Australian Aborigines for Civ

[KingofSpaniards]

Modern Australia is better

How come?

 

[TPangolin]

How come?

I like the idea of a Modern Australia way over the idea of an Aboriginal Australia, partly for the fact that we need more late game powers. So the following is just a representation of my opinion:

Although it's nice to think that Australia could be an amalgam civilization spanning a long period of time yet covering the same geographic area (thus echoing Russia, Ethiopia, Germany, Japan, Arabia, Denmark and the like), or even having Australia purely Aboriginal, - Australia, much like Canada and America in the Civilization series should be a represented by being a unique late game power, and thus they should be what they are seen as in the 19th-21st Century - A Colonial Nation, with many multicultural peoples that have come across the seas, being culturally unique, fairly isolationist and famous for it's Tourism.

I'm currently working on an Australian Mod, the details of which can be seen here -

http://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1lc88d/is_there_anybody_out_there_willing_to_help_me_out/

 

[kingofsealand]

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.

I agree with your points that that area of the map is underrepresented in the civ roster but what would be wrong with more European civs? It is simply factual that many civilizations came and went in the same geographical area and this makes them no less deserving of representation. For example, eastern European civs which arent Russia. And i mean non-westernized ones poland and sweden isnt all thats over there. How about a Lithuanian Civ? Featuring the last pagan king? Sure poland and they traded all kinds of territory so you could argue they are too close on the map but then again the teutonic knights showed up to fight the pagans at polands behest and force their conversion to Christianity. Certainly a significant piece of history no? If you break it down further you could come up with dozens more distinct cultures from the area which are in no way represented.

That said the aboriginal civ is a good idea because polynesia worked out being a good idea. They were as much fun to play as any consolidated civ which was ruled by a single governing body.

 

[Arachnofiend]

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.

Brazil is a European civ. Nothing about it represents the conquered native peoples of the area, it's all Portuguese.

Polynesian architecture is what gets it into the game. The Moai statues are incredibly iconic and have made a lasting impression on the world culture.

I explained the Shoshone earlier but I still don't think they were a particularly good choice of a civ. I give Firaxis a pass because they were basically just scrambling to find an NA civ to replace the Pueblo.

 

[Lochlann]

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.

There's one kinda obvious issue that hasn't been pointed out yet: the problem of effort vs. gain. What you're suggesting is a reworking of large swaths of the Civ experience--tech progression, concept/role of cities, approach to land use, etc.--with the payoff being a single new civ. I highly doubt that this would be worth it, from a programming resources perspective.

It's true that Venice introduced a new approach to playing the game, but this new approach required nothing more than tweaking the already-present system of CS relations. There was no creation of new systems, no ground-up reworking of how Venice accrued technologies or engaged with the land, etc. The kind of stuff you're talking about here is a far cry from anything that has been done so far, and I doubt that the payoff would be worth it.

 

[Cicerosaurus]

Are you thinking of making them one Civilization? It's not as though the various tribes were interchangeable or spoke the same dialect. Of course there were tribes that lived in the desert as opposed to those in the rainforests of North Qld- I find it difficult to think of as a single cohesive s=Civ.

 

[Socratatus]

Modern Australia is better

NO. That would miss the point completely.

We want an interesting indigenous people that would add something unique to the game. Just because they did not have guns or create a full sized Civilisation does not disqualify them. Other Civs in the game never actually got further than Nomads and they`re in.

Many of these Civs in game are literally `What ifs` hypothetical after a certain date, of what we consider would happen if one of the early civilizations actually managed to get beyond basic survival to cities and to the future.

There`s absolutely no reason why Aborigines would not have later become a large, cohesive nation, rivalling others if they had been given the chance. They just weren`t given the chance, much like the American Indians.

They`re Human Beings, after all with EXACTLY the same capabilities as the rest of us, no matter what some of you may subconscously think. Do not dismiss any peoples just because they never made it as far as others.

 

[evilcat]

I like it (Aborginens). Even if it could be hard to scavenge informations about pre colonisation Australia.

As for UA:
Deadly Nature - all infantry enemy units loss 5HP each turn when in Aborigens territory due to scorpion/kangooro/platypus attack.

 

[Greizer85]

As for UA:
Deadly Nature - all infantry enemy units loss 5HP each turn when in Aborigens territory due to scorpion/kangooro/platypus attack.

... Unique Unit: Kangaroo Warrior; may hop over enemy units! That'd please the realism crowd...

 

[Aztecopi]

... Unique Unit: Kangaroo Warrior; may hop over enemy units! That'd please the realism crowd...

Oh god yes please I would buy this instantly.

 

[Socratatus]

I like it (Aborginens). Even if it could be hard to scavenge informations about pre colonisation Australia.

As for UA:
Deadly Nature - all infantry enemy units loss 5HP each turn when in Aborigens territory due to scorpion/kangooro/platypus attack.

Actually, that`s not a bad idea. It wasn`t just about deadly insects, though, but knowing what gave water, what to eat and where it all was. Historically, the Aborigine lands were deadly to outsiders. Many colonists and explorers died trying to cross its desert while the Aborigne got through no probs. In fact, it wasn`t until the explorer got an Aborigne to help them that they actually started surviving. It STILL IS very dangerous.

The HP loss could even effect non combat units like foreign Scouts.

Also they could get a big bonus in desert lands.

 

[KingofSpaniards]

Are you thinking of making them one Civilization? It's not as though the various tribes were interchangeable or spoke the same dialect. Of course there were tribes that lived in the desert as opposed to those in the rainforests of North Qld- I find it difficult to think of as a single cohesive s=Civ.

Did all of Polynesia speak the same language or dialect, I dont think so, and they´re in the game...

 

[KingofSpaniards]

There's one kinda obvious issue that hasn't been pointed out yet: the problem of effort vs. gain. What you're suggesting is a reworking of large swaths of the Civ experience--tech progression, concept/role of cities, approach to land use, etc.--with the payoff being a single new civ. I highly doubt that this would be worth it, from a programming resources perspective.

It's true that Venice introduced a new approach to playing the game, but this new approach required nothing more than tweaking the already-present system of CS relations. There was no creation of new systems, no ground-up reworking of how Venice accrued technologies or engaged with the land, etc. The kind of stuff you're talking about here is a far cry from anything that has been done so far, and I doubt that the payoff would be worth it.

These are just ideas, I mean I wouldn't mind playing differently for this civ, in reality not all civs progressed the same way, so why not make things more interesting, it gives and opportunity to play differently.

 

[KingofSpaniards]

NO. That would miss the point completely.

We want an interesting indigenous people that would add something unique to the game. Just because they did not have guns or create a full sized Civilisation does not disqualify them. Other Civs in the game never actually got further than Nomads and they`re in.

Many of these Civs in game are literally `What ifs` hypothetical after a certain date, of what we consider would happen if one of the early civilizations actually managed to get beyond basic survival to cities and to the future.

There`s absolutely no reason why Aborigines would not have later become a large, cohesive nation, rivalling others if they had been given the chance. They just weren`t given the chance, much like the American Indians.

They`re Human Beings, after all with EXACTLY the same capabilities as the rest of us, no matter what some of you may subconscously think. Do not dismiss any peoples just because they never made it as far as others.

That is exactly right, Polynesia never had nukes, never was a country, and they are in, and that's why we play civ, to make a civ which in reality never got to where you can get by playing it.

 

[KingofSpaniards]

Brazil is a European civ. Nothing about it represents the conquered native peoples of the area, it's all Portuguese.

Polynesian architecture is what gets it into the game. The Moai statues are incredibly iconic and have made a lasting impression on the world culture.

I explained the Shoshone earlier but I still don't think they were a particularly good choice of a civ. I give Firaxis a pass because they were basically just scrambling to find an NA civ to replace the Pueblo.

Polynesian architecture... I mean that is a physical thing, they were not that influential I don't think, but you don't have to have something physical, many civs get in for their attributes, like the Mongols, war like and made an empire (nomads), or Shoshone, amazing trackers, (nomads). Well, Australian Aborigines, Dreamtime, didgeridoo, boomerang (nomads)... huge culture, and religious bonuses, don't have to be big to be in.

 

[Keirador]

Australian aborigines are not comparable to any random tribe, they actually had an intricate religion and culture.

Man these conversations always go racist fast.

You're implying here that many or most native peoples are inferior to the Aborigines because they lack intricate religion and culture. Which "random tribe" are you talking about that did not have a religion and culture?

 

[Keirador]

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.

A thousand times this. It's not nearly as "disrespectful" to leave a people out of the game Sid Meier's Civilization V as it is to shoehorn a culture into a linear, technology-obsessed, materialistic worldview of what counts as success.

Game-play wise, Australian Aborigines can be represented perfectly well by Barbs.

 

[Keirador]

NO. That would miss the point completely.

We want an interesting indigenous people that would add something unique to the game. Just because they did not have guns or create a full sized Civilisation does not disqualify them. Other Civs in the game never actually got further than Nomads and they`re in.

Many of these Civs in game are literally `What ifs` hypothetical after a certain date, of what we consider would happen if one of the early civilizations actually managed to get beyond basic survival to cities and to the future.

There`s absolutely no reason why Aborigines would not have later become a large, cohesive nation, rivalling others if they had been given the chance. They just weren`t given the chance, much like the American Indians.

They`re Human Beings, after all with EXACTLY the same capabilities as the rest of us, no matter what some of you may subconscously think. Do not dismiss any peoples just because they never made it as far as others.

Some American Indians actually had agriculture and permanent settlements. Is the same true of any known Aboriginal culture?

And if we're going full-on hypothetical, I propose that we add the MechaFrench as a Civ. It's like if the French had been powerful robots.

 

[cpm4001]

Did all of Polynesia speak the same language or dialect, I dont think so, and they´re in the game...

Just because they're in the game doesn't mean they should be...honestly, "Polynesia" is probably the silliest "civ", simply because it isn't one but many.
The real issue here is adding in multiple groups of indigenous peoples into the game (yes, I know Firaxis also lumped the Shoshone and Comanche together) as a single civilization. It may work from a gameplay perspective, but it just doesn't really feel right.
So again - the Aborigines have a fascinating culture and history, but really won't fit in Civ 5 unless they're added in in an extremely unique way (which sadly seems unlikely.)

 

[Socratatus]

Some American Indians actually had agriculture and permanent settlements. .

I didn`t say they hadn`t. I am saying they never had the chance to become what they could`ve been had they the whole country to rule without the interference. Eventually tribes would`ve become a whole nation and multiplied, etc. Please don`t turn this into a `them` or `us` thing. You`re creating an argument where there isn`t one. Stop looking so deeply.