Australian Civ

[GeneralX]

Also, rather than having a recent leader to represent multicultural Australia, I'd probably go with Governor Macquarie. He was a farsighted individual who to some degree can be seen as a spiritual founder of modern Australia.

On this you have my total support (see above)

 

[screwtype]

That’s an interesting assertion. What evidence do you base this claim on?

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

Australian and New Zealand Army Corps - combined corps that served with distinction in World War I...

In 1916 Australian and New Zealand infantry divisions were sent to France. They took part in some of the bloodiest actions of the war and established reputations as elite shock troops, at the price of heavy casualties. The New Zealand Division, eventually sustained by conscription, was second to none in combat, planning, and administration.

The Australians, eventually reaching a strength of five divisions, faced difficulty replacing losses as Australia twice rejected conscription. Grouped into a single corps commanded by Sir John Monash, who complemented the panache and the tactical skill of his soldiers with comprehensive, careful planning, the Australians nevertheless were central to defeating the German offensive of March 1918 and to the “hundred days” from August 8 to November 11 that ended the Great War.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9007944

 

[screwtype]

That’s because there aren’t any leaders of the Aboriginal people as such.

But there were resistance leaders to white invasion whose exploits are still remembered. A quick search on google comes up with Jandamurra, Yagan and Pemulwuy, for example.

Let’s not kid ourselves. The Australian aboriginals, as unique and special as they are, were not a “Civilization” in the true sense of the word. They were tribal hunter/gathers with a rich spiritual and cultural life but nothing more.

Yes, but the point about Civilization is that it presents an historical "what if?" scenario. What if the aborigines had had a different environment, access to crops and so on?

And it's not as though there aren't already some pretty minor historical players who have got a guernsey in Civ.

Ultimately, modern Australia is an outpost of Anglo-Saxon civilization, not a unique civilization in itself. It doesn't make much sense to me to have white/multicultural Australia represented as a Civ in 4000BC, roughly six thousand years before it actually appeared. The abos, on the other hand, have been there for 60,000 years so if Australia is to be represented then I think it should have at least one aborigine to represent the indigenous culture.

 

[GeneralX]

From Encyclopedia Britannica

OK I will accept that with one proviso. I know that Encyclopaedia Britannica is regarded as a reputable tome, however encyclopaedias only give a general overview. There is no doubt that in the last 100 days of WWI Australian troops were amongst some of the most successful, especially under the leadership of Monash, however I am not convinced that qualifies them to be regarded as elite. I’m not one for overstating things or sentimentalism. However, in the context of Civ4 the debate isn’t over whether they are elite or not, but whether they are a unique unit. We have to remember that an essential component of ANZAC is the “NZ” bit. If no-one has any objection to Australia claiming exclusive rights to the title ANZAC then go nuts and include ANZAC as a unique unit. We may have to beat NZ at rugby to enforce the point and that will probably mean that the ANZAC UU will not be a reality for at least the next 20 years!

 

[GeneralX]

But there were resistance leaders to white invasion whose exploits are still remembered. A quick search on google comes up with Jandamurra, Yagan and Pemulwuy, for example.

Yes, but the point about Civilization is that it presents an historical "what if?" scenario. What if the aborigines had had a different environment, access to crops and so on?

Being a resistance leader of a tribe IMO does not qualify someone to be regarded as a National leader. There would have to have been a nationwide united movement behind that one person. There would also have to be a transition to a united Aboriginal nation with a functioning system of government. No such movement existed or even showed signs of emerging. Perhaps if you wanted to create a civilization out of a particular tribe you would be correct, but none of the people you mention were national leaders as such.

One final thing: Please don’t refer to indigenous Australians as “abos”. My indigenous friends find the term quite offensive and prefer other terms according to the area they are from (for example Murri is the preferred racial title in North Queensland).

 

[TrueBlueAussie]

Great Work, Charcoal.

Just been playing however the SAS is very Powerful, in my city with West Point, Heroic Epic, Barracks and the Pentagon I can produce SAS units with 6 promotions in total before they see battle, they are almost strong enough to defeat tanks without taking damage.

All in all very good, but the spelling of Adelaide and Wollongong in the city list is incorrect.

Thanks, TrueBlueAussie

 

[Initals J.A.]

I cant help it. I have to put my two cents in. Firstly though good work on making your mod!!!!!

I think as a rule current serving national leaders should not be used. Way to controversial. And you need some time to go by before you can judge if the leader is great or not. (and John Howard is a reptile.)

SAS vs Lighthorse. I think they could both be used but really, every country has an SAS type unit. The lighthorse were the last effective cavalry unit used in war, and that makes them a UNIQUE UNIT.

There should not be an Aboriginal leader. Just as there should not be a Native American leader for the USA. Australia is only about 200 years old and not a continuation of the Aboriginal culture. If you want a want if scenario then make a seperate Aboriginal mod.

 

[Black Elf]

Thanks for making australia i was working on it but you did a fine job

 

[feando]

origonal quote by initials J.A
SAS vs Lighthorse. I think they could both be used but really, every country has an SAS type unit. The lighthorse were the last effective cavalry unit used in war, and that makes them a UNIQUE UNIT.

this is not true at all. the light horse was OUR calvary unit. every nation with western infflence had clavary units at this time and it certantly wasnt the last effective calvary unit. what about the russan cossaks in WW2 there were whole divions of them. if u want to be truely austrlian i say go for the "digger" elete unit with an offensive, yes that right offensive bonus. why? may you ask a digger. well in every wart that the australian nation has every been invoved in we have sent the digger (and yes they have been called this since ww1) has been know as one of the most fearsome shock troops in the world. look up any war and we are referd to as "aggressive and adaptive but have no respect for authoriy." and to qote winston churchil when he was lord of the admilraty in ww1 " we will fight to the very last australian and new zealander." when reffering to the gallipoli campaign

 

[BenniusCaesar]

Oh wow, I'm impressed someone made one of these, should be fun. Looks like you spent a lot of time and effort!

Just to those suggesting Governor Macquarie (of NSW) - I'm guessing you guys are all New South Welsh? Because I grew up there and remember Macquarie, but down in Victoria they wouldn't even know who he was. They love LaTrobe down here.

I think Menzies & Chifley would have been two good and balanced choices, but I see your dilemma in getting good photos of those guys easily!

 

[GeneralX]

Just to those suggesting Governor Macquarie (of NSW) - I'm guessing you guys are all New South Welsh?

Nope. QUEENSLANDER! And I have a bent banana to proove it.

 

[Selous]

posted this in the other aussi mod ..... is all about the UU

so what representation of aussi should their be?
the first aussi soldiers were the pommi redcoats ... pass
then we had the boar war ... mounted infantry, excelled on the open plains and the hills of africa ... nice start
now ww1, birthplace of teh aussi soldier, gallipolli, our anzacs, now these guys are the same mounted infantry that were in the boar war (we are more organised this time with the AIF) ... they amphibious assulted the turks that were in the fortified hills, got beaten back and retreated 9 months later .... these same guys at beershiba, cav charged the turks and took the town after several thousand british heavy infantry failed to take, but im sure you all know the stories and to these men that the aussi UU should honour

http://www.lighthorse.org.au/historicbw.htm

http://www.lighthorse.org.au/historic.htm

now for the name .... ANZAC is a good one but i take it from the name that CivArmy was looking for a more generic term as such, how about mounted infantry (would be espically good cause you keep the same graphic) and by making them a gunpowder footslogger it will stop them getting smashed by riflemen (which are just around the corner)
so with all this in mind (and mebey some other things?) what bonus should the UU have?
while trolling and thinking about this i came up with an idea, make the UU still replace the cavelry unit with a "mounted infantry" which is a gunpowder unit rather than a mounted unit (i think this would have a signifigant effect) and also adding the xp upgrade of "march" .... now we have a unit that moves quick MP2 attacks hard AT15 but it isnt "mounted" so doesnt suffer teh ill effects of riflemen and can heal on the move (giving them that extra survivability and duribility that the aussi soldier has shown) ..... i dont think that this is to powerful (only 1 thing has been increased) but will be signifigent in the game

any thoughts?

 

[WarriorZeus]

Nice to see Australia added in, seems the UU is controversial (as is the leaders)

SASR or ANZAC/Digger or lighthorse, all are uniquely Australian, the SASR do things other special operations boys dont, the digger as stated is yes one of the troops that always gets sent to war (funny that since the 'digger' is a volunteer soldier), the lighthorse, while you could call them 'calvary', the term is incorrect, they were mounted mobile riflemen, unlike traditional cavalry, the lighthorse concept was that the horses got you to battle faster, dismount and fight the battle (with certain notable exceptions, like berasheba, pardon the spelling).

As for John Howard, well not to start a political debate, but the population in the majority did elect him (3 times last i checked), but i agree that current political leaders touch a nerve in general.

oh btw - the russian cossacks of WWII were cannon fodder, they were not 'effective' unlike the mounted riflemen of the lighthorse, it is generally regarded my military historians that the Australian lighthorse was the last 'effective' military incarnation of non-mechanised Cavalry

 

[mentalmort]

Actually, the WWI diggers were used by Britain as elite shock troops. So they should get offensive bonuses IMO. I also agree with the other guy that ANZAC should probably be the Aussie UU.

BTW, did you know that tiny Australia (which at the time had, from memory, a population of something like five million) had more battlefield fatalities in WWI than the United States? An amazing but little known fact.

Actually, Australia suffered the highest casualty rate in proportion to the population during the great war. That, and the Yanks didn't enter the war until late 1917.

 

[König 1]

Actually, Australia suffered the highest casualty rate in proportion to the population during the great war. That, and the Yanks didn't enter the war until late 1917.

We suffered such a high proportion of casualty because we had a really tiny population.

I don't really think Australia deserves to be a civilisation in this game though, sure we are a great country, but we are still part of the British Empire.

König

 

[Impaler[WrG]]

Enough already with the "This Civ mod you just made dose not DESERVE to be in the game". Every single NewCiv mod has had some idiot post this in response and it is the most brain-dead thing you can possibly say in response to someone elses mod. And I will explain why.

1. The person has already MADE the damn mod, they arn't going to UNMAKE it because of your stupid comment.

2. 90% of these new Civ mods are made by people FROM the respective country/culture so your going to be insulting their entire culture/nation/race/religion ect ect.

3. The argument dose not hold 1 drop of water as has been pointed out a million times. If you could see past your mental brickwall of Cultural snobery and see that the Civilization series is built upon a belif in "Cultural Relativism" which is the belif that ALL cultures are equal and differences in them are the unique solutions that each group has created to coexist in its environment.

4. Its a wholy unconstructive comment which will just insite neadless argument. If you cant give a constructive comment just keep your fingers off the keyboard.

P.S. Has anyone considered using a Kangaroo siluete for the flag, It keeps with the Firaxis patern of not using real Flags from real countries (flags are changed often and have political conotations)

 

[König 1]

I know he isn't going to unmake a mod, I'm just saying that making Australia is kind of silly.
Australia is part of the English commonwealth. We aren't a whole new civilisation, we are more like a part of the English Civilisation. I mean the queen is still the monarch of our country. If it if was like as an Aboriginal civilisation I could understand, that would be different.

If you could see past your mental brickwall of Cultural snobery

Yeah snobbery, that must be it. I guess you are right I do look down my nose at myself....

König

 

[Wyz_sub10]

P.S. Has anyone considered using a Kangaroo siluete for the flag, It keeps with the Firaxis patern of not using real Flags from real countries (flags are changed often and have political conotations)

CIV Gold uses a kangaroo flag for the Aborigines, and the southern cross for Australia.

And I couldn't agree more with what you said.

 

[arseface]

What about the ones who were here before the whities?!?! I think playing as modern Australia in 4000 BCE is stoopid IMHO. You should kick Howard and have an Aboriginal leader like Yagan or Truganini. Their traits could be spi/phi and spi/cre. The UU could be a woomera warrior (working title), with Blitz and 1st strike.

I would definately get it if it had an enhanced aboriginal side.

 

[Wyz_sub10]

What about the ones who were here before the whities?!?! I think playing as modern Australia in 4000 BCE is stoopid IMHO. You should kick Howard and have an Aboriginal leader like Yagan or Truganini. Their traits could be spi/phi and spi/cre. The UU could be a woomera warrior (working title), with Blitz and 1st strike.

I would definately get it if it had an enhanced aboriginal side.

As above - CIV Gold has both Australia & Aborigines.

Aborigine leaders are Yagan & Yunupingu, UU is Woomera Wielder.