1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

New civ : Australia

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Liufeng, Feb 21, 2017.

  1. ShinigamiKenji

    ShinigamiKenji King

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2016
    Messages:
    921
    I'd guess Aussies might be fairly powerful all-rounder, pretty much as Poland. They have good bonuses either inland or coastal.
    • Coastal cities receive bonuses from their UA. Housing and extra yields are amazing (usually coasts get a bonus to appeal).
    • Inland cities benefit from Outback Station. It seems powerful and versatile. Food and production from flat land? Count me in. Outback triangles in plains get 2f/3p, which is nothing to sneeze at.
    All in all, they look suited for a Science or Cultural Victory. High appeal tiles mix well with Resorts, while all the food and production lend themselves well to science.

    Fun fact about Citadel of Civilization: If you declare war and your new enemy is suzerain of a CS, the CS DoW's you, which counts for the Defensive Tactics inspiration (Be the target of a Declaration of War). If this also triggers Citadel of Civilization, we're looking at downright OP category here.
     
  2. bladex

    bladex Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,358
    what is with the devs these days choosing leaders no one has ever heard of? (live in Australia too) :lol:
     
    Zuizgond and nzcamel like this.
  3. Wingednosering

    Wingednosering Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    536
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto
    I know this was several pages back, but I just had to point out that this post shows some of the dangers of eurocentric representations in the media. Most of the timelines that you laid out are way off. China would be in the 4000 BC category, as would Egypt, Sumer and Babylon.

    2000 BC would be India, if we don't count the Indus

    Japan would come in the early ADs.

    Lots of civilizations have rivaled the might of Europe in their day and have significant historic contributions. The Mongols are a great example of a civ that significantly impacted history and is absent from the game. They held the largest empire until european colonization really took off...yet they've been replaced by the Scythians this time. While new to the franchise, the Scythians behave exactly like a mongol civ from a functional perspective and have a far smaller role to play in the history books.

    Believing 50% of human technological advancements are because of Europeans is dangerous thinking.

    ====================

    Now on to the subject of Australia: I have no problems with their inclusion. It's new, it's fresh and it fills an empty portion of the map. Their bonuses look fun to play with and less reliant on naval maps than Harald or Victoria.

    Australia hasn't had a huge impact on history, nor have they really done anything new or exciting that really pushed the idea of 'civilization' forward, but they've been around some 200 years, are in a unique geographical location and have their own very recognizable culture. That makes them as qualified as the Aztecs.

    My concern lies more with the trend this represents. Civ VI is the most Eurocentric civ game to date and the community has commented on it quite vocally.

    Yet, when presented with a chance to fill in part of the pacific on the map, they ignored Indonesia, native Australians, the 'Polynesians' and their subsets. Instead, they filled the blank portion of the map in the whitest way possible and that, more than the actual inclusion of Australia, bothers me.
     
    Mobfire likes this.
  4. Menzies

    Menzies Menzies

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,898
    Location:
    Australia
    Who would you have picked?
     
  5. darkace77450

    darkace77450 Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,001
    I just want my to echo the disappointment in such unabashed pandering to larger gaming market. We have one South American civ, one Sub-Saharan civ, no Southeast Asia civs, a dearth Native American civs, no Mongolians, no Persians, and Ottomans in the game, and the first two civs added post-release are Poland and Australia? I have nothing against those nations or their citizens, but I'm not at all a fan of Firaxis' marketing tactics in this regard.
     
    Zuizgond and Karlus like this.
  6. Wingednosering

    Wingednosering Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    536
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto
    I caught up with the rest of the thread and realized we're trying to focus more on the gameplay.

    With that in mind, Australia looks like a great all-around civ. I like that a civ is being made that plays with the new tile appeal mechanic. It's also the first civ to have coast/island bonuses that don't make them completely useless on pangaea.

    Given the current value of production bonuses, they could quite easily be a top tier civ between the outback station yields and the DOW/Liberation boost. With the AI in its current state, it would be quite abusable and easy to chain 100% production boosts back to back for most of the game.

    I think the true effectiveness of Australia will come down to what the patches change.

    I agree that the Petra is going to stack insanely well with their other bonuses. Open skies as well.

    The Eiffel Tower is probably the single best boost for them, but comes so late, it isn't going to have a huge impact.

    The GEs that improve tile appeal are looking much more valuable now.
     
  7. Furycrab

    Furycrab King

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    898
    Reading more into the history. I don't get it either. Had missed at first that his first term came earlier. Only big sticking point is that he didn't die "that" long ago. (I was almost born). I wonder if the fact that he died over 30 years later makes it less complicated to go with Curtin as far as possible legal complications for using his likeness and effectively selling it.
     
  8. MaximusPlatypus

    MaximusPlatypus O.O

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2016
    Messages:
    654
    Location:
    the great city-state of Chicago
    that one guy that drank a lot of beer.
     
    bladex and nzcamel like this.
  9. paulthebug

    paulthebug Warlord

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    148
    Location:
    Malaysia
    Hmmm... Australia, what a surprise.
    UI & UA look interesting.
    Hate the infantry replacement though.
    Given the housing bonus, would much rather have a non-military UU, say, "surfer" that can be built from Entertainment Complex, that run around cities shouting "surf's up!" that boost amnesty for like 20-turns or something.
     
  10. Menzies

    Menzies Menzies

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,898
    Location:
    Australia
    Could well be.

    They could have been a bit controversial and made an Australian Civ with Victoria as the leader though, that would have been fun.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  11. bite

    bite Unoffical Civilization Geographer Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,784
    Also they seem to be going for a bit of a WW2 theme with a lot of the civs, so it plays into that
     
  12. darko82

    darko82 Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,285
    Location:
    Poland
    Australia in 4,000 BC. Sounds werid. I want Khmer and the like.
     
  13. bite

    bite Unoffical Civilization Geographer Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,784
    no different than Mongolia/Inca/Persia/The Ottomans
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  14. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,723
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    This is Civilization. Where have you been? And to be fair, the Aborigines have been there a hell of a long time...though yah - this is the modern nation.
     
  15. darko82

    darko82 Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,285
    Location:
    Poland
    It is different. It's almost the same problem as with Canada.
     
  16. bite

    bite Unoffical Civilization Geographer Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,784
    I get what you are trying to say, but the Khmer's started in 800ad/ce
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  17. darko82

    darko82 Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,285
    Location:
    Poland
    Who cares? It still feels much older and distant than Australia, Canada and the like.
     
  18. God of Kings

    God of Kings Ruler of all heads of state

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,211
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Australia looks like a fun civ. Think twice before nuking Curtin. He bites mightier than Steve Irwin in a hissy fit.

    I would never expect Australia to be official (even Persia, Ottomans, Mongolia, and yes, Canada, Mali/Songhai, and Siam/Khmer are higher up than Australia). I even put Australian Aborigines above modern Australia in my predictions.
     
  19. darko82

    darko82 Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,285
    Location:
    Poland
    You know, a country needs to be interesting. There are a few factors that make it interesting. Modern civilizations with little history are not that interesting (to me). When Firaxis announced Poland, they said Poland had a rich history. They gave a good reason for it. And why did they add Australia? Because it is requested by Australians? Following this path, we can expect Canada next. I do not like it.

    Firaxis waste slots for a lot more attractive civs.

    Modern leaders look even worse and funny. In Civ III, they changed their looks with each era at least. It's a game design issue, I guess. Well, on the one hand but on the other, it is Firaxis who includes such Civs into the game by their own criteria.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2017
    AJ22PIZZA and kul like this.
  20. Leyrann

    Leyrann Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    4,015
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Actually your timelines are way off.

    China's oldest known dynasty is the Xin dynasty that started in the 21st century BC. As you probably know too (it's in the Civilopedia), the first time all of China was unified was under Qin Shi Huang, the 3rd or 4th century BC.
    Egypt is considered to have started with the Old Kingdom, which started somewhere in the 27th century BC. This is in no way when they were at the height of their power, which was mostly in the Middle and New Kingdoms, in the 2000-1000 BC bracket where I placed them.
    For Sumeria you're right, they should've been in the first bracket. I actually put them one bracket later because I realized I didn't know enough civilizations to fill the second bracket. I also confused them with the mesopotamian civiliation, which is my bad.
    Babylon (that was the one ancient middle-eastern civilization I couldn't remember when writing that post, thank you) was most likely founded around 2300 BC, and became the capital of an empire two times. First around the 18th century BC, second time in the 7th century BC, which places them firmly in either the 2000-1000 BC bracket (Hammurabi) or the 1000-1 BC bracket (Nebucchadnezzar etc). I would have placed them in the second of this, but the first would be correct too.

    In 2000 BC the Indus civilization is actually the only civilization in India, which to be honest suprised me too (I thought they were older, and put them in the 4000-3000 BC bracket accordingly). They lasted until about 1300 BC, and only after that other empires that you could see as India started appearing. So if India other than the Indus would be appear in any bracket, it would be the 1000-1 BC bracket or later.
    I don't know enough about Japan by heart to say a whole lot about them, but here is an overview of Japan's timeline, and to be honest I'm pretty sure that what is generally considered the height of Japan is late medieval, and would put them in the last bracket. But as I said, I'm no expert, and I can believe that the classical Japan was more powerful.

    And I never said "50% of human technological advancements are because of Europeans". I said, that the speed of technological advancement has been forever increasing, and that for the time when it was the fastest, Europe has been dominant. You're turning around my way of thinking. I say technological advancement increases in speed anyways and Europe happens to have been dominant in the latest brackets.
     
    nzcamel likes this.

Share This Page