• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Australians Mod

LordAzreal, I’m a newbie and quite new to this site, but I must say that the work you have been doing on this Australian mod is excellent. In response to your request for opinions I offer the following:
1. Leaders. I like the list of leaders that you suggest. I think a good rule of thumb would be to stick to historical figures, not ones still alive. One exception to this is Cosgrove. He is Australia’s most successful post-WWII general and an all-round good guy. Some other scientific leaders to consider are as follows: Bragg, Sir William Henry OM KBE FRS (Shared the Nobel Prize for Physics with his son, Lawrence, in 1915), Bragg, Sir (William) Lawrence CH OBE MC FRS (Shared the Nobel Prize for Physics with his father, William, in 1915), Burnet, Sir Frank Macfarlane OM AK KBE FRS FAA (Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, 1960), Cornforth, Sir John Warcup AC CBE FRS FAA FRCS FRACI (Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 1975), Doherty, Peter Charles AC FRS FAA (Nobel Prize for Medicine, 1996), Eccles, Sir John Carew AC FRS FAA (Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, 1963), Florey, Baron (Howard Walter) OM FRS FAA (Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, 1945), Katz, Sir Bernard FRS FAA (Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, 1970), Robinson, Sir Robert OM FRS FAA (Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 1947), Sir Howard Florey (Nobel Prize-winning Australian who developed penicillin), Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet (Nobel Prize-winning Australian, known as "The Father of Immunology"), Dame Jean Macnamara (Pioneer of polio treatment and research, and great conservationist), Sir Ian Clunies Ross (Outstanding science administrator and advocate of Australian science).

2. Traits. It’s a pity we can’t have three traits. It might be cheating, but Industrious/Agricultural/Scientific would be a good combination. I did think that Agricultural/Militaristic might be a possibility, as we have a fairly warlike past and strong military tradition. We were fighting a war when the nation was created (Boer War). We made a name for ourselves in WWI and still commemorate this with a national holiday (Anzac Day) that has taken on almost spiritual proportions. We have a good track record in WWII, Korea and Vietnam, and we have been involved in a large number of peacekeeping operations and small wars/conflicts throughout the world since then.

3. Unique unit. Please keep the Anzac. I think that, as you stated previously, it has great historical significance to the nation. After all, we celebrate Anzac Day and it is one feature of our national psyche that unites us with our trans-Tasman relatives.

4. Civ Leader. I note that most of the leaders you nominated are post-Federation. Have you considered pre-Federation leaders as well? With that in mind how about Lachlan Macquarie? Here is a quote from www.geo.ed.ac.uk
“Lachlan MacQuarie - 1761 - 1824
Soldier, civil servant and Father of Australia. Born on the island of Ulva (on the west coast of Mull). He served in the Black Watch in North America, Jamaica, Egypt and India. He succeeded the infamous Captain Bligh as Governor-General of New South Wales (Australia). He was responsible for revitalising the colony, which suffered the depression of its convict population, bringing investment and prosperity. His liberal attitude towards prisoners and the native aborigines set new standards for colonial administration. He developed Sydney into a thriving city, building schools, hospitals and churches. He resigned following ill health and political manoeuvring, which had resulted in censure for his leniency and extravagance. MacQuarie was succeeded by Sir Thomas Brisbane (1773 - 1860).

Many physical features in Australia are named after him, including Port Macquarie, the Macquarie district of Canberra, and the Lachlan and two Macquarie Rivers. The Macquarie Ridge and Macquarie Island lie off Australia's Antarctic Territory.”
Under his leadership (which lasted about 12 years) Australia’s population grew from about 10,000 to about 40,000. If the same growth rates were applied in today’s figures Australia’s population would grow from about 20 million (2003) to 80 million by 2015.

5. Which civ should be replaced? Why not get rid of the Portuguese. There are quite a number of European civilizations there. I’m sure they can spare the loss of one.
 
I agree, science and agriculture should be the traits.

The civ leader should be Ed Barton, the first PM.

Although the Anzac is a cool idea, it's not solely Aussie, so yeah, a different one would be sweet :)
 
An alternative to the Anzac could be the Light Horse. It is not entirely unique to Australia, but these regiments were significant in Australia's military history. The Mounted Service Manual (1902) outlined two types of mounted units to be formed. The Light Horse were to be used for offensive/defensive action on foot, to reconnoitre and screen (skirmish) and to afford protection from surprise for all bodies of troops either halted or on the march. The other group was mounted infantry who were nothing more than infantry using horses to get from A to B. The New Zealanders also had mounted infantry with several regiments fighting at Gallipoli.

The problem we might have in the game is that the Light Horse are not entirely "cavalry" (they fought on foot and were not equiped with lances or sabres), neither were they "infantry" in the classic sense because they had to perform some of the duties of cavalry (screening, recon). Does anyone have any ideas on how to overcome this?
 
As for great leaders, nobody has suggested sir Thomas Blamey, who was our great nation's first Field Marshal. Also, General Birdwood , although not really Australian, would be a good choice, as he commanded the ANZAC for most of the Great War before taking up command of the British 4th army. And as for cities, what about katoomba, greatest of all settlements in the Blue Mountains, and home to the Three Sisters? The ANZAC is a good choice for a unique unit, but I would give it triple the infantry's statistics, seeing as we kicraped and pillaged our way through our enemies in most of the conflicts we've been in.
 
Birdwood I have no problems with. He was fairly competent at Gallipoli and through the rest of WWI. Blamey I do have a problem with though, especially after reading "Those ragged, bloody heros" and "A bastard of a place" :(. Now I know that they are both by the same author and there is great potential for bias, but it certainly seems on the face of it the Blamey was spinless and when he should have stood up to the arrogant yank Macarthur he didn't :aargh:. As far as I am concerned a great general/leader is not only determined by their strategic/tactical ability, but also their ability to command, not fold. I don't consider him a commander of the same calibre as Monash.
 
The fact that Blamey did not stand up to Macaurthur does not diminish him as an incompetent leader. Regardless of what the cowardly American general did or did not do, Blamey was a Field Marshal before Macauthur recieved his fifth star. Macauthur was a joke of a commander, tending to stay as far away from the front as possible, making press releases stating the deployment of Australian troops before our government approved such deployment and forced Menzies to go along with him. Also, Macauthur wanted to use nuclear weaponry in Korea, which ended with his demotion to general and his sacking as Supreme Allied Commander. On another note, the americans are just crap alltogether, and any commander, regardless of nationality or incompetence, is better than that american swine.
Long live the revolution!
 
First time that I have been to this forum, you've done some great work, have always wanted to play as Australia. Is there not a conquests version yet or is it on a different forum?
 
Just stopped by to check out the mod and found politics instead. Oh well.

:confused:
 
Again, I apologize for the lateness of my progress, or rather lack of.

Unfortunately, the computer I was using to work on this mod has died on me, and is currently being serviced. There is a chance that all of my work will be lost before I get the computer back, so I'll need to start again.

Aside from that, I have university and work commitments, and so it will be a struggle to find the time.

Regardless, I will find the time to release something playable, but not until I get my good computer back. I can barely run Baldur's Gate on this one, let alone Civ III.

Thanks for all the feedback though. It will really help when I pick this back up, or it will help someone else if they want to pick it up (you're more than welcome to do so).
 
Decided the other day to give this a go myself, and have come up with a fairly basic idea, that is playable (currently doing a run through to find any problems), the unique unit is sorted as far as I can tell, the problem I have is that I don't know how to make the leader heads, and have very little artistic ability, any help with this would be appreciated and speed up the completion of the mod for everyones use.
 
R8XFT said:
I really like your mod :) .

It is a 3D animated leaderhead with all the pcxs; I know you don't have Robert Menzies as the leader in the mod, but there might be people who would like to amend the leader name and use the leaderhead :D .

Yes, like myself :D Although you already knew that...
 
I agree with those who suggest agricultural and scientific for Australia's traits (not least because I think agricultural is the strongest trait in conquests). As for the reasons for these traits:

1. Agricultural is quite straightforward..Australia's economy has always been built around farming. "Built on the sheep's back" is how they used to describe it. Additionally, the birth of broadacre cropping began in Australia with the invention of the stump-jump plough and the combine harvester.

2. Scientific is less suitable, but I think it beats out any of the competiting traits. Australia is one of the least religious contries on earth, we don't have a history of militarism except in allying with various other warring nations during global conflicts. Expanding beyond our own Island has never been much of an issue either. 40 hour weeks and more public holidays than you can imagine isn't exactly "Industrious" either.

We haven't produced a great many "civilisation advances", but we do have a lot of libraries and universities ;) The only civ trait that could otherwise be used to describe Australia would be Commercial.

Im still not convinced on the Anzac for the Unique unit, primarily because it's not really a great unit to have as a UU. By the time Infantry comes online a golden age is not going to be particularly useful to anyone. As far as flavour goes, its great, but a cavalry replacement would be just as fitting and a lot more useful in my opinion.

Horsemanship has long held a place in Australian folk history, from Bushrangers like Ned Kelly, Banjo Patterson's Man from Snowy River, the romantic figure of the drover or Jackaroo and, of course, in military history.

There are 2 different Australian Cavalry units that could be converted into a UU for Civ3 purposes:

1. The Bush Veldt Carbineer: These were Breaker Morant's troops in the Boer War, a hand picked group of light horsemen who took the Boers on at their own game. They were the first recognised Guerilla Units used by an army of the British empire.

2. The Australian Light Horse: From the battle of Beersheba in WW1, the last and greatest successful cavalry charge there ever was.

Contrary to what others have said, neither of these units were less well armed or armoured than traditional cavalry, in fact they were a little more so. The only difference is that they had their time a little later than the traditional golden age of cavalry - which would be the 1800-1870's. The Boer war was around 1900 and WW1 about 15 years after that. So, the Australian cavalry units probably had less firepower than the equivalent regular units at the time, but still strong compared to the traditional civil war or napoleanic cavalry.

The other benefit of this move would be that you'd be able to recreate some of the greatest WW1 battles by pitting Ottoman siphahi against Australian light horse.

As far as leaders go - there's always going to be party political disagreement about the leader if you pick someone like Menzies or Whitlam. I'd suggest going for a neutral figure like James Cook or Edmund Barton.

One other thing I'd like to suggest would be to add an additional wonder. I think someone has already suggested this but some kind of Sporting Stadium that gives a JS Bach's type effect and comes late in the game would be great. Whether it's a great or small wonder isn't really an issue, but it would be nice to give a nod to the vital role sport plays in Australian society, and this seems like a god way to do it short of Making Don Bradman the leaderhead or some such nonsense.

Anyhow, these are just ideas for you guys, as I have no idea how to make a mod myself. Let me know what you think.
 
I put some suggestions for how to balance a historical light horse unit in the menzies leaderhead thread. I'll put 'em here too.

1) Since the lighthorse cavalry wasn't always mounted, reduce movement to two - compromise between infantry and cavalry
2) Since that puts our unit at a disadvantage, give the lighthorse blitz ability, for maximum value in a single turn
3) Make the unit amphibious, as it was used at Gallipoli.

Thus, we are not just making another 'enhanced' cavalry unit (ie cossacks or siphahi), but something unique and, I believe true to history. (however, plus 1 on attack or defense wouldn't hurt).
 
Margim: Im not sure that reducing movement to 2 would work, you'd be at a huge disadvantage to the other civs if that was the case. There is an easier way to balance a weaker unit, though. Just make it cheaper than normal cavalry so you can build more.

Remember that the majority of the Australian Light Horse were just farm boys plucked from home and put on a ship. They didn't need a lot of training because most of them grew up riding horses (they had no cars) and shooting from an early age. Making them cheaper to "train" would reflect this. I'd still like to investigate the effect of taking away a movement point before making it live though. It seems to be a massive disadvantage. You don't really want to be building a unique unit that's worse than the regular unit, especially one as important as cavalry.
 
Margim: After thinking about the unique characteristics of the light horse and reading the history, I think you are right that their most unique trait was that they fought both mounted and unmounted as infantry. I think the best way to represent this would be to bolster their defensive strength to reflect their ability to perform equally well as mounted shock troops or entrenched riflemen/infantry.

I would suggest investigating making the Australian Light Horse a replacement for Cavalry with stats of 6/5/3, 6/6/3 or possibly even 5/5/3. Obviously 6/6/3 is very powerful and would require a significant hike in shield price to be balanced. I kind of like the idea of a 5/5/3 cavalry unit that is the same price as a regular cavalry, reflecting the all-round abilities of the light horse. Those sort of stats would make them ideal for capturing and holding cities in early-industrial age wars, which is exactly what the Light Horse did during the middle eastern campaigns of WW1.

A 6/5 unit would probably need to cost 90 shields like the Cossack to be balanced, and a 6/6 would probably need to be 100 shields like a Sipahi. Fast defensive units are quite strong, as enemy cavalries can't retreat against them like they can against Riflemen.

Let me know what you think.

Some interesting historical information about the Light Horse is available here:
http://www.lighthorse.org.au/historic.htm
 
How about making the lighthorse infantry replace riflemen instead of Cavalry?
It could be the rifleman + 1 extra attack + 1 extra movement and able to do amphibious attacks? You could have it requiring no resources, like the rifleman (cavalry requires horses and saltpeter).
 
Wardy:
Point taken about the disadvantage of reduced movement - but if you look at the other modifications I suggested, I think the disadvantage would more than balance itself out - Amphibious units don't come in until long after military tactics...
I do like the idea of adding 1 defense to make it more 'infatry like'.
I actually think R8XFT has a pretty good idea... a modified rifleman might just work fine, although I'd be interested to know whether the AI would use two cav. type units, and whether the light horse would onlt be used for defensive purposes.
 
Top Bottom