Who do you is better: Mansa or Shaka?

[Nubianmercenary]

: Whats the use of being rich if you havnt got an army to show for it?





NubianMercenary

[Nugog]

Science, space race, wonders, culture.

Many other options than beating your opponents into submission - although that is usually my favoured option

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Nubianmercenary
: Whats the use of being rich if you havnt got an army to show for it?





NubianMercenary

This is a non sequitur. Why would you not have a large army if you were richer? At the very least stronger finances enable a much stronger army - both in terms of quality (more advanced techs) and quantity (upkeep costs).

[Velociryx]

I agree with Lionheart...more money = faster tech = better units. It's really not an either/or proposition. Aside from that, while the Impi *is* a good UU, it's main strength is in the field (pillage/harassment/attacking units not inside the city)....its "goodness" stems from its extra point of movement, which helps you not at all vs. a city (where the Skirmisher is its equal--both having the same combat strength).

But Mansa doesn't really NEED the Skirmisher on the attack. As I mentioned, you're one tech away from copper/pop/chop/Axes...there's seldom a reason to make any other play with Mansa on the opener. The real power of the Skirmisher lies in the fact that if there is no near copper, it gives you a second early attack option that isn't resource dependent. That, coupled with FIN, and further combined with the flexibility of SPI makes him one tough cookie.

I like the Zulu UB tho...IMO, this is what makes the Zulu shine...the Impi is a solid unit, but with a fairly specific application.

-=Vel=-

[Nubianmercenary]

: I dont agree at all, without people in your cities, you wouldnt have money at all, and what do you need to build cities??? UNITS of course!





NubianMercenary

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Nubianmercenary
: I dont agree at all, without people in your cities, you wouldnt have money at all, and what do you need to build cities??? UNITS of course!

NubianMercenary

Of course.

But what exactly is your point.

[Nubianmercenary]

: The point is Shaka is better then Mansa, no mater how rich or economy based Mansa is...





NubianMercenary

[Velociryx]

....because......Shaka somehow has a monopoly on units?

*confused*

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

How come no one has mentioned the strength of the Skirmisher as a defender?

[Nubianmercenary]

: 'Kuciwalker'. I have mentioned the Skirmisher as a strong defender somewhere earlier in the thread. Casue some one was saying that the skirmisher was stronger on attack then defense, which is a useless accusation since Skirmishers replace the archer and not the axemen or anything that is used to attack.





NubianMercenary

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Velociryx
....because......Shaka somehow has a monopoly on units?

*confused*

-=Vel=-

I've never played Shaka. Maybe it's one of his traits

[JackRudd]

Shaka is the only leader whose UB replaces a building one of his traits gives him cheaply. Having looked at the building, its effect seems to be that of a sort of miniature Organized trait, which, combined with his actual Aggressive trait, makes him a decent warmonger.

I'd still rather play Mansa Musa, though. His traits could lend themselves to whatever strategy is appropriate to the position, and his UB looks tremendous.

[Dis]

I have yet to play as Shaka. Why would I when Mansa is better? .

But playing financial civs is an exploit. .

Interestingly my best games have been as the Koreans. Even though I don't care for the protective trait. Not sure why I've done so well with them. Must be the starting position.

[Nubianmercenary]

: How do you know if Mansa is better if you havnt played as him yet?????? *shakes head in confusion*





NubianMercenary

[Dis]

because financial civs are just better. Sad, but true. At least they are for my play style. As I said, my best games are with the Koreans.