a bit late. It might take a while to work out how and still make it fun. Especially the limitations of the coding with a mac. Thats why we have these forums, eh

I was thinking at the beginning to get food a worker have to be on the tile. The worker being on the tile is like having a farm or a pasture on the tile.

I don't feel Civ starts late. It's meant to chronicle the rise of civilization, that common word with its root in the Latin for "city." It's about the culture of cities and the politics of cities.

Guys wandering in the wilderness and never settling down in one place- sure, that's part of the human story, but it's not the story of civilization.

I don't feel Civ starts late. It's meant to chronicle the rise of civilization, that common word with its root in the Latin for "city." It's about the culture of cities and the politics of cities.

Guys wandering in the wilderness and never settling down in one place- sure, that's part of the human story, but it's not the story of civilization.

I guess thats one thing we agree on. I couldn't imagine civilization without a settler at the start.

What I mean is, the 'story' of the game starts with you building your first city. The turn or two of darting around to find a perfect location is... it's a necessary game mechanic, but it's not really what the game is 'for.'

So prolonging it, to my way of thinking, undermines the theme of the game a bit. It might be fun, but it'd make more sense as its own scenario where that was a major part of the game and the whole tech tree just ran you up into, say, the Bronze Age.

I don't think we are on the same page. I was talking about the workers not the settlers.

I love the idea of animals as an early food source.
It creates a sort of minigame for the opening turns, when little else is happening.

For the sake of clarity, and to familiarize new players with the mechanic, I would mention it in the unit description.
i.e., Warrior: +25% City Defense, +50% vs. Animals, defeated animals provide food
Furthermore, I would add a message, similar to pillaging, to the combat log.
Instead of "Your Warrior has pillaged a Farm for 3:gold:," it would read "Your Warrior has defeated a Panther for 3:food:."
(If you can somehow mention which city the food went to, even better.)

Now, my only worry is that giving Warriors such an ability, along with +50% vs. Animals, greatly reduces the value of Scouts.
Scouts have an extra movement point, true, but that makes no difference when traveling through Forests, Hills, Jungles - in other words, almost anywhere interesting.
Knowing that Warriors can hunt animals (at 3:strength:, with the combat bonus), I would never build another Scout.

At a bare minimum, I think Scouts should also be able to hunt animals. (On defense, of course.)
Even then, I think Scouts would need a second ability to make them a worthwhile build, as compared to Warriors.
I recommend one or more of the following:

free Mobility promotion (Scouts would always move faster than Warriors, in any terrain.)
free Medic I promotion (Scouts would heal faster than Warriors in the wilderness.)
increased combat bonus, to +200% vs. Animals (Scouts would be just as strong as Warriors when facing animals.)

For the sake of clarity, and to familiarize new players with the mechanic, I would mention it in the unit description.
i.e., Warrior: +25% City Defense, +50% vs. Animals, defeated animals provide food

Already done :)

Furthermore, I would add a message, similar to pillaging, to the combat log.
Instead of "Your Warrior has pillaged a Farm for 3:gold:," it would read "Your Warrior has defeated a Panther for 3:food:."
(If you can somehow mention which city the food went to, even better.)

Also done, the message is "Your Warrior has provided X :food: for <city>."

Now, my only worry is that giving Warriors such an ability, along with +50% vs. Animals, greatly reduces the value of Scouts.
Scouts have an extra movement point, true, but that makes no difference when traveling through Forests, Hills, Jungles - in other words, almost anywhere interesting.
Knowing that Warriors can hunt animals (at 3:strength:, with the combat bonus), I would never build another Scout.

At a bare minimum, I think Scouts should also be able to hunt animals. (On defense, of course.)
Even then, I think Scouts would need a second ability to make them a worthwhile build, as compared to Warriors.
I recommend one or more of the following:

free Mobility promotion (Scouts would always move faster than Warriors, in any terrain.)
free Medic I promotion (Scouts would heal faster than Warriors in the wilderness.)
increased combat bonus, to +200% vs. Animals (Scouts would be just as strong as Warriors when facing animals.)


Scouts get better results from Tribal Villages. Also, hunting for food only works within 5 tiles of one of your cities so there really isn't much advantage to giving that ability to exploration units. Overall I don't want to make early exploration any easier than it already is so I'd prefer to weaken Warriors somehow than to boost Scouts.

Scouts get better results from Tribal Villages. Also, hunting for food only works within 5 tiles of one of your cities so there really isn't much advantage to giving that ability to exploration units. Overall I don't want to make early exploration any easier than it already is so I'd prefer to weaken Warriors somehow than to boost Scouts.

Ah, yes, I forgot about better results from Tribal Villages. Still, I think the real problem is the new +50% vs. Animals bonus. My one big fear when building Scouts is that they will die to a Bear two turns after leaving my borders, and so all my precious early game hammers will go to waste. With that new animal bonus, Warriors seem to be a much sturdier option; they may be slow, but they will survive. (Not to mention: Warriors have much better odds against barbarian Warriors and Archers, and they upgrade into much more useful units, as compared to Scouts; further, they can defend cities when they return home and they can actually attack other units in the field.)

In short, I think the animal bonus has to go. I suppose it could also be weakened to +50% vs. Animals when attacking, which would be just as useful for hunting, but less so for exploring.

In short, I think the animal bonus has to go. I suppose it could also be weakened to +50% vs. Animals when attacking, which would be just as useful for hunting, but less so for exploring.

Unfortunately the XML handles animals differently from other unit types and I cannot separate attack and defence against them. If the animal bonus is removed we'd also have to lower the strength of the stronger animals or hunting wouldn't be all that effective. Free food is a nice bonus, but not if you're losing many warriors (and thus hammers) to get it.

What if Scouts had no upkeep costs but Warriors did?

Unfortunately the XML handles animals differently from other unit types and I cannot separate attack and defence against them. If the animal bonus is removed we'd also have to lower the strength of the stronger animals or hunting wouldn't be all that effective. Free food is a nice bonus, but not if you're losing many warriors (and thus hammers) to get it.

You're right about that. In that case, I see no other option but to raise the bonus to +200% vs. Animals for Scouts, to put them on par with Warriors.
(In fact, that change would still leave Scouts weaker than Warriors on defensive terrain.
On a forested hill, a scout would have 1:strength: + 250% = 3.5:strength: against animals. A Warrior would have 2:strength: + 100% = 4:strength:.)

What if Scouts had no upkeep costs but Warriors did?

I'm not sure it would make any difference, to be honest. Upkeep costs in the early game are negligible.
By the time armies are large enough to warrant upkeep, Scouts are worthless: whatever wilderness remains is plagued by Barbarian Archers, or worse.

There are other options for bonuses, of course.
What if Scouts could cross borders without Open Borders? They would still be niche units: useful only if you spawned next to an uncooperative AI.
What if Scouts had extra visibility: a free Sentry promotion? Then we would need another bonus for the Enterprising Trait.

Both of those would make early-game exploration very easy, which Xyth is hoping to avoid.