Australian Aborigines for Civ

Greizer85 · Aug 30, 2013

SS-18 ICBM said:
I don't get it, they receive the tile outputs automatically and population becomes specialists? Sounds very hard to balance.

There is no population. It's as if it's a size 6 city instantly, but you can't make terrain improvements and it doesn't grow or acquire more tiles. I agree that it would be hard to balance... Just thought of the fact that you wouldn't need workers either, which could tip the balance too much in your favor. I'm sure Firaxis could make it work if they tried. It'd be different for sure. One might argue that the title 'Civilization' mandates civs to have cities, but like I said the camps could gradually develop into them with certain techs (leading to various beeline strategies - do I take this or that 'city property' next?).

Xandinho · Aug 30, 2013

I like the idea
The Aborigines could be an interesting civ, focussed on religion and military, or anything involving natural wonders. I know little of the aborigines,but I would like to see them in the game

cinattra · Aug 30, 2013

The aborigines as a civ does not make sense. The same as the Zulus???? Seriously???? Shaka at least had a movie made about him and struck fear in the hearts of Europeans for a bit. I highly doubt the aborigines could have held their own against fire arms which the Zulus did. Didn't the aborigines basically cause deforestation across Australia? Please, pray tell, what would be their unique unit or better yet their unique building?

You might as well make a civ of one of the tribes in Papua New Guinea that have their own show on National Geographic channel or whatever it is... hahaha.

Please people not everyone that happened to be born deserves to be a civ in this game.

Arachnofiend · Aug 30, 2013

Greizer85 said:
There is no population. It's as if it's a size 6 city instantly, but you can't make terrain improvements and it doesn't grow or acquire more tiles. I agree that it would be hard to balance... Just thought of the fact that you wouldn't need workers either, which could tip the balance too much in your favor. I'm sure Firaxis could make it work if they tried. It'd be different for sure. One might argue that the title 'Civilization' mandates civs to have cities, but like I said the camps could gradually develop into them with certain techs (leading to various beeline strategies - do I take this or that 'city property' next?).

So... what, they can't connect luxuries? What about running specialists?

It seems to me that most of the supporters for the Aborigines don't actually know much of anything about the people and just want them in because it's a space on an unofficial map that is unfilled. The Aborigines would mark the least significant natives civ in the game: The Inca, Aztecs, and Zulu all had impressive empires before they were faced with European settlers; the Iroquois were pretty much a match for the Europeans for quite some time and held onto the fur trade up to the American Revolution. The Shoshone were less great, but even then they've got the Comanche blobbed into them, a tribe that dominated the southwest up until the late 19th century. Did the Aborigines even... do anything? Ever?

Yzman · Aug 30, 2013

cinattra said:
The aborigines as a civ does not make sense. The same as the Zulus???? Seriously???? Shaka at least had a movie made about him and struck fear in the hearts of Europeans for a bit. I highly doubt the aborigines could have held their own against fire arms which the Zulus did. Didn't the aborigines basically cause deforestation across Australia? Please, pray tell, what would be their unique unit or better yet their unique building?

You might as well make a civ of one of the tribes in Papua New Guinea that have their own show on National Geographic channel or whatever it is... hahaha.

Please people not everyone that happened to be born deserves to be a civ in this game.

So being able to hold up to firearms is a requirement to be in civ? Well I guess half of our civs should be gone.

How do you find them different than Polynesia? Or The Huns? Aztecs? Those fail by your logic too.

cpm4001 · Aug 30, 2013

Arachnofiend said:
Did the Aborigines even... do anything? Ever?

They got killed by the British. That's about it.
Now, I'm not saying that they don't have a fascinating culture and history, but I really don't think they have a valid reason for being a Civ save, as you pointed out Arachnofiend, to fill the "gap" of Australia.

Yzman · Aug 30, 2013

cpm4001 said:
They got killed by the British. That's about it.
Now, I'm not saying that they don't have a fascinating culture and history, but I really don't think they have a valid reason for being a Civ save, as you pointed out Arachnofiend, to fill the "gap" of Australia.

I'm totally different. I would much rather have new, unused civs from under utilized parts of the world then European civ #33. Don't get me wrong, I still believe all of the essentials are nice. But would a civ like the Aborigines added something fresh to the game instead of another European power like Venice? I believe so.

And heck, I like Venice.

Arachnofiend · Aug 30, 2013

Yzman said:
I'm totally different. I would much rather have new, unused civs from under utilized parts of the world then European civ #33. Don't get me wrong, I still believe all of the essentials are nice. But would a civ like the Aborigines added something fresh to the game instead of another European power like Venice? I believe so.

And heck, I like Venice.

You don't have to go to complete non-players to find good non-European representation. Kongo and Vietnam are both very popular choices for civs that were plenty significant in their own right. Talk to someone who actually knows about non-western history and you'd be able to get more names (seancolorado might be a good guy to talk to for Asian civs).

Yzman · Aug 30, 2013

Arachnofiend said:
You don't have to go to complete non-players to find good non-European representation. Kongo and Vietnam are both very popular choices for civs that were plenty significant in their own right. Talk to someone who actually knows about non-western history and you'd be able to get more names (seancolorado might be a good guy to talk to for Asian civs).

You miss my point. I said underrepresented areas. I know there are other civs that are very deserving besides for Europeans. But those areas also tend to be represented by other civs so far. I like geographical diversity and looking at a historical or TSL type map and you quickly see that Australia has nothing.

Thats what I mean. Thats why I enjoy the idea of polynesia, even if they aren't really a significant civ ( and possibly not a "civ" at all). They provide a nice variety geographically.

I would like Kongo too as they are in an area not very well represented right now.

KingofSpaniards · Aug 30, 2013

cinattra said:
The aborigines as a civ does not make sense. The same as the Zulus???? Seriously???? Shaka at least had a movie made about him and struck fear in the hearts of Europeans for a bit. I highly doubt the aborigines could have held their own against fire arms which the Zulus did. Didn't the aborigines basically cause deforestation across Australia? Please, pray tell, what would be their unique unit or better yet their unique building?

You might as well make a civ of one of the tribes in Papua New Guinea that have their own show on National Geographic channel or whatever it is... hahaha.

Please people not everyone that happened to be born deserves to be a civ in this game.

Who cares if the Zulus, stood up more to the Europeans. That's not the point the point is that I am not aiming at a civ that has no ground whatsoever. Australian aborigines are not comparable to any random tribe, they actually had an intricate religion and culture. Polynesia and Shoshone even Brazil, there was little they could do against Europeans or Americans, and yet they are in Civ.

unexplained · Aug 30, 2013

To attempt to shoehorn the Australian Aboriginals into Civ would be an exercise in complete fantasy, their culture simply didn't operate in a way that would be at all relevant to the game. The nature and the isolation of the continent meant that the tech tree would be entirely meaningless for a start, as they were never in a position to even attain Agriculture.

I can't see how it could work without being totally patronising and ignoring all the facets of the culture that allowed them to happily survive for 40,000 years totally cut off from the wider world. I believe that the Tasmanian indigenous population were the most isolated people in the world.

Anarchist · Aug 30, 2013

So do they get a nerf when they get the 'wine' luxury?

OnceAKing · Aug 30, 2013

I say yes because while I HATE the idea of Venice. I love the idea of outside the box Civs. And while I know very little about aboriginal culture, the simple act of survival they've accomplished is unparalleled. There culture has survived one of the harshes conditions on the planet, some of the earths most dangerous animals and climates, and a full fledged Super Power and empire. The fact that they circumvent our very European Idea of a civilization is a testament to their survival and is exactly why their people were marginalized in the first place.

I say Firaxis should turn Civ on its head with The Aborigines. Reward isolationism vs diplomacy. Reward Tradition vs Science.

Another Civ that's BEGGING for inclusion is The Swiss. NEUTRALITY and PEACE should be rewarded and for the swiss land trade Routes should be worth double or triple.

Greizer85 · Aug 30, 2013

If a civ can be made fun to play it should be included. There should be no other criteria. Change the name of the game to 'Cultures' for all I care; I want to have Aborigines in Australia.

Granted though that Kongo or Vietnam (and many other civs) should take priority over Aborigines, but in general the more civs (or cultures

) the merrier.

They could make a ton of new civs very easily if they used static leaderheads. I don't understand why people care about those talking pixels... They merely take up valuable game-time as my computer huffs and puffs as Gandhi shows up to ask for Spices for the umpteenth time, only to have me click Refuse without a single glance at his ugly nuke-crazed mug. :crazyeye:

KingofSpaniards · Aug 30, 2013

unexplained said:
To attempt to shoehorn the Australian Aboriginals into Civ would be an exercise in complete fantasy, their culture simply didn't operate in a way that would be at all relevant to the game. The nature and the isolation of the continent meant that the tech tree would be entirely meaningless for a start, as they were never in a position to even attain Agriculture.

I can't see how it could work without being totally patronising and ignoring all the facets of the culture that allowed them to happily survive for 40,000 years totally cut off from the wider world. I believe that the Tasmanian indigenous population were the most isolated people in the world.

You have a point, but I still defend the point that many civs operate differently. Also, I think their culture is totally relevant to the game as a whole, especially religiously speaking. I think it would be pretty cool to see the Aborigines in the game. Even if they had no agriculture, this could open a new kind of gaming, tech wise and also change the dynamic of the game, look for other ways to get food or maybe have units move faster depending if its jungle or desert, that sort of thing. It would be interesting to see how you would achieve a victory without farms or other things.

KingofSpaniards · Aug 30, 2013

OnceAKing said:
I say yes because while I HATE the idea of Venice. I love the idea of outside the box Civs. And while I know very little about aboriginal culture, the simple act of survival they've accomplished is unparalleled. There culture has survived one of the harshes conditions on the planet, some of the earths most dangerous animals and climates, and a full fledged Super Power and empire. The fact that they circumvent our very European Idea of a civilization is a testament to their survival and is exactly why their people were marginalized in the first place.

I say Firaxis should turn Civ on its head with The Aborigines. Reward isolationism vs diplomacy. Reward Tradition vs Science.

Another Civ that's BEGGING for inclusion is The Swiss. NEUTRALITY and PEACE should be rewarded and for the swiss land trade Routes should be worth double or triple.

I totally agree \!!! Although I do like Venice

sendos · Aug 30, 2013

I am also not so passionate about an Australian Aboriginal civ (and don't just dismiss my remark as white trash and hear me out). This has been discussed before on the pre-BNW thread "which civ would come next?". Another CFC member here by the name of Menzies referred to issue of offending the Aborigines by making an Aboriginal civ because there are over 400 Aboriginal tribes. You could specify just 1 Aboriginal tribe but that might still offend the other tribes. The next issue, one that I raised in that thread, is that Aborigines are highly sensitive when they see images of deceased Aborigines or Torres Strait Islanders. So a visual representation of an Aboriginal leader might cause some controversy that Firaxis might want to avoid. I also share Unexplained's reasoning.

Glassmage · Aug 30, 2013

Modern Australia is better

TPangolin · Aug 31, 2013

The best you could do in terms of representing Australia's pre-colonial heritage is 1) including an Aboriginal city-state and 2) if an Australian Civ were to ever be created - have their icon be representative of the Aboriginals, whilst having all the UAs, UUs and UBs being colonial - modern ala what I've made here:

Spoiler :

KingofSpaniards · Aug 31, 2013

sendos said:
I am also not so passionate about an Australian Aboriginal civ (and don't just dismiss my remark as white trash and hear me out). This has been discussed before on the pre-BNW thread "which civ would come next?". Another CFC member here by the name of Menzies referred to issue of offending the Aborigines by making an Aboriginal civ because there are over 400 Aboriginal tribes. You could specify just 1 Aboriginal tribe but that might still offend the other tribes. The next issue, one that I raised in that thread, is that Aborigines are highly sensitive when they see images of deceased Aborigines or Torres Strait Islanders. So a visual representation of an Aboriginal leader might cause some controversy that Firaxis might want to avoid. I also share Unexplained's reasoning.

I share that concern.I can see that, I think that is true. Still, look at Native American tribes, it might something similar. Another thing that can offend, is making Polynesia a single civ, and have not heard much concern for that though. Yet I don't know to what degree there would be an offense. It is of course a problem, still it does not take away my desire to see some kind of Australian Aboriginal tribe in the game. Many of these tribes did share however a lot of things in common.

Australian Aborigines for Civ

Should an Australian Aboriginal civ be added to Civ 5 as a DLC?

Yes

No

Maybe

Modern Australia civ

Emperor

Deity

Warlord

Perturbed Pugilist

Deity

Goggleman

Deity

Perturbed Pugilist

Deity

Chieftain

Prints of Whales

Warlord

Warlord

Emperor

Chieftain

Chieftain

Immortal

The Desert Flame

Just the worst person

Chieftain

Similar threads