Who do you is better: Mansa or Shaka?

[Nugog]

Oh - I can see where this will go...................

[DrSpike]

Yeah, take it to the history forum please. This thread is for discussing who you prefer from Mansa or Shaka in Civ4.

[Nubianmercenary]

: What you said is correct will9, there is no actual ONE arfican culture. But what you also said after that is wrong, Cultures in AFRICA can be described as being AFRICAN CULTURES. Just the same as how cultures in EUROPE can be described as being EUROPEAN. :
:
:As for whether Mansa is better then Shaka.... I have just brought warlords and have installed it. After playing as the Zulu, I have found that Militaristic wise, shaka is better. The Impi is a very good unit for both defense and a swift attacker. And its speed of "2" plus its added bonuses for terrain movement makes the Impi a fast, formiddable opponent. But for those of you who love making your people happy and keeping fairly wealthy, then Mansa is your man.
:
:
:Furthermore the Zulus' UB: "The Ikhanda" which replaces the "Barracks", is an awesome "catalsyt" for pumping out experienced units fast and efficiently. And it saves you 20% maitanence. So it is a good military building whether you have a small empire or a huge one, it doesnt matter.
:
:
:The only downfall about the Zulu Impi is that you require Iron in order to build it. I found that if you do get your hands on iron and start harvesting it right away, then in a small amount of time (if you play your cards right) you can forge a fast impi war-machine that can conquer all surrounding tribes in a matter of years (turns). For example, in one game I was the Zulu and I was facing 7 other civs. One of them being China. Well I invaded China and found that they had swordsman.
:
:
:But because their swordsmen were slower then my Impis', I was able to cut down thier forces, before they even reached my lands. This happened for about 30 turns before China asked for a peace treaty. Of course I declined then finished them off using the same tactic: "sending in Impis' to slow down thier invading forces while building stronger units like the swordsmen to follow on, then overtake thier cities.
:
:
:The fact is clear, Shaka is the better choice for war-loving players. And lets be honest, CIV IV favors those who have a military worthy amongest all others!




NubianMercenary

[AshenPlanet]

.

Most scientists and anthropologists and what have you consider North Africa to be part of Eurasia, FWIW.

Real scientists wouldn't consider those idiots as scientists at all.

More so than any other civ, Egypt is Africa, plain and simple.

.

[couerdelion]

I seems to me that, if Impis require Iron then the Zulu civ is more exposed because it has to research Ironworking early in the game. And when it gets Iron it might as well build swordsmen to capture cities and perhaps the odd axeman to protect all these units. So the spears get relegated to a pillaging role and most good pillaging sites require you to prise the improvement from a big grumpy security guard.

Mansa OTOH gets a special almost from the word go and doesn’t need any resources to build them. In terms of timing, he can send those units out early to pillage and perhaps grab a defenceless city. They’re even cheap enough to work as massed assault units to take out a rival very early.

To top this all of, he’s a great builder so can take his cheaply bought empire and continue to do what he does well and that is to storm the tech tree.

[Nubianmercenary]

"AshenPlan"t: Plz dont go on to argue unimportant subjects on this thread, we are disscussing whether Mansa or Shaka is better.

"couerdelion": The Impis are the same speed as a mounted unit, with the capabilities of an explorer. They are basically Skirmishers on steroids. And who would use skirmishers to attack anyways? They replace the Archer unit for gods sake.



NubianMercenary

[Dis]

there's a phrase called sub-saharan africa. That should clear up any confusion.

[Nubianmercenary]

: Look, "Dis" this isnt the damn history thread. Go take your silly accusations somewhere else thank you.




NubianMercenary

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Nubianmercenary
"couerdelion": The Impis are the same speed as a mounted unit, with the capabilities of an explorer. They are basically Skirmishers on steroids. And who would use skirmishers to attack anyways? They replace the Archer unit for gods sake.



NubianMercenary

Skirmishers are Str 4 archers so can be used to launch an early assault. Granted there not the most effective city raiders but then neither are Impis.

And Skirmishers can built built so far ahead of Impis the the value of the SKirmishers as an assault unit is far higher. Impis, at the time they are out, are merely "support" troops.

[Nubianmercenary]

: Although the Skirmisher can be built earlier then the Impi, the Impi is able to not only suuport or raid but if used properly, can become the back-bone of your armies. The skirmisher can be used as an attack unit, but there is no use, they are purely for defense, while Impis are quick (damn quick actually) and are useful for attacking melee units.




NubianMercenary

[Velociryx]

I gotta disagree. Skirms can be built something like 15 turns into a standard speed game. That means, if you go worker first, you can build Skirms right off the bat--without ever having built a warrior.

Given the timeframe you'll be attacking in with a Skirm force, you're likely to be facing Warriors and (some) Archers, and Skirms can eat those alive.

Mansa is a deadly rusher, and during the early part of the ancient age (where the game is truly won or lost), Mansa can *wreck* all his near neighbors before then can even mount a credible defense.

-=Vel=-

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Nubianmercenary
: Look, "Dis" this isnt the damn history thread. Go take your silly accusations somewhere else thank you.

I fail to see the accusation - am I missing something here?

[Nubianmercenary]

: Maybe you cant read good? - this whether Shaka or mansa is better hence the title "Who do you think is better: Mansa or Shaka?
:
:
:So if you want to talk about whether which civs are african go make your own THREAD or something ok?




NubianMercenary

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Nubianmercenary
: :So if you want to talk about whether which civs are african go make your own THREAD or something ok?




NubianMercenary

Not really important to me, but threads have a natural way of "sliding" to sorta related subjects

[Velociryx]

Mansa has enormous synergy that makes him one of my all time favorites to play.

He's the best of the Financial Civs (with his unique building giving him an additional 10% edge in the moolah department), and Spiritual is a "heavenly" (pardon the pun) civic in its own right, both for the turn advantage and the rockin' ability to tailor civics to the specific in-game situation. Thus, when Mansa is geared for peace, you can rely on the fact that he's TOTALLY geared for peace. When he's geared for war, watch out!

And he's got battle options. Not only is he two CHEAP techs away from his UU, but he's also only one tech from BW and USING copper (for this, you usually need three things....roads, mining, and BW....Mansa starts with two of the three.

When I play him, I'll generally head to BW first. If there's copper, I'm set and no one can touch me the rest of the game. If not tho, I'll downshift and grab the resourceless UU. I'm still set. No one can touch me the rest of the game.

Shaka can't do that as quickly, as easily, or as well, so in my book, it's no contest.

-=Vel=-