The stupidity of having wild animals on the map...

[troytheface]

I recieved a serious counter? lol. (even got quoted) no wonder i do not believe much of what i read as "history". It's just to easy to fool people.

 

[holy king]

those animals are just an unlucky chosen substitute for the old barbarian concept (which was necessary, since barbarians are now minor civs)
just mod them to weak barbarian units (same stats, just change the look and name)

 

[Commander Bello]

those animals are just an unlucky chosen substitute for the old barbarian concept (which was necessary, since barbarians are now minor civs)
just mod them to weak barbarian units (same stats, just change the look and name)

I think, this will be a good idea and make for a much more logical appearance of the game.

 

[The_CatSnack]

I think that the concept of wild animals is a great idea. For those of you who say that animals attacking a large group of settlers is unrealistic, just remember that a game turn in the early BC's represents 50 years, so if this was the real world, you are looking at a group of people looking to set up a settlement in the middle of unknown land inhabited by wild animals.

When a lion attacks a settler and kills it, think of it as a representation of all the trials that these people had to endure over 50 years, the attacks, the fear, the disease... and in ancient times countless tiny settlements vanished from the pages of history this way - some dispersing, some dying. I think it's a good REPRESENTATION of what really use to happen.

 

[tcjsavannah]

I still want to be able to play the lions.

 

[troytheface]

yes, that island of Roakne (sp) or whatever and those viking settlements. Probably bears or Mountain lions that came in the night, biting and drooling and feasting til the dawn. And in the red light of the new sun rising- they picked up their skull banner and moved back into the woods. Lions are a great graphic.

 

[invoke41]

Consider this theory.

I think the reasoning of founding a city is flawed as there never were groups of 1000 people hanging together going "Gee where o where will we bunk down". And if you really look at it realistically, men used to be just nomadic tribes and not stick to any one particular location as they moved to where the food was.

Usually it was just small bands of people and they chose to stick on a single spot because of some condition (i.e. good trading position, gold etc). When people established such a spot it would attract more people. So if the original band of people would be wiped out by a pack of lions, I doubt other people would chose to venture there so in that effect it is realistic.

And besides, it is just a game and I can see why firaxis has put the animals in as it is a welcome variaton to just having one barbarian type unit.

As a final point i'd like to emphasize: it is just a -game- and the animals are just a challenge so that one has to think through his / her expansion twice.

 

[The_CatSnack]

invoke: the game begins at a time in history when people discovered that life was easier to settle land permenantly to farm and cultivate it. The nomadic era was pre 4000BC

 

[troytheface]

There is also a primal fear of being eaten. When mankind descended from the trees - probably to settle somewhere else cause they ate all the leaves or something- i bet many were killed by Lions. This lingering fear/memory has been retained so that it appears in the year 2005 on a popular video game.
Many have a fear of dogs- for example (and to the many that were killed by bitbulls rightfully so) and this fear is a reality.
If realism is what one is after then on a psychological /metaphorical (micro organisms /wall street "sharks" - ect) level Lions fit the bill much better than just more "people"- which are already the main opponent in the game.

They photograhed a Giant Squid recently giving credence to the Sea Monster myths- it is a predator and if a group of settlers were on a small boat...

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]They photograhed a Giant Squid recently giving credence to the Sea Monster myths- it is a predator and if a group of settlers were on a small boat...

Which, by the way, was photographed in 900 mtrs depth and never such an animal was spotted living (meaning: surviving)next to the surface. So, no need to worry about the fleet of settlers moving to new islands, where they will immediately kill or tame any wild animals...

 

[troytheface]

Scientist George Jenkins - a marine biologist and author of "Squids Of Horror"
suggested that a group of Squids actually pulled the Titanic into an iceberg.
According to Ecclasiates Jules Verne fought a Giant Squid atop his holy submarine.

 

[Sullla]

I hate to say this, but I think everyone is missing the point here when it comes to the animals. Basically, the argument seems to be over what the representation of each unit entails - but those representations actually only exist in our minds and have no effect on the game itself. Let me explain.

What is a warrior unit? In Civ3 it's a 1/1/1 unit with no special abilities. What's a settler unit? A 0/0/1 unit that can found cities. That's it. That's what they actually are. We can argue till we're blue in the face about how many people a settler unit "represents", but the reality is that it's an unarmed unit that can found cities. And that's all that it is. Anything else we're simply adding with our minds to make the game more fun to play.

Now don't get me wrong - that's what makes Civilization games fun. But seriously guys, you're overthinking this issue WAY too much. A settler is an unarmed unit. An animal is a (presumably weak) combat unit. Therefore, one can kill the other if you send it out unguarded. Simple as that.

And if we're going by what the graphics show in Civ4, it looks like the settler is an unarmed family with two children. The "a settler is at least 10,000 people" is purely in our own minds.

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]And if we're going by what the graphics show in Civ4, it looks like the settler is an unarmed family with two children. The "a settler is at least 10,000 people" is purely in our own minds.

By the same token you may reckon the father to carry a long, sharp sword under his mantle, just not to frighten his children...
So, he will be very well able to defend long enough for his wife to ignite the torch, after which the animals will just toddle off...

Anyway, as I have stated above already, surely the animals are meant to symbolize the dangers of nature... yet, to cope with those dangers by allocating warriors to the settlers doesn't feel MORE, but just LESS realistically.

 

[Aks K]

@holy king and Commander Bello: Your points are valid.

@troytheface: I personally dont like your sarcasm just here. I always find it hard to discuss when peolpe try to make fun of you while you try to prove your points.

I know it is hard to find an acceptable way to incorporate the harsh envoriment at 4000 bc because people dont like "unfair" random events. I would like to see some historic sources which speak of large wild animal packs attacking large groups of men - because i havent found any of those sources.

The way animals a reprecented in civ4 (as wild animal packs) is for me inhistoric. I know that civ4 is not to completely reconstruct history but it couldnt bring in element/concepts which could never happen in history.

This humanicification of wild animals has no basis in history. Ie. the animals act like man.

Although a bear/lion might be fierce but they are also affrait of man and visa versa. They dont possess this collective feeling of preserving their speicies as humans have - well some humans have it. The animals live to protect themselves and their offspring.

As to the fear of dogs(/wolves) those where domesticated around 130.000 bc and forth. So this also gave man an advantage in suviving in the wild and keept wild animals away (or gave man ealier warnings).

The earth was lightly populated around 4000 bc, so I dont see the reason why barbarians (either nomads or pop 1 cities) couldnt be in to limit the civilized civs expansion.

Aks K

 

[Raggamuffin]

Yet, the means to cope with these dangers is the warrior unit.
And this is exactly the weakness of this concept.

But if you understand the concept of animals as a symbol of the many dangers why can't you understand that the warrior is just a symbol to ****er this?

 

[Antiochus]

Screw symbols...there are WAY better ways to implement this...like having your units lose health from "attrition" for example. Or they could just have random natural occurences like a popup saying "our brave warriors were caught in a snowstorm and many perished", then have the unit go down to half health. Not have my elite warriors getting attacked by a "Wolf Army" and perishing. This isn't fantasy.

 

[Helmling]

I recieved a serious counter? lol. (even got quoted) no wonder i do not believe much of what i read as "history". It's just to easy to fool people.

It's astoundng, isn't it? I started that Hammers vs. Sheilds thread and you'd be amazed how many people responded with stuff like, "you should just relax...it's just a game" and all this stuff as if I was serious.

Someone should invent an irony-detector for on-line use.

 

[Aks K]

An other way to limit the expansion would be to have a maximum supply radius for units. If a unit for example is further away than 4-10 squares from a city it would start to lose health. This way you dont have to indroduce "fantasy" as Antiochus put it.

@Helmling: Getting amused by teasing people who are being serious is the easiest thing in the world. If it gives you a kick then its good.
Keep in mind that the people who are posing in the CFC forums dont all understand your way. Basically we dont know you.
I like to have fun with people NOT at people. This way you bring the persons you are talking to closer to you NOT distance oneself from them.

Aks K

 

[JeBuS27]

I would like to see some historic sources which speak of large wild animal packs attacking large groups of men - because i havent found any of those sources.

Herds of elephants attack villages in africa and asia regularly, and raid their supplies of liquor. People do die during these raids, and most flee.

 

[Aks K]

Herds of elephants attack villages in africa and asia regularly, and raid their supplies of liquor. People do die during these raids, and most flee.

They where thirsty i guess . But people didn't die in hundreds, did they?

Aks K