The Zulu Nation

So, most of us expect that the Zulu would be included, and in a general sense I'd like to talk about what we might expect for them as far as UA, UU, UB, etc.

More specifically though, I'd like to talk about the potential for a leader other than the Shaka. The Zulu are largely understood in terms of their warrior culture, and certainly Shaka embodies this, but I wonder if a new take on the Zulu might offer us a less simple, straightforward, warmongering civilization.

King Cetshwayo, largely known for leading the Zulu to victory against the British during Isandlwana, was certainly a hell of a warrior, but he was a skilled negotiator and ruler as well (such to the point that the British tried to place him back in power over his more volatile successors). I expect Shaka, but I'd be happy to be surprised.

Anyway, obvious UU: Impi, as in IV
UA: Something regarding the mobility of land units?

What do y'all think?

Shaka is the only reason people want the Zulu. No Shaka, might as well leave them out

Well，I think Zulu will remian the same UU&UB in civ4,like Ethiopia
And the UA should be some advantages when fighting in friendly territory&against civilizations in advanced era

Ethiopia had the Oromo Warrior (a major ethnic group) in Civ4, but Mehal Sefari (Ethiopian emperor guards) in 5.

I agree with King William I. If Shaka isn't the leader, leave them out.

I'm also in agreement; the Zulu are already a contentious choice according to most on these forums. The best argument for the Zulu is that they've been in the last four entries. Shaka has been the leader every time. At this point, it's hard to determine if the Zulu themselves are a 'hallmark' or if it is Shaka.

In any case, no Shaka = no Zulu.

I would be shocked if it's not Shaka (I'm not sure if shock --> Shaka counts as a pun, but if it does I disclaim any intention).

People have a tendency to suggest UUs and UBs, but Firaxis seems to prefer to UUs whenever possible. I made the suggestion of a Bantu Migrant UU, which replaces a Settler, is cheaper to build, and has three moves. That Bantu migration was probably the second most significant mass movement of people after the Polynesian expansion and would be cool to reflect in the Zulu, especially if they're the only Bantu civilization in the game.

I understand people have reservations about yet another early warmonger (especially as Assyria would naturally suit this as well). But I'm willing to overlook that for the Zulu: it's an iconic civ, and a geographical void, and somehow Civ just isn't Civ without an Impi rush.

A bonus against more advanced civilisations is absurd in the context of the game (by playing well, you miss out on the civ's bonus?) and also dead wrong historically. Isandlwana aside, the Zulus were actually pretty terrible at facing European colonists. Their golden age was their rapid and violent takeover of southern Africa before the clashes with the Boers and the British.

This is why Shaka and an early warmonger civ is the best option, in my view, even if it's also the modus operandi of a number of other leaders.

There are seven other new civs to do more interesting playstyles with.

Louis XXIV said:

I made the suggestion of a Bantu Migrant UU, which replaces a Settler, is cheaper to build, and has three moves.

Click to expand...

That would be really cool, and very powerful. Also quite novel, since there are no civilian UUs yet (a khan is barely a civilian in my book).

A cheaper, faster settler could be use to aggressively claim land/defensive position and be very popular IMO. The production of the first two settlers is often critical and at the heart of the early game.

I'd rather have this than another warrior UU rusher...

The Zulus are probably the easiest civ to predict:
Leader: Shaka
UU: Impi( could be like the Maya UU, a spearman that's available with mining instead of bronze working, or a spearman with more movement points)
UB: Kral(baracks replacement, units get double the XP they get from baracks)
UA: Something combat related like a bonus when fighting civs and city-states outside your territory

Louis XXIV said:

Bantu Migrant UU, which replaces a Settler, is cheaper to build, and has three moves. That Bantu migration was probably the second most significant mass movement of people after the Polynesian expansion and would be cool to reflect in the Zulu, especially if they're the only Bantu civilization in the game.

Click to expand...

Instead of "Bantu Migrant" just "Migrant", 4 stength (same as archer), and 100% defense against barbarians, 3 moves, ignores terrain movement cost, but not cheaper to build.



Basically this:

If Shaka is not the leader, we will not see the Zulu, but a variation like a Bantu amalgation civ or South Africa, I think that's pretty clear.

As for the set up of the Zulu, I feel there's a need for a distinct gameplay style for them. Early Warmongers are taken (Aztec, Huns, probably Assyria, even Rome and Greece, etc. ). I can't see a new way to spin that. Add to that the fact that they would be included in the context of the Scramble for Africa scenario, I can see them having a "Industrial Era" spin. The Impi can be a musket or rifleman replacement after all. This way, I also see them given a era-independent UI instead of a tech-bound UB.

I'm a fan myself of the 'Kraal' as a Unique Pasture Replacement, giving yields and a combat bonus to adjacent units. Ignoring zone of control (to go around) seems like a good bet for a UA. Top that off with a late-game cheap Impi 'to swarm' the enemy, I could see a unique tactic for them. You'd need to break their production city fast as they would reproduce their impis in no time. Sounds okay for the Scramble for Africa scenario, as well as the main game.

We'll see

EDIT: Funny comic, where's that from? (EDIT2: Duh, it's written on the comic...)
I can see the (Bantu) Migrant as a Unique Unit for the Zulu, though it'd need to fit into the whole design of the civ (and there'd need to be no other candidate for such a UU, like Native American Plain Indians, that "lack" other options for uniques)

I doubt the Zulu will be anything new or interesting. They'll be the same rehashed civ we had since civ1. Early warmonger at it's best, the interesting things will be reserved for other civs. The Zulu will only be included to satisfy the Zulu crowd that been demanding them since Vanilla.

I think the Zulu will have a non-expiring mild warmongering UA like the Japanese. And the Impi will be a spear/pike wielding replacement for the musketmen or riflemen with some advanced promotions.

Instead of making the units fancy, it should be the UA that helps them out. Like each land unit gets +1 movement, ignores zone of control.

As a Zulu player, you are all about mobility, mobility, mobility. Impi should be a spearman replacement with +15% flank attack and can move after attacking, bundled with its UA, you have a unit that gets bonus from attacking in a line that has 3 movement, ignores zone of control, and can move after attacking. I would definitely be able to use a swarm of them to defeat Riflemen division if I position them correctly.

Making the Impi a musket man replacement would definitely be more interesting then having it be a spearman replacement.
Maybe they could give the Zulu two UUs. One early Impi that replaces spearmen, so the typical early Impi rush people apparently love can occur, and the other UU a spear armed musketman replacement, call them Married Impi or something.

Well the idea in part of Civ is not to care about relative technological advancement as it happened in real history -- everyone starts from the same page at the same time and have to competitively tech up together.

Why should the Zulu have a spear-armed musketman, and not the Aztecs, Iroquois or Polynesians? It doesn't make much sense, especially as they'd be fighting alongside cannons and frigates and other up-to-date tech. Such a trait also gives the sense of the Zulus as being somewhat backwards which is dodgy ground to tread on..

Give the Zulu their spearman replacement, and make their unique factor their mobility and flanking.

mitsho said:

I'm a fan myself of the 'Kraal' as a Unique Pasture Replacement, giving yields and a combat bonus to adjacent units.

Click to expand...

So am I. It's a nice representation of the pastoral nature of Zulu (and other south african peoples) and gives them a defensive spin as well.

It's also worth mentioning that scenario gameplay doesn't have to follow exactly that of a normal game: see the Polynesian scenario, which had tougher Maori warriors more relevant to a later era. The same could be done with Impi vs. gunpowder-using Europeans.

Uberfrog said:

Well the idea in part of Civ is not to care about relative technological advancement as it happened in real history -- everyone starts from the same page at the same time and have to competitively tech up together.

Why should the Zulu have a spear-armed musketman, and not the Aztecs, Iroquois or Polynesians? It doesn't make much sense, especially as they'd be fighting alongside cannons and frigates and other up-to-date tech. Such a trait also gives the sense of the Zulus as being somewhat backwards which is dodgy ground to tread on..

Give the Zulu their spearman replacement, and make their unique factor their mobility and flanking.



So am I. It's a nice representation of the pastoral nature of Zulu (and other south african peoples) and gives them a defensive spin as well.

It's also worth mentioning that scenario gameplay doesn't have to follow exactly that of a normal game: see the Polynesian scenario, which had tougher Maori warriors more relevant to a later era. The same could be done with Impi vs. gunpowder-using Europeans.

Click to expand...

Excellent points. I'm reconsidering my suggestion.

Impi really should be a spearman replacement. The Zulu are just a Civ heritage civ, wouldn't make sense to have the unit be a later era unit simply because the people outside of civfanatics who want the Zulu want it to be as "tradition like as possible"

Why not a spear replacement? Because we already have those. The Iroquois, Aztecs and Polynesians are already included in the game and won't change. So if you want gameplay diversity, it needs to come from somewhere. I'm not saying the developers think the same way. Most probably the Impi will be a Ancient Era unit (or you'll see the outcry of some of the fanbase). I just feel that for gameplay purposes, a later era UU would be more interesting.

That said, the Zulu are the best candidate for a lategame native civ since their prime just lies ~200 years into the past, Hiawatha and the Iroquois are another 200 years, Moctezuma of the Aztecs more or less another 200 (funny how that adds up ). To be fair, the Kamehameha and the Polynesians are more or less at the same time range as the Zulu.

Of course they can change things from scenario to maingame, but wouldn't it be neat for clarity if they don't have to?

I'd also like to point out that the date system of Civ5 is all over the place, take f.e. Chichen Itza as a Medieval Tech, the Terracotta Army and Stonehenge comparatively late, etc. . It's a game after all, and the fun is what counts is what I'm trying to say