Noises from breaking limbs and footsteps on leaves, moving vegetation



First, I didn’t know where to post this thread since it doesn’t have a suggestion sub-forum.

Well, as already mentioned in the title, I’d like to suggest that vegetation should move away as you or anyone/anything else moves through it. Also there should be sounds of breaking limbs or sounds of footsteps on leaves. That plus wild animals would make the woods so much more lively as it is in beta now.

Just imagine you see trees and bushes moving and hear something running through the woods. Then you see it’s just a rabbit. :smiley: or a bear hunting for you maybe. That would be scary as hell at night!

I don’t know how much time this would take to implement, but that would be a big improvement to the atmosphere!

Let’s hope and if you got any other ideas that would improve the atmosphere in the woods, let us know!


That would be pretty cool, the game is much different now that it was in the Beta so probably this is going to happen but i’m not a dev so i can’t be sure.


What wild animals? I never see any in the woods in the Czech Republic.

In a park you can come upon a squirrel and birds, but not so much in the woods.


Sound of breaking limbs (in such rare cases that this happens) - check
Sound of leaves under your feet - check
Wild animals - check
Moving vegetation - partial check

so… anything else? :smiley:


Czech countryside is home to deer (roe, red, sika, fallow), boar, fox, hare, wild sheep, pheasant as common species.

Rare (and protected) species include wolf and bear.

Many of these are shy and justifiably cautious of humans. However if you walk quietly and watch the landscape closely you can see deer, pheasant, fox and hare/rabbit throughout Europe. Not seeing them is a fault of the observer, not an absolute indication of absence.


In the open fields, yes.

In the woods, you will see shit, unless you sit at a hunting post for an hour straight looking at a forest clearing quietly.

For fuck’s sake there are 8 wolfs altogether and one bear for about two months a year, then he goes back to Slovakia.


Today yes, but they were native and relatively common until hunted into oblivion and competed out of their habitat.

And you can see animals in woods, but they tend to disappear quickly into cover once disturbed, sightlines being what they are. To have protracted view of animals requires a favourable combination of visibility (relatively open interval, cover behind the observer, and either less cover or a contrasting light condition for the observed), quiet movement (no music, talking or loud footfalls), and wind driving your scent away from the observed, or at least not towards it.


I dont know why but I find this damn funny. I was giggling like a little girl reading it.


Why this guy is mad because of some animals? He is some kind of especialist? Damn dude chill


What does partial check means? That grass is moving other vegetaion not?


basically yes.
Grass, flowers, herbs are moving, but bushes and trees are not.


From where you know all that ProkyBrambora?

By the way, I didn’t hear anything like breaking limbs or sounds of leaves in beta.
Is it some progress they made in the near past? Where was that published?


But if trees don’t move how can we know when the dragons comes?


It is because performance?
Cryengine supports vegetation physics and crysis had moving bushes 10 years ago. It would make going throught forest so much more immersive.


As I am a QA tester in at Warhorse i know such stuff… i “play” the game every day :smiley:

Honestly, I dont really know. @Knedlo might answer that, though.


Ah ok, then feel free to tell us even more! :smiley:


Would there be more animals back then? Or would it be about the same as today? They didnt have cars and firearms so…


That would depend on the place. While there weren’t firearms, people were using a lot of traps. At the same time, the crops on the fields in Europe mostly didn’t provide this much nutrition to wild animals as they do today (sugar beet, oilseed rape) which has for example lead to overpopulation of wild boars recently.

There would be probably more wildlife in places with low human density of population (generally in forests further uphills). In these places, however, there would be also more predators which would cull down the prey.

In general, I don’t think there would be large difference in number of animals, only in number of species.

Bears would be more likely further from towns and villages, wolves would be impossible to spot unless you would spend days actively searching for them.


Gonna have to disagree with you here, especially on the “I don’t think there would be large difference in number of anumals, only in number of species” aspect of your post.

Having travelled extensively to places (Manyika tribe in Zimbabwe and Ti Massaco tribe in Brazil) with much lower population counts, where they are still actively hunting and trapping as they were hundreds of years ago - if not thousands, I have opposing annecdotal evidence to the contrary.

Now, while I appreciate that these places today are known for their extensive individual populations of separate species of animals I must implore that these places are known for the aforementioned because they are relatively undisturbed by modern living.

Europe specifically would have seen MUCH higher densities (likely by a magnitude of 250%) of various subspecies of wild deer, sheep, hogs and boars, horses etc. People specialized in finding these animals and likely would have been able to track prey animals and predators alike such as wolves and bears to within a few hours of recent activity with relative ease. Rural living depended on it.

If you take into account that the red deer is prevalent enough today with modern development, I think it’s safe to say its numbers were magnitudes higher when more habitat was available to them - even with prolific predators keeping numbers capped to a certain degree.

And let’s not forget that deer farming was still a thing and actually, a very controversial method of obtaining deer products. Reading articles about this suggests that deer populations were actively managed and encouraged because to the common landlord, this was far more profitable than run-of-the-mill fruit and veg production in the short term; however the practise was looked down upon by those that could afford to look at the big picture economically and where the longevity of the health of the land was concerned.


The problem is that population count for the gaming area would not be that different from nowadays. The number of houses in villages is roughly the same, while number of young population (children) was much higher). I.e. village population in the game area would be much higher. There was obviously much lower population in the towns in the game area, but it is hard to say to what extent.

So your comparison to Manyika and Ti massaco has no standing. Also, since you brought it here, please do tell me about the level of metalurgy and chemistry development in these two tribes. I fear that when it comes to development, they might still today be behind the 1403 game area (if we disregard imports of modern products).