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

[PriestOfDiscord]

Honestly, while I'm annoyed they had the time to mess around with ancient age mechanics so much that they added something like 4 or 5 animal units while reducing the amount of industrial and modern age units by a lot, I'm not against the idea of wild animals being in. Espically since they didn't use them to simply replace barbarians, who get an expanded role with better units and the ability to capture cities again like they could in civ 2.

 

[eddie_verdde]

I would agree with the "wild animals" thing if we were talking about a game like Settlers or Anno 1602, but this is Civilization!!! How could a population of bears affect the development of a civilization? Even if a group of bears killed dozens of colonists, it wouldn't be nothing more than that: a few dozens of colonists killed!! Don't you tell me that Hammurabi would stop sending people to colonize the middle east because of bears!!!

And I get even more stunned when I read posts from people that have previously attacked micro-management in CIV and now support this wild-animals thing.

So, in CIV4 they took pollution away, they took corruption away, in order to minimize micro-management, and now I, the leader of a great civilization, with hundreds of thousands of subjects have to be worried because of a bunch of wolves and bears?

Doesn't make any sense...maybe they should hire a History Consultant when they decide to make Civilization V.

 

[tcjsavannah]

I bet PETA calls for a boycott of this game.

 

[eddie_verdde]

I bet PETA calls for a boycott of this game.

no need to...the animals slaughter the pioneers, not the opposite

 

[warpstorm]

So, in CIV4 they took pollution away, they took corruption away, in order to minimize micro-management, and now I, the leader of a great civilization, with hundreds of thousands of subjects have to be worried because of a bunch of wolves and bears?

By the time you get to the large city stage you don't have to worry about them.

 

[eddie_verdde]

By the time you get to the large city stage you don't have to worry about them.

Nor should I have to worry about them in the early stages of the game...wild animals can have a major impact on hunter-gatherer societies, due to the fact that such societies are composed of only a few dozen man/women/children and therefore, a single attack from a bear can kill the entire tribe...but the game starts in an age where the technological advances were enough to allow sedentarization and a much bigger population size, therefore reducing completely the effects of a wolf or bear attack on the whole population...

 

[Martinus]

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

Actually, Farming is now a technology and most civilizations start without it, so you can safely say that the game begins in the nomadic era.

 

[eddie_verdde]

Actually, Farming is now a technology and most civilizations start without it, so you can safely say that the game begins in the nomadic era.

Ok, the game usually starts with a single unit - the settler. I always viewed this "settler" as a huge group of people who is looking for a place to settle, so I wouldn't call them nomads...they don't have a permanent nomad lifestyle, they are just walking towards the establishment of a town.

And, although I don't know how it will work in CIV4, in previous CIVs I remember that the first settlement was 10,000 people, so you can say that your settler unit was composed of at least 10,000 settlers...Do you still think that a wolf/bear attack would have a significant impact on the group? And do you still think that 10,000 people wouldn't be able to defend from a bear/wolf attack?

Just a thought...

 

[JeBuS27]

Again though, there's no reason to believe 1 Pop. represents 10k people. Especially in the ancient age, it could be as little as a few dozen people.

 

[eddie_verdde]

Again though, there's no reason to believe 1 Pop. represents 10k people. Especially in the ancient age, it could be as little as a few dozen people.

well if it was as little as a few dozen people, what would be the point in founding a settlement?? a group of a few dozen people can perfectly survive in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle it doesn't need nor has the conditions to settle in and create a complex social structure and found a civilization!

The game starts when a group of descendants of nomads reaches a level of technological/social development and a level of population growth that drives the foundation of a civilization...that's that's...

 

[Aks K]

well if it was as little as a few dozen people, what would be the point in founding a settlement?? a group of a few dozen people can perfectly survive in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle it doesn't need nor has the conditions to settle in and create a complex social structure and found a civilization!

The game starts when a group of descendants of nomads reaches a level of technological/social development and a level of population growth that drives the foundation of a civilization...that's that's...

That was also my point.

Aks K

 

[troytheface]

Wild animals are the most realistic element in the game. Lions walking around with fur and eating settlers- a simple and eloquent sight.
The Vampire Eternal leaders and the four billion year old Zombie Spearmen are quite frightening in comparison. The magic cure for cancer Potion and the secret space ship to the universe parts are also available in this imaginative place. No weather, no natural disasters, a magical realm.

And what is the preferred replacement for the most realistic element?
Barbarians? Hold it we have Barbarians already.- so some want barbarians with more barbarians? Yes, Barbarians are much more prevelant than animals- they have survived the test of ...

Or how about no replacement at all? Both options are not creative in the least. No texture, no difference, no variation.
Give me the most realistic element- animals- over the alternatives.

 

[Aks K]

Wild animals are the most realistic element in the game.

Can you back this up with a historical evidence? I would like to see that. If not don't make the claim that it is realistic.

I do agree with you that there are some if not many elements in civ that are more unrealistic, but this is for me no excuse to bring in more.

EDIT: Besides I was told that the discussion of whether this new feature was realistic was not the purpose of this thread - Sorry for going of topic .

So I think it is a stupidity of having wild animals on the map.

Shouldn't we make a poll about this instead?

Aks K

 

[troytheface]

No i can not. Because the game is not out yet so i can not give any history to the fact that they are the most realistic element in the game.

However,
The have Fur. This gives implied texture. This mimics the real world- the goal of visual "Realism".
Barbarians we know only from written descriptions and art. They are visual fantasy as depicted on the game.

me 2005 (to start a history)

 

[Aks K]

No i can not. Because the game is not out yet so i can not give any history to the fact that they are the most realistic element in the game.

Sorry for not being clear. I did not want you to tell me whether this is a realistic element in civ4. I would like you qoute historic articles or other sources which backup your claim.

Aks K

 

[troytheface]

I think you just asked me - do u live in a house? or do u live in a home?

My claim was that they are the most realistic element in the game. Lets see historical facts to back up that opinion....

Read somewhere that the fear of being eaten is one of man's unforgetten primal fears.
This fear must have been borne of something i would suggest.
Historical Fact #1 (source - glorious me 2005) Man has a primal fear of being eaten by animals which is real. (Realism)

Historical Fact #2 (source-TV Fla News) Lion killed a girl in Fla. on a peir.

 

[Aks K]

Sry, you have to do better than that. I am asking for scientific sources.

Aks K

 

[eddie_verdde]

troytheface, what are you talking about???

Everyone knows that!! We don't need historical facts to prove that animals attack people. Of course people are afraid of lions, bears and wolves, of course lions attack and kill people, but that doesn't mean it has a significant impact on the development of a civilization and therefore it is stupid to include such a feature in a game like CIV.

Go play Settlers, Age of Empires or Anno 1602 if you like to use your troops to slay wild animals...

 

[joethreeblah]

How about if they change it so that the population starts out as 20 people with a few tents and grows from there, quickly. Would that make everyone happy.

 

[Aks K]

troytheface, what are you talking about???

we don't need historical facts to prove that animals attack people. Of course people are afraid of lions, bears and wolves, of course lions attack and kill people, but that doesn't mean it has a significant impact on the development of a civilization and therefore it is stupid to include such a feature in a game like CIV.

Go play Settlers, Age of Empires or Anno 1602 if you like to use your troops to slay wild animals...

I know that they attack people. And that man is afraid of wild animals and visa versa (to some degree). But I he can back it up with scientific historic evidence ie. scources from bc which talk of animal attacks of greater magnitute - it will be interesting to see souch sources.

Aks K