[R&F] Civ of the Week: Zulu

[Disgustipated]

little hamstrung by the relative weakness of Anti-Cav.

Zulu's Anti Cav aren't all that bad. I conquered nearly every city exclusively with anti-cav units. The only exceptions being my tests above with caravels. I would say anti-cav units should normally be the price and maintenance cost of the Impi, that would make them useful. If Pikeman were normally the cost of Impi, they would be worth having a couple around.

Really? Is this Civ really built for Players

I noticed that about a lot of Civs, especially Rise and Fall civs like Mongols and Zulu. As well as many DLC civs like Macedon, Indonesia, Persia. These will always be civs that humans can do well with, but the AI not so much.

My game is complete. It really doesn't take long to conquer all the cities in the world once you get steamrolling. The game is getting too easy at this point, but I won't up the difficulty level as I need to compare them with other civs I'm playing civ of the week because I want to evaluate them against each other. I know conditions and start conditions change and absolute comparison isn't possible. My starting condition in this game was fairly weak, but I made it work.

And the time to victory was much slower than my conquer all cities games with Macedon, India (Chandra), Japan, and Mongols. I could have started conquering a little earlier, but I did wait until Professional Army to start conquering. I also delayed things a few turns to run the above tests with caravels, but this probably was less than 10 turns delay, negligible. As we have civs that shine later like this, it is understandable they will have slower victory times.

My slowest total conquest victory yet. But I received the highest ranking at the end, #1, Augustus Caesar. Strange, maybe because my population was higher because it took so long. Despite conquest being slower, this civ is very strong. I'm reluctant to rate them lower because of the slow speed. Because really nothing provided any opposition. These units were great against all those knights I faced, and crossbowman couldn't stand up to them. I'm going to give them a B+ for Conquest victory. Even other victories they will be strong if you use force to make your empire larger and everyone else smaller. And I give them a B+ for the fun factor as well. They are fairly fun to play. The mechanics aren't frustrating (like say Georgia), and mesh together well.

And as Archon had, I had a ton of great generals. Hard to keep track of them, I tend to keep them until they are obsolete, and then retire them. I got my second caravel from a Boudica retirement, and of course Art of War. I may have some obsolete generals in my save, I just upgraded many units to Modern AT, so they were too advanced for my old generals. That cavalry unit there was from a great general retire, I didn't actually use him for any conquests. I wanted my conquests to be all anti-cav, other than the caravel ones I used for tests.

On a sidenote, I found out that battering rams work even after discovering Steel. I had thought in a prior game they didn't work. But I suppose it's only after your opponent discovers steel, not you.

My final screenshot. This Modern AT army is at strength 102. It can take that last Georgian city's health down in one blow. I'm including the save. Just conquer the city with that Modern AT army. All those pillaged tiles were from barbarians I think. Sigh. While I probably won't up the difficulty level, I may turn barbs off to make things easier for the AI which still sometimes struggles with barbs.

Spoiler :

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Really? Is this Civ really built for Players, or for the AI?

Definitely for players. The AI won't snowball quickly. It seems to like to make peace after taking one city (often leaving itself with Loyalty problems) rather than going for the jugular in a single war. Which in a lot of ways makes for a better gaming experience, but it's not being driven by the game mechanics, but rather by the AI coding.

Zulus in particular are hurt by this because, as you point out, they're designed for expansion by conquest. Which seems reasonable, considering how quickly they took over such a large portion of south Africa.

I played Zulu once and I ended up snowballing that game. It's hard to say whether that is due to the Zulu being THAT strong or the game mechanics, which favour aggressive warmonger in general.

Civ 6 definitely favours warmongers over peaceful play, but all versions of Civ have struggled with the issue of snowballing once you start going to war. None of the solutions have been great, to my mind. Loyalty has some potential, but not while it's primarily tied to "population under your yoke" which mostly encourages conquering more, not less. Similarly, war weariness points are neutered by having them disappear when you wipe someone out.

For me, it seems unlikely that the game will ever address the issue of snowballing until it includes a command-and-control mechanism, i.e. a limitation on your ability to manage larger and larger empires until you have the requisite civics/government structure in place to handle the size of the territory under your control. There's lots of history that the development team could draw on for inspiration in terms of how large empires needed to evolve to actually control the territories they supposedly owned, and the challenge they faced in doing so (just focussing on how China came to be unified would be a great start).

 

[acluewithout]

I like the loyalty system. It's probably the best feature of RnF after just balance tweaks. I think basing it on Pop was a good idea then +/- modifiers is a good way to do it - easy to understand and encourages bigger cities.

But. It does result is some bizarre logic. Like, big cities are actually easier to hold than smaller cities. You'd think a bigger captured city would actually be harder to subdue, and likewise you'd think bigger cities away from your capital would be more like to want to break away.

I'm hoping loyalty gets expanded a bit in the next expansion. Even just adding Relgion as a modifier made hugely more interesting.

... Is this Civ really built for Players, or for the AI?

What I meant was that, to me, some Civs feel like they're built to be (or at least work better as) more opponents to players rather than playable Civs. Civs with "easy to use" bonuses fall into this camp, and particularly those that do Space or War. Mongolia has that feel, for example, given even the AI can make his power set work.

I thought maybe Zulu was in this camp - i.e. works better as an AI antagonist rather than a playable Civ - because I thought the AI could use the corps ability. But from the posts above, sounds like the AI ain't that good with Zulu. Pity.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

I noticed that about a lot of Civs, especially Rise and Fall civs like Mongols and Zulu. As well as many DLC civs like Macedon, Indonesia, Persia. These will always be civs that humans can do well with, but the AI not so much.

Yeah. Every time it’s early-mid or mid game and a Zulu knight appears out of nowhere near one of my cities, I become reflexively anxious for a short moment before I realize it’s the AI. I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen an AI Zulu knight corps (or for that matter, a corps of anything). I mean I understand why you’d code it like that. People would quickly become angry at having their empires rolled by 3 or 4 AI Zulu knight corps. I’m fairly certain even the bumbling AI could do it! Well, if it were early enough. The deity 3 settler start, +32% culture boost, +80% production boost (monuments) would help the AI stumble to mercenaries (and corps) by mid game. The thing is, they never seem to actually build the corps (shrug). I think I may know why...see earlier statement about getting your empire rolled by 3 or 4 Zulu knights.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

You'd think a bigger captured city would actually be harder to subdue, and likewise you'd think bigger cities away from your capital would be more like to want to break away.

Excellent point.

What I meant was that, to me, some Civs feel like they're built to be (or at least work better as) more opponents to players rather than playable Civs. Civs with "easy to use" bonuses fall into this camp, and particularly those that do Space or War. Mongolia has that feel, for example, given even the AI can make his power set work.

I thought maybe Zulu was in this camp - i.e. works better as an AI antagonist rather than a playable Civ - because I thought the AI could use the corps ability. But from the posts above, sounds like the AI ain't that good with Zulu. Pity.

​

That would be a great objective, and may have been part of the thinking behind the Zulu and Mongolian civ designs.

It's part of the reason I don't subscribe to the idea that every civ should be as balanced, power wise, as possible. Stronger and weaker civs make it easier for the player to choose their preferred level of difficulty, either based on how strong their own civ is, or how tough their opponents are.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Civ 6 is, like the, only modern game that has no proper check on conquest.


Civ 5 had the unhappiness penalities that would arise and long occupation times.

In Civ 4, you had to pay maintenance on each city, and it increased the further away you were from the capital unless you built a courthouse or the forbidden palace which was like a government plaza. Rebellions were also based on the long term culture placed on the place so it wasn't as easy as removing local pressure unless you annihilated them.

Obviously if you ask me, Civ 4's method is the better one, but Firaxis intends to reinvent the wheel every time. Kinda funny that a historical game franchise is intent on repeating the same mistakes.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

To be fair I didn't really like CivIV's way either. I don't think they threw away a good solution--they're still looking for it.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Civ 6 is, like the, only modern game that has no proper check on conquest.


Civ 5 had the unhappiness penalities that would arise and long occupation times.

In Civ 4, you had to pay maintenance on each city, and it increased the further away you were from the capital unless you built a courthouse or the forbidden palace which was like a government plaza. Rebellions were also based on the long term culture placed on the place so it wasn't as easy as removing local pressure unless you annihilated them.

Obviously if you ask me, Civ 4's method is the better one, but Firaxis intends to reinvent the wheel every time. Kinda funny that a historical game franchise is intent on repeating the same mistakes.

Civ 4's maintenance costs, like the corruption mechanism from earlier iterations of Civ, did crimp expansion, but it crimped peaceful expansion as much as aggression. Same for Civ 5

The permanence of long-term culture in Civ 4 was a good mechanism. I thought the Loyalty mechanism for Civ 6 would borrow more from Civ 4's culture system than it did. Having seen how they've structured Loyalty, to my mind it's a shame they didn't borrow more from it.

To be fair I didn't really like CivIV's way either. I don't think they threw away a good solution--they're still looking for it.

Agreed.

The right solution should be tied to something fun: growing and improving your empire. Being able to effectively manage a larger and larger empire should be part of the fun of growing that empire. Conquest should be a little tougher to manage, but also faster since you're getting already established cities (and has the benefit of also weakening someone else).

Just build a system around that, and you've got a built in speed brake on fast you can expand effectively, and players can have fun pushing the boundaries of how fast they grow within that system.

 

[SahintheFalcon]

Civ 6 is, like the, only modern game that has no proper check on conquest.


Civ 5 had the unhappiness penalities that would arise and long occupation times.

In Civ 4, you had to pay maintenance on each city, and it increased the further away you were from the capital unless you built a courthouse or the forbidden palace which was like a government plaza. Rebellions were also based on the long term culture placed on the place so it wasn't as easy as removing local pressure unless you annihilated them.

Obviously if you ask me, Civ 4's method is the better one, but Firaxis intends to reinvent the wheel every time. Kinda funny that a historical game franchise is intent on repeating the same mistakes.

Uh, this is exactly why I'm never going back to those old civ games.

You have no idea the breath of fresh air I felt with Civ 6 after being shackled for so long with conquest penalties.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Civ 4's maintenance costs, like the corruption mechanism from earlier iterations of Civ, did crimp expansion, but it crimped peaceful expansion as much as aggression. Same for Civ 5

I don't actually think it really crippled it. Now Civ 6's settler costs are another deal.....

The thing is with distance maintenance is you don't get penalized for settling close to you but if you just capture people's capitals, that's going to be costly. Also Civ 4 had a few techs that you could be in good shape with, so you couldn't mindlessly expand either. But having 6-8 cities peacefully was pretty standard and viable to just win the game off of, or mass expand after you get your tech up.

But truth is you could play civ 4 off a few cities, or 30.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Uh, this is exactly why I'm never going back to those old civ games.

You have no idea the breath of fresh air I felt with Civ 6 after being shackled for so long with conquest penalties.

Quite a while indeed, since they go back to Civ 1, if you count corruption.

To each their own. Another indication of why it's so hard to please such a diverse group.

I don't actually think it really crippled it.

I said "crimped", rather than "crippled".

And yes, Civ 4's system, as with the older corruption system, made extended empires the issue. They could be managed, and over time that management became easier.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Oh, didn't read it right.

Somehow I was thinking of crippled with Civ 5 tossed in there.

 

[Sostratus]

I find the zulu to be similar to their civ5 implementation: relatively lowkey except they have an insane mid game offensive potential. This time, though, instead of having insanely strong impi units with an ability that makes them cheap, we have cheap impi units with an ability that makes them insanely strong. In 5, they were strong early, peaked mid, then waned. Now they are weak early, peak mid, and stay strong late.

For starters, the impi are really what pikeman should: dirt cheap knight counters. They cost 125/200 = 62.5% of what a pike does. And they cost just 1 maintenance instead of three. This already tells you you should mass them. The flanking bonus is irrelevant (but handy since you having teeming masses of impi to gang up on enemies with.) All of this is irrelevant, though, because of the corps ability and buff they get.

Corps on city conquer is immaterial. What matters is that they can get corps with their cheap impi and the corps fight almost as well as an army. Do you realize how insane giving corps +5 strength is?
Everyone else's corps: +10 strength or +50%* (technically 49%)
Everyone else's army: +17 strength or +100%* (technically 98%)
Shaka's corps: +15 strength or +82%
Shaka's army: +22 strength or +141%

Run something like oligarchy or a GG and its game over. Why? Because leveraging formations, you can effectively get more strength for less production than anyone else. Shaka's army is worth effectively 5.8x of the base unit, which he pay 3x for (or less with a military academy.) Everyone else gets 4x value instead.

Basically, the math roughly nets out that shaka (if he builds formations) is getting a ~1/3 discount on his units. Everything else just pales in comparison.

The ikanda is kind of meh standalone; one housing is okay and the corps building is clearly tied into his ability. I wish it would give you something like an extra production too. It also helps you promote defense (since you're warring a lot) and get a GG out quick. Its also very refreshing to have a civ that can give the little guy on foot a chance against civs like mongolia and scythia with their crazy mounted rushes.

That said, I do really enjoy his music and how it gets all modern-synthetic (#wakanda forever). Shaka is basically a Chad. His 41+(10+5)+(4+4)+5 [base, corps, oligarchy govt/card, general] 69 strength impi corps can just slap other civs silly. Cost: one wildcard slot and 250 production per corps.

 

[Disgustipated]

You have no idea the breath of fresh air I felt with Civ 6 after being shackled for so long with conquest penalties.

Indeed. Forgive me if I stray off topic a little bit, but it does relate to the Zulu and how I play them (see my above game). While I love Civ4, it could be agonizingly hard to create large empires (in the early game I mean) when historically they have existed as in the Persians, Romans, Alexander (granted his death ushered in its quick collapse), and later the Mongols and various Arabic empires. Perhaps it's a little silly to be able to conquer the entire world, but I still love doing it like I did back in Civ 2 days. Civ 5's system I hated the worst. It was so difficult for me to keep happiness high enough.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

While I love Civ4, it could be agonizingly hard to create large empires (in the early game I mean) when historically they have existed as in the Persians, Romans, Alexander (granted his death ushered in its quick collapse), and later the Mongols and various Arabic empires.

As a percentage of the globe, though, plot those large empires onto a Civ map and I'm not sure you actually have any trouble maintaining an empire of that size.

More importantly, though, none of those large empires snowballed into unbeatable science and industrial powerhouses the way empires of conquest do in Civ. Those arose primarily from smaller, more compact nations.

Historically speaking, therefore, I'm not sure Civ 5 had it wrong: stay small to maximize scientific creativity, or if you go big you need to go all the way. As a game play mechanism, though, the mechanisms used in Civ 5 - and especially the balance struck in the final patch - severely undermined the way lots of people like to play Civ, and weren't fun for most anyone to manage.

As this discussion has illustrated, artificial restraints on growth-by-conquest can frustrate some players and still not accurately reflect that controlling larger and larger empires was mostly a matter of personal pride to the emperor, and didn't necessarily result in that civ getting new technology 4x more quickly than it's smaller neighbours.

If there's a way to satisfy both sides, it's likely to be through a core new system that's fun to work with and is tightly integrated into the way the game is played. A system that applies regardless of whether you're playing aggressively or peacefully, and one where you get a sense of continual progress as the game goes forward: "Ah ha! Now I can do this that I couldn't do before!" A revamped Governor and civics system could potentially do this, one where you get better and better at getting productivity out of your empire, regardless of what size it is.

 

[TheDouche]

As a deity only player that gets 170 turn victories from time to time (props to civtrader6 for that), I think zulu are one of the strongest civs around. The cheap ikanda means you can resist the early rushes (was surrounded by 3 AI and managed to get out on top). Also, the early powerful corps means you're never behind, even with bad constant war starts.

What happens when you have no nearby neighbours you might ask. Just settle rush 6-7 cities, and by turn 90 you easily overflow 6 charriots that become the corp-knight gg squad that kills the AI swordsmen. Two shotting cities was always fun, ah...

Man I love zulu.

 

[shaglio]

Regarding peaceful expansion vs. aggressive expansion, I'm wondering if they should just make 2 changes:

1) Scrap Loyalty and institute a maximum city settling distance (until some tech in the Age of Exploration). There already exist a minimum city settling distance (3 tiles), so adding a tech-gated maximum cap will still put a check on forward settling early, while also allowing for Colonization in the mid game. It will also make it easier to keep cities after conquest.

2) Lower Science per population and increase Science output of Districts/Buildings. This will make conquest just for the purpose of increased Science (through population gain) less exploitable, unless you specifically target cities with Campuses and their subsequent buildings.

I don't know; these are just some quick thoughts that popped into my head while reading this thread. I'm sure somebody will point out some obvious flaws in my ideas that I've overlooked. Or maybe someone can use this as the basis for a similar idea.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Regarding peaceful expansion vs. aggressive expansion, I'm wondering if they should just make 2 changes:

1) Scrap Loyalty and institute a maximum city settling distance (until some tech in the Age of Exploration). There already exist a minimum city settling distance (3 tiles), so adding a tech-gated maximum cap will still put a check on forward settling early, while also allowing for Colonization in the mid game. It will also make it easier to keep cities after conquest.

2) Lower Science per population and increase Science output of Districts/Buildings. This will make conquest just for the purpose of increased Science (through population gain) less exploitable, unless you specifically target cities with Campuses and their subsequent buildings.

I don't know; these are just some quick thoughts that popped into my head while reading this thread. I'm sure somebody will point out some obvious flaws in my ideas that I've overlooked. Or maybe someone can use this as the basis for a similar idea.

Rather than scrap loyalty completely make distance from the capital and being on a different continent factors. The penalty shouldn't disappear in the age of exploration. The Spanish had great difficulty controlling their empire and viceroys often had to compromise between what Madrid and the locals wanted.

 

[Archon_Wing]

If you wanted to emphasize peaceful expansion, then the scaling of settlers and districts needs to be greatly nerfed. The problem is that you can always get around scaling costs by capturing cities, making it always better to spend production on troops to get cities that you can't build yourself. The issue is only magnified on higher difficulties.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

If you wanted to emphasize peaceful expansion, then the scaling of settlers and districts needs to be greatly nerfed. The problem is that you can always get around scaling costs by capturing cities, making it always better to spend production on troops to get cities that you can't build yourself. The issue is only magnified on higher difficulties.

I think the Zulu's may be bonused in this instance relative to civs like Macedon or Scythia (EDIT: and especially Sumeria and Aztecs). They are forced to wait for mercenaries, allowing their neighbors to build multiple developed districts. So the wait with the Zulu's may really be a positive?