Judge_Deadd
No, I'm not back
What about animals wandering around? There could be a special unit called Hunters, and they could kill animals for food. Also, there could be extincions, ecologist's protests, animals attacking units etc.
Animals
- Thread starter Judge_Deadd
- Start date
Bluemofia
F=ma
like predetors?
Shyrramar
Warlord
Umm. A pack of wolfes is really not much a threat to any unit (as the unit would actually comprise of many warriors). I think the reason why we get food from unirrigated lands (especially forests) is due to the background idea of hunting - this does not need any emphasizing, IMO..
rcoutme
Emperor
I agree with Shyrramar. I would like to see the possibility of expanding domestication though. There were no horses left in the Americas when the Spanish introduced them. Now the critters are all over the place!
This could be done by obsoleting the horse icons after certain techs are discovered. Similar to why infantry and riflemen do not need iron or saltpeter (it's assumed that plenty of sources have been found).
This could be done by obsoleting the horse icons after certain techs are discovered. Similar to why infantry and riflemen do not need iron or saltpeter (it's assumed that plenty of sources have been found).
jalapeno_dude
AKA Panda Judo Eel
You have to remember the time scale. Is a pack of wolfs going to last for 50 years?
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
And more to the point, with the way food work in the Civilization games, it doesn't help much. A one-time boost in food isn't really something that useful. If it was shield or gold, perhaps but it's not.
Good idea in RTS were food is a ressource used to produce units ; bad idea in civ where it isn't.
Good idea in RTS were food is a ressource used to produce units ; bad idea in civ where it isn't.
alex994
Hail Divine Emperor!
This would be a great idea...
Armydude
Hollywood Goat Trainer
I like the idea of extinction. I dont know how it would be implemented into the game though =\
Pariah
Outside Influence
Since many special terrain resources are animal populations, these should, realistically, be susceptible to over-exploitation and pollution. A few turns of excessive fishing or hunting would drive the species into local extinction.
Perhaps individual cities should be required to sacrifice something in order to keep those resources (i.e, use them sustainably). A charge of 1 or more trade arrows per turn, dependent on population, would account for limiting fishing quotas &/or paying anti-poaching rangers to protect game. Of course, this charge wouldn't be introduced until the city reached a certain size. It would be up to the user whether to invest in sustainability, or sacrifice the special resources in exchange for a few turns of maximum profit.
Really severe pollution might destroy a local animal resource permanently - or, given the restorative power of nature, they might recover after a matter of years, if the habitat were cleaned up. It might even be a specialised function of workers or engineers: re-introduce locally extinct wildlife and game.
Also, undeveloped terrain would have a certain amenity value for its wildlife/biodiversity (in the Modern Age, at least). Jungles are probably most important in this respect, followed by swamps and temperate forests. Therefore, these terrain types would produce a trade and happiness bonus if located near a modern city.
All the more reason not to transform them, or build road through them.
Perhaps individual cities should be required to sacrifice something in order to keep those resources (i.e, use them sustainably). A charge of 1 or more trade arrows per turn, dependent on population, would account for limiting fishing quotas &/or paying anti-poaching rangers to protect game. Of course, this charge wouldn't be introduced until the city reached a certain size. It would be up to the user whether to invest in sustainability, or sacrifice the special resources in exchange for a few turns of maximum profit.
Really severe pollution might destroy a local animal resource permanently - or, given the restorative power of nature, they might recover after a matter of years, if the habitat were cleaned up. It might even be a specialised function of workers or engineers: re-introduce locally extinct wildlife and game.
Also, undeveloped terrain would have a certain amenity value for its wildlife/biodiversity (in the Modern Age, at least). Jungles are probably most important in this respect, followed by swamps and temperate forests. Therefore, these terrain types would produce a trade and happiness bonus if located near a modern city. All the more reason not to transform them, or build road through them.Its not a bad idea that all resources, not just strategic ones, be subject to some chance of disappearance (also some chance of discovery of new sources). In the case of game/fish/whales, just as in the case of iron/oil/coal, using the resource more should increase its chances of disappearing.Originally posted by Pariah
Since many special terrain resources are animal populations, these should, realistically, be susceptible to over-exploitation and pollution. A few turns of excessive fishing or hunting would drive the species into local extinction.
rcoutme
Emperor
I agree with judgement's opinion. I routinely make whales a strategic resource in my own games just so that the icon has a chance of moving. I think that many of the resources should have a disappearance chance, however, I disagree with most of the domesticated animals and plants disappearing. Humans cultivate these things (not destroy them). One of the reasons that global warming is occurring (one that many people are forgetting, incidentally) is that there are so many cattle, sheep and pigs. The methane release from these animals is a significant addition to the greenhouse gas effects. Moving of fish, game, whales, iron, coal, oil, ivory, saltpeter?, etc. are ok, but horses, cattle, wheat, sugar etc. would likely only increase, not disappear.
The only way that the bottom list should disappear is with desert/jungle creep or habitat destruction by some other source.
The only way that the bottom list should disappear is with desert/jungle creep or habitat destruction by some other source.
Jawz II
Oh Dear
animals are already in the game,like furs(although u dont have to go kill them with military unit,its prolly assumed that we know the animals r being hunted for their pelts,and not skinning themselves,walking up to yer cities and turning in their skin )
and the deers,and beavers and cattles etc
)and the deers,and beavers and cattles etc
rcoutme
Emperor
Jawz II, lol. I agree that the entire reason one gets any food bonus for game is exactly as you stated. I would be very much against roaming animals killing off units (it simply does not happen on Earth).
It might be nice, however, to have either a proliferation of domestic animals or a loss of wild ones (when the wild ones are over-collected). This might prompt players to consider not always fishing that one spot off the coast or wiping out the poor humpbacks in the ocean on a constant basis.
These changes could also be reflected in how large the city was (i.e. when a size 6 or below city fishes or whales, there will be no chance of disappearance, when 7-12 then ratio is maybe 1 in 150, for 13+ ratio is increased to 1 in 50).
It might be nice, however, to have either a proliferation of domestic animals or a loss of wild ones (when the wild ones are over-collected). This might prompt players to consider not always fishing that one spot off the coast or wiping out the poor humpbacks in the ocean on a constant basis.
These changes could also be reflected in how large the city was (i.e. when a size 6 or below city fishes or whales, there will be no chance of disappearance, when 7-12 then ratio is maybe 1 in 150, for 13+ ratio is increased to 1 in 50).
Shyrramar
Warlord
You could have Giant Killer Pandas like atleast Unscratchedfoot's one game has. That should really make the hunting more interesting in the game 
Judge_Deadd
No, I'm not back
Actually, animals are in Civ 4. Maybe that was influenced by my idea?
Similar threads
