Zulu Discussion

Tsar NicholasII said:

They weren't conquered earlier because:
A) The New World had gold, spices, cocoa, prosperous farming soil, stuff that Europe wanted so they conquered it first where as Africa's only had the slave trade that Europe wanted.

B) the Zulu tribe was completely insignificant in the wider view of Africa until 1816 when the Kingdom was actually founded

C) have you read about the Anglo-Zulu War? They had 3-6x times the casualty rates in every battle they fought in, even the ones that they won.

Click to expand...

I still fundamentally disagree that the Impi could not stand up to early gun powder units such as Musketmen, Musketeers, and Conquistadors. Rifemen and Gattling Guns is another story.

A) The European powers thought it was easier to fight each other over territory than fight the tribes in South Africa. Darkest Africa as it was called back then was believed to be unconquerable. Renaissance era European maps even had warnings over this part of Africa saying: "Here be dragons."

B) There was a larger Zulu culture that existed before the founding of the Zulu Kingdom. Their culture is thousands of years old and is the reason why Zulu were included in BNW.

C) The Zulu had lots of causalities because of the tactics they used which included charging into enemy fire. If Impi closed the distance to melee then the gun powder unit would get slaughtered. Casualty rates are somewhat non-important in real warfare. Who was it that famously said "for every 10 of my troops you kill I will kill one of your troops and still win the war?" The Zulu only lost the war because they were fighting against Gattlings and high powered industrial rifles. The honest historian understands the difference between industrial warfare of the late 19th century and the crude muskets used in the time of Henry VIII.

There is high degree of historical accuracy in BNW with the Zulu Impi being able to dominate Musketeers but are then defeated by riflemen and Gattling guns.

Novu said:

I still fundamentally disagree that the Impi could not stand up to early gun powder units such as Musketmen, Musketeers, and Conquistadors. Rifemen and Gattling Guns is another story.

A) The European powers thought it was easier to fight each other over territory than fight the tribes in South Africa. Darkest Africa as it was called back then was believed to be unconquerable. Renaissance era European maps even had warnings over this part of Africa saying: "Here be dragons."

Click to expand...

That is not just related to African tribes but to all sorts of things such as diseases and difficult terrain - many colonies (also in the New world) failed because of that. For example, Congo was not the only colony that the Belgians had. You just don't know about the others because they all didn't work out. It explains why areas such as present Namibia and Congo were colonized so lately while others with a strategic and hospital environment were colonized earlier. The Cape colony for example had conditions similar to the Mediterranean climate.
And you shouldn't take old/ancient maps too serious, sometimes they were partially framed. If I recall correctly, the Carthaginians were the first to sail from the Mediterranean to western Europe. They depicted the waters around the area as very hostile, with all sorts of sea monsters. They pretty much tried to demotivate anyone else from trying to steal their trade routes.

B) There was a larger Zulu culture that existed before the founding of the Zulu Kingdom. Their culture is thousands of years old and is the reason why Zulu were included in BNW.

Click to expand...

No, they were included for the reason of massive fan request (which they admitted several times in interviews). Their civ is purely based on warfare, there are no bonuses for culture or anything else related to the expansion. They intended to let this be the last expansion and so added a lot of fan requested civs .

C) The Zulu had lots of causalities because of the tactics they used which included charging into enemy fire. If Impi closed the distance to melee then the gun powder unit would get slaughtered. Casualty rates are somewhat non-important in real warfare. Who was it that famously said "for every 10 of my troops you kill I will kill one of your troops and still win the war?" The Zulu only lost the war because they were fighting against Gattlings and high powered industrial rifles. The honest historian understands the difference between industrial warfare of the late 19th century and the crude muskets used in the time of Henry VIII.

Click to expand...

Though it is true that they willingly were sacrificing their troops, this doesn't mean that they a good match against the British. The British underestimated them from their experiences with other African tribes ('They rise up, perform a brave assault which is harshly being crushed and the rebellion is over') and ignored the warnings from the Boers which had previous experiences with the Zulu - which also effectively stood their ground against the Zulu. The British had few numbers and were ill prepared against the massive charging numbers of the Zulu. The commander in charge had no experience and in the rising chaos the British prepared their lines poorly. Because the British lost the first battle, the empire got motivated to crush them because with a massive colonial empire there is no room for losing battles against those they try to control. The Zulu made a Pyrrhic victory, nothing more.
Whenever casualty rates are non-relevant in warfare is debatable. Both in the present as in the past.

EricTheGreat12 said:

I know: it seems as if G&k goes well with the Zulus. I think Netherlands would have done better in BNW.

Finnaly, I opened this thread after a month of emptiness !! !!

Click to expand...

G&K was mainly about the Renaissance in Europe, religion (and the wars between religions) and the (fall of the) Roman empires. The Netherlands perfectly fits the first two as the country rised in the early Renaissance and religious freedom was the main motivator of its independence battle against the Spanish. Together with the addition of the Spanish to represent the Iberian peninsula, I think those are the main reasons why The Netherlands was preferred over for example Portugal. I think that NL was a perfect match for the expansion. They would have also fitted the theme of BNW but in a lesser extend than Portugal. The Zulu fit BNW better due to the SfA scenario.

Novu said:

Casualty rates are somewhat non-important in real warfare. Who was it that famously said "for every 10 of my troops you kill I will kill one of your troops and still win the war?"

Click to expand...

I believe it's attributed to Ho Chi Minh. The Vietnamese army had AK-47s, though. If they had short stabbing spears, he probably would have lost because it would have been 100 troops killed for each one killed. Casualty numbers aren't the only factor in war, but they certainly are a factor. Look to Gettysburg if you want an example. The key is casualty rate as a percentage of the population. If that gets too high, you're screwed. You can also look to France during World War I and the crisis towards the end of the war which was attributable to too many casualties.

Novu said:

B) There was a larger Zulu culture that existed before the founding of the Zulu Kingdom. Their culture is thousands of years old and is the reason why Zulu were included in BNW.

Click to expand...

The reason the Zulu are included in BNW is that they've been in every single game of the series, stretching all the way back to the first one, and long time fans (like me) were surprised and annoyed that they still hadn't made an appearance in Civ V. If the Zulu weren't already a staple of the Civ series, I doubt they would have been chosen for BNW over a grander and longer-lived African empire like the Kongo or the Benin. I mean, don't get me wrong; I'm thrilled they're coming back, and I'm not saying they shouldn't be. But let's not kid ourselves. They're in because they're a series tradition, not because their culture is old.

Hey this is starting to go the way of The Shoshone thread.

Louis XXIV said:

I believe it's attributed to Ho Chi Minh. The Vietnamese army had AK-47s, though. If they had short stabbing spears, he probably would have lost because it would have been 100 troops killed for each one killed. Casualty numbers aren't the only factor in war, but they certainly are a factor. Look to Gettysburg if you want an example. The key is casualty rate as a percentage of the population. If that gets too high, you're screwed. You can also look to France during World War I and the crisis towards the end of the war which was attributable to too many casualties.

Click to expand...

And it should be mentioned that AK-47s were considered state of the art weaponry back then.

Or just look at the Battle of Teutoberg Forest. 20,000 men died in those two days, and as a result Rome completely halted all attempts to conquer Germania.

EDIT: Yeah, this might get a little historically charged. Anyway, the Zulu in the game look like a hyper charged version of the Huns, what with all the bonuses they have. The Ikanda might make them seem slightly overpowered, since they can function in ancient and modern eras.

Novu said:

I still fundamentally disagree that the Impi could not stand up to early gun powder units such as Musketmen, Musketeers, and Conquistadors. Rifemen and Gattling Guns is another story.

A) The European powers thought it was easier to fight each other over territory than fight the tribes in South Africa. Darkest Africa as it was called back then was believed to be unconquerable. Renaissance era European maps even had warnings over this part of Africa saying: "Here be dragons."

B) There was a larger Zulu culture that existed before the founding of the Zulu Kingdom. Their culture is thousands of years old and is the reason why Zulu were included in BNW.

C) The Zulu had lots of causalities because of the tactics they used which included charging into enemy fire. If Impi closed the distance to melee then the gun powder unit would get slaughtered. Casualty rates are somewhat non-important in real warfare. Who was it that famously said "for every 10 of my troops you kill I will kill one of your troops and still win the war?" The Zulu only lost the war because they were fighting against Gattlings and high powered industrial rifles. The honest historian understands the difference between industrial warfare of the late 19th century and the crude muskets used in the time of Henry VIII.

There is high degree of historical accuracy in BNW with the Zulu Impi being able to dominate Musketeers but are then defeated by riflemen and Gattling guns.

Click to expand...

A) that's mostly because early guns sucked. The main reason why the Haitian slave rebellion worked, for example, is because the French guns sucked and the Haitians were hopped up on cocaine.
B) no. Well, kind of, but mostly no. The people obviously had culture and roots from thousands of years of South African history, but the Zulu clan was founded in the early 1700s. You might as well say that the United States has thousands of years of history and culture because of all of the peoples who have influenced it, especially since there were English colonies in North America before there were Zulus.
C) yeah, that's why the British still won after having three times as many casualties.

Can we get back to game-related discussion of Zulu, I don't want to see another thread closed because it derails into historical discussion.

There isn't much else to talk about. The Zulu are in and the ability is kind of close to Germany's, but just different enough. The building gives the Zulu some nice unique promotions, kind of like the kris warrior gets unique promotions. The unit is unique and now replaces the unit it should've ever since the first time the Zulu were ever in a civ game, just for chronology's sake. The leader has a goatee and a medusa-looking headdress. They're going to be focused on war, kind of like they always have been.
The conversation has evolved past that, just like any good conversation should and I have never understood why this site sees that as a bad thing, regardless of circumstances.

Novu said:

I still fundamentally disagree that the Impi could not stand up to early gun powder units such as Musketmen, Musketeers, and Conquistadors. Rifemen and Gattling Guns is another story.

A) The European powers thought it was easier to fight each other over territory than fight the tribes in South Africa. Darkest Africa as it was called back then was believed to be unconquerable. Renaissance era European maps even had warnings over this part of Africa saying: "Here be dragons."

B) There was a larger Zulu culture that existed before the founding of the Zulu Kingdom. Their culture is thousands of years old and is the reason why Zulu were included in BNW.

C) The Zulu had lots of causalities because of the tactics they used which included charging into enemy fire. If Impi closed the distance to melee then the gun powder unit would get slaughtered. Casualty rates are somewhat non-important in real warfare. Who was it that famously said "for every 10 of my troops you kill I will kill one of your troops and still win the war?" The Zulu only lost the war because they were fighting against Gattlings and high powered industrial rifles. The honest historian understands the difference between industrial warfare of the late 19th century and the crude muskets used in the time of Henry VIII.

There is high degree of historical accuracy in BNW with the Zulu Impi being able to dominate Musketeers but are then defeated by riflemen and Gattling guns.

Click to expand...

The Zulu lost the war because they were armed with spears and cow hide shields and they were losing too many men. The British underestimated them, which is the primary reason why they lost Isandlwana. The only time casualty rates don't matter is when you have enough men to sustain them, like the Russians in nearly every war they've fought. There were only 2 Gatling Guns present late in the war.

As to whether they could beat musket armed units is a different story, if it was a 1:1 ratio the Zulu would probably lose to the Musketeers of the Guard or Napoleon's Grande Armee. Though it certainly would be an interesting scenario.

Does the Ikanda give the promotion vs. gunpowder units to gunpowder units or does it only affect pre-gunpowder units? If it carries over to Musketmen that would be kinda OP in my opinion. The feel that I got from the Zulu was that they are great for conquest in the Medieval Era and and o.k. later on due to their ability.

Also, do the Zulu get any benefits from the Military Tradition policy that grants 25% more experience from combat or is it like Japan and Populism?

Tsar NicholasII said:

The Zulu lost the war because they were armed with spears and cow hide shields and they were losing too many men. The British underestimated them, which is the primary reason why they lost Isandlwana. The only time casualty rates don't matter is when you have enough men to sustain them, like the Russians in nearly every war they've fought. There were only 2 Gatling Guns present late in the war.

As to whether they could beat musket armed units is a different story, if it was a 1:1 ratio the Zulu would probably lose to the Musketeers of the Guard or Napoleon's Grande Armee. Though it certainly would be an interesting scenario.

Click to expand...

The Zulu lost because they were using a medieval unit in the industrial era. As the poster Awesome mentioned: Early guns sucked. In CiV early guns are probably too powerful. Musketmen have 24 strength and Musketeers have 28 strength. That is compared to Knights that are only 20 strength and require horses or Pikemen and their puny 16 strength. The 50% bonus against gun powder the Impi receive balances that out by giving Impi an effective 24 strength against gun powder units. Historically this bonus is completely justified.

Enough with the history before the thread gets closed.

Actually, there's something I'm not clear on. Is it that the Zulus get +25% experience, or that they need 20/25% less experience to get promotions? The former seems a bit underwhelming - since fractions are rounded down, it seems to amount to +1XP for each melee attack/defense and, if you also have Military Tradition, +1XP for shooting at a city. Yet that seems to be the most popular interpretation of the UA.

loserforsale said:

Actually, there's something I'm not clear on. Is it that the Zulus get +25% experience, or that they need 20/25% less experience to get promotions? The former seems a bit underwhelming - since fractions are rounded down, it seems to amount to +1XP for each melee attack/defense and, if you also have Military Tradition, +1XP for shooting at a city. Yet that seems to be the most popular interpretation of the UA.

Click to expand...

The wording of the UA very strongly implies that the former is true, to me.

Why Shaka doesn't speak that language?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI6NaZRfnzU

awesome said:

The building gives the Zulu some nice unique promotions, kind of like the kris warrior gets unique promotions.

Click to expand...

I can't wait to play as the Zulu next week and build that unique barracks. Definitely going to bee line bronze working.

Tsar NicholasII said:

Does the Ikanda give the promotion vs. gunpowder units to gunpowder units or does it only affect pre-gunpowder units? If it carries over to Musketmen that would be kinda OP in my opinion. The feel that I got from the Zulu was that they are great for conquest in the Medieval Era and and o.k. later on due to their ability.

Also, do the Zulu get any benefits from the Military Tradition policy that grants 25% more experience from combat or is it like Japan and Populism?

Click to expand...

As to the former, I'm pretty sure it will carry over. But remember, the Impi are spear-line units, so they'll upgrade into Lancers...not most people's favourite unit. You won't have Musketmen with anti-gunpowder promotions.

As to the latter, I feel like it will stack like the Aztec's UA and the Honor opener. The reason Japan's UA doesn't stack with Populism is because Bushido is better than Populism and overrides it. That's not the case with the Zulu's bonus.

Novu said:

The Zulu lost because they were using a medieval unit in the industrial era. As the poster Awesome mentioned: Early guns sucked. In CiV early guns are probably too powerful. Musketmen have 24 strength and Musketeers have 28 strength. That is compared to Knights that are only 20 strength and require horses or Pikemen and their puny 16 strength. The 50% bonus against gun powder the Impi receive balances that out by giving Impi an effective 24 strength against gun powder units. Historically this bonus is completely justified.

Click to expand...

You do realize that the reason armored Knights didn't make it into the 16th century was because of muskets right?

Tsar NicholasII said:

You do realize that the reason armored Knights didn't make it into the 16th century was because of muskets right?

Click to expand...

Isn't that because the armour became too expensive to forge compared to the protection it offered?