Who is the better warmonger?

[Loucypher]

It seems these threads are the new elimination threads

Anyway, I voted Austria, personal taste. Just don't like Venice that much

How long will it take till there's a Shaka vs Atilla thread?

So, who is the better warmonger, Shaka or Atilla?

 

[Teproc]

Attila's ok, but if he fails early he just never does anything.

Shaka, on the other hand, can do early wars but mostly crushes people one Impis come online obviously, and he can steamroll a few civs that way. He's also insanely rich thanks to the UA, so his carpets of doom will always be deeper than Attila's or anyone else's really.

 

[Quineloe]

Shaka is much stronger. Attilas UUs require some tactical finesse so you don't just lose them in the field, Impis however can just brute force an enemy army down.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Shaka so much. Shaka lets you play as "what if Honor was actually the best tree in the game."

 

[Rooftrellen]

In the hands of a human on a map with more than 1 opponent, Shaka.

Attila can take a few capitals and use that to go for science or even culture. The double raze speed is his ONLY advantage to war after the early game, and that's a sad bonus. He's made to clear an area and dominate it, rather than war all game.

Shaka gets cheaper units and gets improvements faster. His bonuses to war also die out, but only after Impis go obsolete, and what he has remaining is that faster leveling bonus, which is a heck of a lot better for war than faster city razing.

 

[cpm4001]

Shaka. The Zulu are overall much stronger warmongers and besides, they're more fun to play.

 

[GhostSalsa]

His bonuses to war also die out, but only after Impis go obsolete, and what he has remaining is that faster leveling bonus, which is a heck of a lot better for war than faster city razing.

No die-out if he takes Commerce - Landsknechts never obsolete and let you transfer the extra movement and cover promos to the lancer/helicopter line via upgrades, haha

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Thread title changed to match the poll title.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Impis kind of stink against cities, just like any melee does, so I want to vote for Attila since he can roll through other civs faster and earlier but once you get past the classical his advantage kind of disappears and he's not a lot better than a vanilla civ. That city razing is underrated but it doesn't help him take them. Shaka's lasts the whole game and Impis are absolutely devastating against enemy armies. He gets my vote for being better at the long game.

 

[reddishrecue]

In the hands of a human on a map civilizations 1 opponent, Shaka.

Attila can take a few capitals and use that to go for science or even culture. The double raze speed is his ONLY advantage to war after the early game, and that's a sad bonus. He's made to clear an area and dominate it, rather than war all game.

Shaka gets cheaper units and gets improvements faster. His bonuses to war also die out, but only after Impis go obsolete, and what he has remaining is that faster leveling bonus, which is a heck of a lot better for war than faster city razing.

Most of these things here are some things that both of these civilizations have. One thing that the huns have is an extra hammer on horse resources and the animal husbandry as a free tech. Early game huns could have an advantage with the horse archers, improved horse pastures and the double raze speed to eliminate unhappiness from useless cities with the Scourge of God ua.

As for the Zulu, cheaper land unit costs from ikwla maintenance make this civilization capable of keeping a larger military with less money, cheaper power. The ikhanda and the Impis along with a heroic epic could dominate too.

 

[budweiser]

I like Attila because of the extra hammer on horses and he starts with AH. This is a big advantage.

You will build things earlier and generally get up and running faster.

 

[Resipsa]

19-0, Ouch I didn't think Atilla was that much outclassed

 

[Quineloe]

well, it is pretty obvious. Warmonger to most people means, domination victory. Attila's prime is too early for that, he's excellent for securing one continent on a continents map for yourself, so you don't have to deal with neighbors settling in your prime spots, but in the medieval era, his units are obsolete.

 

[comatosedragon]

I'm not sure if you are asking who is the AI better at warmongering with, or just which of the two civs are better for a human player. I think the AI plays Zulu better, but Atilla is better for humans.

 

[sendos]

Not surprised that Shaka is undoubtedly better than Attila. Attila is stuck with the early game rush with rams and what irritates me about rams being the Huns is that they have a defence penalty in general. This needs to be amended or removed. A suitable amendment is apply it only to melee attacks.

Next vote shall be about naval powers: Ottomans, English or Dutch?

 

[Talcove]

Attila can deliver a short burst of dominance which can secure quite a bit for the future. However, Shaka has bonuses which last the entire game. Pre-gunpowder units get bonuses from the Ikanda, which makes them more powerful. Melee units cost 50% less to maintain, which enables you to have a large army and not be broke. ALL units gain promotions 25% faster, which makes ALL units hella more experienced/powerful. Oh, and Impi. They are... Well... Impi. Not much else you can say about them - anyone whose been up against them knows just how much of a nightmare an army of them are.

Attila has two super-early unique units which can easily capture anye arly city, and obsolete around the classical/medieval era. His UA lets you raze cities faster (Yay?). The only permanent features of his UA are that you start with animal husbandry, which enables a slight tech lead, and quicker discovery and improvement of pasture resources, and getting +1 production per pasture, which enables better production from those pastures.

All in all, Shaka just does better as an all around war civilization. Attila really only excels in the early game, but after that he's indistinguishable from a bland Vanilla civ.

Next vote shall be about naval powers: Ottomans, English or Dutch?

The Dutch are a naval power in-game?

 

[Quineloe]

well, in my quick fun combat game last month. I eliminated Shaka on turn 7 or 8 with the Huns.

Spoiler :

 

[sendos]

well, in my quick fun combat game last month. I eliminated Shaka on turn 7 or 8 with the Huns.

Must have found an upgrade ruin and then bumped into them. Nice work.

 

[Ninakoru]

AI does much better with Attila, but i think shaka is overall better.

 

[Merciorum]

Shaka is easier, but I get the feeling that Attilla might be more effective in the hands of a skilled player.

Still, I voted Shaka, as that is only a feeling.