Horse resource is bogus

[Tigen]

Originally posted by Deathray
Still not more bogus than taking 400 years to train a unit of warriors. Its a game. Resources are abstracted for gameplay reasons. Have a little imagination .

Well, it works fine if you just play on random maps. I've been having fun playing those...but I think the historical modelling aspect of Civ is one of its big draws. While the game may be nothing more than a bunch of rules and tile-based graphics, the sum of the parts makes it more. The horse issue, as minor as it might seem, is enough to dent my suspension of disbelief significantly when I try to play a historical scenario.

I think Firaxis must not have played world-map games much at all. That's the only way I can explain why their own world maps are so dismal and can't start you off in the proper location for your civ.

That said, it's not so easy to think of a better (i.e. non-living) choice for an ancient-era strategic resource, besides iron of course. I could think maybe some good stone source, and/or marble, representing the sort of materials required to build certain large structures like maybe the pyramids, or certain larger cultural structures.

[Apolex]

Originally posted by Monoriu
Real life vs game issues aside, I'd have to agree with the original poster that giving the Iroquois the mounted warrior as their unique unit represents dismal historical research on Firaxis's part. Its not a fun vs realism issue. They really should consider giving the unit a different name and graphic.

Historical research? The game hardly ever follows history. When I finish the game as the Zulus by nuking all the other civs and razing their cities, is that historically accurate: no. Or when I see the French repel a German invasion, is that realistic? No. You're making your own history with the civ you started with. Abraham Lincoln in animal skins leading Americans in 4000 BC? It's not a history lesson it's Civ.

-Apolex

[Trifna]

I guess we should be able to gradually get horses otherwise than from natural ressources. For exemple, after a certain time having horse's ressource on our territory, we would produce on our own.

[Provost Harrison]

Well it is a game, and this is an aspect of gameplay that 'represents' real life. The Americans never had access to horses, and thus, never had mounted units like Europe. This is the best way of representing it and making it a fun aspect of gameplay duh!

[Zizka]

>>I've seen many complaints about horses ... but what about wine? You can >>make alcohol out of just about anything.

LOL Is that wine whine? (sorry couldn't help it..)

Z

[Steve Clark]

Tigen, did you not read and understand this from civ3.com?

In Civilization III, the Iroquois represent all the tribes of Northern Native Americans. Though the Iroquois rarely used horse-mounted warriors in combat due to the wooded terrain they usually fought in, many other tribes frequently made use of them (notably the Sioux and other tribes of the Great Plains), and to great effect.

The Mounted Warrior is an upgraded version of the horseman. Like the horseman, it requires horses to build, but it has an additional attack point, making it one of the best mobile assault units of the early eras.

[Andrew_Jay]

Instead of complaining about the horse resource, go make a mod that includes a "glue" advance that makes them useful

[kittenOFchaos]

I think colonization handled the horse issue well! once the Tupi got a few hundred going there was no stopping them breeding thousands (unless you started whipping them)

[egovalor]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You mean geldings?

(Useless but ego-boosting display of vocabulary)

Would "geldings" be a "big word" if I were in pre-school?

[egovalor]

Originally posted by Monoriu
Real life vs game issues aside, I'd have to agree with the original poster that giving the Iroquois the mounted warrior as their unique unit represents dismal historical research on Firaxis's part. Its not a fun vs realism issue. They really should consider giving the unit a different name and graphic.

Give me a break. Who would have to conduct "historical research" to discover that the Amercian Indians didn't have horses in ancient times?

It's just a game. Specifically, it's a game that allows one to replay and rewirte history. It's possible in any civ game that you could be, say, the Aztecs, and make contact with, say, the japs in 3000 BC? Is this historically acurate? Noooo, but do you complain? You could be the French isolated on a tundra island for 5000 years. Do you complain?Noooo, because it's a REDO of history. Don't be retarded.

Who's to say that if the american indians DID have horses in 500 AD that they wouldn't prove to be exceptianal mounted warriors?
They probably would, given the fact that they did when they got em.

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by egovalor


Give me a break. Who would have to conduct "historical research" to discover that the Amercian Indians didn't have horses in ancient times?

It's just a game. Specifically, it's a game that allows one to replay and rewirte history. It's possible in any civ game that you could be, say, the Aztecs, and make contact with, say, the japs in 3000 BC? Is this historically acurate? Noooo, but do you complain? You could be the French isolated on a tundra island for 5000 years. Do you complain?Noooo, because it's a REDO of history. Don't be retarded.

Who's to say that if the american indians DID have horses in 500 AD that they wouldn't prove to be exceptianal mounted warriors?
They probably would, given the fact that they did when they got em.

Normally, I am the sort of person who defends "spearmen defeating tanks" because fun is more important than realism.

However, in this case, no game mechanics is involved. The unique unit of each civ IS based on history. I am not asking for a change in the unit stats or any game feature, just the name and graphic of the unit. The samurai, the panzer, the man o war and all that are based on history. Why should the mounted warrior be different?

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by Apolex


Historical research? The game hardly ever follows history. When I finish the game as the Zulus by nuking all the other civs and razing their cities, is that historically accurate: no. Or when I see the French repel a German invasion, is that realistic? No. You're making your own history with the civ you started with. Abraham Lincoln in animal skins leading Americans in 4000 BC? It's not a history lesson it's Civ.

-Apolex

See my reply to egovalor. Why should the Germans get the panzer? Because of WWII. Why should the Russians get Cossacks? That's what they were famous for. Why should the Americans get the F-15? Because those planes rule the skys nowadays.

Were the Iroquois famous and feared for the mounted warrior? I am afraid not.

I am just asking for consistency here.

[Peterk]

If I don't have any horses in my territory but I have cows can I still build the mounted units? I'm sure that if the defense of your country depended on it, cows could be forced into service? Cowvalry?

Likewise, you should be able to make beer out of any wheat squares you don't want to use for pop, which counts as a luxury instead.

p.

[Hunter Hutchins]

Maybe you can think of it this way. Civhorses only eat special grass. This special grass only grows in horse squares. If you don't get it you can't breed horses. Civhorses love to eat special grass. Happy? ^_^

Oh yes, if the japanese go to war with you and cut off your rubber supply, you can't develop synthetic rubber. Such a shame!

[dexters]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
nevertheless it still looks stupid to have horses as resources!

Or just your brain going and take it as a gameplay issue.

I'm getting quite sick of the use of reality as a justification for complaints.

In real life, you can't save and reload.
In real life you can't upgrade units by hitting a simple Shift+U and pay some money. Upgrading an obsolete military is a long and painful and a very expensive task.

In real life resources have a quantity attached to them, and management of resources is far more complicated than connecting it to a road. The cost of building the infrastructure of piping oil can bankrupt entire countries. So should we ask for Firaxis to make it cost 5000 gold to pipe oil?

There is a big difference between a gameplay imbalance / a bug and complaining just because its not like the real world. Sure, Firaxis can make hourses a resource that you can keep forever, but they might as well give horses to all Civs, but then again, bu doing that they just took out one strategic resource out of the mix. Strategic resources is there to provide strategy, to give players incentive to trade commodities they don't have. Firaxis could as easily make wool, wood, copper, a necessary strategic resources for equipping your military forces. But they don't because it adds uneccessary complexity.