Horse resource is bogus

Tigen · November 17, 2001, 18:45

This may have been discussed already but I just want to voice my disapproval of the way horses are handled in Civ 3.

a) Horses, once acquired in real life, can get busy and breed. Ergo, it should not be necessary to negotiate for or otherwise acquire horse resources once you have them.

b) In a historical scenario like a world map, this presents significant problems. One is that you either have to put horses where they don't really belong on the map, or have unrealistic situations where nations fight over controlling a horse square or lose access to horses.

c) The Iroquois. Giving an ancient-era horse-based special unit to a civ that historically only acquired horses by getting them from Europeans was a big mistake. The Americans won't have them either and so can't give them to the Iroquois, and by the time the Euros get there they'll be obsolete.

d) It's inconsistent...e.g. why aren't elephants required for the Indian special unit? How do those barbarian horsemen get created?

Deathray · November 17, 2001, 19:10

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

.

DarkCloud · November 17, 2001, 19:19

nevertheless it still looks stupid to have horses as resources!

Wrong_shui · November 17, 2001, 19:35

What the resource picture represents is a magic field where horses magically appear, these horse, unlike the ones in real life (real life sucks btw), civ3 horses cant breed.

Simiraly a spearman doesnt represent a spear man, it represents a battalion armed with carl gustav launchers that kill tanks.

Hope this cleard things up

Ecthy · November 17, 2001, 20:19

Quote:

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

Why, maybe in a future patch we can melt them together with coal in some kind of furnace.

dique · November 17, 2001, 20:51

I guess they only trade you castrated horse.

adaMada · November 17, 2001, 20:54

I agree! The real world is inaccurate! They really should release a patch, you know...

-- adaMada

KrazyHorse · November 17, 2001, 20:55

You mean geldings?

(Useless but ego-boosting display of vocabulary)

KrazyHorse · November 17, 2001, 20:56

Oh yeah; if you want to complain, then why not complain about the "silk" luxury? It's quite easy to breed silkworms in captivity nowadays.

Stromprophet · November 17, 2001, 22:15

How important are horses really? They don't attack very well. And there are very few huts to make them as important as they were in Civ II.

I think Legions are the most significant unit. Espeically in war, because your horses can't move 2 spaces in enemy territroy anyway, so why build them? I build only a few in each of my games.

I mass build legions though. Need something to tak Spearmen down.

Skanky Burns · November 18, 2001, 01:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Stromprophet
I think Legions are the most significant unit. Espeically in war, because your horses can't move 2 spaces in enemy territroy anyway, so why build them

Erm, yes they do.

They have 2 moves, and movement in an enemy territory is like moving in unimproved terrain - roads dont exist. BUT movement through plains and grasslands still cost only 1 movement point. Try it

Horsemen are a useful military unit as well. Simply get a bunch of them, and attack. Although they are less powerful than legions, they have a big advantage. Where a legion that loses combat simply dies, a horseman will retreat. After healing him, your army is back at full strength, rather than having to wait for another legion to be built.

Blunderdog · November 18, 2001, 02:42

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

But that's OK by me.

Easy Rhino · November 18, 2001, 07:57

But the big thing about wine was that the fermenting process made it safe to drink.

So, in ancient times, the water could kill you. So stick with the vino.

The fact that American Indians didn't get horses until early industrail times is EXTREMELY INCONVENIENT for game play purposes.

ER

Monoriu · November 18, 2001, 11:10

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.

DarkCloud · November 18, 2001, 14:51

But, Monoriu- the Iroquois would be slaughtered if they didn't have SOME Unique unit- and if the horses were unique after the Europeans arrive with Musketeers, the horses would be fairly useless

Ecthelion- Good idea

Tigen · November 19, 2001, 14:58

Quote:

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 · November 19, 2001, 15:40

Quote:

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 · November 19, 2001, 16:18

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 · November 19, 2001, 16:27

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 · November 19, 2001, 16:49

>>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 · November 19, 2001, 17:16

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

Quote:

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 · November 19, 2001, 21:15

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

kittenOFchaos · November 19, 2001, 21:23

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 · November 19, 2001, 22:29

Quote:

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 · November 19, 2001, 22:38

Quote:

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 · November 19, 2001, 23:06

Quote:

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 · November 19, 2001, 23:10

Quote:

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 · November 20, 2001, 00:10

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 · November 20, 2001, 00:21

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 · November 20, 2001, 00:27

Quote:

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.