Thoughts About Australian Civilization

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Bkeela, Aug 3, 2016.

  1. Zaarin

    Zaarin Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    9,403
    Location:
    Babylon 5
    German nation-state is new; German civilization is old. I could take or leave Austria (really it's part of the German civilization and is only excluded from the nation of Germany because of Bismarck's political machinations), but Austria was a major player in Medieval through Enlightenment politics and culture, so I really don't object to seeing them represented separately--though I'd prefer someone else (Medieval Hungary, for example, or someone non-European) just for the sake of variety.
     
  2. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,312
    Location:
    Sydney
    I'm not convinced that the best choice for an Australian civ would be someone who was never the leader of Australia. It seems like the equivalent of having Benjamin Franklin as the American leader. If distinctiveness is key, then Hughes, Menzies, Whitlam & Hawke would all fit the bill, whilst also satisfying the criterion of actually being a leader of Australia. If 'founding father' cred is important, on the other hand, then Deakin would seem to clearly be the best choice.

    Personally, I'm quite dubious of the merit of having anyone pre-Statute of Westminster as leader of an Australian civ, because presumably such a civ would be focusing on independent Australia, not Australia as part of the British Empire (which a mod is much more suited to focus on). It's hard to sell 'post-colonial' if the leader and other unique characteristics of the civ are actually pre-post-colonial.

    (Out of curiosity, in the Civ5 mod, why did you give Parkes an Australian accent?)
     
  3. TPangolin

    TPangolin Just the worst person

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Messages:
    4,029
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Essentially it all really depends on, and boils down to your design philosophy in regards to creating civs. If you're given the task to design a Civ like Australia (and to make it unique and have a degree of differentiation), then you basically have two options.Either give it some easily recognisable attributes and plain traits reminiscent of vanilla Civs in V and VI - or you could go about it from a different angle and inject flavour into it. None is objectively superior, however I find the latter becoming a lot more interesting if done correctly.

    The problem really comes from the fact that there already is a general apprehension that comes with including Dark Horse civs like Australia, Canada, Mexico etc. in the game as it comes with the supposed fear/territory that you'd be covering already trodden ground alongside a bloody plethora of other reasons. Since the apprehension of inclusion is already apparent, then I think it's pretty justifiable to use flavour as a tool for differentiating the civ that you're designing. By having a unique playstyle (and with that an implied storyline), it showcases that differentiation and actually does wonders for cementing in people's minds the idea that the Civ was worthy of inclusion because of the enjoyment had throughout the game.

    I completely get the apprehension behind including Australia, Canada etc. but the trick imo is to design it from a perspective wherein that players would feel a sense of loss if it were taken away.

    Australia in Civ V for example was not intended to be like Civ V's America. Whereas America was pretty plain in terms of attributes and units, Australia aimed to tell the story of the colonisation of the Australian continent (by founding autonomous Puppet colonies), the federation of the Australia (annexing founded colonies), the waves of immigration (Tourism & Trade), and the legacy of Parkes' work (Prime Ministers) in rough chronological order.

    Australia wasn't intended to showcase and represent exclusively a Post-Colonial nation like America, but rather to have the playthrough that echoed the times and process in which the Australian identity was forged. If we're going down this route it only makes sense to play from the seat of Sydney, NSW and work with all the other colonies to federate the nation into a united Commonwealth. It makes sense to choose Parkes as the leader as he not only led NSW for a ridiculously long time, but catalysed and was central the federation process, and worked endlessly for the latter half of his life towards that goal.

    I personally just like the idea of having a leader who's personal history serves as an extremely decent analogue and a parallel to that salient Australian ideology that persists to today. That of an downed, yet idealistic immigrant, forging his destiny in a foreign land, using vanity and egotism to strongarm himself into a position where he can be properly altruistic, culminating in an egalitarian desire to unite his fellow men under a unified banner.

    In regards to the accent... we're pretty short on voice actors really. Ideally the dream is to have him retain much of the Brummie base origins, but with an Australian twinge (it's hard to keep it 100% Birmingham after being living in Australia for like ~50-60 years lol).

    If multiple leaders ends up being a thing - the whole colonisation storyline is most likely going to be switched out. Much like Victoria representing the British Empire, we could switch out Parkes for Curtin/Hawke to showcase a completely different era of Australia's history.

    ....aaaand I'm ranting again. But yeah - rule of thumb: If you're aiming to include a civ that people are already apprehensive about, then making the attributes simultaneously fun and dynamic should absolutely be your go to. Representing Civs with the same amount of legitimacy as a vanilla civ plants the thought in people's minds that the civ is indeed worthy of inclusion in the series.
     
  4. Xandinho

    Xandinho Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,026
    Location:
    Brazil
    What would be the segment of Australia as a civ?

    I just can think of anything involving trade, resources and tourism. Maybe tourist bonus for coastal cities?
     
  5. noitsailiviC

    noitsailiviC Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Messages:
    4
    I'd like to be completely fair on here.
    What makes the United States any different?
    In CIv V, they have a plane, and a variation of a musket man.
    Japan has a plane variation, and France has a musket man variation, but the different thing is, both of these civilisations actually had an empire. Japan in WWII, and France in the 1800's, unlike the United States, who never had an empire.

    Australia currently has the 13th highest GDP, the second highest HDI (Higher than the US), the highest minimum wage, the 14th highest GDP per capita (Higher than the US), the fourth quality of living (Higher than the US), the 8th most powerful passport and the ninth longest life expectancy (Once again, higher than the US). Australia has had 4 of the most liveable cities in the world, Melbourne, which ranked 1 for five years in a row. No American cities made the list.

    Sydney is one of the most economically powerful cities in the world, and it's not even a mega-city.

    Australia has the 8th best intelligence agency, the 15th most powerful military in the world, is one of the most technologically advanced militaries, and they are currently building the most sophisticated submarines in the world (Contract with the French).

    Australia has the third largest mining industry, supplying around 30% of the worlds bauxite production and 15% of the nickel production.

    Australia has had major scientific advancements. Wi-Fi, the black box flight recorder, the pacemaker, spray on skin, the medical application for penicillin, the bionic ear, the ultra sound, the plane escape slide and raft. They also invented the tank.

    All of Australia's capital cities (Except Canberra) are coastal, so maybe an advantage for coastal cities would be nice, or have a coastal bias? Because of a large amount of resources, maybe a resource bonus?

    Now, I'd like to know what makes America different enough from England. What makes Brazil different enough from Spain? Unlike Western Sahara and Liechtenstein, Australia is a significant nation...

    Umm... No... They don't...

    Now, I'm not for or against Australia, but I would like to see some different Civs in the game, unlike the constantly repeated ones. And I do agree that colonial and pre-colonial do fit Civ's theme the best, but I think it would be nice to see Australia, or even Canada, etc.
     
  6. Xandinho

    Xandinho Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,026
    Location:
    Brazil
    Spain? :confused:
    I think your question would be better this way: "What makes Brazil different enough from Portugal?"
    Brazil was colonized by Portugal, not by Spain
     
  7. NecromancerKing

    NecromancerKing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages:
    33
    What makes America more important than Australia? America involved and even leading in some of the major recent wars. Many of the victory conditions in the game are based on what America has and already achieved like with culture victory where America is practically dominant with the English language being used and taught practically everywhere and being used in many business transaction worldwide, Hollywood movies, Apple, Netflix, Amazon, and things like that are popular world wide. Space victory, America being the first nation putting a man on the moon. Diplomatic Victory, America has a strong pull with many of the world powers where they declare a war, many nations joined in which also open up to Domination victory. Many of the tech trees and cultures are based around American inventions like nuclear weapons, internet, streamlining of the computers, globalization, etc. It's not an empire, but it's practically an empire. People keep comparing America to Canada and Australia just because they are modern nations, but most of the time, those countries play support role, not involved in modern affair and cultures or change the modern world the same way as America.
     
  8. noitsailiviC

    noitsailiviC Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Messages:
    4
    I have no problem with America, that would be pretty hypocritical. But what I'm trying to say with my point is why the bias towards the US? You state the culture, the science, etc. But many things in there are Australian inventions. The fridge, the underwater torpedo (Which things like submarines use), the tank. There's penicillin, particle physics, to which the Australian's built the first qbit. It's a space victory, and technically the soviets were the first in space. Australian's made the first feature film. Australia has strong diplomatic ties with many major countries, and is ranked the 15th most peaceful nation.


    My point is not to add Australia, but to show that it should (Even though I do have a strong feeling it wouldn't) be considered, and for others to rethink. Personally, it's not needed, but it's nice to think about what they have achieved. Although, you haven't answered my question - what makes the US differnet from England?

    My apologies. Sorry about that.
     
  9. Reboot

    Reboot Privateer

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    Messages:
    337
    Location:
    1.17N 103.50E
    I think we all know that America is in the game because Firaxis / Sid is American. That's reason enough.

    As for Australia... It'll just bring another English-speaking civ into the game, which already has 2 (English, Americans). Language is a major defining factor of defining a civilization, and while the Australians speak their own style, it's pretty much still English. It lacks variety and exoticism to include it when you have other choices.

    Modern Australia is even younger than the US. It feels too recent to be added, especially considering the number of old civs around.

    There are already a lot of old civs to consider already, so I think Australia is just edged out of the list because of this.

    Also, I'd not say "Australia" as a Civ but "Australasia" instead. This will include NZ and nearby islands. I'd love to see Australasia, but I think there are a lot of other just-as-worthy civs to be included.
     
  10. NecromancerKing

    NecromancerKing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages:
    33
    Many countries in modern time have contributed somewhat to the modern world, and a lot of them can list their own country's accomplishments just as well as Australia, so Australia is no different than those other countries out there with a few inventions in culture or scientific, but Australia and Canada and those countries alike all play support, they have never been the main stage or set the main stage while what you all mentioned are basically what a lot of modern nations nowadays also have, it is not at all on the same level as America where they basically lead instead of following or play support a lot of the time. They basically dominated the culture front, space front, tech front. Australia is exactly where they need to be which is a city state, they have never involved in "leading" but more "supporting", the mechanic in the game basically describe them pretty well, they help support the CIV they are friendly with, but they're not the one who lead the war, lead the technology, lead the culture. America is different, not only from England but also from Canada, and Australia. They're the current power house, not the 15th something powerhouse, their very own distinctive culture that invade many other countries, you don't see Australia movies being played everywhere globally or people using Australian iphone. What makes America different from many modern colonial countries is that they are the leading front in many fronts and many "Victory" conditions, they're not under another country's monarch and fight and won their own independent, leading and involving in many wars. They're leading and causing historical events directly, whether it's political or cultural, like many civilizations in the past.
     
  11. NecromancerKing

    NecromancerKing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages:
    33
    Sid is Canadian.

    It speaks volume when a Canadian doesn't include a Canada civ. What makes you think they would include Australia when there is no Canada which is basically on the same position as Australia?
     
  12. Civciv5

    Civciv5 Grand Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,103
    Location:
    Nergenshuizen, Belgium
    Since they already added Brazil, which can't really be called a civilization, why not?

    Add Australia, along with Canada and a bunch of other post colonial civs in the xpack "Modern Nations".
     
  13. Kerfuffle

    Kerfuffle King of the Whale Sharks

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Messages:
    426
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Since it was actually considered for the Brave New World expansion in Civ V, but they settled on Brazil instead
     
  14. Xandinho

    Xandinho Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,026
    Location:
    Brazil
    Well, can you introduce me your definitions of "civilization"?

    Why Brazil, Australia, Canada and other colonial civs can not to call civilizations?

    I am interested to know
     
  15. Loaf Warden

    Loaf Warden (no party affiliation)

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,972
    Location:
    Alaska Grown, currently Outside
    Exactly. Sometimes it seems like every poster on this board has their own personal definition of what a civilization is, and every poster on this board is somehow convinced their definition is the one true definition that Firaxis is bound by. This forum is absolutely lousy with posts shouting down any hint of a suggestion that such-and-such a modern nation should be in the game using the meaningless argument that "x is a nation-state, not a civilization!" It's meaningless because the developers of the game clearly don't have a strict definition themselves. They'll include any culture, tribe, kingdom, empire, or nation-state they feel like including.

    In Civ V, Germany represented all of the German peoples from the Germanic tribes to the modern era, yet Austria under the Habsburgs was counted as its own separate thing. All of the various and distinct Polynesian peoples were counted as a single civilization while the nation-state of Brazil was also counted as a civilization. The Huns were counted as a civilization even though they were pretty much the epitome of what is meant in this game series by "barbarians". So any time someone says "Australia isn't a civilization, it's a nation-state", or "the Inuit aren't a civilization because they don't build cities", they're ignoring the actual game series we're here to discuss. The persistence of this solipsistic argument ("my definition of 'civilization' is the one that truly matters") has gotten very boring, but fortunately, it's not going to matter anyway because at the end of the day, the developers are going to include whomever they feel like including. We've seen already with the revealed civs that the developers are continuing their loose definitions in VI; the nation-state of Brazil is a civ, and the nomadic Scythian culture is a civ. Therefore, if the devs decide to make an Australian civ, or a Canadian civ, or an Inuit civ, then they will. They're not going to cancel the plan because somebody on the forum declared their intended civ was "not a civilization".

    ETA: To be fair, the post which the section I quoted was responding to was not ignoring the game, but rather conceding that Australia can be included because Brazil was included despite not fitting that poster's personal definition of a civilization.
     
  16. Civciv5

    Civciv5 Grand Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,103
    Location:
    Nergenshuizen, Belgium
    How unfortunate. I would have preffered Canada over Brazil actually.
     
  17. JimmyBanks

    JimmyBanks Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2016
    Messages:
    281
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Here's my thoughts on an Aussie Civ:

    Leader: PAUL KEATING

    Agenda: (Float the Dollar) the more you trade with other Civs the more he will like you.

    Leader Abilities:
    +25% increase to all gold production.
    +15 health for all units at the end of each turn.

    Unique Unit: The Volunteer - costs the same as a worker but once built becomes any unit currently known to civ. (Would be limited like trade routes or similar).

    Special Ability: +2 Adjacency bonus for building districts next to ocean tiles.

    Unique Improvement: Cricket Ground - built in the entertainment district the Cricket Ground provides +50% amenities to city.
     
  18. thememe

    thememe Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Messages:
    17
    What would be the reasons for adding an 'Australia'?

    I find it interesting that the only continent that has never had a civ on it is the continent of australia.

    Perhaps that in itself might be an interesting starting point.

    You could have it as a quasi-Aboriginal/white state and have a famous aboriginal person leading it, like arabanoo or bennelong.

    There could be a light horse unique unit for the modern age, and as the unique building (or district) it could be some kind of trade post, in recognition of the vast distances that aboriginal australians had to travel many tens of thousands of years ago (See? when you include the aboriginals, australia's history is longer than anyone else's).
     
  19. TPangolin

    TPangolin Just the worst person

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Messages:
    4,029
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    I'm sure if you read through the thread, I think you'll find plenty of comments regarding people's thoughts on why it should be added into the game.
     
  20. Zaarin

    Zaarin Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    9,403
    Location:
    Babylon 5
    The Native Americans have been in the New World for possibly as long as 20,000 years, whereas the Aboriginal Australians reached Australia ~16,000 years ago. So, still no. Plus I can't imagine that merging the nation-state of Australia with the Aboriginal Australians would go over any better than including Native Americans in the United States (a situation that I would hope will be rectified shortly).
     

Share This Page