Where'd you get the coconuts?

Surely I'm not the only one to wonder why come there are so many elephant units that do not require ivory? Or calvary units that don't require horses? Shouldn't I be able to strategically target these strategic resources, denying them to the Civs who love them the most? Imagine how different history would have been if someone decided/had been able to steal all of the Mongols' horses.

Maybe I am supposed to believe that these Civs are just more resourceful than the others, and therefore know how to find otherwise invisible supplies of their most coveted items? Even if they live in a temperate zone?

I thought this was going to be another thread about Cathy.

Well having a unique unit require a specific luxury would be a bit unfair, Ivory isn't even on every map necessarily. They all replace horse units so they require horses just to be fair.

Keshiks do require horses so you could steal all the Mongol's horses. Only uniques from the Ancient era seem to not need their respective strategics (Horse Archer, War Chariot).

I feel like the whole strategic resource system is a bit wonky, it's a bit too feast-or-famine. Either you don't need Iron and you have 8 just lying around or you're the damn Romans or English and there's no Iron in sight. There should be a bit more strategic sites but with smaller yields (max 3 from one tile).

What I want to know is why Camel Archers require horses. I understand it's probably for balance, but it seems silly that by some form of Arabian magic, horses become camels.

No magic. The horses are wearing camel costumes. It's amazing what they can do with CGI.

Alzadar said:

Well having a unique unit require a specific luxury would be a bit unfair, Ivory isn't even on every map necessarily. They all replace horse units so they require horses just to be fair.

Click to expand...

None of the elephant UUs require horses. Or ivory. Nor do camel UUs.

EDIT: According to the civilopedia online, camel archers apparently still do require horses - I'd thought this was fixed when they removed the horse requirement from the elephants in G&K.

I suppose you can think of it this way: Ivory is on the map as a luxury resource - despite the graphics, elephants aren't. So perhaps these are the areas with sufficient concentrations of elephants with high-quality ivory, but elephants per se can be found elsewhere?

It is in any case a bit of an oddity to treat horses as a strategic resource - apparently these things never breed and must be pastured in one specific part of the landscape where your enemies can act as horse rustlers for a whole civilisation. Gamewise I agree horses should be represented to show their historical importance as, indeed, a resource, but the way Civ games have depicted this is strange to say the least.

Thanks for sharing this interesting stuff that "according to the civilopedia online, camel archers apparently still do require horses - I'd thought this was fixed when they removed the horse requirement from the elephants in G&K".

If you think of the horse resource as just being symbolic of any large beast of burden camels start to make more sense.