Thoughts About Australian Civilization

[nzcamel]

Yes, I want diversity, I want cultural diversity, I want diversity regional. I want that all ages of history are represented, not only the ancient age, but also modern, and I see no problem with that.
I see the extremely boring the base game that include only ever America, Egypt and the European and Asiatic powers.

America, Egypt and the European and Asiatic powers (and all the others that often appear) do cover the ancient age and the modern age and every age in between too lol. You get all of that. But not at the expense of accuracy.

For someone who is claiming not to care so much about race, you sure do complain about race a lot.

Give me an example of this slander please lol.

Have you ever considered that Beach's design philosophy when it comes to civ and leader is leader inclusion basically the polar opposite of: "I want to see the 18 most dominant civilizations throughout history (measured through diverse dominance) in that vanilla release".

Looking at the Civs he has included, not at all. He's deviated from my preferences in 2 Civs (as noted above) but as I've said, it's to be expected that they will want to always have a couple of new civs to keep it fresh. As long as the majority are there in the vanilla (and they are!) then I'm happy.

You may not like the choices of the Zulu, Shoshone, Venice, Brazil, Catherine de Medici, Maria I, Hojo, Morocco, Barbarossa etc. but I'm sure the majority of Civ Players do. It's pretty clear that he's all for representing under-represented portions of our history so that the historical side of our game industry not just heavy wave-after-wave dosages of "10 Strongest Anime Civilizations of All Time".

You mix together a list of civs who aren't in the vanilla release...with leaders of countries that I'm glad are in the release (i.e. France, Japan, and Germany). I love what Beech is doing and I don't see France, Japan, or Germany as underrepresented history wise.

Are you struggling to make the distinction of things I'm saying cos we're talking in English? I'm not mocking you...just aware that it appears to be your second language...and you don't seem to get the nuance

All aboard the S.S Historical Incredulity in a Game about Anachronisms and Emergent Gameplay and Storytelling Through Dynamic and Thematic Game Mechanics.

Yeah, you're not explaining what you think game mechanics are either.

Now that Beach is in charge, and the criteria has fundamentally changed - requests like Australia, Maori, Malaysia, Canada, Mexico, or any number of Indigenous Peoples with massive spheres of influence have suddenly become significantly more valid.

I don't think the criteria has fundamentally changed. CiV included lots of "second tier" civs in the dlc and expansions. Which is cool. As long as the top tier (which you're bored with obviously) is there.

As I said...God forbid...even Australia

 

[Atlas627]

Diversity clearly has many applications. Xandinho wants a diversity of peoples in the game. Hell, maybe he wants a diversity of game play in the game too; but as they are two completely different subjects. There is no connection for you to make clear.

They aren't 2 completely different subjects, which is why I purposely used the same word to show the connection between them. If the word diversity can only mean "cultural diversity" to you, then I'll have to use another word. How about "diverse Civilizations lead to varied gameplay"? Does that work?

I'm satisfied that I am not being a jerk, by not mixing different applications of a word.

No, what I did would arguably be "foolish". Accusing such a person of "wanting it both ways" is jerkish.

I'd agree that plenty of people do like diverse peoples being represented in games. Less people (but probably a higher portion of Civ players) like accuracy and authenticity in their games. We're the ones who couldn't care less that only one white person (if that) makes the final of the 100m sprints at the Olympics. We do care that the 8 fastest people in the world regardless of colour are in that race.

I want to see the 18 most dominant civilizations throughout history (measured through diverse dominance) in that vanilla release. My personal take is that I am not happy that the Mongols and Incans have been left out for their lighter skinned compatriots the Scythians and Brazillians. But not because of the colour of any of their skin; and only because arguably they were more dominant in their world!

The Mongols especially are a contender for one of the most dominant civilizations of all time. But meh, as long as they make an appearance sometime in the next year or so, I'll live.

That's great. You are free to want that.

But saying that it IS the *definitive* theme of Civilization is wrong. It is clearly not. The designers decide what the theme is, not you. Even if the audience as a whole influences their decision, that is still not your choice.

Can you qualify what you actually mean by 'diverse gameplay'?

Right now I have no idea what you are saying because, to me, (and I'm sure most people here) 'diverse gameplay' is tied to having options in a game which allows for different strategies or tactics to be successfully employed.

And having each Civ have different abilities changes which options can be successfully employed to the point where it enables new ones.

Looking at the Civs he has included, not at all. He's deviated from my preferences in 2 Civs (as noted above) but as I've said, it's to be expected that they will want to always have a couple of new civs to keep it fresh. As long as the majority are there in the vanilla (and they are!) then I'm happy.

Nobody challenged that most of the base Civs are supposed to be the world-famous ones. If that's all you want, then there's no disagreement here. But Beach clearly chose less well-known cultures for both G&K and BNW than have ever been used in Civ, ever. He is likely to do so again. Hence, there is a possibility that something like Australia could be included.

You mix together a list of civs who aren't in the vanilla release...with leaders of countries that I'm glad are in the release (i.e. France, Japan, and Germany). I love what Beech is doing and I don't see France, Japan, or Germany as underrepresented history wise.

Nobody was contesting vanilla vs expansions. We are contesting in-the-game vs not. His list makes sense.

Are you struggling to make the distinction of things I'm saying cos we're talking in English? I'm not mocking you...just aware that it appears to be your second language...and you don't seem to get the nuance

Are you blind? His English is obviously fine. How do you not get the nuance of what he was talking about?

I don't think the criteria has fundamentally changed. CiV included lots of "second tier" civs in the dlc and expansions. Which is cool. As long as the top tier (which you're bored with obviously) is there.

That IS a change in the criteria. CiV expansions were led by Ed Beach. Civ6 is led by Ed Beach. Previous games in the series did not include "second tier" Civs to nearly the same degree. The criteria has changed.

 

[TPangolin]

The criteria I stated makes more than enough sense lol. There's no need to jump to weird conclusions like "I don't understand the relevancy of this collated list, therefore it must be wrong, therefore maybe English is not his first language and he's struggling to comprehend what I'm saying". That's a weird hop, skip and a jump - not gonna lie.

I think I left out a word or something and apparently that caused my whole underlying argument to fail.

Feel free to reread what I originally said though. In that original post, underneath the thinly veiled layer of the "Why are we still talking about this?" vibe I was trying to imply, there's both grammatical correctness and a coherent argument to be found. It's also not that cryptic to be honest. That list was compiled from relevant Beach related design choices that people were unsure about initially, but have since been accepted as the new status quo.

Not everybody happens to have selected the "Civs Must Be At Least This Worthy To Enter" Ideological Tenet. In fact, it's obvious that Beach wants to find the justifiable balance between "Top 10 Strongest Civs and Most Famous Leaders" and representing parts of history that traditionally we're not used to hearing about (but just as interesting from a diversity perspective).

Maria I was espoused by some in the community as being a horrible choice for Portugal, and many thought that she was only there for gender diversity reasons. Including her definitely wasn't a mistake that somehow made it's way into production due to lack of historical research; her inclusion was a conscious design decision by Beach and his team that has since been accepted by the community. The same thing happened when Catherine de Medici was brought up as the leader of France - but again, it was a very conscious design decision by Beach (which stretch back to his days designing board games revolving around Medieval Europe) to have her represent France (as opposed to De Gaulle or the Sun King).

 

[Ornen]

Beach is the design lead this time around and has changed the rulebook in terms of traditional civ "worthiness". Of course whether or not Australia is a story worth telling is completely subjective. But it's intellectually dishonest to say you can't grab a country like Aus/Can/Mex and make something diverse, unique and transformative in an already diverse in-game environment.

Sure, which is why they've continually added new civs, such as Scythia and Brazil. But the question from there is who gets added. Someone earlier in thread mentioned that they considered Australia alongside Brazil, and I think they made the obvious right choice: Brazil is a culturally unique country, going on 200 years of independence, and a modern powerhouse. I can't say any of those things nearly as strongly about Australia.

Canada's an interesting one to bring in. If Australia, why not Canada? I can tell you why you would pick Brazil over other Latin American civs or even other postcolonial civs. I can't say the same for Australia. If we're adding other postcolonial civs, I would be most interested in Colombia, especially with Bolivar as leader. I'm not crazy about Mexico, which is semi-represented via the Aztecs – the general rule in civ is that semi-continuous cultures in the same geographic space don't get repped twice, which is why we've never seen Italy, for instance. I could see Argentina as an add, though I wouldn't take it before Colombia. I'm more interested in Cuba, which occupies a unique place in the world to this day, and represents an otherwise underrepresented region (the Caribbean). If we're looking for civs in Australia's region, Indonesia would be a great addition. Not a brand new civ, but it would be cool to see a modern representation under Sukarno. It helps that, like Brazil, modern Indonesia is a huge (and growing) nation, in both economy and population.

I wouldn't take Australia over any of these civs. I think it's an interesting country, but not (at least not yet!) a very historically interesting one.

 

[Atlas627]

Sure, which is why they've continually added new civs, such as Scythia and Brazil. But the question from there is who gets added. Someone earlier in thread mentioned that they considered Australia alongside Brazil, and I think they made the obvious right choice: Brazil is a culturally unique country, going on 200 years of independence, and a modern powerhouse. I can't say any of those things nearly as strongly about Australia.

Canada's an interesting one to bring in. If Australia, why not Canada? I can tell you why you would pick Brazil over other Latin American civs or even other postcolonial civs. I can't say the same for Australia. If we're adding other postcolonial civs, I would be most interested in Colombia, especially with Bolivar as leader. I'm not crazy about Mexico, which is semi-represented via the Aztecs – the general rule in civ is that semi-continuous cultures in the same geographic space don't get repped twice, which is why we've never seen Italy, for instance. I could see Argentina as an add, though I wouldn't take it before Colombia. I'm more interested in Cuba, which occupies a unique place in the world to this day, and represents an otherwise underrepresented region (the Caribbean). If we're looking for civs in Australia's region, Indonesia would be a great addition. Not a brand new civ, but it would be cool to see a modern representation under Sukarno. It helps that, like Brazil, modern Indonesia is a huge (and growing) nation, in both economy and population.

I wouldn't take Australia over any of these civs. I think it's an interesting country, but not (at least not yet!) a very historically interesting one.

I agree about having priorities.

America made the most sense because it was by far the most powerful.

Then Brazil makes the most sense because it is the most culturally unique of the clearly colonial Civs.

After that, I think Gran Columbia, Argentina, and Cuba are good options, though Spain itself already has a colonization theme. I'd probably place Canada (New France) slightly behind those, again due to uniqueness of culture (France also isn't as well-known for its colonies).

Then comes Australia. Still unique, still impressive, still a good candidate for a post-colonial Civ. But the Anglosphere colonials are already somewhat represented in America. Not that you couldn't use Australia for some cool mechanics anyway!

Now, I don't really know where something like South Africa would fit into this. I don't know enough about their post-colonial OR pre-colonial history.

 

[Xandinho]

After Brazil, I think that Canada becomes the best option. And then, perhaps Argentina or Mexico.
And then we have Australia, I think its chances of entering the game are below the civs I mentioned above. If Australia is included, so it will certainly Canada, Argentina and Mexico also included.
Now we have Colombia, I must assume that the chances of Gran Colombia entering the game are small, but this is not very different to Colombia. I believe it would not be included before Argentina, so I think the chances of seeing 3 modern civs in South America are remote (Brazil, Argentina and Colombia).

About other modern civs (Cuba, South Africa, New Zealand ...), I must say that its chances are almost nonexistent.

But honestly speaking, I think we will not see so many modern civs included in the game for so early. America is a staple, Brazil is apparently following a similar way, the space is open to countries with large market potential as Canada and Mexico, and Argentina can be a good representative for the southern part of South America, but I think that it is the end of the list, may end before.

 

[Ornen]

After Brazil, I think that Canada becomes the best option. And then, perhaps Argentina or Mexico.
And then we have Australia, I think its chances of entering the game are below the civs I mentioned above. If Australia is included, so it will certainly Canada, Argentina and Mexico also included.
Now we have Colombia, I must assume that the chances of Gran Colombia entering the game are small, but this is not very different to Colombia. I believe it would not be included before Argentina, so I think the chances of seeing 3 modern civs in South America are remote (Brazil, Argentina and Colombia).

About other modern civs (Cuba, South Africa, New Zealand ...), I must say that its chances are almost nonexistent.

But honestly speaking, I think we will not see so many modern civs included in the game for so early. America is a staple, Brazil is apparently following a similar way, the space is open to countries with large market potential as Canada and Mexico, and Argentina can be a good representative for the southern part of South America, but I think that it is the end of the list, may end before.

Why are the chances of Gran Colombia being included so small? I don't think the chances are small at all, given how dramatically it reshaped history, given that it'd have an iconic leader in Bolivar to represent it, and given that they're always looking for new civs and leaders to add to the game. The country was short-lived as a large empire, but it reshaped history and endures to this day in a substantial form. I don't think it matters whether you call it Colombia or Gran Colombia, but I'd be surprised to see anyone other than Bolivar leading it.

I agree that chances are low we'll see too many modern civs added to the game, which is why I'm doubtful about Australia. Like I said, it's a neat country, but it's hard to make a case for it over current civs, and it's not exactly first in line among those that have never been featured (or have been featured sparingly).

 

[Xandinho]

Why are the chances of Gran Colombia being included so small? I don't think the chances are small at all, given how dramatically it reshaped history, given that it'd have an iconic leader in Bolivar to represent it, and given that they're always looking for new civs and leaders to add to the game. The country was short-lived as a large empire, but it reshaped history and endures to this day in a substantial form. I don't think it matters whether you call it Colombia or Gran Colombia, but I'd be surprised to see anyone other than Bolivar leading it.

You're right about Bolivar, but I think a civ is not only an outstanding leader, if this were the case, we should have South Africa led by Nelson Mandela.
Gran Colombia lasted only about 10 years, very little time to belong to this game. If you are going to add a second modern civ South America, Argentina makes more sense, in my opinion.
I'm not saying it's impossible Gran Colombia into the game, but for me, its chances are slim. However, I may be wrong (the developers take atypical decisions sometimes), I saw as impossible for Brazil to enter the base game, we can see I was wrong.

 

[SMcM]

You may not like the choices of the Zulu, Shoshone, Venice, Brazil, Catherine de Medici, Maria I, Hojo, Morocco, Barbarossa etc. but I'm sure the majority of Civ Players do

Well, I wouldn't be so sure in several of those cases. From what I've seen here, on YouTube comments and on Steam, the majority of people who actually had an opinion about the inclusion of Maria I were not happy about it. I personally liked the addition of Venice in BNW, but most people here at least seem to have less positive opinions on it. For Civ VI, the inclusion of Brazil is something I have seen fairly mixed opinions on. Most seem to be alright with Catherine de Medici, but only a few seem to be big fans.

 

[George Abitbol]

Personally, I think city-states are the absolute best way to depict modern nation-states in the game.

I agree. No need for Australia or Canada when we have Melbourne or Toronto.

 

[Camikaze]

@TPangolin

I've been meaning to reply to your earlier detailed post - I'll try to get around to it sometime soon.

Sorry again for not getting back to you earlier, though now there's something concrete to discuss. Looks like Firaxis had a preference for post-colonial Australia, or the turn from colonial to post-colonial.

 

[TPangolin]

Pete Murray is faux-blaming me for it's inclusion, and I'll gladly take that blame lol. Getting Australia in the main game is the main reason I started modding, so I'm happy to have played my part! I can absolutely understand why they went with Curtin over Parkes though. I think he's a pretty surefire pick. He's regarded as the best PM in Australia's history, and for fairly good reason too - alongside being extremely competent as a wartime PM, he instituted a significant expansion of social services. Much of the reason Australia is so competent today is due to our far reaching social programs, with Curtin setting the precedent by enacting such policies.

So whilst he doesn't have the overwhelming beard of Henry Parkes, or the beer guzzling flair of Hawke - Curtin is a pretty great representation of Australian competency. That being said, we're still going to create Henry Parkes as an alternate leader. Before release we got quite a bit of work done on him, and now that mod tools are allegedly dropping soon we might resume work on him. Whilst Parkes didn't lead Australia, I can't think of a more 'Australian' leader- he started out as a penniless uneducated immigrant, made a career for himself, wrote bad poetry, and eventually became the most commanding figure in Australian politics. He was this massive blend of egotism and vanity, spurred on by his belief that the Australian identity should be one of deep egalitarianism.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, I imagine it's fairly safe to say that the Civ5 modding efforts with Australia certainly would've played a big role in getting it considered as a prospective civ.

 

[SMcM]

Civ VI completely dropped off my radar after I stopped playing it due to bugs, performance issues and poor mod support. Is this the first DLC Civ since Poland?

 

[thememe]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

HA!

HAHA!

You all said that Australia would be a stupid idea, that no-one would ever add Australia!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

(then again, I was wrong about Trump)

 

[nzcamel]

Can I note that I'm liking your sentence in brackets only

Australia is a stupid idea hehe...but one they have executed brilliantly.