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

[JeBuS27]

Heh, actually it doesn't talk about realism, it talks about representation. That's what most of this thread has been about. What the animal units represent. Some folks believe they represent a coherent organized force of nature, others don't.

 

[Shynji]

Yeah, pretty much.

It probably just be easier to say what others have stated. That the animals provide an beginning game dynamic to help enforce slower growth and are a threat that easily negatable by having a military unit around. And before anyone says it, these settlers are not 18th century pioneer settlers with guns. They are a small group of your men with, in the beginning as the game represents: Rock knifes.

No bronze swords, no bows. Just plain ol people that like gathering food from the area around them.

 

[KingSponge]

The 2nd poster has it right, IMHO. The wild animal unit is merely a representation of the natural hardships that early settlers/explorers/colonists had to deal with. What it's really saying is that the wilderness can be a *very* dangerous place for the ill-prepared what with inclement weather, disease, starvation, etc..

If it makes some people feel better, perhaps someone will release a mod to replace the wild animal unit with a random chance of death due to Mother Nature.

 

[ew0054]

Wnen one animal just isn't enough...

Four types


But seriously, if all units represent groups, as has been argued, does the ICBM represent 1,000 nuclear missiles?


I think each unit must be considered for what ti is supposed to be.


You have a group of warriors in ancient times. This may represent only 10 people. They could be attacked and killed by a group of maybe 3 lions. Lions are dangerous. And so are those kitty cat things, and the teddy bears, and the cute little doggie. None of those are to be taken lightly!

 

[Mr. Blonde]

I followed this discussion for some time and will add my 2 cents:

Settler groups in ancient times were about several 100 men max.

Nature poses danger humans

For realism´s sake it would be better if ramdomly a window pops up saying: Your settlers were killed by famine/ lack of water/ poisonous food/ drinking pested water/ catching a nasty plague.... whatever
However, this would not be funny for the player because he can obviously not influence the occurrence of these mini-disasters.

Putting in animals is, imo much better because you can actually respond and avoid the threat. Therefore I welcome the addition of animals threatening settlers.

 

[Pembroke]

For realism´s sake it would be better if ramdomly a window pops up saying: Your settlers were killed by famine/ lack of water/ poisonous food/ drinking pested water/ catching a nasty plague.... whatever
However, this would not be funny for the player because he can obviously not influence the occurrence of these mini-disasters.

Putting in animals is, imo much better because you can actually respond and avoid the threat. Therefore I welcome the addition of animals threatening settlers.

I definitely agree. The animals are just symbolic for all kinds of threats and exactly because you can smite them with warriors it makes them fun too. If I wanted realism I could go out instead of playing civ.

However, now that you mentioned famines and plagues I got a weird mod idea. What if we replaced the different animals with units like Death, Famine, Pestilence and War? With appropriate graphics, of course. Your brave settlers could then narrowly escape famine and pestilence only to meet death later.

 

[Calsan]

I definitely agree. The animals are just symbolic for all kinds of threats and exactly because you can smite them with warriors it makes them fun too. If I wanted realism I could go out instead of playing civ.

However, now that you mentioned famines and plagues I got a weird mod idea. What if we replaced the different animals with units like Death, Famine, Pestilence and War? With appropriate graphics, of course. Your brave settlers could then narrowly escape famine and pestilence only to meet death later.

Now that would be a wonderful idea.

In the case of settlers being wiped out by wild animals, I can easely see why a SMALL group of settlers (10-50 the way I see it) can be attacked and killed by Lions, Wolfs and other beast. And if it only takes a Warrior to defend them all the better, I always send a Warrior/Spearman with a settler unit. So no big change there.

 

[Aks K]

If a settler only has 10-50 people (max 100) how come it cost 50 hammers to produce??? It should cost closer to 10 hammers.

Aks K

 

[bio_hazard]

If a settler only has 10-50 people (max 100) how come it cost 50 hammers to produce??? It should cost closer to 10 hammers.

Because they throw one heck of a Bon Voyage party!

 

[warpstorm]

If a settler only has 10-50 people (max 100) how come it cost 50 hammers to produce??? It should cost closer to 10 hammers.

To keep you from spamming them out, of course.

 

[doronron]

Think of the extra shields as all the resources the settlers purchase before heading out to found a new city. They're going to need supplies for the trip, and tools for building those first homes, and seeds and livestock to become self sufficient.

 

[Aks K]

To keep you from spamming them out, of course.

I know that but I see too many inconsistencies atm.

Maybe it is only a scaling issue/problem. If we also claim that the early warrior unit consists of about 100 men. A hammer is less worth in 3000 bc than in 1000 ac - the same goes for units which maybe consists of 100 men in 3000 bc but in 1000 ad consists of up to 1000 men - hence scaling. Is this a sound claim? We just keep this inconsistency because it else would unnecessary complicate matters.

Because they throw one heck of a Bon Voyage party!

or it could be due to this .

Aks K

 

[warpstorm]

Why do people insist on trying to equate a unit with a specific number of people. It is a futile exercise. A settler is a 0 strength unit with the ability to found cities, that's it. It is not 10, 50, 100, or 10000 people, it is a 0 strength unit with the ability to found cities. Period. An animal in the game is a (I'm assuming here) 1 strength unit. It is not 500 bears. It's a unit. A game piece.

Why does it cost more to make a settler than a warrior (which is not 100 men, 1000 men or any other number of men, but rather a 1 strength unit)? Because they can found new cities and the designer (rightly) thinks that is more valuable an ability than the one point of combat strength is.

 

[JeBuS27]

Well, at least I'm not the only voice of reason any more.

 

[Ex Mudder]

Heh, actually it doesn't talk about realism, it talks about representation. That's what most of this thread has been about. What the animal units represent. Some folks believe they represent a coherent organized force of nature, others don't.

Geez... what do you people have against mind worms, anyway?

5 bloody pages, because they added some weak units that even a scout can kill, and will allow yuo to level up your warriors without substantial risk.

Sheesh.

Would you have prefered Kobolds, goblins, and orcs?

 

[Aks K]

Would you have prefered Kobolds, goblins, and orcs?

Yeah, we want challenge!

Aks K

 

[JeBuS27]

great thread isn't it?

 

[Thangorodrim]

Now remember that early game turns encompass 20 years. So, a animal unit destroying a settler unit would represent a group of settlers who where decimated over the course of 20 years to the point where their attempt at establishing a new settlement failed. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that they were all killed, just enough of them that the group is doomed as a whole.

I have to agree. If a settler unit represents 1000 people (larger than a new city in the ancient age, I'm sure), and they stay near lions for 20 years. They hunt the prey that the lions eat, and the lions need more food. They turn to the humans. The humans sustain losses, and the lions still need more prey b/c the human#+lions#>original lion#. Repeat.

EDIT: oops! it took me ages to write this (I neglected the window), and by the time I post, the discussion has changed to a radically differernt subject!

 

[alms66]

Why do people insist on trying to equate a unit with a specific number of people. It is a futile exercise. A settler is a 0 strength unit with the ability to found cities, that's it. It is not 10, 50, 100, or 10000 people, it is a 0 strength unit with the ability to found cities. Period. An animal in the game is a (I'm assuming here) 1 strength unit. It is not 500 bears. It's a unit. A game piece.

Why does it cost more to make a settler than a warrior (which is not 100 men, 1000 men or any other number of men, but rather a 1 strength unit)? Because they can found new cities and the designer (rightly) thinks that is more valuable an ability than the one point of combat strength is.

Yes, this is the sort of immersive flavor I'm looking for in a game too... :thumbdown :shakehead

Would you have prefered Kobolds, goblins, and orcs?

I would have prefered roaming barbarians. They could have been the same strength, and served the same purpose as the animals, they just wouldn't have been such a stupid thing to see.

Animals attacking my units will have about as much immersive value as Ghandi waving his finger at me like a homo (in the first video of diplomacy released), that is less than zero.

 

[BrotherDragon]

To individuals yes, but I've never heard of "animal armies" annihilating military units.

During the New Guinea campaign during WWII a battalion of Japanese tried to set up a defensive position in a swamp. It was infested with salt water crocodiles, lots of them, big ones. Only a few(Japanese) survived.