Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
On the other hand, Mongolia is much less effective at dealing with their counters (the Zulus can form Knight corps to deal with enemy Swordsmen or Musketmen, while Mongolia using melee infantry units to handle enemy anti-cavalry would slow their conquering down considerably).
Smarter opponents will know to keep a high level of diplomatic visibility in Mongolia, which weakens their civ ability. There's no equivalent counterplay for the Zulus.
Ultimately, this makes me think that Mongolia probably performs better in singleplayer and the Zulus probably perform better in multiplayer.