Bantu as a civilization, instead of Zulu?

[Evillemon325]

(This idea has gotten a good reception over at Civfanatics, so I'll repost it here)


I was playing Rise of Nations the other day for the first time in a long while and noticed that there was a Bantu civilization. Now the opinion on Zulus around here is highly polarized, we have zulu diehards who view them as absolutely necessary given how they've been in every single other civ game, and those who really think they're a waste of a civ, being just another warmonger who was in reality rather unimportant to history.

But the Bantu is a very wide group of people. Starting out in Nigeria in around 4000 B.C. the Bantu have spread all throughout sub-saharan africa, replacing, absorbing, or exterminating the previous residents. In fact, the Zulus themselves are a Bantu tribe! There are over 600 different Bantu languages spoken today, and almost all tribes south of the sahel belong are Bantu. Any individual sub-saharan bantu tribe like the Zulu is relatively unimportant and unvaried, but when you add them all together as a single civilization (similar to what they did with polynesia, though there is also a higher degree of cultural similarities in Bantu peoples) you can have a single important civilization.

Bantu Civ:

Leader:
Shaka Zulu. I think Shaka as the face of the Bantu works for 2 reasons, 1. The zulu are one of the largest Bantu tribes 2. It will put the zulu question to rest forever.

UA: Great Migration (This refers to the spreading of the Bantu over all of South Africa over a 2000 year period). No unhappiness penalty from founding new cities, Settlers 33% cheaper.

UU: Impi Warrior, replaces warrior. Impis have the all terrain promotion of the Scout, due to the high degree of mobility and lightness of their gear.

UB: Zimbabwe: Small stone cities found throughout zimbabwe, most famously at Great zimbabwe. Replaces walls, with the +4 defense, but also with +2 culture and +1 faith.

[PachaMinnie]

You sir have earned ALL of my respect. Yes, I do agree. It's either the Zulu represent the Bantu, or the Bantu are their own nation. I have no problem with throwing in the Bantu because,

A) Less of a Warlike playstyle
B) Let's face it, Great Zimbabwe and Kongo are never going to get in, who not combine all of them into one nation?
C) I just love this idea.
D) It could open up for South Africa as a Civilization, and I like that.

My problems.

A) It keeps other African Civilizations associated with the Bantu from getting in.
B) The Bantu where never a Civilization, only a cultural group.


The Bantu lived in half of Africa, they where not apart of Songhai or Mali. Just thought I would let everyone know.

Instead of Zimbabwe why not Great Walls of Zimbabwe? Because Zimbabwe is a City, and not a building.

Fitting that I post 1st huh? Me being the latest Zulu Devotee.

[Hawk]

I do like this idea I have to say, partially because we have now the Celts and Polynesia, which are titles that cover many people, which would be about the same as having Bantu instead of Zulu. This also covers Great Zimbabwe, another popular idea that falls in the shadow of the Zulu, so this would be their opportunity to get into the game...At least in a way. I still want another African civ, such as Kongo or Benin in the game additionally, but I think that this would suite me fine!

This idea should be popular enough to replace the call for the Zulu, and get the developers the money they want for it, so I can see it happening too.

[SlickSlicer]

This is what Rise of Nations did, and it worked. It's been brought up before. It's a fine idea.

[Pouakai]

I hate the idea, I'm not going to lie. I think that Africa deserves multiple civilizations instead of an all encompasing one. Why not just have five - Native Americans, Bantu, Saxon, Celt, Asia?

[ddesart]

I hate the idea, I'm not going to lie. I think that Africa deserves multiple civilizations instead of an all encompasing one. Why not just have five - Native Americans, Bantu, Saxon, Celt, Asia?

I have to agree...while the Zulu should get into the game, they should not get in this way, they are better than that. Like Pouakai brought out, are we just going to start clumping simalar group together just for the sake of them making into the game? I don't like it either, but good topic...

[SlickSlicer]

are we just going to start clumping simalar group together just for the sake of them making into the game?

You mean like they did with Polynesia? I don't remember King Kamehameha ruling over the Maori. Should they have just added Hawaii? On its own, if you consider the kingdom under Kamehameha and co., it wasn't too bad really.

[ddesart]

You mean like they did with Polynesia? I don't remember King Kamehameha ruling over the Maori.

That was a unique situation...they really havn't done that with any other civilization. I guess that they established a different precedent with Polynesia, didn't they? I just hope it doesn't carry over to other groups, I like the uniqueness of different empires, don't you?

[SlickSlicer]

I like the uniqueness of different factions for gameplay purposes.

This template:

Bantu Civ:

Leader:
Shaka Zulu. I think Shaka as the face of the Bantu works for 2 reasons, 1. The zulu are one of the largest Bantu tribes 2. It will put the zulu question to rest forever.

UA: Great Migration (This refers to the spreading of the Bantu over all of South Africa over a 2000 year period). No unhappiness penalty from founding new cities, Settlers 33% cheaper.

UU: Impi Warrior, replaces warrior. Impis have the all terrain promotion of the Scout, due to the high degree of mobility and lightness of their gear.

UB: Zimbabwe: Small stone cities found throughout zimbabwe, most famously at Great zimbabwe. Replaces walls, with the +4 defense, but also with +2 culture and +1 faith.

sounds fine to me for a new faction for the game, as an example. I would have given the Zulu or Bantu some kind of movement/settlement bonus anyways. I remember posting a long time ago some kind of idea for the Zulu with a forced march UA.

Personally, I also thought that Polynesia was fine. I don't believe there is a set precedent for such things. It ends up being merely a matter of creative license. You could also, however, point to things like Denmark's "ski infantry" as anomalies where they seemed to have taken into account more than just the civ in question (Denmark) when they gave them certain traits (that belong more broadly to other Scandanavians).

[Hawk]

I hate the idea, I'm not going to lie. I think that Africa deserves multiple civilizations instead of an all encompasing one. Why not just have five - Native Americans, Bantu, Saxon, Celt, Asia?

I don't think that this idea really excludes civs from Africa all that much...I mean, how many African civs are we honestly expecting anyway? The Bantu will include civs, such as Great Zimbabwe, that would probably never make it on their own, and for probably no good reason. Even if Bantu is added as a whole, that still leaves it open for plenty of African civs. Besides that we now have Ethiopia, so Africa is starting to get some more much needed attention.
Also, as you listed, the Celts are a civ as a whole, but when I made a poll on this ages ago, by far the Celts title as a whole was in favour, with only a few votes going for individual titles.

[Pouakai]

It'll essentially be the Zulu, only excluding most African civs. Kongo has been very popular recently, I'm fully expecting to see them at some point

[steveg700]

(This idea has gotten a good reception over at Civfanatics, so I'll repost it here)UA: Great Migration (This refers to the spreading of the Bantu over all of South Africa over a 2000 year period). No unhappiness penalty from founding new cities, Settlers 33% cheaper.

UU: Impi Warrior, replaces warrior. Impis have the all terrain promotion of the Scout, due to the high degree of mobility and lightness of their gear.

UB: Zimbabwe: Small stone cities found throughout zimbabwe, most famously at Great zimbabwe. Replaces walls, with the +4 defense, but also with +2 culture and +1 faith.

The idea of incorporating the Zulu into a larger civ has been suggested many times, so I'm not sure why all these responses treat it as if it were new and innovative. Having said that, it's a good idea.

I have to agree...while the Zulu should get into the game, they should not get in this way, they are better than that. Like Pouakai brought out, are we just going to start clumping simalar group together just for the sake of them making into the game? I don't like it either, but good topic...

The Zulu nation was just a little blip in history of South Africa. It isn't really that different from what's been done with various other civ's.

[SlickSlicer]

I agree completely with steveg.

[PachaMinnie]

It'll essentially be the Zulu, only excluding most African civs. Kongo has been very popular recently, I'm fully expecting to see them at some point

If they put in the Bantu, Great Zimbabwe, Kongo, and the Zulu are all out. All of them are apart of the Bantu culture. Kongo won't get in, I am very interested finding out how many random people know who they are. Nobody that's who. Polynesian nations are somewhat popular in Asia, America, and Oceania. Kongo and Great Zimbabwe are only popular in Africa. Neither of them are going to make it on their own and people always whine when they see the Zulu because "It's to militaristic".

We should clump up certain cultural groups. Most people couldn't name a Celtic tribe if they had to, the Gauls weren't a tribe, the Germanians weren't a tribe, name one, please name ONE Celtic tribe. Polynesia was another good idea, just combine the Polynesian tribes it just makes better sense than putting in Hawaii and Maori and others. We won't clump up the Native Americans again, we already have the Iroquois, that makes it hard for us to clump them up.

[Pouakai]

Iceni.

Kongo is popular outside of Africa, same with Zimbabwe.

[PachaMinnie]

Iceni.

Kongo is popular outside of Africa, same with Zimbabwe.

Try putting the Iceni Civilization in the game, won't work I am telling you.

Kongo and Great Zimbabwe aren't that popular, or at least they aren't popular enough to be bought by people.

[Akinaba]

I vote for Bantu, since it's more historically and geographiclly correct

Althou

UA: Great Migration (This refers to the spreading of the Bantu over all of South Africa over a 2000 year period). No unhappiness penalty from founding new cities, Settlers 33% cheaper.

It's a totall OP. Not gonna work. Everyone would play this civ then. Should think anput something better balanced instead.

UU: Impi Warrior, replaces warrior. Impis have the all terrain promotion of the Scout, due to the high degree of mobility and lightness of their gear

Having "all terrain promotions of the Scout" again is too much, especially if you will point out that their just first promotion was either larger sight radius, or better healing. Saying, if Impi will have just Scout moovement (i.e. 2 mooving points + no movement penalties) will be allready more then enough. Maybe having Impi replacing Scout itself wil be a good Idea (we had no UU's that replaced Scouts ever!), having attack a Warrior-like, but the same defence as Scout.

This two Uniques making this possible civ. too aggressive, way more expansive than any other civ in the game. And it results in very militaristic way of gaming -- what many were complainig a lot f this nation.

Should thik of better Uniques (though I suggested one for Impi).

And, again, I concider adding Bantu, instead of Zulu a very great idea! (Finally some people will be able to find out something new about world history).

[VicRatlhead51]

If they put in the Bantu, Great Zimbabwe, Kongo, and the Zulu are all out. All of them are apart of the Bantu culture. Kongo won't get in, I am very interested finding out how many random people know who they are. Nobody that's who. Polynesian nations are somewhat popular in Asia, America, and Oceania. Kongo and Great Zimbabwe are only popular in Africa. Neither of them are going to make it on their own and people always whine when they see the Zulu because "It's to militaristic".

We should clump up certain cultural groups. Most people couldn't name a Celtic tribe if they had to, the Gauls weren't a tribe, the Germanians weren't a tribe, name one, please name ONE Celtic tribe. Polynesia was another good idea, just combine the Polynesian tribes it just makes better sense than putting in Hawaii and Maori and others. We won't clump up the Native Americans again, we already have the Iroquois, that makes it hard for us to clump them up.

Forget tribes there are distinct Celtic "nations" known today, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany and Isle of Man. Funny thing is I don't see anyone protesting the addition of the Celts because they think any of the subgroups should be in on their own. The only thing I've seen people whine about is that Boudica rules Scotland and Ireland in the Fall of Rome scenario, not sure why that matters since many of the rulers in the game didn't rule at the height of their respective civilizations power or control the entire scope of their culture. Bantu might be an interesting approach to bringing in Shaka without it being a totally militaristic group. It'd also be a good way to give a nod towards Kongo and Great Zimbabwe without having to add 2 extra civs. On top of all that it'd shut up the people who've been protesting the Zulu because their Kingdom only lasted 70 years.

[PachaMinnie]

Having "all terrain promotions of the Scout" again is too much, especially if you will point out that their just first promotion was either larger sight radius, or better healing. Saying, if Impi will have just Scout moovement (i.e. 2 mooving points + no movement penalties) will be allready more then enough. Maybe having Impi replacing Scout itself wil be a good Idea (we had no UU's that replaced Scouts ever!), having attack a Warrior-like, but the same defence as Scout.

This two Uniques making this possible civ. too aggressive, way more expansive than any other civ in the game. And it results in very militaristic way of gaming -- what many were complainig a lot f this nation.

Should thik of better Uniques (though I suggested one for Impi).

1st) The Impi where no scouts, they where spearmen who took on Semi-Auto Rifles and beat them multiple times. They where powerful, the very idea that you want them to replace scouts gets my goat, gets my dander right up.
2nd) It is Very accurate that the Impi take no movement penalties. Shaka trained them to be very fast, and very tough. They where so fast in fact, the British at first thought they rode into battle on horses.
3rd) They did the same thing in Civilization 4, it's the most accurate option.
4th) We have had UUs replacing scouts, see past Civilization Games for details.
5th) This game has some imbalanced units, but the Impi will not be one of them. Arguing that a Warrior that replaces the scout will take over the game is pointless. A warrior can't take a damn city unless you have many many warriors, and since they are making cities harder to take, they are NO WHERE near overpowered.

[steveg700]

It's a totall OP. Not gonna work. Everyone would play this civ then. Should think anput something better balanced instead.


Having "all terrain promotions of the Scout" again is too much, especially if you will point out that their just first promotion was either larger sight radius, or better healing. Saying, if Impi will have just Scout moovement (i.e. 2 mooving points + no movement penalties) will be allready more then enough. Maybe having Impi replacing Scout itself wil be a good Idea (we had no UU's that replaced Scouts ever!), having attack a Warrior-like, but the same defence as Scout.

This two Uniques making this possible civ. too aggressive, way more expansive than any other civ in the game. And it results in very militaristic way of gaming -- what many were complainig a lot f this nation.

I'd pretty much written off the uniques as just spitballing. I mean, if this was posted on Civfanatics, then they were probably tossed out the window right away. The UA is not only too powerful, but it's just not terribly exciting. But at least it has a guiding strategy, which many UA's suggested by the community lack altogether (because they're more interested in pseudo-historical notions than pragmatic ones).

[Akinaba]

1st) The Impi where no scouts, they where spearmen who took on Semi-Auto Rifles and beat them multiple times

Well, making them to replace warrior makes as much sence replacing Scouts then. Semi-Auto riifles, Warriors, srsly?

5th) This game has some imbalanced units, but the Impi will not be one of them. Arguing that a Warrior that replaces the scout will take over the game is pointless. A warrior can't take a damn city unless you have many many warriors, and since they are making cities harder to take, they are NO WHERE near overpowered.

But having all Scout promotion will make them to be extremely more powerfull than any mele unit of given time (since they will heal faster than any other unit) and here is OP.

[steveg700]

1st) 5th) This game has some imbalanced units, but the Impi will not be one of them. Arguing that a Warrior that replaces the scout will take over the game is pointless. A warrior can't take a damn city unless you have many many warriors, and since they are making cities harder to take, they are NO WHERE near overpowered.

Well, what's the point of having a Zulu unit if you don't have a swarm of'em?

But really, we're back to the question of what goals can be accomplished playing a civ that feels like playing the Zulu. If domination is the only valid victory condition to pursue with the Zulu (and it's not like Shaka concerned himself with anything else), and cities can't be taken with swarms of early-rush warriors, then what's the real point?

But having all Scout promotion will make them to be extremely more powerfull than any mele unit of given time (since they will heal faster than any other unit) and here is OP.

Maybe the intent was that they have scout promotions available for selection, not that they start with them all.

[PachaMinnie]

Well, making them to replace warrior makes as much sence replacing Scouts then. Semi-Auto riifles, Warriors, srsly?
But having all Scout promotion will make them to be extremely more powerfull than any mele unit of given time (since they will heal faster than any other unit) and here is OP.

Semi-Automatic Rifles, Perhaps that was bad wording, Bolt Action Rifles was what I was going for.

Who ever said they would have Scout promotions? They don't take terrain penalties. That's what he meant, they are like scouts, but they are warriors. They don't have scout promotions to start with.

[Akinaba]

Semi-Automatic Rifles, Perhaps that was bad wording, Bolt Action Rifles was what I was going for.

Inventing a Bolt-Action rifles brings us not even to the time of invention of Gunpowder but even further to Cavalery and "Colonial" Infantry. It's really far from Warriors I tell you.

Who ever said they would have Scout promotions? They don't take terrain penalties. That's what he meant, they are like scouts, but they are warriors. They don't have scout promotions to start with.

Well, I misunderstood this. Having Impi as certain era Infantry unit with no terrain movement penalties totally suits me.

[PachaMinnie]

Inventing a Bolt-Action rifles brings us not even to the time of invention of Gunpowder but even further to Cavalery and "Colonial" Infantry. It's really far from Warriors I tell you.

Yes, amazing how Impi Warriors fought British soldiers with just spears. The British had Gatling Guns and Bolt-Action rifles, our Impis only had spears yet they where still able to massacre over 1,000 British soldiers at Isandlwana.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qydHIjL7iMg

Oh yes, That reminds me. Sorry British Nationalists, your boys at Isandlwana didn't fight to the death like Spartans, nor did they have trouble getting ammo from the ammo box because they "didn't have the right paper work or a screw driver" No friends, they ran like children. They saw Zulus running over the ridge at great speed, dropped their equipment and guns, and ran for their life.

[VicRatlhead51]

Maybe having them replace pikemen would put them closer to their era. It wouldn't be odd to have them facing riflemen then and a horde of pikemen could do pretty well against a few riflemen. Give them 3 movement and the ignore Terrain penalty kind of like the minutemen.

[Akinaba]

Maybe having them replace pikemen would put them closer to their era. It wouldn't be odd to have them facing riflemen then and a horde of pikemen could do pretty well against a few riflemen. Give them 3 movement and the ignore Terrain penalty kind of like the minutemen.

It will just perfecly fit if they'll have say 25% bonus (or any other) against Rifleman and will have ignore terrain penalty with movement standard to pikeman (or this can vary and actually should be tested ). This perfectly fits for me!

[Artifex]

Civ 5 has not gone for the wide ethnic group, it goes for a specific country.
Carthage, not phonetician.
Sweeden, not vikings.

There are counter examples, like Polynesian, but I feel that was a special case.

[Evillemon325]

Civ 5 has not gone for the wide ethnic group, it goes for a specific country.
Carthage, not phonetician.
Sweeden, not vikings.

There are counter examples, like Polynesian, but I feel that was a special case.

Why was polynesian so special? Seems exactly the same sort of scenario. A few very minor civs and all the rest completely irrelevant combined into a single large viable one?

It's the same exact kind of case I feel. Ditto celts.
And we have denmark with norwegian ski infantry, Sweden with finnish cavalry, india with mughal forts, Siam with khmer wats, etc.

[Artifex]

I Simply meant that because Polynesia lacked a singular tribe with enough clout.
Maori, Samoans, Tongans, Hawaiians? These would have worked, but it would have been a stretch. They were isolated, low population, and lacking writing. There could have been hundreds of amazing stories and captivating individuals in their history but we have no way of knowing.

The Zulu do have a moment of notoriety in history, and a recognizable leader to latch onto.
This follows the pattern.

[Hawk]

Just curious, have we made a poll on this before? I'm not making a new poll, but it might be interesting to see the results on this.

[SlickSlicer]

good point with celts. I don't know why I hadn't thought of them. Lumping all the Celts together as one group is exactly the same thing as what they did with Polynesians. There were plenty of notable Gallic, Scottish, Irish or other sub-group leaders/states they could have utilized instead (so there goes Artifex's argument).

Evillemon pretty much covered every argument here I think.

[VicRatlhead51]

Well we have to be realistic. There's only going to be so many dlcs and maybe one more expansion. Not every civ in the world is going to make it. Lumping together cultures can give the devs an opportunity to please more people with a smaller number of civs. I mean there's a pretty big list of civs people want added and some just aren't going to make it. The Bantu idea is really comparable to the Celts and Polynesia and is probably the only way Kongo and Great Zimbabwe are getting in.

[Artifex]

I did say there were counter examples :P Not like I was applying a rule.
But yes I agree lumping the Celts together was odd. Perhaps it is because the Celtic nations are so interwoven with the existing European options.

Still in the case of Zulu they seem like an obvious choice

[VicRatlhead51]

Still in the case of Zulu they seem like an obvious choice

Well yeah, it is more likely that they'll eventually be added anyway simply because they've been in every other Civ game. The Bantu idea is actually less likely to happen than the Zulu being added on their own. It's just an interesting idea and like I said earlier it would really help to eliminate the arguement that the Zulu were such a short lived kingdom. The Bantu as a whole basically shaped civilization in southern Africa.

[oblio]

Yes, amazing how Impi Warriors fought British soldiers with just spears. The British had Gatling Guns and Bolt-Action rifles, our Impis only had spears yet they where still able to massacre over 1,000 British soldiers at Isandlwana.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qydHIjL7iMg

Oh yes, That reminds me. Sorry British Nationalists, your boys at Isandlwana didn't fight to the death like Spartans, nor did they have trouble getting ammo from the ammo box because they "didn't have the right paper work or a screw driver" No friends, they ran like children. They saw Zulus running over the ridge at great speed, dropped their equipment and guns, and ran for their life.

Not quite sure this is 100% true and maybe just a bit of revisionist history. Isandlwana was simply bad generaling and not a failure of the troops or a limit of the technology. The British column was basically caught with its pants down because the leadership was too cocky and didn't at all conceive that the "natives" were any real threat at all. The Fuzzy Wuzzies did the same thing in the Sudan in that same era as well for the same kind of reasons.

You included a link to the movie Zulu which while made for entertainment so took many liberties with the facts, but it does show that you don't take a knife or spear to a gun fight. The historical record does show at Rourke's Drift and in the campaign after Isandlwana that once the Brisih did take their finger out of their hind quarters, spears and cow hide shields do not stand up well to a Martini-Henry. The Zulu were no doubt brave and maybe better led but they lost and lost badly to a superior technology used by dedicated and well trained troops.

[PachaMinnie]

Not quite sure this is 100% true and maybe just a bit of revisionist history. Isandlwana was simply bad generaling and not a failure of the troops or a limit of the technology. The British column was basically caught with its pants down because the leadership was too cocky and didn't at all conceive that the "natives" were any real threat at all. The Fuzzy Wuzzies did the same thing in the Sudan in that same era as well for the same kind of reasons.

You included a link to the movie Zulu which while made for entertainment so took many liberties with the facts, but it does show that you don't take a knife or spear to a gun fight. The historical record does show at Rourke's Drift and in the campaign after Isandlwana that once the Brisih did take their finger out of their hind quarters, spears and cow hide shields do not stand up well to a Martini-Henry. The Zulu were no doubt brave and maybe better led but they lost and lost badly to a superior technology used by dedicated and well trained troops.

Yes, most of what you said is true, the British where caught with their pants down. They had seen the thousands of Zulu warriors and began to march up a ridge. Then as they saw the massive force of Zulus running over head they turn tails and ran. They didn't get into square formation or any formation, they just scattered. Thus they where massacred. Recent evidence from the battle shows that.

That link was just for the music, it really fits the Zulu war.

Yes, the Zulus where NO match for Guns, but this doesn't hide the fact that they still where able to defeat the British in multiple battles at the beginning of the war. Even if it was the Brit's fault. I am not the one who suggested that the Zulu get a bonus against gunpowder units, however I must say that it was quite impressive that they where able to gain those victories.

The Zulu did have access to Guns, but didn't use them at Isandlwana, or at least in large supply. However, they did use them at Rorke's drift, or at least that is what the British Veterans of that battle said.

Here's the battles the Zulu won, Isandlwana, Intombe, Hlobane, and while they didn't win at Rorke's drift they easily could have, it just would've been to costly. Therefore, since no one really won anything at Rorke's drift I'll take that one out and the final equation is The Zulu won 3 out of the 7 major battles of the Anglo-Zulu war. Note I am not counting Rorke's Drift because that battle was more of a stalemate.
Here's where I am coming from about Isandlwana


"There are several myths about this battle which have recently been exposed, but the most common one is that the reason the British lost and were wiped out was because the quarter-masters responsible for issuing ammunition refused to do so without the required chits signed by senior officers and so the troops ran out of ammunition.

A slight variation on this story was that the quartermasters issued the ammunition but nobody had the required screw-driver to open the boxes.

Both these myths have since been exposed as inventions of the imagination created to explain the inexplicable without actually placing the blame on anyone important.

In fact, battlefield archeologists have conducted a thorough survey of the Isawanda battlefield and discovered a far more plausible explanation based upon the distribution of cartridges and other battlefield debris.

It appears that contrary to the official version of events, the British did not form up in a dense battle line just beyond their camp to recieve the Zulu attack, nor did they form gallant squares and fight to the last man as their ammunition ran out. Though this obvious would be what the gold briad at Horse Guards wanted to believe, and so they assumed that this must have been what happened.

However, based upon the distribution of cartridge cases and other battlefield debris across the battlefield it seems that rather than forming a battle line close to the camp the British troops were ordered to advance in skirmish order towards the Zulu army. This was actually hidden beyond a ridge, and the theory is that the intention was to advance up to the ridge line and use it as an initial firing position from which to reduce the strength of the approaching Impii's.

Whatever the intention, the plan went horribly wrong as it appears the Zulu's reached the crest of the ridge just as the British skirmish line was climbing the last few yards before the summit. The first British cartridge cases were found scattered across the front face of the ridge not in dense lines but in dispersed patterns.

It appears that panic immediately set in, as the Zulu's hurtled over the crest and down the slope towards the scattered British troops. Almost immediately the archeologists began to find evidence of discarded equipment. Haversack buckles, rifle mechanisms (some clearly jammed), cap badges were found all the way from the ridge back to the main camp site. Suggesting that the British fell back rapidly in some disorder, and just kept going. There were occassional dense concentrations of cartidges, equipment and uniform remants in dips and wadi's suggesting that some groups of men had turned at bay and tried to hold positions before being overrun, but the vast majority of the men seem to have started running and never stopped, and cartidge cases were scattered in a wide and dispersed pattern right through the camp and for a mile beyond it as the last survivors were chased and harried to extinction.

At not point was there any evidence of a formed battle line or a gallant square, the last debris found was a few pitiful scaps of uniform and buckles scattered in a dry stream bed over a mile from the battlefield site, where presumbly the last survivors, out of ammunition and too tired to run farther were caught and slaughtered.

P.s. I almost forgot...the reason most of the ammunition boxes were found intact in the camp, giving rise to the myth, is not that nobody had the right paperwork, or a scewdriver (in fact it was shown that one hefty slap with a rifle butt opened an ammo box easily anyway, but simply that they were running for their lives with a bunch of screaming Zulu's on their tails and hadn't got the time or inclination to stop and draw fresh ammunition."

[SlickSlicer]

I am not the one who suggested that the Zulu get a bonus against gunpowder units, however I must say that it was quite impressive that they where able to gain those victories.

I've suggested this before. I think it would be an interesting gameplay element. That was the only reason I made this proposal in the past.

[Bantams]

Theres Only room for one Bantu / Banty / Bantams In Civ would be cool if I had my own Civ though

[VicRatlhead51]

The major problem with giving them bonus vs riflemen or gunpowder units would be that they couldn't carry the bonus over when promoted or it'd be unbalanced and that would give them only situational usefulness at best considering even with 100%vs riflemen the rifleman would still be stronger.