Australien Empire
- Thread starter lordrock8
- Start date
-
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.
I would the amount of gold,iron,aluminum,uranium,and other metals makes it a veritable treasure trove.
Well, not exactly, unless it goes and invades NZ and all the small insular countries in Oceania, such as Fiji and the Salomon Islands, among others.
Now, getting serious... I think the Australien Empire could only be possible under Habsburgien rule, being the oceanic counterpart of the Austrien-Hungarien Empire.
The good thing is, providing the AI behavior would mimic that of Austrie, they wouldn't be such an annoyance as their Eurocounterparts, as they would have nowhere to go with their overpowered/overnumbered army and no navy.
PS: Would kangaroo units count as infantry or cavalry? What land tech level would we need to unlock them? What about koalas?
Kangoroos are cavalry obviously, and koalas are aircrafts, cause they jump from the trees.
As already noted, the habitable areas are larger than France, Iberia, Britain and Italy combined.
It'd be like asking: "Poland? Huh, like anyone would fight for such piece of dismal wasteland..."
IE, completely untrue.
As already noted, the habitable areas are larger than France, Iberia, Britain and Italy combined.
It'd be like asking: "Poland? Huh, like anyone would fight for such piece of dismal wasteland..."
IE, completely untrue.
huh... how much % of australia is habitable?
18% is covered by desert, and another third or so either isn't habitable or is unsettled. So half let's say.
Even if we said that 4.6 million sq km is uninhabitable, the remaining 3.0 million sq km is still larger than France (550,000sq km), Spain (505,000), Italy (300,000) and the United Kingdom (240,000) combined. In fact, you could throw the Benelux Countries, Poland and Germany in there too and have change left over.
Even if we said that 4.6 million sq km is uninhabitable, the remaining 3.0 million sq km is still larger than France (550,000sq km), Spain (505,000), Italy (300,000) and the United Kingdom (240,000) combined. In fact, you could throw the Benelux Countries, Poland and Germany in there too and have change left over.
Well, from the map looks like centre of austrialia, is desert, and even thou there are grasslands, some of them are almost, or just completely are, encircled by deserts. Also equatorial jungles are not realy habitable, same goes for tropical and sub tropical. Well not completely, but still they are not the best place to live for the white men.
Thou as australia do have resources i agree that fighting for it might be worth a while IF you will gain enough resources from it, for moderate price. And as it is mostly dessert, on west, and jungle-grasslands on east, i say it is mostly impossible to invade australia, without incurring very big cost, and it would need to be a long fight with lot of attrition warfare. I say invading such piece of land is not realy worth the cost it could mean. Only reason why england won with the aboriginals was because they were divided, and english had technological superiority. Without either of those advantages, english could have lost. Without any of those, they would lose surely.
Invading Australia would be a nightmare. The Japanese plan though was to do what they did to China; capture the coastal cities and not worry about the interior.
I don't think you can call the British settlement of Australia an 'invasion' per se, though it is a popular term these days for historians. The main reason is that while there were certainly people here who were displaced, they were semi-nomadic, and had no state or government organisation as such. A different story in New Zealand for instance, where the British fought actual wars and suffered some real defeats (though minor in the long term).
Even if we were to take out all of the rainforests, grasslands, deserts and arid areas that still leaves 20% of the country; 7 times the size of Poland or Germany. We don't have a lot of people for the size of our country.
I don't think you can call the British settlement of Australia an 'invasion' per se, though it is a popular term these days for historians. The main reason is that while there were certainly people here who were displaced, they were semi-nomadic, and had no state or government organisation as such. A different story in New Zealand for instance, where the British fought actual wars and suffered some real defeats (though minor in the long term).
Even if we were to take out all of the rainforests, grasslands, deserts and arid areas that still leaves 20% of the country; 7 times the size of Poland or Germany. We don't have a lot of people for the size of our country.
Invading Australia would be a nightmare. The Japanese plan though was to do what they did to China; capture the coastal cities and not worry about the interior.
I don't think you can call the British settlement of Australia an 'invasion' per se, though it is a popular term these days for historians. The main reason is that while there were certainly people here who were displaced, they were semi-nomadic, and had no state or government organisation as such. A different story in New Zealand for instance, where the British fought actual wars and suffered some real defeats (though minor in the long term).
Even if we were to take out all of the rainforests, grasslands, deserts and arid areas that still leaves 20% of the country; 7 times the size of Poland or Germany. We don't have a lot of people for the size of our country.
Yes this is true. Anyway only 1% of australia are inland waters, compared to poland which is over 3%.
The fact is, that the best lands to inhabit, are in south-eastern coast of australia, and those are having quite big cities, with two of them having more than 4 milion inhabitants. Rest of australia is just realy a dessert and steppes, bushes and jungles in northwest. Some cities there, are not as big as the southwest. That is what you can read from wiki.
Indeed!
Basically the best parts are those you can settle in EU3. The rest being more...marginal for one reason or the other.
Basically the best parts are those you can settle in EU3. The rest being more...marginal for one reason or the other.
New Zealand, Polynesia, Melanesia etc are not part of the same continent as Australia.
If only we could sell the Gold Coast to one of those countries desperate for a piece of prime beach lifestyle. Our crime rate statistics would improve overnight.