Mounted Warrior

[JBearIt]

At first glance, I thought the whole mounted warrior thing was a little idiotic, especially when the "civ of the week" essay admitted that mounted warrors were more appropriate to the Sioux (why not just call the civ Sioux, then?). However, we can think of it this way...in the alternative universe of a civilization game, the Iroquois were so successful, they subsumed (or united) all of the other North American indian tribes (including the Sioux). Also having read Dan's article on the Appolyton site, he does make a good point about ahistorical timing such as finding uranium in the 1500s. I don't think many of you complained when playing Civ2 you had howitzers in the 1500s and were laying waste to the competing civs.

 

[LKendter]

I don't think many of you complained when playing Civ2 you had howitzers in the 1500s and were laying waste to the competing civs.

Actually, you are right about early tech. 1855 and I am research future tech 50.


However, when it comes to the special unit, I don't like to work with an "alternative universe".

 

[Dearmad]

And more importantly if they were sold on the mounted warrior unit Firaxis should NOT have made it a BA unit- it should have matched its actual appearence time better and been a unit that was comparable to musketeers, not something contemporary to Legions! It should have stats that would allow it to be an exceelent mobile unit that fought against muskets (at least).

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Would have been better not to have the Iroquois civ says me: a young, white, middle-class male...WHEN we could of had the Ottoman Turks!

 

[DaEezT]

omg, i don't understand what the problem about the mounted warrior is. Civ has never been and will never be realistic, not even the slightest bit. So why going into realism for a unit like a fanatic. It's just a game and no interactive history book.
for me, i don't care. they could have given them a slot mashine as special unit: 0/0/1 , when fortified inside the influence of a city that square produces extra commerce but one content citizen becomes unhappy for losing money.

 

[loduke]

I don't understand why this has your collective panties in a bunch. There are other historical inaccuracies within the CIV universe, and other nonsensical things as well.

Such as...

Why are we allowed to play as the Americans in 4000 BC? We Americans didn't exist until well into the AD years.

Why does building the Pyramids put a granary in all your cities? Just what do the pyramids have to do with food storage?

How is that ANY of the leaders of whatever Civ you choose to play could be the leaders back in 4000 AD all the way through their exisitence?


Very simply, some licence needs to be taken during the creation of a game. In the case of the Iroqouis, just think of them as the collective Native American tribes, as the description from Firaxis says they are. Ok, so the American Indians aren't supposed to get horses until the settlers introduce them, but once they do, the Mounted Warrior was a part of the American Indian culture. So Firaxis has taken a little bit of a license by letting them have the Mounted Warrior a little earlier, (but only if they have access to horses). I say, so what?

They have not introduced a unit that never existed, and in terms of gameplay balance, they have probably determined that the Mounted Warrior gives the Iroqouis what they need in order to remain competitive in the game.

Most of the games that I play are on random maps anyway, so the historical inaccuracy of having horses earlier will be much more likely to happen anyway. By the same token, it's equally likely that if I play as the Romans, I might not gain access to Iron until much later in history than they really did and will never be able to build Legions during the historically accurate time.

The point is, if every game you played were simply an exercise in recreating history as it was, then the game would get boring quickly, don't you think?

Just my two cents.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

By Karl Marx The Penguin
Firaxis add this unique unit feature to give added realism

Surely not. Surely they are not that dumb. I thought they introduced special units to increase sales (to lamebrains or the strategically challenged).

By DaEezT
Civ has never been and will never be realistic

Civ has always been realistic. Although it does seem to be a little under threat for the new one. You are looking for the wrong kind of realism. Units, places, times are not meant to map to history... It's the dynamics that are meant to mean something.... but I've said it all before.

 

[Vinc]

Firstly, I thought that it would have been better to have the Brave. But, when I read what Dan said on the Apolyton Forum, I now think that Mounter Warriors may be cool since it represents all native americans...

By the way, sometimes people are criticizing some things about the game, but I just want to thanf Firaxis for making Civilisation III.

Thanks a lot, guys, you're doing great!!

 

[King of England]

I would have preferred a modified version of the musketeer. There are too many ancient special units in the game and not enough renaissance/colonial era special units.

 

[DaEezT]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife

Civ has always been realistic.

true.
i can fly my missiles from one sub to aother
my government is democracy still i am neither elected nor do i have to ask anyone if i am allowed to build that city there or that battleship here.
my warrior was build in 3800 bc and in 2000 AD it still stands in the same place without having died of old age.
my battleship needs several turns(= several years) to go around the world.
i can bribe a city that is in the middle of the enemy empire and all it's citizens (several million) happily join my country.
I am immortal (or how else could i live for more than 6000 years)
my settler is being attacked by an elephant and wins...
how about the effects of wonders? e.g. how come that a single building (call it pyramids or make a scenario and call it whatever you want) can enable every city, no matter how far away to store it's grain in it or make granaries appear in every city?
my stealth bombers stay in the air for 2 rounds (=2 years)
and so on...

 

[LKendter]

Congrats DaEezT,
very effective arguement to END the realism debate!

Add a few more.
The magic Veteran Phalanx that can defend versus GUNS (musketeers).

When Nuclear power appears, ALL ships (even transports???) magically gain +1 movement without any retrofit time.

Infinite speed railroads. They helped, but they don't reach light speed

Wonders of the world are indestructible, not to mention unreal effects.

Transforming the Artic into pure grassland.

Desert Oasis the best source of FOOD

My favorite - The magic canal! Build a city on a one space land mass, and you magically have the Panama canal between the two bodies of water. Don't you love ships going down main street.

Lets not waste time argueing on realism

 

[Knight-Dragon]

"Lets not waste time argueing on realism"

Well, this gives us something to do until the game actually ships. Till then, we will cont to ***** and rant and ramble about every single weeny teeny little detail in the game.
Comes Oct 30, I strongly suspect these forums will go unearthly silent since most will be playing Civ3 like hell instead and realism can go hang (for a few days anyway).

 

[LKendter]

On the issue of mounted warrior - When I see the Iroquis, I will think of the Cowboy and Indian movies. It will produce a racist and steroetypical attitude.

Comes Oct 30, I strongly suspect these forums will go unearthly silent since most will be playing Civ3 like hell instead and realism can go hang (for a few days anyway).

How about a few MONTHS!

 

[DaEezT]

Originally posted by lkendter
When I see the Iroquis, I will think of the Cowboy and Indian movies. It will produce a racist and steroetypical attitude.

You should hear me speak. all those years of watching smurfs as a little kid didn't sit well with me...

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

DaEezT, did you only read my first sentence or are you playing to the gallery?

All your examples are irrelevant. The realism is not in the tokens it is in the game dynamics. Movement, weapons, buildings, units, names of civilizations, wonders of the world... these are nothing more than extended phenotypes (look it up and read the book if you like). They are the visible surface of the game, not what it is about.

If you want realism in those things go and play wargames.

Civ offers:

-complex resource management
-balancing the need to build and research and explore and defend (or attack) and expand
-finding a working combination or sequence of research projects
-coping with the problems of terrain and exploiting the environment
-managing your relationships with your neighbours
-coping with population growth

I could go on all night, but perhaps you get the picture.

If you come across some of the other topics I have debated you will see that I argue for and against various changes in detail, but not from the point of view of the realism or lack of it in the detail, rather because of what it can do to the game structure.

I know I have explained these things more clearly before, but I am tired tonight.

 

[redsoxrule85]

ok if you want to say that civ iii is realistic because of its dynamics, you just contradicted yourself on the realism of civ 3, because special units are not dynamics, they are, like you said, tokens.

if you werent the one saying that you hated the mounted warrior i apologize, i got confused. i just hate that people are dissing a game they never played, and thats coming with great esteem from people who have seen it, and with a great background


DaEezT at least youre of you are making sense! all ive ever heard in these forums is how bad of a job sid and firaxis are doing, when they have made this game better. youre right, it doesnt have to be realistic to be FUN and im not buying the game for being REALISTIC. im buying the game for being FUN, and if you guys want a realistic game, get age of kings(oh wait, those buildings are disproportionate to the units and land).

just let them make the game, give them ideas without attacking them, and they will be grateful they have such nice fans that support the developers of their favorite games

thank you for reading

 

[Vinc]

Guys, Civ 3 has realistic features, but it's a GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't forget that we will buy it and play hours on it for FUN!!! So you don't have to argue on if it's realistic or not, it's a GAME for FUN!!!

Have fun everybody

 

[Knight-Dragon]

"How about a few MONTHS!"

Some of us live outside the States. The game won't be appearing for awhile in our backyard. So we'll still be coming here for awhile in the first few days ........

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by DaEezT


You should hear me speak. all those years of watching smurfs as a little kid didn't sit well with me...

And what nationatility you think as the smurfs?

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Dear redsoxrules85,

It must be great to think up something clever and not have to bother validating it before speaking. It makes being clever so easy. The "token" of special units represents a dynamic that diminishes the game.

If the specialness of the special units had merely been in their graphic design (e.g. a different picture for a warrior in each civ) then there would be no problem. But they are part of a game device which unduly constrains the nature of evolving societies.

This is both unrealistic (as in the real world the failure of peoples to behave like their stereotype and their ability to evolve their defining character over time has time and again confounded their neighbours and rivals) and also undesireable in game terms because it allows strategies based on predictable (or at least partially predictable) future events.

It is a major appeal of the game that the player does not know what is going to happen in the future. The most satisfying challenge is to be prepared for the unexpected.

There are several threads where people are laying out their game plan interms of exploiting the predictable benefits of the special units and the associated military and economic advantages. But in history no one ever predicted (in a useable way) a future golden age and know "golden age" was ever got without hard work and a fortuitous combination of circumstances.

On the issue of the mounted warrior for the Iroquois, they can have that or the sherman tank or the longbow or anything else (in the context of course that they should have no special abilities or effects). The names of the civs are cosmetic. They are only there to provide a comfort zone. your apology is accepted.

By the way, if you are referring to civ3, I have not seen it and am unlikely to this year. My observations are based on how it has been described and are focussed on a desire for it to be an enhancement on the primary theme of the original game, exploiting the greater power of modern machines to be able to add greater depth and refining or developing new themes in its interpretation of human society and its dynamics.

If that counts as "dissing" the game, then I am guilty, although I don't really inderstand the word "diss"; what is its etymon?