Thread Tools
Old November 17, 2001, 18:45   #1
Tigen
Settler
 
Tigen's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 11
Horse resource is bogus
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?

Last edited by Tigen; November 17, 2001 at 18:57.
Tigen is offline  
Old November 17, 2001, 19:10   #2
Deathray
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: High Wycombe
Posts: 104
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 .
__________________
Never underestimate the healing powers of custard.
Deathray is offline  
Old November 17, 2001, 19:19   #3
DarkCloud
staff
NationStatesAlpha Centauri Democracy GameCivilization II Democracy GameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamSpanish CiversCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamApolyton Storywriters' GuildAge of Nations TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
 
DarkCloud's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Deity of Lists
Posts: 11,873
nevertheless it still looks stupid to have horses as resources!
__________________
-->Visit CGN!
-->"Production! More Production! Production creates Wealth! Production creates more Jobs!"-Wendell Willkie -1944
DarkCloud is offline  
Old November 17, 2001, 19:35   #4
Wrong_shui
Warlord
 
Wrong_shui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: a field
Posts: 183
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
Wrong_shui is offline  
Old November 17, 2001, 20:19   #5
Ecthy
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameSpanish Civers
Emperor
 
Local Time: 19:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,491
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.
Ecthy is offline  
Old November 17, 2001, 20:51   #6
dique
Settler
 
Local Time: 01:00
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4
I guess they only trade you castrated horse.
dique is offline  
Old November 17, 2001, 20:54   #7
adaMada
Civilization III Democracy GameTrade Wars / BlackNova TradersPtWDG RoleplayRise of Nations MultiplayerInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton Team
King
 
adaMada's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: "The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Posts: 1,848
I agree! The real world is inaccurate! They really should release a patch, you know...

-- adaMada
__________________
Civ 3 Democracy Game:
PTW Game: Proud member of the Roleplay Team, and Ambassador to Glory of War
Intersite PTW Game: Member of Apolyton
adaMada is offline  
Old November 17, 2001, 20:55   #8
KrazyHorse
Deity
 
KrazyHorse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 138% of your RDA of Irony
Posts: 18,577
You mean geldings?

(Useless but ego-boosting display of vocabulary)
__________________
04-06-04 Killdozer NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
In Memoriam Adam Smith: a brilliant man, taken too soon
Get Rich or Die Tryin'
KrazyHorse is offline  
Old November 17, 2001, 20:56   #9
KrazyHorse
Deity
 
KrazyHorse's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 138% of your RDA of Irony
Posts: 18,577
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.
__________________
04-06-04 Killdozer NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
In Memoriam Adam Smith: a brilliant man, taken too soon
Get Rich or Die Tryin'
KrazyHorse is offline  
Old November 17, 2001, 22:15   #10
Stromprophet
Warlord
 
Local Time: 11:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 193
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.
__________________
A wise man once said, "Games are never finished, only published."
Stromprophet is offline  
Old November 18, 2001, 01:47   #11
Skanky Burns
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameACDG The Cybernetic ConsciousnessC4DG Team Alpha CentauriansApolytoners Hall of FameACDG3 Spartans
 
Skanky Burns's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:00
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Skanky Father
Posts: 16,530
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.
__________________
I'm building a wagon! On some other part of the internets, obviously (but not that other site).
Skanky Burns is offline  
Old November 18, 2001, 02:42   #12
Blunderdog
Warlord
 
Blunderdog's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 185
What about wine?
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.
Blunderdog is offline  
Old November 18, 2001, 07:57   #13
Easy Rhino
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 09:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Californey
Posts: 79
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
Easy Rhino is offline  
Old November 18, 2001, 11:10   #14
Monoriu
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 233
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.
Monoriu is offline  
Old November 18, 2001, 14:51   #15
DarkCloud
staff
NationStatesAlpha Centauri Democracy GameCivilization II Democracy GameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamSpanish CiversCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamApolyton Storywriters' GuildAge of Nations TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
 
DarkCloud's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Deity of Lists
Posts: 11,873
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
__________________
-->Visit CGN!
-->"Production! More Production! Production creates Wealth! Production creates more Jobs!"-Wendell Willkie -1944
DarkCloud is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 14:58   #16
Tigen
Settler
 
Tigen's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 11
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.
Tigen is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 15:40   #17
Apolex
Warlord
 
Apolex's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Bel Air, MD
Posts: 140
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
Apolex is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 16:18   #18
Trifna
King
 
Trifna's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:00
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: of anchovies
Posts: 1,478
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.
Trifna is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 16:27   #19
Provost Harrison
Apolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMPolyCast Team
Deity
 
Provost Harrison's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Germans own my soul.
Posts: 14,861
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!
__________________
Speaking of Erith:

"It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith
Provost Harrison is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 16:49   #20
Zizka
Chieftain
 
Zizka's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Fantasy land
Posts: 94
>>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
__________________
"Capitalism is man exploiting man; communism is just the other way around."
Zizka is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 17:16   #21
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
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.
Steve Clark is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 21:15   #22
Andrew_Jay
Prince
 
Andrew_Jay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: St. John's, NF
Posts: 331
Instead of complaining about the horse resource, go make a mod that includes a "glue" advance that makes them useful
Andrew_Jay is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 21:23   #23
kittenOFchaos
Prince
 
kittenOFchaos's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Gidea Park, Essex
Posts: 678
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)

kittenOFchaos is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 22:29   #24
egovalor
Settler
 
Local Time: 17:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 17
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 is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 22:38   #25
egovalor
Settler
 
Local Time: 17:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 17
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.
egovalor is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 23:06   #26
Monoriu
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 233
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 is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 23:10   #27
Monoriu
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 233
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.
Monoriu is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 00:10   #28
Peterk
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 17:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 62
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.
Peterk is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 00:21   #29
Hunter Hutchins
Warlord
 
Hunter Hutchins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United States
Posts: 102
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!
Hunter Hutchins is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 00:27   #30
dexters
Apolyton Storywriters' Guild
King
 
dexters's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,141
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.
dexters is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:00.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team