Ranking the areas still requiring animals

Gaur (technically lives in forests but whatever)
I think "Indian savanna" is used in this ranking system to mean all the grassland as well as tropical dry and tropical moist forest habitats of India that share a similar roster of relevant animals. Gaurs are very much found in the terai savannas, tropical dry deciduous forests of the Deccan and Central India, and montane grasslands in the Western Ghats, in addition to their more moist and evergreen forest habitats in India. So definitely work here. In fact, the lion-tailed macaque is the species that is most partial to the "forest" over "savanna" but would perfectly fit the region as defined here.

Sub-Himalayan India is really what the region represents. TBH even some of the regions of northern India that are depicted as part of "tropical SE Asia" on the map are too far west to count. Basically southern Nepal and the adjoining northern areas of India - the species roster there is Indian rhino, blackbuck, barasingha, etc. as opposed to the binturongs, sun bears, etc. that you get further east beyond Assam.
 
This is very much influenced by your being an American. My experience on the european side of things is a lot of focus on Africa and South east Asia, usually some European and middle eastern animals, and South American and Oceania areas tend to be small and underepresented. However, by far the least represented areas in european zoos is North America, with the only common species endemic to NA being the raccoon and alligator. So IMO we need to round up all corners of the world for all variety of players.
Depends on the climate. Hotter climates can have stuff like Porcupine, Striped Hyena, Arabian/Scimitar Oryx, Caracal, Fennec, Dromedary etc. (This is mainly from my experience in Israel and southern Europe)

Scandinavia can have cold weather animals like Moose and Reindeer.

And temperate animals like boars, fallow deer, lynx, roe deer are omnipresent in many zoos.
This is such an important thing to consider because of the climate of my local region we tend to not have many cold weather animals for example my country has a total of 2 bear species the sun bear and a polar bear which SeaWorld trying its hardest to it where it should not be.

Australian zoos tend to not have any north american or european mammals at all, reptiles fair a bit better with them being a majority of the representation of the northern hemisphere. Zoos here tend to have 1-3 areas africa, australia and asia though alot of zoos are just local animals and that is it. If a zoo is to include global animals it will generally have a large focus on south east asia and or African savannah. Australian zoos feature more asian elephants than african and no species of wolf only african wild dogs, maned wolf and dingo. South america fairs alot better than europe or north america with the only mammals coming anywhere close to as common as native ones are south american monkeys but in most cases south american starts and ends at monkeys which australia has alot of but basically no other mammals are common besides capybara and maned wolf.
To put all of this into perspective an australian is more likley to have had an Antarctic "habitat" animal than a north american one.

so to an australian the continents are prioritised very differently to the rest of the world
  • australia
  • asia
  • africa
  • south america
  • europe
  • north america
 
This is such an important thing to consider because of the climate of my local region we tend to not have many cold weather animals for example my country has a total of 2 bear species the sun bear and a polar bear which SeaWorld trying its hardest to it where it should not be.

Australian zoos tend to not have any north american or european mammals at all, reptiles fair a bit better with them being a majority of the representation of the northern hemisphere. Zoos here tend to have 1-3 areas africa, australia and asia though alot of zoos are just local animals and that is it. If a zoo is to include global animals it will generally have a large focus on south east asia and or African savannah. Australian zoos feature more asian elephants than african and no species of wolf only african wild dogs, maned wolf and dingo. South america fairs alot better than europe or north america with the only mammals coming anywhere close to as common as native ones are south american monkeys but in most cases south american starts and ends at monkeys which australia has alot of but basically no other mammals are common besides capybara and maned wolf.
To put all of this into perspective an australian is more likley to have had an Antarctic "habitat" animal than a north american one.

so to an australian the continents are prioritised very differently to the rest of the world
  • australia
  • asia
  • africa
  • south america
  • europe
  • north america
How would you say Australia stands in the game currently?
 
How would you say Australia stands in the game currently?
Definetly depends on if youre australian or not.
From an international standpoint its pretty much complete, heck the kangaroo, emu and wallaby already cover like 90% of australian animals you will see in european zoos.
From an australian standpoint (in which i try to imagine myself here) youre probably still missing quite a few animals like the treekangaroo, echidna, a monitor, definetly a bird or two thats not a ratite or penguin and one or two small mammals like a possum or quoll for example. Also exhibit animals seem like something australia/oceania is missing alot of their iconic ones.

So all in all pretty much the same situation as NA and europe where they are pretty much complete on an international level, but if you want to build a zoo there youre still missing a couple
 
How would you say Australia stands in the game currently?
I know you were asking Milurian but given a couple other people have answered already I'll also give another opinion as an Australian (not that everyone here hasn't heard mine multiple times lol).

Marvinb pretty much hit it on the head in regards to Australia being very well fleshed out from an international perspective (which I think is what this thread should reflect), but still very lacking from an Australian standpoint, to the point where it is still by far the most underrepresented region. A good way to contextualise this is by looking at this thread I made a little time ago on mammals kept in Australian zoos (before Zootierliste went international, though the holdings for Australia on ZTL are still incomplete for many species and zoos) - of the missing species that are classed as common (more than 10 zoos), 21 are native whilst only 11 are exotic. Of these exotic species, 7 are New World primates (we can all agree there), two are domestic glires, one is the serval and the final species is Goodfellow's tree kangaroo, which arguably qualifies as Australian anyway. Among the Australian species are quolls, bilbies, hairy-nosed wombats, possums and a multitude of different macropod species, and those are just the mammals - you can imagine just how much is missing once reptiles and birds get involved.

Obviously Planet Zoo isn't going to get to the point where it's possible to replicate the abundance and diversity of native species found in Australian zoos, and there shouldn't be an expectation for it to - after all, we're only a tiny fraction of the player base down here, and we already got far more than I ever dreamed we would get after the Australia Pack. I'm very grateful for that. The three most important missing "essentials" for Australia from my perspective are the short-beaked echidna, a tree kangaroo and a monitor lizard (shout out to bilby and rock-wallaby), and I'll be absolutely overjoyed if we get any of those before the game ends, as well as any other Australian species they could possibly throw at us. What we don't get officially I'm content with modding in as long as a good quality mod can be made for it (unfortunately not the case for some of our more unique species, but having animals as simple as hairy-nosed wombats and grey kangaroos make such a huge difference for me).

Honestly, as I've lamented many times, what's even more critical for Australia than more animals is more plants - if Frontier squeezes another eucalypt into the game before support ends I will give them my firstborn child.
 
Last edited:
IMO the only place doing poorly due to lack of international presence is South America. Every continent (not including habitat birds) has a good selection of animals for zoos. Yes specific examples are needed for local zoos, but from a world wide standpoint I think we are at a great place. Except South America and birds, but what’s new with that right?

Now if we are gonna say from a local perspective then pretty much every continent is in a much worse place (birds are included here), so both South America and Australia struggle here quite a bit. It’s pretty much impossible for Frontier to fix this unless the final dlc is unreasonably massive, or we actually have more dlc coming.

So I’ll look to mods for this I guess.
 
IMO the only place doing poorly due to lack of international presence is South America. Every continent (not including habitat birds) has a good selection of animals for zoos. Yes specific examples are needed for local zoos, but from a world wide standpoint I think we are at a great place. Except South America and birds, but what’s new with that right?

Now if we are gonna say from a local perspective then pretty much every continent is in a much worse place (birds are included here), so both South America and Australia struggle here quite a bit. It’s pretty much impossible for Frontier to fix this unless the final dlc is unreasonably massive, or we actually have more dlc coming.

So I’ll look to mods for this I guess.
Don’t forget about monkeys as well, from an international standard we only really have 1 for both Africa and Asia (sorry proboscis monkey) and I believe both continents need at least 1 more as a minimum
 
How would you say Australia stands in the game currently?
Globally its perfect
In the context of australian zoos its yellow. Its missing key mammals such as possums, quoll, the tree kangaroo and echidna but other than that what is missing most is exhibit animals alot of them lizards and small mammals like bilbies and sugar gliders are the most prominent gaps.
Other missing animals are just more macropods things like the swamp wallaby and grey kangaroos. Birds such as brush turkey and the black swan. A ton more of every reptile expect crocodilians since Australia only has 2 native and of course birds.
 
Definetly depends on if youre australian or not.
From an international standpoint its pretty much complete, heck the kangaroo, emu and wallaby already cover like 90% of australian animals you will see in european zoos.
Only if you consider “wallaby” and “kangaroo” as single species (which is the equivalent of thinking of “Deer” as a single species. Even from an international point of view, there are a great many missing macropods that are common in zoos. These are lacking, not just because there are many missing species, but also (and importantly) because macropods are very often kept in mixed-species enclosures and none of the current (3) macropods overlap in their range.
I think a very good case could be made for 1-2 more - ideally including a rock wallaby (either desert, temperate or even both) because it could use the climbing rock and, therefore, add a new way of building.
 
Only if you consider “wallaby” and “kangaroo” as single species (which is the equivalent of thinking of “Deer” as a single species. Even from an international point of view, there are a great many missing macropods that are common in zoos. These are lacking, not just because there are many missing species, but also (and importantly) because macropods are very often kept in mixed-species enclosures and none of the current (3) macropods overlap in their range.
I think a very good case could be made for 1-2 more - ideally including a rock wallaby (either desert, temperate or even both) because it could use the climbing rock and, therefore, add a new way of building.
2 more neat options besides the rock wallaby would be the pamas wallaby for being tiny and common in zoos, aswell as the common walleroo for a middleground in size between the benetts wallaby and the red kamgaroo. The walleroo also tends to have a large diversity in color, so that would also be interesting as most people love their color morphs
 
Only if you consider “wallaby” and “kangaroo” as single species (which is the equivalent of thinking of “Deer” as a single species. Even from an international point of view, there are a great many missing macropods that are common in zoos. These are lacking, not just because there are many missing species, but also (and importantly) because macropods are very often kept in mixed-species enclosures and none of the current (3) macropods overlap in their range.
I think a very good case could be made for 1-2 more - ideally including a rock wallaby (either desert, temperate or even both) because it could use the climbing rock and, therefore, add a new way of building.
I meant the two species we have in game. And yeah i exaggurated a bit but in essence i think it holds true.
But aside from the red kangaroo and rednecked wallaby there really arent that many that are common.
What counts as common is probably a little subjective but i think calling everything over 100 holdings common is reasonable, and aside from the other two the only one that has over 100 holdings in non oceanian zoos is the parma wallaby. There are alot more that are being kept, but the vast majority of them only have a handfull of holdings.
Would it be nice to have more variety? Absolutely but i dont think they are a priority really.

On the mixed habitat/overlapping range matter: Personally i dont think thats a big issue, real zoos keep animals that dont overlap in the wild all the time. Mixed south american habitats are particularly infamous for this from my experience, but its also pretty common for african species
 
I meant the two species we have in game. And yeah i exaggurated a bit but in essence i think it holds true.
But aside from the red kangaroo and rednecked wallaby there really arent that many that are common.
What counts as common is probably a little subjective but i think calling everything over 100 holdings common is reasonable, and aside from the other two the only one that has over 100 holdings in non oceanian zoos is the parma wallaby. There are alot more that are being kept, but the vast majority of them only have a handfull of holdings.
Would it be nice to have more variety? Absolutely but i dont think they are a priority really.

On the mixed habitat/overlapping range matter: Personally i dont think thats a big issue, real zoos keep animals that dont overlap in the wild all the time. Mixed south american habitats are particularly infamous for this from my experience, but its also pretty common for african species
The 2 types of grey kangaroo at least in Australia are equally common to the red and based on my list of what people have seen in zoos grey kangaroos rank quite high.
 
Top Bottom