thanks Firaxis, another preview

[ThERat]

ThERat - I read through the SG threads pretty thoroughly and I know of you mostly through there. And I have a great deal of respect for you and your skill - so please do not take offense at this.

oh don't worry, I can take quite a punch. This is a discussion forum, and what's a good discussion without heated exchange of different opinions. If we all agree, how boring would that be.

So, still I think a Civ settler does not represent 10-20 people only that could be threatened by wild animals. And, as others pointed out, it is humans threatening animals, as it has always been. We then, in turn, blame it on the animals when we invaded their territory. If we want to reflect wild life, we could do it in a way that better reflects reality, extinction of a myriad of species due to uncontrolled expansion leading to a complete inbalance. But that concept would be too complex. So, they decided to have wild animals, attracts kids...potential new Civfanatics.

 

[ComradeDavo]

In addition to wild animals, players also have to worry about the ever present barbarians. Although barbarians can't develop a full culture like competing civilizations, they create independent cities and small militias. Smith described them as a sort of "mini-civ" that can cause trouble at any time.

Amazing

This sounds great!

 

[Louis XXIV]

So the wild animals thing is solid info now? Oh my Gaawwwdd...

Always was. Very early screenshots showed some Lions.

I can see it now:

ROWF THE WOLF PRINCE:
That's a mighty tasty looking Settler you've got there, Xerxes. Our savage pack will refrain from scattering his gnawed bones across the grasslands if you give us what we need.

ROWF DEMANDS:

Beefsteaks
6 lambs
No Fur Trapping Treaty (20 turns)

Their barbarians, not civilizations. They just attack workers who are out unprotected. They don't make demands.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Still unrealistic. Gee, let's put dragons in too, why not? You could have an Explorer accidentally pop a dragon nest, and they would start burning up your cities and eating the ash, like in Reign of Fire. Also, lets have Sea Serpents, werewolves, and vampires.

Barbarians in civ2 used to make demands. That, I liked.

 

[Urederra]

Personally, I like the idea of wandering animals, just to keep you worried at the beggining of the game, during the expansion time. Now, instead of having to deal with more "sophisticated" barbarian camps and cities, you have to worry about wild animals. It sound a good addition to me, in the sense that it can improve playability.

And, for those who think that wandering animals is not reallistic enough, well. Check this out:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/29/shark.attack.ap/index.html

 

[Louis XXIV]

Still unrealistic. Gee, let's put dragons in too, why not? You could have an Explorer accidentally pop a dragon nest, and they would start burning up your cities and eating the ash, like in Reign of Fire. Also, lets have Sea Serpents, werewolves, and vampires.

For starters, Lions and Wolves actually existed. Think about it this way, a city founding takes place over one turn, which represents many years. But all those people don't leave at one time, travel together, and transplant in a new city. Its much smaller bands of people who travel over a greater period of time. Wolves might attack them along the way as they move. If it is unsafe to travel, people might not do so, and will dispurse elsewhere. Thus, no great city is produced and it solves the scale problem.

Barbarians in civ2 used to make demands. That, I liked.

And maybe they will in Civ4, that's why they have cities and such. Even so, it won't be the animals making demands.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Actually, migrations are often composed of large tribes, perhaps moving from a nomadic to a settled existence. Do you think when they Greeks went about founding their colonies about the Mediterranean that they had to worry about wolves eating up the hundreds of people getting off the triremes? How about when the Pilgrims set foot on America from the Mayflower? Was there a thousand-strong pack of wolves lurking about in the forest to swallow them whole? I think not.

It's a bad idea, one undoubtedly thought up during one of those brainstorming sessions in which the marketers call in the development team (tired and eager to get back to working on the code) and make everyone sit about while they expound their foolish ideas. "Say, let's put animals on the map!" "Well..." "Come on, it'll be cool! You know we want to appeal to a broader audience, DON'T you?" "Well....okay."

The only historical threat to bands of migrating humans has been by bands of other humans. Better to just have barbarians pop up at random and beeline for the settlers than animals.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I feel certain that it will be a fairly easy task to change wandering animals into wandering military units. Also, I think they brought it in because they no longer had barbarian camps (now they are cities), but still wanted to expose early players to those risks.
I have to say, though, that I will wait until I see how it plays before I make a final judgement.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Stilgar08]

I think they just put in wild animals because it looks cool and that's it... If it really is a downer its a minor one IMO

 

[warpstorm]

How about when the Pilgrims set foot on America from the Mayflower? Was there a thousand-strong pack of wolves lurking about in the forest to swallow them whole? I think not.

No, but a third of them died in the first year because of the wild environment.

How about the settlers of the American West. Many did not make it there. Grizzlies and wolves did claim some. Bad weather and accidents claimed some. Some actually got caught in bison stampedes. Modern city dwellers often forget just how harsh the natural environment was in much of the world just a couple of hundred years ago.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Wild animals actually claimed very few lives compared to disease, starvation, and weather. It might be more interesting to lose a settler or two to a blizzard while crossing a mountain (Donner party) or die of dehydration on a desert tile.

It would be better if the wild animals were instead bands of very primitive aboriginal hunters that appear from nowhere and decimate the settling party if they have no weapons. By the middle ages this would not be a problem on known lands, but landing and settling on a new island/continent would continue to present this problem.

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

Shortly after the game's release, Firaxis plans to offer a software dev kit (SDK) for the game AI. This will contain the complete AI for all of the characters in the game, so modders can tweak things to their heart's content.

I found this bit quite interesting... Isn't this new?