Stables building solving the "gelded horse" problem

[Optimizer]

In Civ 4 (as well as in Civ 3) certain units require horses. If you are not lucky enough to find horses in your own territory, you will need to buy someone else's surplus horses. If the deal ends, you will again be without horses.

This is not just unrealistic, it also overpowers horse-owning players.

The solution is simple. I have created a building called Stables, which requires horses as well as providing horses. It also provides a small commerce bonus, to simulate the civilian importance of horses. Horses are also slightly more unusual on the map.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Good job Optimizer, interesting requires AND provides option their, esentialy you need a "seed" population of horses establish your stables. Their might also be usefull as a military Prerequiste for many mounted units and an experience building for mounted units (allowing Barracks to focus on Melle units)

Do you plan to release a MOD?

[Junuxx]

Good idea!

Here's another idea:
What about a Royal Stables or War Stables, requiring 5 Stables and Horses, and giving all cavalry units +10% strength or whatever. (since just 'horses' generally aren't equal to war steeds).

[2manyusernames]

interesting but by the same token there are many units/bldgs that require a resource

[1shmae1]

Re: Stables building solving the "gelded horse" problem

THE FOLLOWING POST WAS EDITID TO ALTER THE MISTAKEN USE OF THE WORD "GELDING" TO THE INTENDED WORD "MARE."

Originally posted by Optimizer
In Civ 4 (as well as in Civ 3) certain units require horses. If you are not lucky enough to find horses in your own territory, you will need to buy someone else's surplus horses. If the deal ends, you will again be without horses.

This is not just unrealistic, it also overpowers horse-owning players.

The solution is simple. I have created a building called Stables, which requires horses as well as providing horses. It also provides a small commerce bonus, to simulate the civilian importance of horses. Horses are also slightly more unusual on the map.

Sorry. You've not quite got it right. Though you are almost there.

Horses in Civ ought to be handled quite differently than they are. At game start, there ought to be no more than one or two locations on the entire map in which the "horse" resource is present. However, each of these one or two horse resource locations should should have two or thee stallions and two or three geldings.

A Civ that controls these resources can sell the stallions and retain the mares. Civs that purchase the stallions can build cavalry but must continue to purchase new horses from the controling civilization.

If the controlling civ opts to sell the mares, the recipient civ can then build new pastures -- if they have access to a resource such as wheat. Without the mares, you can't build new horses. You have to keep purchasing them.

Obviously, the price of a mare would be much higher than the price of a stallion.

[Optimizer]

Re: Re: Stables building solving the "gelded horse" problem

Originally posted by 1shmae1
Horses in Civ ought to be handled quite differently than they are. At game start, there ought to be no more than one or two locations on the entire map in which the "horse" resource is present. However, each of these one or two horse resource locations should should have two or thee stallions and two or three geldings.

A Civ that controls these resources can sell the stallions and retain the geldings. Civs that purchase the stallions can build cavalry but must continue to purchase new horses from the controling civilization.

If the controlling civ opts to sell the gelding, the recipient civ can then build new pastures -- if they have access to a resource such as wheat. Without the geldings, you can't build new horses. You have to keep purchasing them.

Sorry, I do not understand. Why should stallions, but not geldings, be able to reproduce? And how should you be able to build pastures without horses?

[Junuxx]

Re: Re: Re: Stables building solving the "gelded horse" problem

Originally posted by Optimizer
Why should stallions, but not geldings, be able to reproduce?

Because geldings miss some crucial parts

[Optimizer]

Sorry, I mean the other way around. Seems like both I and 1shmae1 confused them.

[rjwoer]

This is cool. One question I have is when can you build the Stable building? Are there tech requirements for it?

[Optimizer]

Animal Husbandry, by now. I made it cost 120 hammers.

[rjwoer]

That makes sense. This is a cool addition to the game.

[ghen]

too intricate for me. Expecially since you can't trade money until its too late anyway.. You should already be going for gunpowder units, forsaking the top of the tree.

[Junuxx]

Originally posted by ghen
You should already be going for gunpowder units, forsaking the top of the tree.

No, you could. I, for one, am more of a "Long-live-the-top-of-the-tree" person. My longbowmen will do fine defended my hilltop cities, and while my culture and economy blooms, you are wasting resources on musketmen and grenadiers which will get obsolete in no-time anyway.

Seriously, it's all a matter of style and strategy.

[EdCase]

Hmmm...interesting idea, but maybe just a little overcomplicated. If you have no horses you trade for them.
Essentially your looking to "kill" one of the early trade goods.

[1shmae1]

Re: Re: Re: Stables building solving the "gelded horse" problem

Originally posted by Optimizer

Sorry, I do not understand. Why should stallions, but not geldings, be able to reproduce? And how should you be able to build pastures without horses?

Oops! I wrote the whole post not realizing I was using the wrong word!!!!

A "Gelding" is a castrated horse!!! What I meant to say was MARE. Stallions and Mares!

A Civ can trade away the stallions without the trading partner gaining the ability to raise horses of its own -- but if the mares are traded, then the recipient can create his own horses (if he has wheat and pasturlands).

I have edited my post above accordingly.