Zulus poorly designed I think

Venice, Songhai, Poland and Zulus poorly designed?!? As in you don't know how to beat such beatable civs or as in you would prefer them to be pushovers?

Isn't that the point? They are poorly designed.

If they're so beatable, maniplatable (is that a word), and/or they tend to fail from mid-game on, doesn't that make them poorly designed?
 
Guys his point isn't that he can't beat zulus, it's that every single game the zulus just end up taking over the other AIs which suggests that zulus might be poorly designed.

I don't find that it happens every game so meh I don't think it matters that much. Certainly when shaka does well, he does REALLY well, like Rome, but sometimes he just gets stopped instantly and just dies in his little corner with the entire world hating him. I don't think the designers were at all concerned in how well the AI civs would do against each other when balancing them, because it's mostly irrelevant.
 
Because my cash flow is usually "you are losing money" at this point. Even with roads.

Look I build more troops earlier than most of you do anyway. I've seen youtube videos where someone never bothers to build anything other than maybe one archer to go along with the starting warrior.

Not me buddy. The AI may suck at moving troops around, but I have two or three composite bowmen and about two spearmen (or one spearman, one warrior) defending my territory.

I had an insane game once where Ashurbanipal hit me with like 3 Siege Towers, 4 or so archers, and a bunch of warriors. Meanwhile I had like two archers and a warrior. I was like "Where did you find the time to build all this?"

Never again. Plus you guys poo poo barbarians. They may not take your city, but they can sure pillage your improvements. And I find them all over the place until cities start to spread cultural borders all over everything.

And really I am looking to take out my nearest neighbor after I have at least one market up.

You guys really don't ever run into negative income until markets? I guess it is because you don't build troops.

Even for a domination game where I mass build archers/CB I don't have -gpt until I start taking cities, but then again the extra city is required for increasing unit cap which is really the problem here. How else will I find the gold to upgrade into CB? And only in these domination game I would bother with currency, but I still don't build them until I have at least conquered capitals. Perhaps you're losing money because you have too many roads. City connection won't generate enough gold if the cities are too small by the way, and many times workers have more important things to do such as stragetic resource/lux than spend time on roads anyway. By the way, 2-3 CB is not even enough for taking cities, you need much much more than that.
 
Isn't that the point? They are poorly designed.

If they're so beatable, maniplatable (is that a word), and/or they tend to fail from mid-game on, doesn't that make them poorly designed?

No, because they are no different than any of the civs on Immortal (except Greeks, some of the time). Deity games can be tougher but good players tend not to differentiate one civ from another. Should they all be unbeatable, then? No, it would not be a 4x strategy game.
 
And really I am looking to take out my nearest neighbor after I have at least one market up.

You guys really don't ever run into negative income until markets? I guess it is because you don't build troops.

Most early gold comes from trading luxes and strategics for gpt. I have been as high as 50gpt at t50 (standard) before. Building a few troops won't change this significantly, especially if you went tradition (garrisoned troops have no maintence)
 
AI are too poor to buy lux and strategics for full gpt on lower difficulty, and if you also warmonger a lot, they won't even pay full value anyway.
 
Top Bottom