I have found that in RFC, there are only two ways any civilization reaches Australia - the English or the Dutch. If the English choose not to and the Dutch get beaten up, Australia forever remains a home to only the occasional barb warrior. Hence I propose that one or more independent cities(or something similar, a whole new civ would be too much) be added to Australia.
Wikipedia said:
The population of Indigenous Australians at the time of permanent European settlement has been estimated at between 318,000 and 1,000,000
However, I have not bothered to do much research on this subject, and would feel glad to hear the opinions of more knowledgeable people on this matter.
But AFAIK, the Australian Natives never formed large cities or settlements of comparable size. It's sort of like the reason we don't see any native/indy cities in North America. It'd be nice to have in, but it'd be too ahistorical.
But AFAIK, the Australian Natives never formed large cities or settlements of comparable size. It's sort of like the reason we don't see any native/indy cities in North America. It'd be nice to have in, but it'd be too ahistorical.
This. Also, the aborigines were at an inferior technological level to the native Americas pre Europeans, but the Europeans arrived in Oz three centuries after America. So by then the gap was so big that the English government tried to sign a treaty with the natives to stop settlers just killing aborigines at random. But there was no one to sign a treaty with - no cities or any sort of major settlements, so much less organised than the native Americans. The English government ultimately declared Australia was officially uninhabited, to try and avoid offending the English population by admitting that the only relations they had with the aborigines was based on mutually trying to kill each other.
Effectively, the aborigines were much closer to the barbarian mechanic of Civ 4 than the independents - no major settlements and all they did was try to fight the colonists. So Oz is already represented pretty historically by the odd few barb warriors wandering around.
If anything, N. America is the one that would benefit from some native cities to represent the native Americans having some form of formal settlements.
upon europeon settlement, rabbits spawn like crazy. they can enter player territory but cant attack and cant defend, but will eat farms and plantations if they are unguarded
No permanent settlements is correct. Population was predominantly on the eastern and southern coasts, where climate is better.
Tribal villages are far more appropriate as representative of native Australian people than independent cities. Perhaps more tribal villages than are currently placed in Australia?
For what it's worth, France will occasionally settle in Australia as well, if they're left to their own devices and the British and Dutch don't manage to do so.
But I really don't see why we'd have anything else in Australia. The Australian natives didn't have cities or even agriculture before European contact. They're best represented by tribal villages. Perhaps in the late game Japan and Indonesia should settle Australia if the Europeans have left it alone. That is, after all, probably what would have happened if the Europeans never bothered.
No permanent settlements is correct. Population was predominantly on the eastern and southern coasts, where climate is better.
Tribal villages are far more appropriate as representative of native Australian people than independent cities. Perhaps more tribal villages than are currently placed in Australia?
upon europeon settlement, rabbits spawn like crazy. they can enter player territory but cant attack and cant defend, but will eat farms and plantations if they are unguarded
For what it's worth, France will occasionally settle in
Australia as well, if they're left to their own devices and the British and Dutch don't manage to do so.
But I really don't see why we'd have anything else in Australia. The Australian natives didn't have cities or even agriculture before European contact. They're best represented by tribal villages. Perhaps in the late game Japan and Indonesia should settle Australia if the Europeans have left it alone. That is, after all, probably what would have happened if the Europeans never bothered.
Actually, France has at least a good a claim to settling Australia as the Dutch, if not more, they were the first to explore and name many regions as far as Tasmania, after all. Britain then hurriedly claimed the hole continent for fear that the French would take it.
But Aboriginal Australians? Srsly? You can hardly even represent them as barbs, I mean Tasmanians were so cut off they losed the use of fire.
I think the point here is IF England, Dutch, whatever never comes to Australia, the region will always empty until up to the modern era.
AFAIK Indonesia in DoC often set random colonies there.. if it still bare empty by X AD, let Dutch or England get coded galley with settler spawned there or whatever~
If they survive long time enough, have filled all strategic islands in the archipelago and become a dominant power in SE Asia, yes. Usually it's around present day Darwin.
Speaking of that, Dutch & British usually found garbage cities around Northern Territory and Western Australian desert, they should go for the temperate areas around Tasmania and Victoria.
Also French fighting British for Australia would be very cool.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
I've never seen it myself, but I am also generally rather unobservant.
