lets say we irrigate our precious horses, why not?

[Exsanguination]

for some reason this makes no sense... why would someone irrigate land that had horses in it? Unless I have missed some odd intricacy about irrigation, drowning the horses seems like a bad thing...

For that matter, why would one drown their valuable cattle or game in water? what other oddities of this sort are there?

 

[God]

Well i don't know about other people but i enjoy drowning my cows.

 

[Minuteman]

Well, I've lived in big city my whole life, so obviously I'm no expert on horses. But in all the photos & paintings that I've ever them, I've never seen horses on hills. I know that goats and sheep live on hills, but horses?

In addition, can anyone name any significant coal deposits that have ever been discovered in jungles?

[dance] Kooky man, jus' plain kooky[dance]

 

[Rob in TN]

You mean they DON'T live in trees? Darn....

 

[BabylImmortal]

Originally posted by Minuteman
I've never seen horses on hills. I know that goats and sheep live on hills, but horses?

Minuteman- you should visit the Appalachin Mts in PA, WV, VA, etc. I've seen horses fenced in off state highways on an incline that could be considered black diamond!!

 

[TrailblazingScot]

But they are all crazy up there!

 

[Anglophile]

I don't drown my cattle, I mine them instead. Not exactly sure how one does that, possibly collect cow byproducts and use them to fuel industrial blast furnaces. But semi-seriously, the extra shield is usually more valuable than an extra food, except if I want serious growth in a settler/worker farm.

 

[Zouave]

I prefer them to garrison fortresses.



Of course in reality the amount of land either mined or irrigated is a small percentage of the total land of a given area, leaving plenty of room for bovines or equines.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Minuteman


In addition, can anyone name any significant coal deposits that have ever been discovered in jungles?

In Malaysia (or somewhere in indonesia??) there`s coal under rain forests, so close to the surface that lightning sometimes ignites it. Some of the fires are known to have burnt for hundreds of years so the deposit is surely significant for early industrial times..... well, it was until it caught fire.....

check GEO magazine for details, I read it in there a few years ago and it should be in their Internet data base.....

 

[Ironikinit]

Don't irrigate the horses unless they're real constipated.

 

[Grashnak]

Originally posted by Exsanguination
for some reason this makes no sense... why would someone irrigate land that had horses in it? Unless I have missed some odd intricacy about irrigation, drowning the horses seems like a bad thing...

For that matter, why would one drown their valuable cattle or game in water? what other oddities of this sort are there?

You are irrigating the square... not flooding it.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

I would think that cattle or horses should actually decrease the food value of a square, since they eat far more than their meat provides when they are slaughtered.

 

[Sodak]

Considering that jungle in Civ3 also covers swamp, coal is a sensible resource for that geology. Peat is a precursor to coal - bogs are typically made of peat. In the dry season, the earth itself can burn! About half the Netherlands was peat, Denmark, too, iirc.

Consider your irrigated horses as domesticated. You irrigate one field, let horses run in another.

As for mining beef, well, look to Illinois! Hilly, coal rich terrain with cows running around on the surface. Not mutually exclusive at all.

Tho it is funny to play with the silly ideas...

 

[Anglophile]

Yes Sparrowhawk, but they taste better than grass - well beef cattle does anyways. As for horses, I've modded them to give +2 food/ +2 shields and that is a gross undervaluing of their actual effect on agriculture and industry up to the 20th Century in the West and even later elsewhere. The extra food value of horses does not come from eating them but by using them to pull plows, turn irrigation wheels, etc.

 

[LordAzreal]

Well I guess drowing horses in Civ III by irrigating under them is a hell of a lot easier than the Colonization method of drowning horses.


"New Amsterdam Horses party held. 100 tonnes of horses thrown into the sea near New Amsterdam..."


Can you imagine using your two hands to lift up a horse, carry it to the docks and throw it into the water?


Yup, digging ditches for the sake of flooding the area is easier and much less backbreaking than throwing a 'Horses party'.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by Anglophile
As for horses, I've modded them to give +2 food/ +2 shields and that is a gross undervaluing of their actual effect on agriculture and industry up to the 20th Century in the West and even later elsewhere. The extra food value of horses does not come from eating them but by using them to pull plows, turn irrigation wheels, etc.

Actually, that is a really good point. Except horses should not just apply to the square they are in, since they are a traded commodity.

Wouldn't it be reasonably accurate to give a food production increase to civs that acquire horses, at least in the beginning? Like say, for instance, a civ in despotism with horses could harvest food as if they were in a republic or monarchy.

Any thoughts?

 

[Badtz Maru]

My wife hated to mine the squares with cattle, because she said it looked like the worker was slaughtering the cow with a pickaxe.

 

[gpsmith]

I mine cattle and sometimes horses... The way I look at it, so I can sleep at night without a guilty conscience, is to think of it as the cattle or horses are actually working down in the mines for me.

What gives me a guilt-free conscience is that I do pay them well, and feed them until they can't eat no more. I also hold "Employee of the turn" parties, where we have a bar-b-q of beef... Oh, wait a minute... Something doesn't ring true... Oh no! What have I done...

 

[Anglophile]

Sparrowhawk, that is a neat idea about farming bonuses for horses. I don't know how one could do it with the current editor but as the editor continues to get upgraded by Firaxis, someday we may be able to add complex things like that.

 

[Mr Spice]

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk

Actually, that is a really good point. Except horses should not just apply to the square they are in, since they are a traded commodity.

Wouldn't it be reasonably accurate to give a food production increase to civs that acquire horses, at least in the beginning? Like say, for instance, a civ in despotism with horses could harvest food as if they were in a republic or monarchy.

Not a bad idéa. But one would have to be very careful not to unbalance the game too much. Having access to horses already gives you a huge military advantage over civs who lack them.