Originally posted by aaminion00
Gah. A dictionary defenition? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Yes riding a horse isn't exactly what the oxford's defenition of Knight is, but the vast majority of European "knights" in the middle ages were mounted. More importantly, the modern interpetation and the one that Firaxis used for their knight unit is a guy on horseback. That's why the knight has 2 movement points instead of 1. How can you possibly justify giving a foot unit 2 movement points in the medieval era, when all other units (even less heavily armored than knights) have 1, save for the samurai, who as I said, should be a medieval infantry replacement instead of a knight, but was a knight replacement becase MI's didn't exist in civ3 vanilla.
And really, who gives a crap about knights from sub-saharan Africa? In reference to those who say that the mounted knight from Europe is just a local Europan interpetation: bull****. Do other cultures even have a word for knight? Or if they do, does it represent the mounted one that firaxis was obviously trying to represent? The bottom line is that the "knight" is supposed to represent an early medieval cavalry unit with extra movement. Whether other cultures considered "knights" (dictionary defenition) to be mounted doesn't matter. If they instead had them as primarily foot units, fine, make them replace the medieval ifnantry (i.e. samurai). However, if one is trying to make an Egyptian knight "flavor unit", there is no justification to making him a walker.
Now I'll go back to listening to Plavi Orkestar and waiting for a response.
) The ONLY specific definition reference to a mounted warrior is:
)
