• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

[R&F] Should horses be required resources to build cannons and Artillery?

Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,818
Should horses be a required resources to build
- Renaissance Cannon
- Industrial Field Cannon
- Modern Artillery
or shouldn't?
What are the horses that tows these guns? are they specially bred or just a collection of generic 'cheap' horses teamed together to tow guns? I've read somewhere that Imperial German Army of the WW1 and Wehrmacht of the WW2 did use specially bred and fed Pommeranian to tow big guns. Did other nations do the same or prefer inferior rancher horses to do these jobs?
 
just begs the question of whether horses should be a natural resource at all, when for the most part they were bred in cities in captivity
 
Should horses be a required resources to build
- Renaissance Cannon
- Industrial Field Cannon
- Modern Artillery
or shouldn't?
What are the horses that tows these guns? are they specially bred or just a collection of generic 'cheap' horses teamed together to tow guns? I've read somewhere that Imperial German Army of the WW1 and Wehrmacht of the WW2 did use specially bred and fed Pommeranian to tow big guns. Did other nations do the same or prefer inferior rancher horses to do these jobs?
Having horses could improve the movement speed of all units - even for soldiers who don't ride horses, the benefit of horses in moving supplies would be tremendous - but I'm not sure how to best implement that. A simple "+1 to all units' movement if you have horses" would be dramatic, but then, armies that had horses had a dramatic advantage over those that didn't, so maybe it wouldn't be unrealistic.
 
No.

It seems Civ is really going for horses as intended for use by cavalry.

I think it would be too cumbersome to require at least some horses for every aspect of human labor from farming, to trade caravans, to pulling artillery and siege weapons, and so on. Although that would certainly be more "realistic". You would need so many many amounts of horses in order to make that happen.
 
Not sure why these units would require horses when those units don't have horses represented, while the knight that is shown riding a horse only requires iron?
 
No.

It seems Civ is really going for horses as intended for use by cavalry.

I think it would be too cumbersome to require at least some horses for every aspect of human labor from farming, to trade caravans, to pulling artillery and siege weapons, and so on. Although that would certainly be more "realistic". You would need so many many amounts of horses in order to make that happen.

You also have oxen that can do that

Who were a significant resource in Civ Revolutions
 
Not sure why these units would require horses when those units don't have horses represented, while the knight that is shown riding a horse only requires iron?
@Boris Gudenuf would say the same about how irrational Heavycavalry NEVER requires horses to build while he cited that Lightcavalry usually rides inferior 'cheap' horses to heavycavs (and shouldn't require horse!!) . and he cited that RESOURCE_HORSES is actually represents rare breeds or species of expensive warhorses like Desteriers or Coursers, which needs to be big to support heavily armored riders (including Cuirassiers)

How many centemeters is equal to '1 hand' which measures horse size and how many Grams (or Kilograms) is equal to '1 stone' (horse weight)?
 
Maybe one should just do away with Cavalry unit templates (UUs excepted), and give players the options to mount their infantry and archers on horseback (or elephantback) when deciding to recruit the unit.

That could be a start. Alternatively, give extra yields to Horse pastures in the endgame. Civ 5 had the Circus building, which provided free happiness, as long as its city has an improved Horse or Ivory in range. Such buildings would keep mounts relevant throughout time.
 
@Boris Gudenuf would say the same about how irrational Heavycavalry NEVER requires horses to build while he cited that Lightcavalry usually rides inferior 'cheap' horses to heavycavs (and shouldn't require horse!!) . and he cited that RESOURCE_HORSES is actually represents rare breeds or species of expensive warhorses like Desteriers or Coursers, which needs to be big to support heavily armored riders (including Cuirassiers)

How many centemeters is equal to '1 hand' which measures horse size and how many Grams (or Kilograms) is equal to '1 stone' (horse weight)?
I'm not saying Heavy Cavalry shouldn't require horses. But they probably should over the siege and ranged units in game who seem to actually move around on the map without horses, which was my point.
Also there's no reason why the Courser unit shouldn't require horses if the horse resources is supposed to represent the Courser type. :p
 
Something really needs to be done with iron beyond “You reveal none restart”

Maps with little or no iron within an easily accessible area are certainly a pain but not unworkable. You will almost certainly have horses and can war early with Horsemen and archers/crossbows, then upgrade to coursers with siege support against walls and upgrade Warriors directly to Musketmen, pretty much ignoring iron altogether. Alternatively you could trade for Iron, build jebel bakar and/or get suzerainity of a City State that has iron.

I'm currently going through a game as Bull Moose Teddy where I have literally zero iron and I'm now well positioned to easily win a domination victory. I've posted my progress on the strategy sub-forum if you want to check it out.
 
Here are the Historical Options:

"Heavy Cavalry" or "Battle Cavalry" as it was starting to be called in the 18th century CE, always used heavier horses, or at least more muscular horses (which isn't always reflected in the usual "height-only" measurements), and that included early heavy chariots, which are specifically noted in a Mitanni manual as requiring 'big' horses.
Light Cavalry - which usually means unarmored or More Lightly Armored than Heavy Cavalry, could use smaller or less muscular, frequently bred for speed horses. On the other hand, light cavalry did not necessarily require less training for man and horse, and therefore might be almost as expensive to Maintain as heavy cavalry - Roman manuals describe very elaborate training facilities ad exercises for their 'light' javelin and sword-armed cavalry that would not be cheap to build and keep in near-constant use.

People who are not expected to fight on horseback always get the 'leftover' horses. Whether they are mounted infantry or Dragoons, or Peter the Great's Corps Volante ("Flying Column"), their mounts tended to be whatever was available on four legs and We Thing It Was Alive This Morning.

The heavy/muscular and well-trained mounts for Heavy cavalry were always expensive, both in the training and growing time (no European Army from 17th to 20th centuries, when there are good records, would accept any horse less than 5 - 6 years old, so someone has to feed those critters for those years before you can get any use out of them) and in the feeding: every horse requires acreage for pasture, and frequently 'extra' food like oats/fodder to supplement the pastures, especially in winter. This costs money to maintain, and takes away acreage that could feed people.
Lighter and less-trained horses, if the pasture acreage is available, can largely feed themselves - witness the herds of 'wild' horses in various parts of the world even today.

And, if Heavy Chariots required Heavy Horses, the average Modern Era 'light' howitzer weighs about 5 times more than any chariot and every army using horses in quantity (specifically, the German and Soviet armies in WWII) recently had a special classification for the largest horses: "Draft" meaning suitable to haul heavy wagons and guns. In the 18th century, the average Field Gun/Artillery (French 8-lber, for instance) required a 6-horse team to haul the gun, and 4 - 6 horse teams for each caisson carrying ammunition for the gun - a total of 15 - 30 or more Draft Horses per gun. In every European army, the artillery used up far more 'heavy' horses than the cavalry did.

For Reference: a 'Hand' is 4 inches, or 10.16 centimeters. The term has been used since ancient Egypt, when a Hand was 5 'Digits' (fingers), or about 94 millimeters. The 4 inch Hand was standardized in England in 1540 CE by Henry VIII, and by International Inch standards in 1959.
A Stone is 14 pounds, or 6.35 kilograms, and is now used strictly in the United Kingdom to measure body weight, although back in the late Renaissance 'measuring stones' of more or less standard weights ranging from 5 to 40 pounds were used to weigh everything in balance scales all over northern Europe. The Russian Army for a while even measured their howitzers by a 'pud' that was roughly 16 pounds each: the standard field howitzers were 1 Pud and 1/2 Pud.
 
Last edited:
Maps with little or no iron within an easily accessible area are certainly a pain but not unworkable. You will almost certainly have horses and can war early with Horsemen and archers/crossbows, then upgrade to coursers with siege support against walls and upgrade Warriors directly to Musketmen, pretty much ignoring iron altogether. Alternatively you could trade for Iron, build jebel bakar and/or get suzerainity of a City State that has iron.

I'm currently going through a game as Bull Moose Teddy where I have literally zero iron and I'm now well positioned to easily win a domination victory. I've posted my progress on the strategy sub-forum if you want to check it out.

I know that’s an option, but I find that you roll the AI so effortlessly with horsie armies I basically made it a house rule not to use them
 
Here are the Historical Options:

"Heavy Cavalry" or "Battle Cavalry" as it was starting to be called in the 18th century CE, always used heavier horses, or at least more muscular horses (which isn't always reflected in the usual "height-only" measurements), and that included early heavy chariots, which are specifically noted in a Mitanni manual as requiring 'big' horses.
Light Cavalry - which usually means unarmored or More Lightly Armored than Heavy Cavalry, could use smaller or less muscular, frequently bred for speed horses. On the other hand, light cavalry did not necessarily require less training for man and horse, and therefore might be almost as expensive to Maintain as heavy cavalry - Roman manuals describe very elaborate training facilities ad exercises for their 'light' javelin and sword-armed cavalry that would not be cheap to build and keep in near-constant use.

People who are not expected to fight on horseback always get the 'leftover' horses. Whether they are mounted infantry or Dragoons, or Peter the Great's Corps Volante ("Flying Column"), their mounts tended to be whatever was available on four legs and We Thing It Was Alive This Morning.

The heavy/muscular and well-trained mounts for Heavy cavalry were always expensive, both in the training and growing time (no European Army from 17th to 20th centuries, when there are good records, would accept any horse less than 5 - 6 years old, so someone has to feed those critters for those years before you can get any use out of them) and in the feeding: every horse requires acreage for pasture, and frequently 'extra' food like oats/fodder to supplement the pastures, especially in winter. This costs money to maintain, and takes away acreage that could feed people.
Lighter and less-trained horses, if the pasture acreage is available, can largely feed themselves - witness the herds of 'wild' horses in various parts of the world even today.

And, if Heavy Chariots required Heavy Horses, the average Modern Era 'light' howitzer weighs about 5 times more than any chariot and every army using horses in quantity (specifically, the German and Soviet armies in WWII) recently had a special classification for the largest horses: "Draft" meaning suitable to haul heavy wagons and guns. In the 18th century, the average Field Gun/Artillery (French 8-lber, for instance) required a 6-horse team to haul the gun, and 4 - 6 horse teams for each caisson carrying ammunition for the gun - a total of 15 - 30 or more Draft Horses per gun. In every European army, the artillery used up far more 'heavy' horses than the cavalry did.

For Reference: a 'Hand' is 4 inches, or 10.16 centimeters. The term has been used since ancient Egypt, when a Hand was 5 'Digits' (fingers), or about 94 millimeters. The 4 inch Hand was standardized in England in 1540 CE by Henry VIII, and by International Inch standards in 1959.
A Stone is 14 pounds, or 6.35 kilograms, and is now used strictly in the United Kingdom to measure body weight, although back in the late Renaissance 'measuring stones' of more or less standard weights ranging from 5 to 40 pounds were used to weigh everything in balance scales all over northern Europe. The Russian Army for a while even measured their howitzers by a 'pud' that was roughly 16 pounds each: the standard field howitzers were 1 Pud and 1/2 Pud.

Conclusions, in game terms (Pre GS)
1. All Heavy Cavalry (except tanks, which should. and in my mod project, is an entirely new 'successor' class not affected by anticavalry debuffs) NEEDS horses.
2. Field Cannon (And is this includes 'renaissance' cannons like culverins), Howitzer (Late Renaissance siege unit that should be in the place of bombards) Artillery, and maybe 'Rifled Cannons of two kind' also NEED horses
3. Dragoons (again. as mod unit) DON'T need horses
What about Light Cavalry? (And the name of Light cavalry in Renaissance Era. if Dragoon is to be 'Modern Cavalry' which no longer affects by Anticavalry debuffs because they fight dismounted, And lancers have their own codes that... still affected by Anticavalry debuffs but has strong attacks against everyone else (Lances outreaches bayonets and equals to pikes) if on offensive and not defensive). the definition of RESOURCE_HORSE also implied Light cav mounts as well and therefore they need RESOURCE_HORSE as well

Light Cavalry - which usually means unarmored or More Lightly Armored than Heavy Cavalry, could use smaller or less muscular, frequently bred for speed horses. On the other hand, light cavalry did not necessarily require less training for man and horse, and therefore might be almost as expensive to Maintain as heavy cavalry
 
Back
Top Bottom