Where'd My Zulu Go?

[Insanity_X]

I'm going to to start slapping anybody who cites realism as a good or bad reason for anything in this game. It's not justification beyond the most basic of basic things (the general chronological order, for instance)

Realism in civ is a frame for everything else to be bolted on to. The realism extends as far as, you cant build guns without first knowing how to make gunpowder. That's as far is it should, and needs to go. You take the frame and build a good game around it.

and Yes, I'd imagine that Askia does take on some of Shaka's more... charming attributes. They're taking some of his exploits (making an empire efficiently) and emphasising them, resulting in a big angry black man.

Shaka, however really was that much of a dick.

 

[Carver]

What character in Civ4 is like Real Life? Was Monty an aggressive psycho? No, he was the guy who got attacked and tried meekly to defend his city from the Spanish. Was Saladin a religious nut? Not in the slightest. Was Justinian? Nope. Was Isabella? Not really. Was Huayna Capac a great techer? Nope. Was Alexander philosophical? Funny. Was Augustus a build-monger? Nope. Did Frederic have a largest Empire? No. Was Catherine a particularly bad back-stabber? No. And so on ...

Yes, the leaders in Civ are not realistic. But I think you are overlooking the OP's point, which is that if they wanted to include an African leader with traits that look like Shaka's traits, why not just leave Shaka in the game?

 

[MatrixTheKitty]

Shaka, however really was that much of a dick.

And can you blame him? Well, yes, yes you can. But his father did hate him so much that he named him after a dung beetle. Or somesuch insect.

 

[Snoopaloop]

Insanity and Bonafide....get off your high horses as protectors of all that is good with Civ V. Consumers have the choice to complain when they are unhappy about a part of the game (thats basically what the pre-release forums are for). Though it is far away from release, the OP obviously just isn't thrilled about how the Zulu's role in the series seems (from what was released today) to be filled by a new leader/civ.

(I myself am also excited about the so far announced changes...but try to see see why people may be irked instead of being a moron and posting something juvenile like *slap* to someone's rightful comments)

 

[bob rulz]

Yes, the leaders in Civ are not realistic. But I think you are overlooking the OP's point, which is that if they wanted to include an African leader with traits that look like Shaka's traits, why not just leave Shaka in the game?

Because the Songhai were an actual empire whereas the Zulu were essentially just a tribe of warriors?

Does it really matter? Just play as the Songhai and pretend that you're Shaka if it really bothers you that much. Or even better, just name yourself Shaka when the game starts. Or EVEN BETTER, you can just change all of the traits in the editor when the game is released.

I don't see why something so trivial should be such a big deal. The leader's personalities in Civ are always going to be simplified, and Firaxis made a creative decision to include an actual empire in the game as opposed to the Zulu who as I said were essentially just a very organized group of warriors. I just don't get why people have such a hard-on for the Zulu when there are so many more relevant ACTUAL civilizations that could be included in the game.

 

[RABicle]

What character in Civ4 is like Real Life? Was Monty an aggressive psycho? No, he was the guy who got attacked and tried meekly to defend his city from the Spanish. Was Saladin a religious nut? Not in the slightest. Was Justinian? Nope. Was Isabella? Not really. Was Huayna Capac a great techer? Nope. Was Alexander philosophical? Funny. Was Augustus a build-monger? Nope. Did Frederic have a largest Empire? No. Was Catherine a particularly bad back-stabber? No. And so on ...

I guess you can create a government agency dedicated to finding, torturing and killing perceived heretics all over Europe and not be a religious nut these days.
"Nobody expects the spanish inquisition"

 

[Zulu Impi]

Have to agree with Insanity. He and I seem to be the only ones defending Civ V on this forum while everyone else is finding everything possible wrong with it because they were hoping for Civ 4.1 instead of Civ 5. So many people think that any break with previous Civs is dumbing the franchise down or getting away from realism, when in reality, all the game developers are doing is trying to make the game more fun -- and that's what their job is.

I'm not knocking the game I like pretty much every addition to ciV it looks to be a far more realistic and better simulation then cIV! Honestly I can't wait I didn't expect it to be half this good I was expecting some sort of mix of IV and Rev and its completely new and improved!

That said though the Zulu are my favorite civ and I am dissapointed that they're not in V vanilla.

 

[cardgame]

I guess you can create a government agency dedicated to finding, torturing and killing perceived heretics all over Europe and not be a religious nut these days.
"Nobody expects the spanish inquisition"

Was Isabella a powerful woman in 1472? I thought she married Ferdinand in the 80s or somesuch.

 

[Warrior7]

I guess you can create FAIL a government agency dedicated to finding, torturing and killing perceived heretics all over Europe and not be a religious nut these days.
"Nobody expects the spanish inquisition"

I'm Tired about the Black Legend of Spain...

It's cool to forget that inquisition was created in France, and existed in Portugal and Rome. And it's cool to forget how the protestantism didn't do anything to catholics... LOL.

Isabella wasn't a religious murderer. Please try to learn a little of history before saying stupid things. Isabella was a protector of native americans. Read Burgos's Laws or the last wishes of Isabella

And Spain kicked out jews (KICKED OUT) not killed. That's the way the things worked in Spanish Territories. Convert to Catholic or leave my territory.

 

[Insanity_X]

Insanity and Bonafide....get off your high horses as protectors of all that is good with Civ V. Consumers have the choice to complain when they are unhappy about a part of the game (thats basically what the pre-release forums are for). Though it is far away from release, the OP obviously just isn't thrilled about how the Zulu's role in the series seems (from what was released today) to be filled by a new leader/civ.

(I myself am also excited about the so far announced changes...but try to see see why people may be irked instead of being a moron and posting something juvenile like *slap* to someone's rightful comments)

My reputation as a CiV defender is greatly exagerated. I'm being immature and bashing people who use realism as a reason to like or dislike features in the game. I'm doing this because it's annoying and is a reason (CiV is not realistic. Gameplay > realism (Jon has actually said as much in his interviews)). If I dislike a feature based on what I've heard I will say so (in fact I'm praying that the most recent interview didn't imply that it'll be possible to march your troops into a civ's territory and declare war (ala Civ 3).

 

[EMT]

I'm Tired about the Black Legend of Spain...

It's cool to forget that inquisition was created in France, and existed in Portugal and Rome. And it's cool to forget how the protestantism didn't do anything to catholics... LOL.

Isabella wasn't a religious murderer. Please try to learn a little of history before saying stupid things. Isabella was a protector of native americans. Read Burgos's Laws or the last wishes of Isabella

And Spain kicked out jews (KICKED OUT) not killed. That's the way the things worked in Spanish Territories. Convert to Catholic or leave my territory.

So Isabella is not a religious nut?
She kicked out the Jews, the Muslims soon followed. The entire formation of Spain was based on an anti-Muslim tide. Atahualpa was killed and ambushed because he rejected Christianity offhandedly. The Spanish murdered any Indian that refused to convert to Christianity. Black Legend? The Black Legend is half bull and half truth.

 

[Thormodr]

So Isabella is not a religious nut?
She kicked out the Jews, the Muslims soon followed. The entire formation of Spain was based on an anti-Muslim tide. Atahualpa was killed and ambushed because he rejected Christianity offhandedly. The Spanish murdered any Indian that refused to convert to Christianity. Black Legend? The Black Legend is half bull and half truth.

Yep. Spain's actions in the New World speak volumes and not very positively I might add.

 

[bob rulz]

If I dislike a feature based on what I've heard I will say so (in fact I'm praying that the most recent interview didn't imply that it'll be possible to march your troops into a civ's territory and declare war (ala Civ 3).

Why?

I know you said that gameplay > realism, but marching troops into someone's territory and declaring war not only is realistic, but it's also a good game mechanic. Honestly, the notion that any troops in enemy territory suddenly were relocated to the edge of that civilization's territory as if by magic was ridiculous and one of the numerous things that I didn't like about Civ IV. All they would have to do in Civ V is program the AI to recognize troop build-ups in or near their territory, which shouldn't be too difficult.

You also were fairly penalized for attacking from within a civilization's borders in Civ III as doing this significantly hurt your reputation with the AI.

 

[Insanity_X]

Yes, however it is also very exploitable. I am sure that It wont be putting insane levels of brokenness into the system (which was the previous result of doing so) and essentially make conquering too easy. However it needn't be amass troops outside of city => DOW => enjoy your new provincial holdings to be broken. if you had a small concentration of units in strategic locations and your main stack well inside your own borders (so the AI wouldnt know it was coming) you could essentially give yourself one hell of an advantage over the AI.

However, I live to be surprised and this feature may turn out to be a great function. It could also be overpowered and result in warfare being made broken (which would be a shame). Based on the franchise's past, I'm erring on the side of why the are we going backwards?

And the AI being less willing to accept a ROP in future is really not that much of a penalty (as you could still ignore the AI and do it again, and probably still buy techs off them). I dont remember CIII very much (I was about 9 when I played it) but I do remember being able to capture cities with rediculous ease (and given that in CIII I traded a city for wines, you can imagine how well I grasped such key features as actual warfare).

 

[bob rulz]

Yes, however it is also very exploitable. I am sure that It wont be putting insane levels of brokenness into the system (which was the previous result of doing so) and essentially make conquering too easy. However it needn't be amass troops outside of city => DOW => enjoy your new provincial holdings to be broken. if you had a small concentration of units in strategic locations and your main stack well inside your own borders (so the AI wouldnt know it was coming) you could essentially give yourself one hell of an advantage over the AI.

However, I live to be surprised and this feature may turn out to be a great function. It could also be overpowered and result in warfare being made broken (which would be a shame). Based on the franchise's past, I'm erring on the side of why the are we going backwards?

But actual warfare often works this way.

I also don't think that it would give you a significant advantage. As long as the computer actually has a military, they would likely be able to pick off your units before your main force arrives.

There's also no stacks in Civ V so rushing in your giant stack of doom out of the blue would no longer be an issue. In fact, not having stacks completely changes the fundamental nature of warfare.

And the AI being less willing to accept a ROP in future is really not that much of a penalty (as you could still ignore the AI and do it again, and probably still buy techs off them). I dont remember CIII very much (I was about 9 when I played it) but I do remember being able to capture cities with rediculous ease (and given that in CIII I traded a city for wines, you can imagine how well I grasped such key features as actual warfare).

If you participated in RoP rape as it was called, it was basically a death sentence to all per-turn deals for a long time - in some cases the rest of the game.

 

[Insanity_X]

But actual warfare often works this way.

I also don't think that it would give you a significant advantage. As long as the computer actually has a military, they would likely be able to pick off your units before your main force arrives.

1) choking is already an effective tactic and pretty much always has been. Not to mention that the small number of forces in the enemy's territory wouldnt be actively fighting. they'd be moving around pillaging stuff like key resources and capturing warriors and trying to keep the enemy busy until your main force arrives (which would be just outside the enemy's line of sight) to take the enemy's land.

There's also no stacks in Civ V so rushing in your giant stack of doom out of the blue would no longer be an issue. In fact, not having stacks completely changes the fundamental nature of warfare.

You're right, however this doesnt dilute the potential for internal declaration to be insanely powerful. In fact it can make it even worse, as fewer units means that putting strong units on highly defendible tiles could be very hard to remove; and cutting off strategic resources in the first turn of war and camping units there could be a massive advantage (both ecconomically and strategically).

If you participated in RoP rape as it was called, it was basically a death sentence to all per-turn deals for a long time - in some cases the rest of the game.

But when you could send your units into another Civ's land anyway, and ignore their requests to remove them kind of makes the point moot.

 

[Set]

As much as i like shaka I have to agree The Zulu empire only lasted about seventy years and even though they existed as a small nomadic tribe much longer that dosen't really count.

 

[frekk]

Gameplay > realism

A meaningless phrase, as false as the reverse.

It's not always an 'either-or' question. Striving for realism can make for superior gameplay - that's why the civ franchise does so much better than other turn-based counterparts like Age of Wonders. Of course, not everything can be realistic and abstraction is part of the secret ... but superficial elements like the OP is talking about have nothing to do with gameplay, really. Whether the leader of the Songhai is a warmonger or a builder-type doesn't change the mechanics of the game, there is room in the game for both, and both make for good gameplay.

I really think civ5 will be a good game, and there are some who seem hostile, but I didn't at all get that impression from the OP ... knee-jerk attacks on suggestions for improvements is just as inane and juvenile as irrational criticism.

 

[ilikepies]

People have heard of Zulu. Nobody has heard of Songhai.

People have heard of Shaka Zulu. Nobody has heard of Askika (that name cracks me up!)

Songhai didn't burn villages and eat babies, Zulus did.

Askika (lol!) wasn't an insane warmonger, Shaka Zulu was.

People love the Zulus.

There is really no reason to put in Songhai instead of Zulu.

 

[Mango Elephant]

People have heard of Zulu. Nobody has heard of Songhai.

well, apparently I'm nobody because I've heard of the Songhai.

People have heard of Shaka Zulu. Nobody has heard of Askika (that name cracks me up!)

to be honest I haven't heard of Shaka before Civ.

Songhai didn't burn villages and eat babies, Zulus did.

That's a bit racist, but it still shows they're different civilizations.

Askika (lol!) wasn't an insane warmonger, Shaka Zulu was.

Again, shows they're different nations.

People love the Zulus.

and I love Songhai.

There is really no reason to put in Songhai instead of Zulu.

Not instead of Zulu because they're vastly different cultures, as you have already said. They are not putting in Zulu, they are putting in Songhai, the two facts are not (very) related.