I haven't played Civilization since the first the game came out, I started with IV.
So I was reading the Civilopedia and while I knew all the civs, there was one I didn't know of...
Zulu? What are Zulu? Who is this Shaka? So I went to Wikipedia and came to the conclusion that they are unworthy to be in this game. I don't care about "tradition", times change, traditions should do so... But if more people who want then there are who not want them, then it is the developer's choice to whether he does or not includes them.
But to me they will never be a "true" civilization in this game.
I will not recognize that until it is explicitly stated.
Also I believe that they should have replaced them with a far more worthy civ, such as Kongo or Morroco or something else (unless Kongo or Morocco are in).
There was no such thing as "Zulu civilization" let alone an "empire".
Their achievements and impact are little and why will they be in the game?
Because of one king, a little battle and war, which they ultimately lost and they were annexed by the British Empire.
That's not exactly true. The Zulu tribe was founded sometime in the 1700s or so and when Shaka became the chief/king/whatever, he did found a kingdom that lasted about 60 years before the war with the British and on and off for the next twenty or so years. That's not very impressive, I agree, but the Zulu did (and still do) have an important impact on South Africa. Whether they belong in the game is up to subjective opinion and I'd prefer someone else as well, but saying they never had a civilization is inaccurate.
Not really for a matter of "worthiness" but I do hope there's another African civ aside from Zulu... I truly would hope for Kongo or Ashanti... but well, time will tell...
You just answered my question already after I posted my comment, therefore the edit.
Well, all those worthy/unworthy-discussions are a little bit odd in my regards. The main reason for a civilization to be in the game should be if they can possibly grant an intersting and fun gaming experience. But this is a completely different story and only my totally subjective point of view...
Well that definitely should not be the reason to include leaders or civilizations. I also think you might be wrong about Shaka being better known than any Belgian monarch. Leopold II of Belgium is quite well known. Mostly because of what happened in Kongo.
Zulus and Shaka might be known in UK and US(?), but that is not the whole world.
I haven't played Civilization since the first the game came out, I started with IV.
So I was reading the Civilopedia and while I knew all the civs, there was one I didn't know of...
Zulu? What are Zulu? Who is this Shaka? So I went to Wikipedia and came to the conclusion that they are unworthy to be in this game. I don't care about "tradition", times change, traditions should do so... But if more people who want then there are who not want them, then it is the developer's choice to whether he does or not includes them.
But to me they will never be a "true" civilization in this game.
The Zulu were in Civ IV (though, as in Civ V, they were added in an expansion). The Zulu were of more relevance to the generation that grew up with the first game - not because they were any more worthy of being a civ, but because they were popularly well-known. I would object more if we didn't already have the Celts and the Huns (and in the event I've come to quite like having the Huns in the game).
Granted, the Huns were of more relevance to European history and the Celts, while not among the European cultural groups with a particularly major or lasting impact, have a long history and iconic iconography (and, more importantly, an American demographic that identifies with them), but once you break down the barriers of what really constitutes a civilisation pretty much anything goes, and at least with the Zulu we all know they're there because fans want them, not because the developers really believe they're a more important African group than, say, Kongo or Morocco.
Well that definitely should not be the reason to include leaders or civilizations. I also think you might be wrong about Shaka being better known than any Belgian monarch. Leopold II of Belgium is quite well known. Mostly because of what happened in Kongo.
Congo with a C - the territory wasn't the same as the Kingdom of Kongo, which still existed in name but had effectively been dissolved by Leopold's time. Though if the game has much of an African demographic I suspect Leopold would be a very unpopular leader choice (albeit the only really plausible one if Belgium were added).
Zulus and Shaka might be known in UK and US(?), but that is not the whole world.
When the first game was released its market was intended to be essentially American, and a large number of Civ players now are familiar with them from past incarnations of Civ.
Of course, there is one way to ensure the Zulu lose fan appeal: Agree to bring them back for Civ VI, but only if Jacob Zuma is the leader...
It could also be said that more people heard of Belgium then of Zululand.
Actually, anyone growing up in the '90s or today with an eye on international news should be familiar with the Zulu. South Africa had (maybe still has) an ethnic Zulu political party that was prominent in the events leading up to and immediately following the end of Apartheid. The current South African president is Zulu, and while the ethnicity of previous South African leaders since Mandela hasn't tended to make the news, Zuma makes a big thing about his tribal identity and tries to portray himself as a successor to Shaka. The tribal name still forms part of the modern name of Zululand, KwaZulu Natal.
Surely they could/should be an aggressive late game civ...
I'm ok with Shaka and the Zulus being in Civ, even if its more because they have been represented in previous Civs rather then their true historical significance.
Realism is important, but variety and gameplay are cruical.
I hope they confirm the Zulu on Thursday, in the PAX expanded demo, and hint on another new civ on Friday. Hinting the Zulu again wouldn't make sense when everybody is already so sure.
Well that definitely should not be the reason to include leaders or civilizations. I also think you might be wrong about Shaka being better known than any Belgian monarch. Leopold II of Belgium is quite well known. Mostly because of what happened in Kongo.
Zulus and Shaka might be known in UK and US(?), but that is not the whole world.
I will not recognize that until it is explicitly stated.
Also I believe that they should have replaced them with a far more worthy civ, such as Kongo or Morroco or something else (unless Kongo or Morocco are in).
There was no such thing as "Zulu civilization" let alone an "empire".
Their achievements and impact are little and why will they be in the game?
Because of one king, a little battle and war, which they ultimately lost and they were annexed by the British Empire.
The Zulu are certainly worthy to be included. They meet all the traditional criteria of a Civilization: permanent settlements, their own language, centuries of history, a unique culture (especially with regard to CiV due to there being no southern Africans present), innovations unique to their society (mobile army, their own style of weapons, etc), their own faith, and had a profound effect on history. If you're up to date on your African history, you're aware that Shaka's ascension caused serious upheaval in southern Africa (not just SA). Said upheaval had profound effects on the various populaces of the region, resulting in widespread migrations out of "Zulu" land and thus making it potentially easier for European settlers, such as the Boers, to colonize the area. The Zulu didn't just fight the British and win once. They dominated the southern African social and political stage for several generations.
Going off of what I read on the Mfecane Wikipedia entry, I thought of an interesting UA:
Mfecane: Razing an enemy city causes the city to become a naturalized Zulu city.
To clarify, once a city is razed to zero population, instead of being destroyed, the city is reformed as a Zulu city (which means that it doesn't cause the unrest of an occupied city and requires no courthouse).
This was inspired by reading of the destruction, displacement, and death caused by the expansion of the Zulu, and the subsequent resettlement of the Zulu.
I think it is appropriate as it promotes warfare and expansion, both of which are staples of the Zulu.
I still think there are better African civs to add.
I also still think they are the most unworthy "civilization" that the Civilization series has ever produced.
Sorry, but my opinion on them will never change.
The area they controlled is also the smallest of all if included in the game.
Firaxis needs to try and please as many different demographics as possible. Thus they would never include all new Civs as never before seen in a Civ game. They would never include all Civs form previous Civ games.
So you can expect a mix of leaders from all different types of backgrounds from popular to never before seen.
Firaxis needs to try and please as many different demographics as possible. Thus they would never include all new Civs as never before seen in a Civ game. They would never include all Civs form previous Civ games.
So you can expect a mix of leaders from all different types of backgrounds from popular to never before seen.
With a total of 43 civs in the game, you're going to have a higher percentage of new ones that previous iterations of the game. There isn't much left to repeat.
I would hate for something so insignificant as the Zulus to be included. Just because they were in previous versions is no reason they have to be included now. What a stupid reason just because someone missed seeing a particular yellow civ, not to mention being unworthy compared to every single civ now and announced even if they have good attributes. Ugh.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
