Thoughts About Australian Civilization

[SMcM]

Besides Henry Parkes, would Lachlan Macquarie be a sensible choice for the leader of Austalia?

 

[Atlas627]

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.

Um, yes please? Benjamin Franklin was freaking awesome. His formation of things like Public Libraries, Fire Departments, and the Postal Service are all critical to what made America successful.

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.

Doing something first does not matter, doing it the best does. For an example, look at every invention ever, which were almost all invented by someone other than the person who got rich and famous as the "inventor".

The USA is in the game because it clearly did all of the victory conditions (and most of the modern era in-game) the "best". Most pervasive culture? America. Most advanced space program? America. Most diplomatic influence? America. Most effective military and empire? America.

And except for a few blips, all of those were true for most of the 20th century. That's longer than the other colonial Civs were nation-states. And the US was a nation state longer than any of them even had a post-colonial cultural identity.

There are so many good choices for Civs before Australia/Canada. If they do most of those, I don't see a reason not to include Australia/Canada. Its not that "they aren't Civ-worthy", its "they are very low priority".

Edit: The Latin American countries were independent in the 19th Century, which is why they got a representative first. And Brazil makes the most sense because it is the most distinct of them. I still expect Gran Colombia before Australia/Canada.

 

[thememe]

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).

O rly?

"The aboriginal people are the native inhabitants of Australia. They are a dark-skinned people belonging to the Australoid group more closely related to Africans than to Asians and Europeans. They are believed to be descendants of the first group of humans to migrate out of Africa about 60,000 years ago. Being the first humans to arrive in Australia about 50,000 years ago; the Aborigines discovered Australia. They were the first human inhabitants of Australia."

http://australianmuseum.net.au/the-spread-of-people-to-australia

Archaeological evidence shows that modern humans had reached South-east Asia by 70,000 years ago and that they had spread to Australia by at least 50,000 years ago.

http://panique.com.au/trishansoz/aborigine/aborigin.html

I believe that aboriginals are much more widely accepted in australia than in america. There are regular discussions, at both state and federal levels, of what is the best strategy care for them and their interests. My understanding is that this is not the case in america

 

[Zaarin]

O rly?

"The aboriginal people are the native inhabitants of Australia. They are a dark-skinned people belonging to the Australoid group more closely related to Africans than to Asians and Europeans. They are believed to be descendants of the first group of humans to migrate out of Africa about 60,000 years ago. Being the first humans to arrive in Australia about 50,000 years ago; the Aborigines discovered Australia. They were the first human inhabitants of Australia."

http://australianmuseum.net.au/the-spread-of-people-to-australia

Archaeological evidence shows that modern humans had reached South-east Asia by 70,000 years ago and that they had spread to Australia by at least 50,000 years ago.

http://panique.com.au/trishansoz/aborigine/aborigin.html

My mistake. I've never really studied the Aboriginal Australians except in the broader context of human migration. My chief interests are the Near East/Mediterranean and Pre-Columbian North America.

I believe that aboriginals are much more widely accepted in australia than in america. There are regular discussions, at both state and federal levels, of what is the best strategy care for them and their interests. My understanding is that this is not the case in america

Perhaps, but I highly doubt that a civilization representing both white and Aboriginal Australians would be any more acceptable than using America to represent Native Americans. Personally I think both versions of Australia are pretty low on the priority list for representation as a civ, however.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Yes, and while we're at it why not Canada? Or Western Sahara? Or Lichtenstein? Nation-state =/= civilization. Brazil is at least culturally distinctive. What makes Australia different enough from England to be worth including? While dubious, even an Aboriginal Australian civilization would make more sense than the nation of Australia.

According to some people, Anzac Spirit.

But I'm on the same page as you concerning nation states and civilizations.

 

[Ezumiyr]

I have two things to say :

1 -
I have nothing against an Australian civ, but it has to feature soemthing way more iconic and relevant than surfing and tourism. More than surfing, because if you do as if it was relevant enough to be a Unique, then what about the other sports ? It seems disproportionate. And more than tourism, because Australian tourism rests essentially on natural landscapes. That is, things that are modelled from Natural Wonders in civ. France is actually a better choice for a tourism civ, since the most part (but not only) of french tourism relies on historic stuff.

And really, if you take all the natural things (including koalas) from Australia, there is not much remaing as iconic. In particular if you ask someone that isn't from an anglo-saxon country.

Except the Aboriginals. Everyone knows the didjeridoo, the things about the dreams, the boomerangs, all that kind of things. Therefore I think that an Aboriginal civ would be a much better choice for the Australian area. They are just more iconic, more distinctive. Of course it would be better to pick one Aboriginal people in particular, but that shouldn't be a problem. I'm sure that very few people knew who were the Shoshone before Civ5.
It could very well include more modern aspects for modern eras, by the way.

2 -
It's funny how "colonial nations" seems to mean "Canada, Argentina and Australia" here. There are also colonial nations in Africa, and it's really a shame that no none mentionned any of them. Madagascar, Senegal and Nigeria look like good contestants to me.

 

[Atlas627]

It's funny how "colonial nations" seems to mean "Canada, Argentina and Australia" here. There are also colonial nations in Africa, and it's really a shame that no none mentionned any of them. Madagascar, Senegal and Nigeria look like good contestants to me.

I think Africa is definitely a case where the pre-colonials are great candidates for full Civs. This is why nobody mentioned them.

I agree with your points about Australia.

 

[SMcM]

2 -
It's funny how "colonial nations" seems to mean "Canada, Argentina and Australia" here. There are also colonial nations in Africa, and it's really a shame that no none mentionned any of them. Madagascar, Senegal and Nigeria look like good contestants to me.

What are you talking about? The reason why people don't refer to those (except Nigeria) as colonial nations is because they aren't.

Madagascar is a pre-colonial state, existing as the Merina kingdom from the 16th century until the 20th century.

As, arguably is Senegal, with it being a successor state to the Kingdom of Sine under rulers like Ama Joof. I presume that historical kingdom is the reason you are mentioning it.

 

[Loaf Warden]

The problem with using post-colonial African civs is that their borders were largely drawn by Europeans sitting around a table in the 19th century. Nigeria didn't arrive at its current borders by any organic process of local war or settlement, but by British diplomats pointing at a map and saying "This bit's ours". That is to say, the majority of nation-states in Africa today are artificial and do not properly reflect the distribution of local cultures, languages, traditions, allegiances, and so on.

This isn't an absolute bar to the inclusion of any post-colonial African civs, of course, but I think their representation of Africa so far is already borderline. There are two civs for the continent of Africa in the base game of Civ VI, and both were given leaders known for capitulating to Europeans. In other words, the base game's representation of Africa is basically as a place for Europeans to conquer. If the next African civ they add is one created by European statesmen during the Scramble, that really is not going to look good for them. I'm not absolutely opposed to the eventual inclusion of Nigeria or Kenya or Mozambique or whatever. But I definitely want to see more pre-Scramble, native African civs first.

For Australia, I'd be perfectly fine with a civ representing modern Australia. I'd also be perfectly fine with a civ representing some Aboriginal group, as long as it was specific and not a rehash of Civ IV's atrocious "Native America" civ. I'm not educated enough on the subject to know what significant differences exist from one group to another or be able to suggest which ones might be best suited for inclusion, but I really, really do not want to see any civ called "the Aboriginal Empire".

I seem to remember reading or hearing somewhere that Aboriginal Australians have a taboo against visual depictions of no-longer-living people. Is that true? And if so, does that hold true across the continent or was it only specific groups? If it is true, then any attempts to make an Aboriginal civ would probably end the same way as the Pueblo situation in V. If they go talking to Aboriginal authorities and they all respond, "Please don't depict our great leaders in a computer game, and we're not going to provide any voice acting for them," then there will never be an Aboriginal civ outside of mods.

 

[TPangolin]

Honestly, I think any modern nation state is worthy enough to be included if:

A) The Developers determine it to be a story that's worth telling (not just to make bank and move product) and B) designed with intellectual rigour and tell their unique story (and what makes them unique, and seperate from their mother culture) through transformative gameplay mechanics.

This seems to be the philosophy that went into designing VI civs anyway, it just seems that Beach is more focused on European civs. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's our job to respond in a way that demands more BNW style civ selection and design which had an emphasis more on telling a story. This is much more preferable in a transformative sense, else you'd be stuck using a reductionistic civ-worthiness selection criteria which would neuter the inclusion of civs like Venice, Zulu, Shoshone, Brazil etc.

I seem to remember reading or hearing somewhere that Aboriginal Australians have a taboo against visual depictions of no-longer-living people. Is that true? And if so, does that hold true across the continent or was it only specific groups? If it is true, then any attempts to make an Aboriginal civ would probably end the same way as the Pueblo situation in V. If they go talking to Aboriginal authorities and they all respond, "Please don't depict our great leaders in a computer game, and we're not going to provide any voice acting for them," then there will never be an Aboriginal civ outside of mods.

I might inquire about this myself. Living in Sydney, I'm sure the resources are available to me here if I look in the right places.

 

[Camikaze]

To my understanding, most Aboriginal groups regard visual representations of the dead to be inappropriate because it's considered that there's some connection with the visual representation and the person's soul (so the person's soul is in some way 'captured' in the image). So on Australian TV, for example, you'll often see warnings before documentaries along the lines of 'Aboriginal viewers are advised that this programs may contain images of deceased individuals'. I'm not sure the same theory applies to non-photographic images, however.

I think an Aboriginal civilization would be a wholly insulting concept in itself to begin with, so the visual representation is probably the least of the problems.

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

@Atlas627 - my point in the comparison of Benjamin Franklin wasn't that Franklin (or indeed Parkes) was not an important and interesting person, but that Franklin was never actually leader of the US. Naturally I'd assume the leader of the American civ should be a former president of the United States, not either a pre-revolutionary leader, or a post-revolutionary non-leader.

 

[Atlas627]

@Atlas627 - my point in the comparison of Benjamin Franklin wasn't that Franklin (or indeed Parkes) was not an important and interesting person, but that Franklin was never actually leader of the US. Naturally I'd assume the leader of the American civ should be a former president of the United States, not either a pre-revolutionary leader, or a post-revolutionary non-leader.

I understood that; I guess I didn't make it clear! My bad.

I think Franklin is *such* an amazing figure that it doesn't matter that he wasn't the President. He was close enough to the government that I find it similar to using a Prime Minister of a Monarchy, or a powerful Regent/Chief Adviser. If they have a good personality to use and they have enough accomplishments that we can turn into good gameplay mechanics, why not?

I still expect to see John Adams first, though. Especially this time around.

 

[JimmyBanks]

I'll reost what I did in the Design your own civ. thread:

Bidjigal


Leader: Pemulwuy
Pemulwuy (c1750 - 2 June 1802) was a Bidjigal man born around 1750 in the area of Botany Bay now known as New South Wales, he was born with a Turned Eye. He led the resistance against the British settlement. It is said that his most common tactic when fighting was to burn crops and kill livestock. He was injured multiple times and survived having his skull cracked as well as being shot in the head on a seperate occasion. At the time some people believed he could not be killed by bullets. In 1802 that was proven not to be the case when he was shot by a British Soldier some 12 years after the fight began. When he was killed his head was cut off and sent to England, it has never been returned. In 2010 Prince William promised to return the head however it's whereabouts are currently unknown.

Leaders Agenda: My Island Home
Dislikes it when Civ's from other Continents bring units onto his home continent (even if not at war).

Civ Ability: Welcome to Country
Units get a +25% attack bonus when fighting on home continent.

Leader Ability: Where There's Smoke There's Fire
Units can Pillage without losing a turn.

Unique Unit: Wumarang Warrior
The Wumarung Warrior is a Warrior that throws Boomberang -replaces the slinger, +1 movement (same as scout)

Unique District: Boojery Carribberie
Replaces Holy Site District, provides +3 faith and +10% melee strength for all units built in that city.

Capital: Parramatta

Yes it's not called "Australia" but I do like the concept of an Indigenous civ.

The showing of indigenous people who are dead is not always a bad thing, I agree that you would have to be very careful not to offend but there are ways of having indigenous civs without offending.

 

[Manifold]

Since Brazil is an official Civ VI civilization, it seems more likely that Australia might be considered - at least with later DLC, so I hope there is still time to influence Firaxis so that it might be an optimal inclusion...

I suggest that Australia becomes a Civ

in part 26 of the Civ-games in the year 2120, when they were as long independent as Brazil already is independent

 

[nzcamel]

Ha! We deserve a Civ before you do as we are a much more innovative country on the world stage. I don't see why only being a 5th the size of Australia should count us out!

No, in all seriousness, America represents the UK's former colonies well, as it is the only one who has been a world power. Each Civ chosen should have been a dominant power in its world in its time.

Australia, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, South Africa & New Zealand - none of us tick enough boxes to supplant the Civs that are typically in the roster. I'm gutted for the Incans that they have missed out to Brazil in terms of being in the initial release of VI (and the Mongolia to Scythia ), though I'm realistic that something like this will always happen. The less the better however!

So no! No Australian Civ!!

- A New Zealander

 

[Xandinho]

Ha! We deserve a Civ before you do as we are a much more innovative country on the world stage. I don't see why only being a 5th the size of Australia should count us out!

Only correcting, Australia is 6th, not 5th

No, in all seriousness, America represents the UK's former colonies well, as it is the only one who has been a world power. Each Civ chosen should have been a dominant power in its world in its time.

Not all are civs were domimants powers in its time.
The Netherlands was very important during the age of colonization, but it was not the greatest world power of its time (this title could belong to Spain and / or England).
Korea was never a domimant power, then we would not have this included.
Sweden had a great importance within its continent, but not outside it. This also applies to Siam, Khmer, Austria, Songhai, Poland, Indonesia, Brazil...
This argument is even weaker when we talk about Zulus and Native Americans.
If we were to include only civs who were domimants powers in its time, the civs list would be limited to only these:
-Egypt
-Persia
-Greece
-Rome
-Arabia
-Mongolia
-Ottoman
-Spain
-France
-England
-Japan
-Germany
-Russia
-America
-China

and maybe more some

 

[SMcM]

Only correcting, Australia is 6th, not 5th



Not all are civs were domimantes powers in its time.
The Netherlands was very important during the age of colonization, but it was not the greatest world power of its time (this title could belong to Spain and / or England).
Korea was never a domimante power, then we would not have this included.
Sweden had a great importance within its continent, but not outside it. This also applies to Siam, Khmer, Austria, Songhai, Poland, Indonesia, Brazil...
This argument is even weaker when we talk about Zulus and Native Americans.
If we were to include only civs who were domimantes powers in its time, the civs list would be limited to only these:
-Egypt
-Persia
-Greece
-Rome
-Arabia
-Mongolia
-Ottoman
-Spain
-France
-England
-Japan
-Germany
-Russia
-America
-China

and maybe more some

In the mid 17th century, the Netherlands had the most powerful and successful navy in the world. Similarly, the Portugese were at one point the dominant colonial power.

Also, the Babylonian empire, the Assyrian empire, the Byzantines, the Huns, the Timurids, the Indian Maurya empire and the Ghurid empire were all dominant powers at their greatest extents. The Inca were a very dominant force in South America, as were the Aztecs in what is modern Mexico.

 

[nzcamel]

Only correcting, Australia is 6th, not 5th

I'm not following...

In the mid 17th century, the Netherlands had the most powerful and successful navy in the world. Similarly, the Portugese were at one point the dominant colonial power.

Also, the Babylonian empire, the Assyrian empire, the Byzantines, the Huns, the Timurids, the Indian Maurya empire and the Ghurid empire were all dominant powers at their greatest extents. The Inca were a very dominant force in South America, as were the Aztecs in what is modern Mexico.

Thank you

Sure, for some Civs, their point of dominance over others was limited or short; but it was very real. In a way that the modern ex-colonies (US aside) have never touched. Nor should we have to of course - We don't measure greatness the same in the modern world...but Civilization the game is far more interesting with countries who reached greatness according to older ideals, rather than newer ones.

 

[Xandinho]

In the mid 17th century, the Netherlands had the most powerful and successful navy in the world. Similarly, the Portugese were at one point the dominant colonial power.

Also, the Babylonian empire, the Assyrian empire, the Byzantines, the Huns, the Timurids, the Indian Maurya empire and the Ghurid empire were all dominant powers at their greatest extents. The Inca were a very dominant force in South America, as were the Aztecs in what is modern Mexico.

Yes, you said well, Aztecs and Incas were the dominant forces in their respective continents, not in the world, even the modern Mexico is a continental power.

You're right about Babylon, Assyria, Byzantines, Timurids .... but the list remains small, if we were include only civs who were dominants powers in his time, the list would be only 25 civs (on maximum), and we would never see Americans and natives and civis as Zulus, Sweden and Siam included, for example.

 

[Guandao]

No Southeast Asian civs, but Huns are considered a dominant power. What is this ridiculousness? The Huns left barely a trace of their existence behind. While Southeast Asians have left numerous stone temples behind. Huns were definitely my least favorite civ choice in Civ5.