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

[warpstorm]

These are the first 20 actual sizes.

1 10,000
2 30,000
3 60,000
...

The thing that I find amusing whenever I see stats like these, is that Firaxis put this function in for flavor, not to actually represent how many people were in the city. The only place this is used in the game is this display. I also find it amusing that some people think Firaxis ever had a goal of accurately modelling history. They don't.

 

[Carver]

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...

This is another place where gameplay and realism come head to head. These figures work if you're talking about cities in the modern era. But cities founded in 4-3000 BCE were not founded with sizes of 10,000. Unfortunately, Civ does not use a changing ratio system where 1:10,000 in 1900CE but 1:500 in 4000BCE.

Cities being founded in 4-3000BCE were quite small. If we think of the animals as a range of natural disasters, its easy to envision that a settlment of 1000 or so people may fail due to disease, flooding, mud-slides, drought, and animals. Now, sending a military unit along with the settler indicates that you are supporting the settlement with more resources and more infrastructure, thus it is more likely to survive.

 

[Carver]

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

Well, one more reason for the animals may be that "barbarians" now build cities and you can have diplomatic relations with them. Consequently, if the barbs attacked your units, the relationship between the "major and minor" civs that Firaxis was trying to produce would be altered.

 

[toft]

- Havent read all of the thread, but would like to comment it -

Its a game, its about gameplay. To add more than barbarians in the early ages, are to me good. I dont think of how many men, women and children that bear has to slaugther - I think of my poor settler unit. Its like chess... noone complains about the tower moving

 

[Jonathan]

I also find it amusing that some people think Firaxis ever had a goal of accurately modelling history. They don't.

True, if Sid Meier had wanted to model history accurately he would have gone about it differently from the start. However, a significant number of Civ players have some degree of interest in historical realism, as we can see from the many other threads on similar subjects, and Firaxis seems to believe in taking notice of its customers if they all scream loud and long enough.

I like playing simulation games, and I like to think of Civ as a simulation game. It's an inaccurate simulation, but I tend to see the inaccuracies as defects and want to correct them.

With one exception: perhaps the biggest error of all is to suppose that each civ is steered through thousands of years of history by one immortal Player. I don't think we can get rid of that: it's what makes the game.

Roger Zelazny suggested a different way of playing with history in his short story, The Game of Blood and Dust. But I think we'd need much higher technology to make a convincing computer game out of that idea.

 

[Jonathan]

Its a game, its about gameplay... I dont think of how many men, women and children that bear has to slaughter - I think of my poor settler unit. Its like chess... noone complains about the tower moving

If you're not interested in realism at all, that's OK, it's a valid point of view. But other people are, and that's what this thread is about. To come here and say you're not interested in realism is like entering a pornography forum and saying you're not interested in sex. Do you expect everyone to react by saying, "Oh, well, now you've said that, I've suddenly lost interest in it too?"

 

[JeBuS27]

If you're not interested in realism at all, that's OK, it's a valid point of view. But other people are, and that's what this thread is about. To come here and say you're not interested in realism is like entering a pornography forum and saying you're not interested in sex. Do you expect everyone to react by saying, "Oh, well, now you've said that, I've suddenly lost interest in it too?"

Your reasoning is slightly flawed there. It would actually be more akin to going to a movie's forum and saying that a sex scene wasn't real enough. The movie is fake, the sex would be fake, and the reference to it was for the plot's sake.

Getting worked up over it is quite senseless, as it would just be a representation for the sake of the overall product.

 

[warpstorm]

...and Firaxis seems to believe in taking notice of its customers if they all scream loud and long enough.

This is not totally true. Some people get put into the whiner category and get on their Ignore list. In fact, most of those who scream about stuff loudly do.

 

[rilzic]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/09/20/ethiopia.lions.ap/?section=cnn_world

http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues02/jan02/tigers_gate.html

Between 1906 and 1941, he tracked down and shot nearly 50 rogue cats that altogether had dispatched some 2,000 people. A single tiger, the so-called Champawat man-eater, had killed 200 men, women and children in Nepal and 235 more in India.

In the 1850s, tigers killed 600 people a year in Sumatra and Java. Entire villages were turned into fortresses and others were abandoned altogether. In India, tigers did away with nearly 1,000 people annually throughout the late 1800s; they killed 7,000 there over a five-year period in the 1930s.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2540971.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4025507.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,12559,1341947,00.html

 

[BlueStar]

Mans interaction with animals is pretty important in history-city dwellers might not grasp it-I think this is dealing with it in broad strokes-which is what the game does-it models on a large scale things like war and politics and culture-and who knows what causes settlements to disapear What happened to Roanoake? What happened to the Anastasi? Nobody knows

 

[holy king]

Roger Zelazny suggested a different way of playing with history in his short story, The Game of Blood and Dust. But I think we'd need much higher technology to make a convincing computer game out of that idea.

so whats that book about?

 

[Aks K]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/09/20/ethiopia.lions.ap/?section=cnn_world

http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues02/jan02/tigers_gate.html

Between 1906 and 1941, he tracked down and shot nearly 50 rogue cats that altogether had dispatched some 2,000 people. A single tiger, the so-called Champawat man-eater, had killed 200 men, women and children in Nepal and 235 more in India.

In the 1850s, tigers killed 600 people a year in Sumatra and Java. Entire villages were turned into fortresses and others were abandoned altogether. In India, tigers did away with nearly 1,000 people annually throughout the late 1800s; they killed 7,000 there over a five-year period in the 1930s.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2540971.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4025507.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,12559,1341947,00.html

Good research.

Let me qoute some of the articles:

1. "Lions attack and eat humans in areas where their wild prey has been reduced by over-hunting, deforestation and population growth. Older lions also become man-eaters because humans are a far easier prey than wildlife."

2. "Why do some tigers become man-eaters? Because they’re crippled, or too old and enfeebled to pursue deer, boars and other wildlife. Or because their natural prey has become scarce. Diminishing tiger habitat and booming human populations increase the likelihood of encounters, and in certain situations people can present almost irresistible targets of opportunity."

5. "While occasional attacks are not uncommon, the sudden surge in attacks at the Gauhati temple has experts perplexed. Some say the monkeys may be turning violent because of shrinking living spaces."

I think I see a pattern here. Larger densities of man makes wild life become "violent" because their prey and habitat is inadequate. This will not explain wild animal packs in civ4, because the density of man around 2000 bc was not what it is today. If this should be simulated in civ4 then the wild animals should only spawn near worked tiles or next to them.

BTW - wellcome to CFC, rilzic.

Aks K

 

[Jonathan]

Some people get put into the whiner category and get on their Ignore list. In fact, most of those who scream about stuff loudly do.

You seem to be taking me too literally. What I meant was only that Firaxis seems to feel some inclination to respond if it perceives that a large number of customers want something.

I don't think I've ever tried pestering Firaxis directly, so I have no idea how it responds to individuals, if at all.

 

[Jonathan]

Your reasoning is slightly flawed there. It would actually be more akin to going to a movie's forum and saying that a sex scene wasn't real enough. The movie is fake, the sex would be fake, and the reference to it was for the plot's sake.

Getting worked up over it is quite senseless, as it would just be a representation for the sake of the overall product.

Sorry, I think my analogy is more accurate than yours. This thread is about whether the wild animals in Civ 4 are realistic or not. Various people seem interested in discussing that -- though "getting worked up about it" would be an exaggeration.

If you don't think realism is worth discussing, then why are you here? I recommend that you find some other thread that might interest you more.

 

[Pembroke]

so whats that book about?

Blood And Dust is basically a reversi-type game played with human history. When all move options have been exhausted then if humanity exists today Blood wins. If humanity is extinct today then Dust wins. One move consists of choosing a point of time and persuading a local to do something or not to do something. Dust goes first.

I don't remember it been mentioned but for game play reasons you might want to have a rule that the next move targets a time point of "at least X and less than Y" years later than the previous move.

 

[Jonathan]

so whats that book about?

Sorry, this is a bit off topic. Briefly, Zelazny's short story imagined two godlike beings able to survey and intervene in the whole of human history. In the game, each being was allowed to make three interventions, each being a small change in history (e.g. one person killed early or allowed to live longer). The objective of one player (Blood) was to see the human race survive; the objective of the other (Dust) was to kill it off. The game could be played over and over again.

 

[JeBuS27]

Sorry, I think my analogy is more accurate than yours. This thread is about whether the wild animals in Civ 4 are realistic or not. Various people seem interested in discussing that -- though "getting worked up about it" would be an exaggeration.

If you don't think realism is worth discussing, then why are you here? I recommend that you find some other thread that might interest you more.

I honestly don't care one way or the other. But the camp of folks complaining about realism in this game seem silly to me. This game is far from realistic. This franchise has always been far from realistic. The animals are just a feature in a game. They are nothing more or less. The game makes no claims to be a realistic simulation of alternate history, nor does it claim that the animal units are an organized army of nature, out to cause humans problems.

People can choose to take things at face value or not, that's entirely up to them. But to go nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, seems silly. I've tried to offer up reasonable explanations for the wild animal units' existence in the game, and have been rebutted with the argument that "it's not realistic". Well, I'm sorry, but the game isn't real.

All things civ interest me, so I don't think I'll leave this thread, due simply to the fact that some can't accept the game as it is.


PS
Your reasoning is flawed, whether you can see it or not. There are very basic principles to logical analogies, and your post does not meet those principles.


Addendum:
This is simply my opinion, and should not be taken as an attack or lible against any person. Use of basic reasoning skills and logic is recommended when reading my posts. No emotional inflection should be read into my posts, nor should any attitude, positive or negative, be inferred from my posts.

 

[Carver]

Sorry, I think my analogy is more accurate than yours. This thread is about whether the wild animals in Civ 4 are realistic or not. Various people seem interested in discussing that -- though "getting worked up about it" would be an exaggeration.

I would reject your analogy entirely.

If you're not interested in realism at all, that's OK, it's a valid point of view. But other people are, and that's what this thread is about. To come here and say you're not interested in realism is like entering a pornography forum and saying you're not interested in sex. Do you expect everyone to react by saying, "Oh, well, now you've said that, I've suddenly lost interest in it too?"

Pornography is entirely about sex. Civ, CFC, and this thread are not enitrely (if at all) about realism. It's about a way to have fun. Having fun requires a good game. Thus, we are exploring wether or not having the animals makes for a better game.

If you don't think realism is worth discussing, then why are you here? I recommend that you find some other thread that might interest you more.

The thread title questions the stupidity of this feature, not its realism.

I really don't understand the ppl that think Civ is all about realism. If you want to study or think about history then go to the library. Civ is not a history book!

 

[tcjsavannah]

I'll be breathlessly awaiting the Civ IV expansion: Big Game Hunter 3D

 

[Jonathan]

The thread title questions the stupidity of this feature, not its realism.

The first post in the thread (which explains the title in more detail) is all about realism.

I've made an elementary mistake in this thread by allowing myself to be sucked into a pointless argument about whether realism is worth discussing or not -- which is an entirely subjective matter and can't be resolved by argument. I'd have done much better to ignore the anti-realists altogether and reply only to the more interesting posts of the realists. Apologies to all. Will try to do better next time.