CIV OF THE WEEK: Zulus

[Buck Birdseed]

Not exactly good for a peaceful expansionist, are they?

I have probably been one of the most vocal proponents of the Zulus as an included civilisation, and I hate to say so but that description was a little lacklustre. No age regiments? No Rourke's Drift? A completely inaccurate description of the Mfecane, which usually is used as a name for the indirect conflicts that resulted from Shaka's displacement of neighbouring tribes, and no mention of everyone's favourite Mfecane-related statistic, 1 000 000 dead? More description of Shaka's decline and fall than of his rise and rule? No mention of the blackest day in Zulu history, the Battle of Blood River? Very limited mention of Shaka's most famous achievment, his tactical reorganisation, and only as an afterthought in the unit description. Instead we get a load of nonsense where the focus seems to be Shaka's madness, the apparent untrustworthiness of his successors, and how easily Zulu rebellions were put down. Have you got something against them, Dan? I remember that when doing them in a History of Southern Africa course a few years ago, they were by far the most interesting bit, and kept the entire class enthralled (unlike the rest of the course, which was mostly colonial/post-colonial). This certainly does not do that for me.

[Faboba]

The other signifact benifit of the impi people seem to have overlooked is the fact it needs nothing to build.

People mentioned horsemen, well if you're in a grassy, mountian filled, artic dessert region ( or a combination of these not involving plains ) then you'll probably not HAVE any horses, but your the zulus so who cares - you can just build impis to your hearts content as soon as you discover bronze working.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I don't like the name Impi, the names gives me images of small imps. If their abilities are proved to be poor compared to other UU I will no doubt end up calling them Gimpies instead.

The impis are king sh_t next to the Jaguar Warriors of the Aztecs. And if you feel impis should have more attack, well, Firaxis is including an editor ...

And I have to go with snapcase here - that was horrid treatment of the whole Shaka period.

[Rakki]

I don't get why they gave impis 1 2 2 when it would've probably been more logical to give them 2 1 2.... presumably they were trying real hard to differentiate it from the jaguar warrior or something when the two units were basically in essence the SAME (same tactical doctrine and both used to expand and both got wiped big time when the white men came and attacked)

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by orange
I don't know about that Comrade...

think about the benefits of a mobile phalanx for exploration purposes, especially early in the game. The problem with using a horseman is that it is easily defeated by barbs. At least now you'll have an easier time exploring

You are right. They are fast, they are cheap, and they are early. I do now see that they can be quite annoying.

I hereby state officially that I have changed my mind on the Impis.

By the way, expansionist/militarist is a formidable combo; they will be the ultimate culture demolishers.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
They are fast, they are cheap, and they are early. I do now see that they can be quite annoying.

Thats for sure, i think soon after Civ 3 is released, everyone will really hate the Zulus. The units are fast, hard to get rid of, and they retreat rather than being destroyed fully... very annoying

They will be a major pain for everyone, and potentially dangerous as well.

[Gangerolf]

I don't get it why Zimbabwe is the Zulu capital.
The city of [Great] Zimbabwe didn't have anything to do with the Zulus, did it?

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Martinus

And since they are expansionistic and would have most of Africa for themselves on the world map, they would get all these goodie huts in no time. Scary

Are you planning on only playing with the world map?!?! My god, nearly every single regular games that I or most of my comrades in Civ2-Strategy played were on RANDOM maps. With the dramatically increased map sizes in Civ3, don't you think that having a pre-defined map, esp. with non-random settings, would be irrelevant?

[Ironwood]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
I don't get it why Zimbabwe is the Zulu capital.
The city of [Great] Zimbabwe didn't have anything to do with the Zulus, did it?

Yeah, and the Iroqois didn't have a city called Salamanca. I think it's primarily because the Great Zimbabwe is a really cool African place, and the Zulu represent all Africa much in the same way the Iroqois represent all the North American tribes.

[The Commodore]

I'm starting to want to play these guys...if only so that I don't have to fight an AI using 'em.

[Green Giant]

The Zulu UU is rather lame in my opinion. Defending units are stationary a lot of the time. What use is an extra movement point? Half the reason for the UU is to get the "golden age" by winning a battle with your UU. To get a win with the Impi I would have to wait for the CPU to initiate combat with me, not the other way around.

I plan on rolling over the Zulu's consistently. While their Impis, with the weak attack rating, are dashing themselves against my defensive units, I will be investing in culture and annihlate them. Too easy.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Green Giant
What use is an extra movement point?

Survival by tactical retreat. You might need chariots or horsemen to annihilate them.

Half the reason for the UU is to get the "golden age" by winning a battle with your UU.

They can also build a wonder.

I plan on rolling over the Zulu's consistently. While their Impis, with the weak attack rating, are dashing themselves against my defensive units, I will be investing in culture and annihlate them.

If they are clever, they won´t dash against anything. If I were Mr. Zulu, I would use Impis to sprint into hill/forest/mountain bottleneck positions, and fortify there. I bet I would succeed in being annoying.