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

[JeBuS27]

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

Not in the hundreds each raid, but I'm sure over 50 years, a hundred or so might die. And remember, this is happening today, modern times. Not past tense. So your question would be 'People don't die in hundreds, do they?".

This is but the first example of 'organized' wild animals attacking settlements that came to mind. I'm sure if you put forth a half-concerted effort, you could find many more examples like it.

 

[Commander Bello]

Not in the hundreds each raid, but I'm sure over 50 years, a hundred or so might die. And remember, this is happening today, modern times. Not past tense. So your question would be 'People don't die in hundreds, do they?".

This is but the first example of 'organized' wild animals attacking settlements that came to mind. I'm sure if you put forth a half-concerted effort, you could find many more examples like it.

But this is exactly the very point - over 50 years some people indeed will die, yet the villages still exist, and the area is not deserted.
Nobody ever questioned that animals can do harm to people.

But it will be very hard to find examples when animals ever put a deadly peril to a settlement of significant size. And even our small village of pop1 already symbolizes such a significant settlement.

I completely agree with Aks K, that supply radii would serve much better, and even more so, if they would have been combined with high population costs of settler AND military units - this would have been something to REALLY slow down early expansion....

 

[Aks K]

Not in the hundreds each raid, but I'm sure over 50 years, a hundred or so might die. And remember, this is happening today, modern times. Not past tense. So your question would be 'People don't die in hundreds, do they?".

This is but the first example of 'organized' wild animals attacking settlements that came to mind. I'm sure if you put forth a half-concerted effort, you could find many more examples like it.

Do they/did they. Over 50 years it is still to low a death rate. By all means bring more examples. I would like to also see examples from bc, because I am not that impressed by modern day attacks. The population of man is huge compared to what it was bc, so encouners with wild animals should be more likely now - also because we deprive them of their natural habitats. This can trigger agressive behavior.

Aks K

 

[fitchn]

...
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.
...

History is typically written by the winners. If the large groups of men were all killed, there would be noone to relay the story to others. On the other hand, it's been a while since I've read a piece of history written by some bears...

In responce to the claims that a settler 'unit' represents 100, 1000, or even 10,000 people: If this is in fact the case, I would then be inclined to conclude that the animal 'unit' represents 100, 1000, or 10,000 animals, respectively.

In responce to the claims that these groups of settlers are able to defend themselves: In a historical sense, these groups would presumably include some hunters and warriors, in which case your argument is valid. However, in Civ, the settlers only include the settlers... You will need to escort the unit with a hunter or a warrior unit to form this historical group that you refer to. Just as settlers in history would not venture out on their own, so should you not send them out on their own. If anything, this aspect of it forces you to remain true to history, rather than being against history.

Finally, at the risk of my head, I give a simplistic answer: It's a game! While I do think the historical aspect of Civ is part of the fun and lends itself to the depth and realism of the game (not to mention the countless History exams and classes that I have passed back in school and college thanks to the knowledge I gleamed from Civ), Gameplay should take priority over accuracy. I would much rather a game that was fun to play with a few historical discrepencies, than a game that was historically accurate, but boring. Besides, one of the appealing factors of the whole Civ series, is the opportunity to re-write history! If you want something that is completely historically accurate (within reason), go read a history book. If you want a game that lets you re-write the entire scope of history, play Civ.

And of course, last but not least, the catch all solution: if you don't like it, mod it!

 

[JeBuS27]

It would be rather silly for me to go googling such occurances simply to post the links here. I'm sure if you really wanted to know, you'd find them for yourself. Denial is easier though, so I don't imagine you'll do that.

Bello, in my example, I talk about an already settled village. If the villagers were just a roaming band looking for a spot to settle, I'm not so sure they'd be as well off.

 

[Hellas Man]

The wild animals will be thread for the first soldiers-discovers.The older years when an army cross a jungle(today we have transports and helicopters so they doesn't have to cross any jungle)a little number of soldiers fall victims of wild animals(lions,tigers,snakes and others).They didn't cross united(as do at battle) the jungles but separatly.Their purpose wasn't to declear war against animals.But is a little non realistic to lose a whole army from animals attack.And as i say we are talking about a game.Let the animals make some troubles to the first soldiers.Advansed soldiers will have no problems.Except if a lion could defeat a tank.

 

[IroquoisPlisken]

But it will be very hard to find examples when animals ever put a deadly peril to a settlement of significant size. And even our small village of pop1 already symbolizes such a significant settlement.

But settlers are NOT settlements yet. They're people still wandering and searching for a place to settle. They're still hiking through forests and deserts on their way to their destination. They're tired and probably hungry.

Plus, like fitchn said, I've always considered settler units as the undefended farmers and families. Their escorts (warriors, spearmen, etc.) are the people with the weapons.

 

[Aks K]

History is typically written by the winners. If the large groups of men were all killed, there would be noone to relay the story to others. On the other hand, it's been a while since I've read a piece of history written by some bears...

I know but we are also playing "winning" civs.

In responce to the claims that a settler 'unit' represents 100, 1000, or even 10,000 people: If this is in fact the case, I would then be inclined to conclude that the animal 'unit' represents 100, 1000, or 10,000 animals, respectively.

I think the concept might be change in civ4. I havent seen any evidence that settlers or workers require pop pionts. A settler unit of 10.000 people is unrealistic at the time 4000- 1000 bc. The same goes for animal packs over 100 individuals.

In responce to the claims that these groups of settlers are able to defend themselves: In a historical sense, these groups would presumably include some hunters and warriors, in which case your argument is valid. However, in Civ, the settlers only include the settlers... You will need to escort the unit with a hunter or a warrior unit to form this historical group that you refer to. Just as settlers in history would not venture out on their own, so should you not send them out on their own. If anything, this aspect of it forces you to remain true to history, rather than being against history.

Sure you are right. But in civ4 I would like to have the warrior or weak warrior "in the settler", but hey I just send a warrior with the settler.

Finally, at the risk of my head, I give a simplistic answer: It's a game! While I do think the historical aspect of Civ is part of the fun and lends itself to the depth and realism of the game (not to mention the countless History exams and classes that I have passed back in school and college thanks to the knowledge I gleamed from Civ), Gameplay should take priority over accuracy. I would much rather a game that was fun to play with a few historical discrepencies, than a game that was historically accurate, but boring. Besides, one of the appealing factors of the whole Civ series, is the opportunity to re-write history! If you want something that is completely historically accurate (within reason), go read a history book. If you want a game that lets you re-write the entire scope of history, play Civ.

Sure, but this is not a valid argument. If you read my earlier post: I dont want a historically accurate game, but I dont want concepts that could NEVER happen - like animal behavior of wild animal packs.

And of course, last but not least, the catch all solution: if you don't like it, mod it!

Sure again. But I want a finished game. I dont like to mod it before playing it - it isnt Rome Total War is it?

Aks K

 

[Aks K]

The wild animals will be thread for the first soldiers-discovers.The older years when an army cross a jungle(today we have transports and helicopters so they doesn't have to cross any jungle)a little number of soldiers fall victims of wild animals(lions,tigers,snakes and others).They didn't cross united(as do at battle) the jungles but separatly.Their purpose wasn't to declear war against animals.But is a little non realistic to lose a whole army from animals attack.And as i say we are talking about a game.Let the animals make some troubles to the first soldiers.Advansed soldiers will have no problems.Except if a lion could defeat a tank.

This is the soundest explaination of pro wild animal units I have seen to date. But if this is so then the wild animals should not move that much only once every 2-4 turn. Now I also fear Lion vs. Tank battles in the deep jungle.

Aks K

 

[JeBuS27]

Now I also fear Lion vs. Tank battles in the deep jungle.

You should fear them. Have you never heard of the armour piercing lion claws?!

 

[fitchn]

...
I know but we are also playing "winning" civs.

True, but I don't know of any historical figures don't live for 6000+ years and have a complete global view of all things. (Of course, the same could be said about the units, but it wouldn't be any fun to have your units automatically die off after 50-100 years, especially in the early game where a single turn last for several hundred years! But I digress... ) In early times, when the only form of communication was word of mouth, the only way to pass this information from one person to another would if some of them survived, in which case, they would not have been destroyed; there-in lies the predicament. Who knows, perhaps animals killing early settlers is where most myths came from ("Don't go through those woods... their haunted... anyone who goes in, never comes out...). For all we know, the bermuda triangle could simply be a pack of man-and-ship-eating squids!

...
I think the concept might be change in civ4. I havent seen any evidence that settlers or workers require pop pionts. A settler unit of 10.000 people is unrealistic at the time 4000- 1000 bc. The same goes for animal packs over 100 individuals.

Absolutely. For that matter, a settler could represent as few as 5-10 people, who could easily be defeated by a pack of hungry lions.

...
Sure you are right. But in civ4 I would like to have the warrior or weak warrior "in the settler", but hey I just send a warrior with the settler.

My point exactly.

...
Sure, but this is not a valid argument. If you read my earlier post: I dont want a historically accurate game, but I dont want concepts that could NEVER happen - like animal behavior of wild animal packs.

A valid point. However, I think the animals are the equivilent of the early barbarians in previous civs. While the animal concept is arguably stretching it, it is far more realistic than groups of barbarians appearing out of nowhere at 4000BC. These animals are intended to (a) prevent the even more unrealistic spreading of your civilization to all parts of the contenent in a few dozen turns, and (b) to provide both something else to do and a way to upgrade your units without going to war with the enemy (particularly important for peaceful civs, or when playing with no civs nearby)! I would welcome this added component of gameplay and depth at the expense of something that is arguably not entirely accurate (or even possible).

...
Sure again. But I want a finished game. I dont like to mod it before playing it - it isnt Rome Total War is it?

I agree 100% with that! But, from a development point-of-view, there are decisions that must be made that not everyone agrees with. Take for example the choice of civilizations: is it practical for the developers to create and include every last one of the thousands, perhaps millions, of different civilizations and leaders? (not to mention that this would be extremely overwhelming for any player to choose from, especially those that have never played civ before). Does not including every civ and leader make it any less of a finished game? Does modding the game to include your civilization and/or leader of choice make the original game any less finished? (Not to mention that this particular example also provides great fodder for an expansion pack)

That being said, I would want to know that Firaxis was prepared to stand by their game and continue to offer patches, fixes, and balance changes as necessary. Take for example Blizzard's Starcraft: The original in-the-box game was virtually flawless! However, Blizzard has released a slew of patches, fixes, additions, and balance changes. Starcraft was originally released in '97 and is eight years old, yet Blizzard continues to release updates, even as recently as last month! In some instances, Blizzard has even had a patch available for a game before it even hit the shelves! Because of their level of support, I would not hesitate to buy any Blizzard game immediatly (assuming the game itself appealed to me), knowing that if there are any problems, a patch is right around the corner... Blizzard also goes so far as to providing new official content (including maps and units) in it's patches (this is clearly going above-and-beyond). That's the kind of support that I would love to see Firaxis provide (or any developer for that matter)!

 

[seasmath]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but they (Firaxis) are trying to cater to RTS fans, and in many RTS games, there are wild animal enemies that threaten your villagers/workers/builders.

 

[Jaca]

Personally I have a feeling Firaxis has introduced a very interesting and fun concept during the beginning of the game. If one takes a look at the few stats we see in Civrules release update, both the worker and the settler units have a movement of 2 now (instead of 1), and no defence. And both are rather expensive. Hence they should be very valuable and capable of moving quicker (in flat terrain). Yet the most obvious choice for escorting them is the Warrior or Archer, but these have only a single movement point. That makes up for interesting gambling (garded or ungarded settlers), as in case of danger the (small numbered and hence quick) settler and worker units can try to flee. Now the scout has a movement of 2 as well, and is capable of defending itself against the dangers of nature during the early periods. So first scout the environement, then send in the settlers, guarded or ungarded.

Though maybe not completely realistic, I think with a little imagination, this may look just great. I think an imrpovement over CIV III. Thumbs up!

Regards,
Jaca

 

[ew0054]

Unless I'm somehow mistaken, a size 1 city in Civ3 has a population of 15000 people.

These are the first 20 actual sizes. The rest can be found at http://www.erniewerbel.com/civ3pop.xls

1 10,000
2 30,000
3 60,000
4 100,000
5 150,000
6 210,000
7 280,000
8 360,000
9 450,000
10 550,000
11 660,000
12 780,000
13 910,000
14 1,050,000
15 1,200,000
16 1,360,000
17 1,530,000
18 1,710,000
19 1,900,000
20 2,100,000

 

[alms66]

as long as "wild" animals get phased out by some point in time (i.e. having wild animals after the 1900s would be pretty ********), i don't see it as any more of a nuisance or that it make any less sense than those "roaming barbarians" from earlier Civs

I'd much rather see a "roaming barbarian" destroy my settler, than a "roaming-freaking-bear".

 

[holy king]

with that pop stats, youd have 100 000 cities at 2000 bc....
talking bout realism, right?

 

[bundy]

It strikes me as a bizarre design choice to have wild animals as "units" roaming the landscape and able to attack your units. In Civ, a single unit (for example a warrior) does not actually represent one guy with an axe obviously - it represents a unit of perhaps a hundred or more individuals. Therefore an animal "unit" would have to represent a coherent force of hundreds of animals, all moving in unison to attack an encroaching enemy. Now i don't know about you, but to my knowledge animals don't possess this kind of intelligence. Even if you make another assumption...that a bear unit just represents "an area with a high bear population", i still don't believe that would be any threat to a group of trained warriors. Even a settler unit would be unthreatened really...most settlers would be able to use their hunting skills effectively. The only possibility of defeat would occur if every bear within a 200 km radius decided to come and attack you simultaneously...in which case i'd still bet my house on the warriors/settlers.

Luckily it will be easy to mod them to either not exist, or have an attack and defence of zero, but i believe it was a fundamentally stupid decision to put them there in the first place.

I agree, instaed they should make natural disasters like fire ore earthquake to represent power of nature.

 

[Jonathan]

In a historical sense, these groups would presumably include some hunters and warriors, in which case your argument is valid. However, in Civ, the settlers only include the settlers... You will need to escort the unit with a hunter or a warrior unit to form this historical group that you refer to.

Um, we're talking about 4000 BC. The game may make a distinction between "settlers" and "warriors", but in reality I imagine a warrior was just a settler in a bad mood armed with a stick.

 

[Aks K]

Um, we're talking about 4000 BC. The game may make a distinction between "settlers" and "warriors", but in reality I imagine a warrior was just a settler in a bad mood armed with a stick.

That was exatly one of my points. The settler should be a kind of warrior but only able to defend like the scout. A settler isn't just women and children and henpecked men.

Aks K

 

[Xarlak]

Like people have said, I tend to think that settler units don't represent the full 10,000 people of an established settlement. When was the last time you heard about 10,000 (non-nomadic) people wandering around to found a city? They start small, with maybe 5-10 people, and grow from there. The original Roanoke colony was 108 people. Plymouth started with about 100 people. Jamestown started with 104. And these were the biggest colonies of their time, well organized and funded. 5000 years earlier, with no central economy to finance an organized colony, these things would be much more haphazard things - a couple of families that joined together to find a nicer place to live. And with that many people, over the 20 years of time that a turn takes, I have no problems imagining that a poorly-equipped expedition could be wiped out (or reduced to non-viability, which in civ-terms is the same thing) by a pack of lions or wolves. The key words there being *poorly equipped*. The warrior or archer you bring along represents the equipment necessarily to fend of animal attacks. Then, once they find a nice spot, over the next 20 years (ie, 1 turn) enough people show up to make it a viable settlement.