Should I colonize Australia

[robvollman]

Whenever I play the Earth map I notice that no one starts in Australia, and none of the AIs colonize it until fairly late in the game.

I'm always tempted to go colonize it myself, no matter where in the world my empire is. It makes me very rich, but it's a huge investment in resources, the extra cities make it impossible to get more civic options, and it puts a real strain on my happiness. It's also not as interesting as building an army and warmongering.

What does everyone else do when playing the Earth map?

 

[lolocoster]

Its a situational thing. If I'm going for culture, then hell no. Diplomacy, yes if I can get good gold from them. Science, yes if I can get a big population there (usually not possible because territory is half desert). Military, probably not because the few units they can produce will take forever to reach my enemies (unless they're right nearby or on Aus itself.

If it has a resource I need (usually coal because there is never enough coal in my games) I'll just settle one city there.

It also depends on how busy your core cities are. If you're in the middle of preparing for war (or in war for that matter), building banks and stock exchanges for diplo, bbuilding space ship parts or science buildings, then I wouldn't suggest interrupting that flow. But if you've reached the "theres nothing worthwhile building anymore" point of the game, then you might as well settle Australia

Just make sure you deal with the barbs first, sending a settler across the globe at 2 moves per turn takes a long time, and you will be pissed if a brute takes it.

 

[Camikaze]

I don't see the benefit unless you're all out ICSing. Puppet, yes. But there are only going to be minimal returns to actually settling.

 

[rlew]

Although it doesn't really help too much, I always think it's cool/fun to be like "hey I just colonized Australia"

 

[Yzman]

Polynesia should be made to start there now.

 

[TM Moot]

sorry, slighty off topic, but a quick query

when playing the Earth map, do civs actually start in their historical location?

 

[Michl2602]

sorry, slighty off topic, but a quick query

when playing the Earth map, do civs actually start in their historical location?

No, but I read about a mod that does this (forgot the name, could have been "History in the Making").

and

just a little on topic story:
In a recent game I happened to start in East Asia as Siam. As the continent was quite crowded (and I'm not a dominator ) I settled quite some cities in Polynesia ending up with 4 cities in Australia.

But I think with another starting location some can definitely forget settling there.

 

[Hornblower]

If you are an Aussie it is hard not to do it just for sentiments sake! No real in game benefits though.

 

[SpearMan153]

yes Australia rocks - we have uranium

 

[MadDjinn]

In South East Asian starts, it's sometimes a good plan to toss the settlers at the islands rather than pushing inland. There's a timing issue for that though, as you'll be on the coasts mostly and city placement should be determined by the strategic resources there. (islands need to have 3+ fish/etc around and also be post-navigation tech wise)

Any other start and I'd say no, unless you're playing on a sufficiently low diff. level to take the time to expand on a huge map.

- the above assumes playing on a huge earth map since playing earth on smaller maps means anything could be settled.

 

[Maccacentric]

This is pretty much what I play earth maps for... but I am Australian. I'm just not that fond of Earth maps otherwise, the exploration element of the game is missing from them I think.

 

[Wir0s]

When playing earth map, i always colonize Australia ASAP

No other civs there until late game, and is full of resources and it is also a great location, halfway or between the two great continental masses and a perfect base of operations to invade Asia

 

[Michl2602]

When playing earth map, i always colonize Australia ASAP

No other civs there until late game, and is full of resources and it is also a great location, halfway or between the two great continental masses and a perfect base of operations to invade Asia

You are not talking about the huge world card, where East Asia and Australia are (estimated) 35-40 tiles apart. On other world cards a problem with settling Australia doesn't actually exist.

 

[Wir0s]

You are not talking about the huge world card, where East Asia and Australia are (estimated) 35-40 tiles apart. On other world cards a problem with settling Australia doesn't actually exist.

I talk about "big" map, not huge, the second one in size.

 

[Revoran]

I talk about "big" map, not huge, the second one in size.

Large. Even on Large Australia is a little isolated.

Polynesia should be made to start there now.

It would be more accurate to have Polynesia start in Hawaii (their capital is Honolulu) or New Zealand (Their unique unit is the Maori Warrior and Maoris are New Zealand's native people).

Technologically speaking the Australian Aboriginals were the most primitive people on Earth when Europeans made contact. They lived nomadically, were stuck in the Paleolithic (stone age before inventing agriculture) and even then used wood for most of their tools. This isn't exactly their fault - Australia had no native plants that could be turned into crops, and no native animals that were suitable for domestication (even Dingoes migrated from SE Asia). The people in New Guinea (a far cry even from the Indonesians just to Australia's north who had benefitted from technology and cultural influence from the middle east to china) at the very least farmed yams.

This is not to mention that even given how far away from the rest of the world Australia is and that it had poor soils, and no native animals or plants suitable for farming - the sides of Australia closest to Asia and Africa - that may just have possibly been visited by outsiders, were the crap parts. Thousands of miles of western and north coastline which is either desert, cliffs, swamps and dry tropical scrub/forest.

It's the same reason civilization as we know it didn't penetrate through the saharan desert, dry african savannah, tropical jungles/swamps and more savannah and desert to reach peoples like the Zulu until so recently. Because seriously, that.

Australia's best side - the fertile east coast - was almost all forest and facing the incredibly huge pacific ocean. The same ocean it took the polynesians millennia to colonize. The first humans stepped foot on New Zealand only 700 years ago or so. (Then the British came 500 years after that).

My main point is that apart from maybe some amazonian tribes, or tribes in the african rainforest, australians were the world's least technologically advanced people and it feels weird enough having Native American civs (who in civ terms had invented agriculture, mining, trapping, pottery, animal husbandry, archery, skipped the wheel gone straight to horseback riding) and Zulus (agriculture, mining, pottery, skipped bronze working to iron working, animal husbandry, masonry, trapping) and Polynesians. Who together are historically the least advanced of the civ 5 races.

 

[Wir0s]

Large. Even on Large Australia is a little isolated.

Thats true, but when starting in America or west Europe, i find it pretty useful, is full of resources and still a great operation base to began the conquer of Asia.

As we said here: "para gustos los colores" (mmmm "for taste, colors"? sounds weird in eng. )

 

[brynolf]

I always do it. If nothing else, it's always fun to cleanse the land of the huge amounts of barbarians that always inhabit it at the time you reach it. Plus, it feels neat to have a little continent of your own.

 

[LamaGT]

Thats true, but when starting in America or west Europe, i find it pretty useful, is full of resources and still a great operation base to began the conquer of Asia.

As we said here: "para gustos los colores" (mmmm "for taste, colors"? sounds weird in eng. )

it's probably the spanish for "the gustibus not disputandum est" but i don't know the english for it :C
Anyway i usually colonize it only if it has some luxury/strategic that i don't have

 

[bhavv]

yes Australia rocks - we have uranium

So does Japan .... except it isnt 'rocking' as much for them atm

 

[Garumon]

When i play england i send off a settler as soon a spossible to get Australia since I usually run out of room for new cities prettly quick. It takes a long time to build up but by the time I am in the modern age my little colony is pumping out units quickly enough to open a second front in SE Asia. I do like to play a long game however, usually building up my cities until I get to them modern era to start attacking.