Beating a Zulu Rusher

[eireksten]

I'd like to get a strategy thread going on different ways to beat a zulu (rush) player.

I usually don't have much problem preventing the zulu from taking my cities. Still, the zulu usually gets such a head start that it's extremely hard to do anything about him. Therefore, I was hoping to get some great tips collected as to how you could play your game when dealing with a zulu rusher.

A zulu rush is extremely fast. This means that there aren't very many options as to what you could do in the meantime. But there are a few, and what is the best way?

Does anyone have a good suggestion?

[Madhatter]

I voted no
but this is mostly because i think the problem (if there is one)
is with the AI not rushing or the Zulu
I think the system with fortification and so on puts the pressure on the attacker(rusher)
and there fore there is no problem
BUT with a bad AI it is possible to abuse this and rush to get AI cities which off course favors the one attacking and therefore there might be a problem
but if we get a good AI or humans only matchs I think the problem is solved

[MorteEterna]

Today I have been beaten by a zulu for luck, I was in a map already seen, another time and I knew that my map was screwed (not grasslands, forests, or other food) and I tried to move up. A zulu has used a single unit and has killed my with a lot of luck, in that moment I was thining how much luck could have a zulu rusher.

PS: I voted no, but I hate that some times it goes for so much luck

[Leo]

i voted yes, it is too easy to win with the zulu, using a strat that a monkey could perform to the same level.

it is true that the majority of the problem lies in the weak AI, however the double movement can cause problems (sometimes unavoidable) for a human player as well. if you start right next to a zulu, you both make some warriors to start, he gets a hut very fast, it gave him gold, he rushes his next two warriors, he marches over to your base (knowing you are there from having met your warrior as you were both going for the same first hut as you were next to each other) and takes an easy win that the other player mathematically could not prevent (without knowing prior to his first move, that the zulu was right next to him), this could be 3400bc for example.

i voted yes for zulu rather than yes to rushing as a whole because i believe rushing is only as powerful as it seems for a handful of civs (for which i would also vote yes). i also would not like to see the death of rushing as we would then be faced with the same problem that zulu (other civs as well, but zulu is the easiest to abuse and has good secondary bonus's that are not rush reliant) presents now, except it would be china instead (with china being a strong rusher anyhow, in addition to the most powerful tech civ).

[eireksten]

@Madhatter:

If you think the problem is with the AI, then that's obviously with rushing in general. You think it's too easy.

Had I been a H2H player, I might have agreed. I find that there are always human players having just as much trouble with a warrior army in 3000BC as the AI. You just can't do exploring without worrying about a rush. I H2H, you might not always start next to the zulu. In FFA, there will almost always be someone doing just that.

Anyway, this thread is about discussing different strats against zulu.

[MorteEterna]

i voted yes, it is too easy to win with the zulu, using a strat that a monkey could perform to the same level.

it is true that the majority of the problem lies in the weak AI, however the double movement can cause problems (sometimes unavoidable) for a human player as well. if you start right next to a zulu, you both make some warriors to start, he gets a hut very fast, it gave him gold, he rushes his next to warriors, he marches over to your base (knowing you are there from having met your warrior as you were both going for the same first hut as you were next to each other) and takes an easy win that the other player mathematically could not prevent (without knowing prior to his first move, that the zulu was right next to him), this could be 3400bc for example.

i voted yes for zulu rather than yes to rushing as a whole because i believe rushing is only as powerful as it seems for a handful of civs (for which i would also vote yes). i also would not like to see the death of rushing as we would then be faced with the same problem that zulu (other civs as well, but zulu is the easiest to abuse and has good secondary bonus's that are not rush reliant) presents now, except it would be china instead (with china being a strong rusher anyhow, in addition to the most powerful tech civ).

About the first part, that's almost the same how I lose (but not the same). I was getting an hut, he has moved his warrior so I had to see for his warrior or hut, I tried to attack but he attacked me (1 v 1,5) and he has won. I was in a hill and could have no problems attacking him.

I think, arabs are good and aren't cheap as zulu, they aren't overpowered but they would be if they get luck. I was using them some times but I don't like their abilities, they are too cheap some times and the game becomes boring. Playing as arabs for me is funny, when for example I have to change the strategy from domination to economic (done some times, for example against you Leo but you know what happened )

[eireksten]

I wonder how it'd be if warriors couldn't attack cities.

Then rushing (other than the lame zulu one) would still exist, but at least you'd have time to do something.

[MorteEterna]

I wonder how it'd be if warriors couldn't attack cities.

Then rushing (other than the lame zulu one) would still exist, but at least you'd have time to do something.

That would be a useless and bad thing. If I can't maybe I would stop play, not because I play cheap. I think another thing would be an idea, but we have to find that. Maybe a free unit would be too much..

[Leo]

currently i would say the best strat against a zulu, is to play a civ that is also capable to taking over AI cities very early (eg arabs), and hope that he doesnt start right next to you.

then you should be able to match him on AI capitals and possibly win with superior late game options. if you are arabs you present a military threat for longer than he does, so you might get extra cities, or you could put your armies on a boat and drop them off at zimbabwe which is likely not heavily defended and so on.

if you were china you could go horsemen, rush an ai or two and then win the expansion/tech race with your extra pop (he cant be next to you though, if he is and you go horsemen, and he goes straight for you, your probably going to lose).

aztecs, something of a middle ground, ability to get a warrior out instantly with the gold means you are slightly less susceptible to both a rush and having all your huts stolen by a close by zulu, auto heal armies and later science producing temples will give you an edge if you keep up in the early game.

anyone else, i would say have the odds stacked against them fairly heavily.

incidentally, something zulu players never seem to do is horserush. i feel this is something that should be done more often (if your a zulu player), because it is essentially the same method as the aztec use, make a warrior, get some huts, get some gold, buy your horsemen after the tech. it isnt as fast as a warrior rush for sure, but if you suspect your opponent is going to defend your warrior rush with his own warriors (if he is arabs for example), it could knock him out straight away, your horse will easily beat him and he wont be expecting it at all, and it should be about as fast as the aztec version as well.

[Madhatter]

I think it is hard to compare the zulus rush ability
to the other civilazations
the might be overpowered in the early turns but if you stick a warrior or two when it is convinient in your capital it will be hard for the zulus to rush
every think the zulu can stick at your capital you can put in it
if he has an army so do you
and if we look at the zulu bonuses we see that there arent any good bonuses after the riflemen(ok the gold bonus but you hopefully get my point)
if we compare this to the americans they get
1. factorys that produce 3* the normal output
2. rushing at ½ price
3. more food form plains
4.2% interest (not awesome)

all off these bonuses are really nice in the eras after riflemen
so zulu are awesome early era americans are awesome late eras
and probobly most civilatioans will have their time in between

[xbman22x]

what i normally do is get bronze ASAP. (cause if i just keep a warrior in my capital he will get beat anyway.) get 1 archer to keep in your capital (it should be able to stop a warrior army) and scout with 2 more. after you are done scouting, ethier keep them in chokes or bring them back to the city and form an army.

Give bronze to everyone in the game to slow down the rushers,especially A.I.
then buy some tech from A.I. so that they have some gold to rush archers.

the zulu are not overpowered, rushing is over powered. the zulu are just very adept at rushing. if you think that they zulu are overpowered, then by the same logic, the arabs and all of the other rushing civs are also overpowered.

[RayJay]

I think they're overpowered

Even if you take out capital capturing power, an impi warrior army takes down barb huts in 1 turn thanks to 4:1 over run ability - often allowing them to capture huts usually grabbed by other civs

Also having a 2 tile movement unit that early in the game gives a huge boost as far as exploration and map revealing goes

This is something that the developers should have caught first time round...

[eireksten]

You can defend against a horseman rush (non-aztec), if you are smart enough not to form armies in your cities immediately...

My 2 last games vs. zulu:

First one, I'm french. The zulu takes a human capital in 3200BC, and immediately sends 2 warrior armies against me. I've started with warrior exploration, having explored everything over to the zulu's latest prey capital. Since I notice his warrior armies, I sell my lone warriors (they'd be overrun otherwise). I go bronze working, and buy myself some archers. Selling them also allows me to get my second city (free settler), which also gets archers.

So the archers easily stops the zulu rush. Thing is, I now have 2 impi armies fortified on my grassland, making a nice 10.5 defense. So I need to deal with that. In the meantime, the zulu gets to expand as he wants. I can't move any settlers around myself (without lots of protection), due to double impi movement. So I decide to go for catapults (first unit with enough attack to take them out), while the zulu player just expands as he wants. I get my catapult, and due to agamemnon, they are also veteran. 18 - 10.5. I lose, of course. It wasn't even certain I'd get free of him with this. So I decided to quit, not spending a couple of hours trying to catch up with a huge zulu lead.

Yeah, and one more thing. The zulu did of course get the pyramid from angkor wat, going democracy. That should usually have gotten rid of the impis, but he just ignored me, using the democracy exploit


The second game. I now play as Japan. I create some warriors this time as well, exploring. I then quickly get bronze working. After that I go horseback riding, getting myself some horsemen. At this point, the zulu player has gotten 1 AI capital and 1 human capital (Rome). He comes to me, and I kill off 1 warrior army, while he kills my horsemen with his second one. He then retreats by galley. I try expanding a little, getting my 3rd city. I get agamemnon again, and create 2 elite horseman armies as well.

Then, the zulu player gets a great artist, and I lose one of my cities. He lands his great general impi army in the city. I kill it off with my horsemen army, but he easily kills the army again with another impi army. Seeing that I'm almost 10 techs behind at this point, I quit again.

[Madhatter]

and well for some theoritically strategi against zulu rush

possibly a horseman rush will give problems if they conquar(misspelled)
the AI cities with warriors you come 4 turns later with horsemen and take it

or going really strong tech wise and beating them in the race might be an option

[MorteEterna]

I think they're overpowered

Even if you take out capital capturing power, an impi warrior army takes down barb huts in 1 turn thanks to 4:1 over run ability - often allowing them to capture huts usually grabbed by other civs

Also having a 2 tile movement unit that early in the game gives a huge boost as far as exploration and map revealing goes

This is something that the developers should have caught first time round...

When will you learn that their ability is to overrun with 3:1 (THREE TO ONE)? You have to have an attack power of more than 3:1 and less than 4:1.

[eireksten]

what i normally do is get bronze ASAP. (cause if i just keep a warrior in my capital he will get beat anyway.) get 1 archer to keep in your capital (it should be able to stop a warrior army) and scout with 2 more. after you are done scouting, ethier keep them in chokes or bring them back to the city and form an army.

Give bronze to everyone in the game to slow down the rushers,especially A.I.
then buy some tech from A.I. so that they have some gold to rush archers.

the zulu are not overpowered, rushing is over powered. the zulu are just very adept at rushing. if you think that they zulu are overpowered, then by the same logic, the arabs and all of the other rushing civs are also overpowered.

Well, in my opinion, zulu rushing is so fast that you haven't got time to react if they come for you. And they also take these cities so fast that there isn't much you can do to harass them... You usually won't even know that they're there (as you've only got 1 tile sight range).

[xbman22x]

When will you learn that their ability is to overrun with 3:1 (THREE TO ONE)? You have to have an attack power of more than 3:1 and less than 4:1.

morte....it is 4:1 (FOUR TO ONE)

[MorteEterna]

morte....it is 4:1 (FOUR TO ONE)

Can you read civilopedia? Uhm you are saying I'm stupid..

[Madhatter]

apparenly from what you write you have to go on the offense and be sure to have the armies to get him off your land probobly horsemen or a horseman army backed up by archers ??

[xbman22x]

Well, in my opinion, zulu rushing is so fast that you haven't got time to react if they come for you. And they also take these cities so fast that there isn't much you can do to harass them... You usually won't even know that they're there (as you've only got 1 tile sight range).

i agree, but civrev is largely a game of luck. and against any rusher, you need some luck. the zulu just require more luck than when playing against the average civ. if you start next to any rusher, you better pray that he doesnt find you.

i agree that this strat is OP, not just because of the zulu, but because rushing is OP. hence, the zulu need not be nerfed, but rushing altogether nerfed.

look at the top 10, how many of them are rushers? oh wait, 10. so 100% of the top 10 are rushers. what great balance this game employs!

[eireksten]

The civilopedia actually says it's 3:1.

Which means that a zulu impi army overruns any lone warrior as well as barbarians.

[MorteEterna]

The civilopedia actually says it's 3:1.

Which means that a zulu impi army overruns any lone warrior as well as barbarians.

Finally you don't say as xbman it was 4:1.. I have also made some pictures and put them into this forum. That's as I said, 3:1

[MorteEterna]

look at the top 10, how many of them are rushers? oh wait, 10. so 100% of the are rushers. what great balance this game employs!

Should I stop rushing getting others loss? I shouldn't be top10 because you say rushing is cheap? Maybe you don't know what I mean, however, for example Leobev got 3 free wins from me, the last one after I have conquered english changing to monarchy, and it has happened as other times after the advisor said "bla bla bla, we need 3 others capitals" and I could do nothing on my xbox. In modern era it's very easy to get a bug, I would say about 60-70% that could happen in a turn

PS: I will change my style maybe when there won't be bugs and all will be fixed and players will play FASTER, not 50 second a turn, that's very annoying and I can't wait 2 hours for the medieval era, I prefer to rush him fast

[eireksten]

i agree, but civrev is largely a game of luck. and against any rusher, you need some luck. the zulu just require more luck than when playing against the average civ. if you start next to any rusher, you better pray that he doesnt find you

I don't have anywhere near this much trouble when facing other civs.

The zulu can easily get to you with an army before 3000BC. If you've got defense (against a warrior army) at that point, you've most likely lost out on a lot of exploring.

But anyway, he'll get other capitals than yours.

Against other civs, you'll at least have time to research something, and build something other than. You'll most likely have some scouts out as well to notice the rush coming. So you get to do something to prevent it.

And about the luck thing. I find that it ruins the game how zulu needs close to no luck at all, while the rest needs a lot (when facing zulu at least)

[eireksten]

look at the top 10, how many of them are rushers? oh wait, 10. so 100% of the are rushers. what great balance this game employs!

Should I stop rushing getting others loss? I shouldn't be top10 because you say rushing is cheap? Maybe you don't know what I mean, however, for example Leobev got 3 free wins from me, the last one after I have conquered english changing to monarchy, and it has happened as other times after the advisor said "bla bla bla, we need 3 others capitals" and I could do nothing on my xbox. In modern era it's very easy to get a bug, I would say about 60-70% that could happen in a turn

PS: I will change my style maybe when there won't be bugs and all will be fixed and players will play FASTER, not 50 second a turn, that's very annoying and I can't wait 2 hours for the medieval era, I prefer to rush him fast

He wasn't complaining about your style of play. He was making a point stating how rushing obviously is more powerful than other strategies.

For me, this takes a lot of the fun out of the game. I think rushing should be harder, and fail a lot more often than it does.

For zulu, it's just ridiculous. This thing is followed by rapid growth and +50% gold production? WTF?

[MorteEterna]

He wasn't complaining about your style of play. He was making a point stating how rushing obviously is more powerful than other strategies.

For me, this takes a lot of the fun out of the game. I think rushing should be harder, and fail a lot more often than it does.

For zulu, it's just ridiculous. This thing is followed by rapid growth and +50% gold production? WTF?

Well, one should learn how to defend against good rushers. There are few civs very good and you should know that, if you want to pick indians for example going to die surely that's your problem if you meet a civ as Chinese. They aren't overpowered. Other civs have less things. I think only zulu should have less bonuses. Arabs are ok as rushers and fair in my opinion. Zulu could conquer in few turns all capitals (in a team in 13 turns I got a domination victory).

[xbman22x]

and we have never seen errors in the civilopedia before

[RayJay]

That's as I said, 3:1

Ok, I was wrong but the point I made still stands

[MorteEterna]

no....i am saying that you are acting stupidly. and you correct people when you are wrong....show me your proof, here is mine

http://planetcivilization.gamespy.co...n.Detail&id=13

Sorry, I haven't time to make another picture. The first time I have put here 2 pictures about that with the translation. Read the civilopedia instead of giving me links about a community that isn't civ revolution. If it is 4:1 why can I overrun with less than 4 times?

[xbman22x]

look at the top 10, how many of them are rushers? oh wait, 10. so 100% of the are rushers. what great balance this game employs!

Should I stop rushing getting others loss? I shouldn't be top10 because you say rushing is cheap? Maybe you don't know what I mean, however, for example Leobev got 3 free wins from me, the last one after I have conquered english changing to monarchy, and it has happened as other times after the advisor said "bla bla bla, we need 3 others capitals" and I could do nothing on my xbox. In modern era it's very easy to get a bug, I would say about 60-70% that could happen in a turn

PS: I will change my style maybe when there won't be bugs and all will be fixed and players will play FASTER, not 50 second a turn, that's very annoying and I can't wait 2 hours for the medieval era, I prefer to rush him fast

no....i dont blame you. do you blame MGT for doing megacity? no, because in a competetive environment you do what ever you can to win. it is the devs job to nerf what is OP, not the player's job to simply not use what is OP.

this doesnt change the fact that rushing is OP, and IMO, cheap

[MorteEterna]

and we have never seen errors in the civilopedia before

But it says 3:1, not 4:1 you are saying you are wrong and I'm wrong now, uhm..

[xbman22x]

I don't have anywhere near this much trouble when facing other civs.

The zulu can easily get to you with an army before 3000BC. If you've got defense (against a warrior army) at that point, you've most likely lost out on a lot of exploring.

But anyway, he'll get other capitals than yours.

Against other civs, you'll at least have time to research something, and build something other than. You'll most likely have some scouts out as well to notice the rush coming. So you get to do something to prevent it.

And about the luck thing. I find that it ruins the game how zulu needs close to no luck at all, while the rest needs a lot (when facing zulu at least)

this is why we need something similar to the palace guard idea (was it yours). a militia with 2 defense. it would eliminate most of these situations (2 defense would get a defense of 5).

[MorteEterna]

this is why we need something similar to the palace guard idea (was it yours). a militia with 2 defense. it would eliminate most of these situations (2 defense would get a defense of 5).

Lol, it would improve too much turtles or defenders. One as japanese could start for example only with grow or greeks could tech as crazy so fast. Maybe a defence of 2 with only palace bonus (palace guard, it defends the palace, it doesn't go out of that)

[xbman22x]

Well, one should learn how to defend against good rushers. There are few civs very good and you should know that, if you want to pick indians for example going to die surely that's your problem if you meet a civ as Chinese. They aren't overpowered. Other civs have less things. I think only zulu should have less bonuses. Arabs are ok as rushers and fair in my opinion. Zulu could conquer in few turns all capitals (in a team in 13 turns I got a domination victory).

morte....i cant really blame you for blindly defending rushing, as it is the only source of any wins you get as of now, but if you would take emotion and bias out of it for a second, you will realize that rushing is OP. my reasoning, 100% OF THE TOP 10 ARE RUSHERS, HENCE, RUSHING IS OP.

[xbman22x]

But it says 3:1, not 4:1 you are saying you are wrong and I'm wrong now, uhm..

what i am saying is that there have been multiple instances in which the civilopedia has been incorrect or had typos.....point is, it was obviously an after thought, and thrown together at the last second. i am not sure, but it is possible that the 3:1 was a typo.

[MorteEterna]

So when I play with zulu and I win with less than 4 it's a double bug? lol, that's funny..

[xbman22x]

Lol, it would improve too much turtles or defenders. One as japanese could start for example only with grow or greeks could tech as crazy so fast. Maybe a defence of 2 with only palace bonus (palace guard, it defends the palace, it doesn't go out of that)

how would that improve too much turtles, LOL. a defense of 5 can easily be taken out by vet horseman. dont you think that a civ, in a possible 193 turn game, has the right to live for the first 5 turns till you get HBR. that is why i love arguing with you morte, you always give us a bipartisan arguement. *sarcasm*

[xbman22x]

So when I play with zulu and I win with less than 4 it's a double bug? lol, that's funny..

when the game is made by 2K games, anything is possible.

[MorteEterna]

how would that improve too much turtles, LOL. a defense of 5 can easily be taken out by vet horseman. dont you think that a civ, in a possible 193 turn game, has the right to live for the first 5 turns till you get HBR. that is why i love arguing with you morte, you always give us a bipartisan arguement. *sarcasm*

Well, some times I have lost 9 v 5 and not few times. You mean that you would like to have a 0 cost unit winning against a 30 hammers army or 60???? That wouldn't be fair, maybe as I said 2,5 would be fair, but you want a huge starting bonus..

[xbman22x]

morte.....the human mind remembers the losses but forgets the wins. this wont happen very often. also, i am sorry morte, but did you ever consider that fact if he gets archers you might have to tech to catapults and play a *gasp* 20 minute game, *cue dramatic music*. or you could just use another cheap tactic and spam legion.

morte, quit complaining just becuase your OP strat would be nerfed. you know, for all his downfalls, at least MGT is isnt *****ing about them nerfing the megacity.