Mounted Warrior

[Nate128]

Isn't the Iroquois' Mounted Warrior misplaced chronogically? Horses didn't even appear in the Americas until the Spanish brought them over. If anything, the mounted warrior should take the place of Cavalry, or even a Knight.

 

[Padma]

While you are technically correct, it was done this way for playability and balance.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Yeah, I always thought it was funny that they had that in the ancient ages, but I guess balance wise it had to be this way.

 

[narmox]

Maybe it was the 'ancient age' for the Iroquois when the europeans showed up with horses.

 

[Frostyboy]

Yes, it was supposed to be ancient times for Hiawatha and co.
But Civ has never been so realistic anyway, pyramids working as food chambers, moving a unit taking 20 years and so on.

But the Mounted Warrior is surely one of my favorites. I didn't like at all that the Iroquis turned Agr Com with Conquests, so I changed them back again to Rel Exp. They are surely one of the best UU's in the ancient times.

 

[LLXerxes]

Well, it'sadding balance to the game. You make a better, fairer game.
What can we give the stats t a horse archer replacing knights or cavalry?

 

[garyg]

The Iroquois didn't really use horses in battle anyway. They fought mostly in heavily wooded areas where horses didn't work too well. The Western Plains Indians like the Souix would be a better fit. But the Iroquis are just a fun Civ to play. I don't get too wrapped up the historical accuracy. Just don't teach your children Civ history.

 

[Willem]

The Iroquois didn't really use horses in battle anyway. They fought mostly in heavily wooded areas where horses didn't work too well.

They're original range was in the North Eastern US, centred around the New York State area I believe. They eventually made their way into Ontario, Canada. There's now two reservations for them, one outside Brantford and the other outside Cornwall. And you're right, it would be better to have an Archer unit as the Iroquois UU, not a horse unit.