View Full Version : light knights and river trade
Jul 02, 2003, 05:16 PM
I didn't even realize this forum was here. I had been posting in the other Conquests forum. Anyhow I'd like to see some type of light knight unit with ADM 4.1.2 that requires horses but no iron. I originally called it a mounted longbowman but after some discussion and insight by other members about the impracticality of this decided to call it a longbow chariot. Either way I'd like to see some sort of 4.1.2 unit that requires horses and costs 50 shields to be a knight alternative for civs with horses but not iron.
My second request is to open trade routes by river. All cities built on the same river should have an open trade route not dependant on roads. Regardless of whether or not the cities all belong to the same civ or different civs, any two cities that are built on the same river should have an open trade route. This will help to promote trade early on in the game while it makes a lot of sense too. I mean, who's gonna send a construction team to build a road across 300 miles of desert for the sole purpose of opening trade when they can just send merchant ships down the river?
Jul 03, 2003, 10:38 AM
First do you know that knights always had iron armor? They need that. ;)
Second point is grwat.
Jul 03, 2003, 10:57 AM
not all "knights" had iron armor, like the mongolian "knights" (if you count them as knights) at least i dont think they did :hmm:
The Last Conformist
Jul 03, 2003, 12:35 PM
Let's call 'em Medieval Cavalry, shall we?
I don't think they should add a such unit - lacking Iron is supposed to be a major disadvantage.
Jul 03, 2003, 05:01 PM
You're right about that last conformist. I just don't like the idea that horses are useless without iron in the middle ages.
Jul 08, 2003, 12:15 PM
How about 3.2.2 cavalry? They would be light cavalry. They would only require horseys. They would be quite valuable at mopping up units in the open (like cavalry), but be nearly worthless against pikemen (fortified in cities) and musketmen. They would be distinctly inferiour to knights if the cost was only ten shields less.
Jul 08, 2003, 05:48 PM
3.2.2 cavalry already exist as Conquistadors, but they're almost useless because of pikemen and musketmen.
I used to believe that conquistadors should have improved stats and be introduced earlier in the game because they're just about the most useless UU in the game, but I later realized that conquistadors weren't really that powerful in real life. They were just explorers/military men who were sent to control less developed civs in the Americas.
In the game, the conquistadors are still great for exploring and strong enough to defeat barbarian camps and greatly underdeveloped civs.
I do like the 4.1.2 cavalry idea. I also think we should have 3.1.1 warrior as well. Maybe it should be called a maceman.
But the river trade idea is great.
The Last Conformist
Jul 10, 2003, 09:12 AM
Why'd anyone build that 3.1.1 Warrior when 4.1.1 Longbowmen are available?
I dunno if this actually was their intention, but Firaxis has made the Conquistador into a unit that pretty much only useful (as a fighting force) against civs hat lack Iron, which, of course, the Aztecs and Incas did.
Jul 10, 2003, 11:16 AM
They didnt lack iron, they just didnt use it for weapons
Jul 10, 2003, 11:23 AM
I love the river trade idea!
Jul 14, 2003, 08:02 AM
The river trade idea is great! :)
I thinkt also that rivers should be impassable for land units, except for some special fields: fords. That would add another kick to city placement strategy since rivers are a true barrier to attack now and fords can be strategic valuable points.
Later, workers should be able to build bridges instead of bridges to be assumed just to be there. You have to build the roads and railways as well. Bridges over larger rivers are even today not just everywhere, and were more rare and important buildings in the past.