Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
As I understand it, the Oromo who were integrated into Ethiopia ceased to use it for some time whilst the Boorana used it uninterrupted although I may be wrong
Edit: he latched onto an example I gave of a gerontocratic tribe, idk why, I didn’t reply to his later comments as I assumed he was taking the piss but in retrospect it seems he was being serious
As I understand it, the Oromo who were integrated into Ethiopia ceased to use it for some time whilst the Boorana used it uninterrupted although I may be wrong
the causes of 215 wars in pre-settlement Australia
*Kidney fat from deceased humans was believed to have magical properties
"Although Sutton found no evidence for “large-scale organized warfare”, he did, from the works of Stanner, Warner and his own collection of early encounter stories, discern large-scale fights, pitched battles, skirmishes and peace-making ceremonies (makarrata, one of the three terms in the title of this paper). By this time, archaeologists were weighing in on the debate, notably Nick Thorpe and Mark Allen. The latter demonstrated that archaeological and ethnographic evidence – globally, but especially in Australia – indicated the existence of complex and large-scale military engagements within hunter-gatherer societies"
"For instance, relations between the Kukabrak and the Lower Kaurna peoples of South Australia were often strained because “the Kukabrak believed them to monopolise the red ochre deposits”. Alfred Howitt witnessed the Dieri people near Lake Eyre make secret, long-distance expeditions to raid red ochre mines, suffering “dangers” and “battles” as they passed through many hostile territories to bring back large “cakes” of the material. Such expeditions comprised “companies of picked men, [who] came prepared to fight their way”. The fact that these expeditions were “often bloody” is corroborated by Herbert Basebow and Daisy Bates. Equally, nineteenth-century claims of groups conquering and annexing lands are rarely accepted as accurate today, although both Alfred Howitt and Gerald Wheeler were convinced that Indigenous groups experienced growth and decay, and that the Dieri and Pegullobutra had stories of being evicted from their former homelands. Some arguments have been made that increased population and the ensuing pressure on resources resulted in an increase in conflict and territorial conquest. There were certainly oral traditions of pre-contact evictions and near-evictions. For example, from Stradbroke Island and parts of the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, there were very early reports of Kalkadoon (Mount Isa, Queensland) and Iningai (Longreach, Queensland) peoples “invading” neighbouring territories: “the warrior tribes seize the best country and force the weaker clans to take the worse”. Reports of such conquests even appear in the writings of ethnographers such as Walter Roth. For the Cooper/Eyre Basin, Daisy Bates claimed that circumcised tribes incorporated or exterminated uncircumcised groups. The nature of these reports suggests that “invasions” were probably sustained, successful raids that weakened and depleted the group being harassed. In this regard, it is significant that aggressors were reported making other groups “extinct” by controlling their resources. The Nuenonne people of Tasmania reportedly used warfare to force the Lairmairrener people “to give up their hunting ground for the common good”. This suggests that annexation of part of a neighbour's land was not a completely foreign concept, and could be enshrined in customary law."
"In Arnhem Land, Warner found a distinction between the milwerangel (the second of the three terms in the title of this paper) and the ganygarr. The milwerangel was a pre-arranged pitched battle that involved a number of clans; the ganygarr, by contrast, was larger, more regional, and somewhat chaotic, being built up over long periods of feuding. The latter involved specially decorated symbolic spears, less restrictions and a corresponding higher death toll than the milwerangel. The full protocols of Indigenous warfare are sadly not recorded by most ethnographers; this has meant that we have had to reconstruct them from events and actions witnessed by onlookers"
aboriginals almost never fought for land due to the spiritual connections to a specific territory
but I don't know how this would interact with the games systems as it's very different from the areas that are most focused on such as Europe (though this could be said for many regions like the Americas and Africa)
the source for this information is "Indigenous Australian laws of war: Makarrata, milwerangel and junkarti" from International Review of the Red Cross
I sorta agree with this point but I think they should be similar to decentralised nations in Vic3 but unlike Vic3 they shouldn't be static on a map (because Vic3 decentralised nations are just empty land with a name and a flag slapped on it) being able to have limited interaction with groups outside of their own (limited conflict and diplomatic options), possibly with some predetermined friends and rivals, the ability to research technology but slower than usual, and they should be able to build buildings(only building them rarely or after certain buildings are needed). I don't think these entities should be playable or as powerful as "centralised" nations but more as a way to bring life to previously lifeless areas (at least on release). they could evolve into "centralized nations" (one example that instantly pops into my head is the Iroquois) this could occur naturally but it could also be predetermined, maybe a centralisation level increasing until they become "centralised" but I have no idea how it would increase and what would affect it.
Like many in this thread, I also wouldn't depict the native Australians with tags. I hope that certain nomadic and hunter-gathering groups have specialised mechanics that allow them to still influence the world, but not as tags.
Like many in this thread, I also wouldn't depict the native Australians with tags. I hope that certain nomadic and hunter-gathering groups have specialised mechanics that allow them to still influence the world, but not as tags.
Project Caesar with "terra nullius" would be a downgrade when compared with better approaches for native land as the used by Victoria 3, even the tribal land mechanic used by EU4 is more interesting than "terra nullius".
Also, we must consider that natives are not playable in Victoria 3 because Victoria 3 core mechanics and core gameplay do not make sense for pre-westphalian societies while Project Caesar is a game where the early game is about creating and centralizing your state, so, I think that is probable that core mechanics of Project Caesar will make sense enough with natives.
I thought they were in Kenya my bad, on their wikipedia it says " The Boorana people are notable for practicing the Gadaa system without interruption" so I assumed off of that
Project Caesar with "terra nullius" would be a downgrade when compared with better approaches for native land as the used by Victoria 3, even the tribal land mechanic used by EU4 is more interesting than "terra nullius".
Also, we must consider that natives are not playable in Victoria 3 because Victoria 3 core mechanics and core gameplay do not make sense for pre-westphalian societies while Project Caesar is a game where the early game is about creating and centralizing your state, so, I think that is probable that core mechanics of Project Caesar will make sense enough with natives.
Heck, I absolutely agree that Terra Nullius would be bad for gameplay! But that does not mean that the native Australians and others need to be represented with tags. Having separate mechanics for hunter-gathers and nomads would be awesome. They'd be more realistic and could be better for gameplay.
I think that it is too early to say with certain if playable nomads are better or worse for general gameplay.
We dont know nothing about the new colonization system too.
I thought they were in Kenya my bad, on their wikipedia it says " The Boorana people are notable for practicing the Gadaa system without interruption" so I assumed off of that
I hope that rather than getting tags that completely distort how these societies actually worked, we instead get series of events or a separate mechanic for exploring how your centralizing state interacts with the indigenous population of lands you are occupying.
I hope that rather than getting tags that completely distort how these societies actually worked, we instead get series of events or a separate mechanic for exploring how your centralizing state interacts with the indigenous population of lands you are occupying.
This is my view too. Since project caesar utilises pops, hopefully there will be more ways to interact with "tag-less" groups of people. Eu4 just has a number of people in uncolonized land, that never moves or does anything except rise up every so often when an army passes through it. Ideally the systems in place for uncolonized lands allow for trade, migration, and conflict with these pops. Under certain circumstances, some of these pops could coalesce into a tribal federation for example, and spawn a tag. But I don't think australia should start with any tags (as they are represented in eu4).
relevance is purely subjective and depends on where you're standing
edit: this was dumb, he was probably meant relevance as in how much a polity interacted with other ones, just think that needed to be clarified
Having pop on a per location basis would allow better representation of the people living there regardless of how their political structure should be represented
It does. They were stateless societes living for millennia in stone age. Adding decentralized statless societies, that dont fit the gameplay at all was really bad decision. If we do that with some tribes on Australia, why dont we just turn all natives from uncolonised provinces across the world and create mozaic of stateless societes that everyone hate?
