Ottomans Over-Rated

I am happy to know Firaxis has included the Turks in PTW. However the Ottomans though very popular in the Western World shouldn't have been picked. They did not even originate from modern day Turkey, in actuality Turkish people have a rich history that starts elsewhere.

That place being Central Asia from which they came. In history the Turks and Mongols battled it out in the Steppes of Asia for supremacy. The Mongols decisively beat the Turks around 1200AD, many Turks joined the Mongol Ranks such as the Uygurs, and Turkish was the main language used through out the Mongol empire. This epic struggle however is not given due attention. Instead we skip over it and proceed to a more European version of history, one where the Turks are recognized only as the Ottomans.

This blind eye given towards people from the steppes of Asia gives a bias Western version of history. Just read a few books on the subject and you will see many times over centuries how Central Asians impacted history on a colossal scale. The Huns lead by Attila were from the Steppes, so were the Khazars, Bulgars, Seljuks and many more… even the mighty Ottomans felt the wrath of Central Asian might when decisively beaten in 1402 by Timur-Lenk the Tartar. The Chinese also knew all to well of these "barbaric nomads" from Asia, the Turks and Mongols. Unable to effectively deal with them, they opted to build the Great Wall to keep them out.

In picking the Ottomans it is most likely then that their capital will be Constantinople (modern day Istanbul). This I don't think is a smart choice since there are already too many Civs in that part of the world, especially since places like Central Asia are practically left empty. The entire vast area of Central Asia belongs only to the Mongols, no struggle no having to unite the Turkic & Mongol Tribes. Anyway I know when PTW comes out I will change the location of the Turks, and as for their special unit I rather have something that reflects their true history of having fast light horsemen than to add another foot soldier to the game like the Janissaries.

Thank God we can edit the game, but still I thought I would share some info and touch on a larger picture of Turkish history that many are not aware of. If you think its minor, then I ask you what do you think people would say if there was no England in the Game but instead only Americans? Brazil but no Portugal, Mexico but no Spain etc... see my point?

especially, since this goes against gmae balance as Firaxis does it, but with game balance if a civ is situated in Central Asia as you suggest.

Oh, I don't know. I rather think the Ottoman Empire was rather important to history. For one thing, they were the ones that destroyed the Byzantine Empire. Whatever else you may think of the Byzantine Empire, I would argue that its destruction had some serious worldwide repercussions. If there had been no Ottomans, then the route from the West to the East would have been controlled by Christians. Then there wouldn't have been so much trouble getting spices and other such trade goods into Europe, and there would have been no incentive to find an alternative route to the East. So Columbus would probably not have opted to sail west to find China. Of course, I'm not an expert in all this, and if there are other circumstances I've overlooked that made the replacement of Byzantium with the Ottomans irrelevant, anyone who knows better can feel free to enlighten me.

That said, I agree it would be nice to have more central Asian civs. I'm rather partial to the Tuvans and the Uighurs, but it would be difficult to justify their inclusion, since they would pretty much be subsumed--in the Western mind if nowhere else--under the blanket term 'Mongol' (formerly 'Tartar'). I've always thought it would be nice if they'd include Tamerlane, but then what would they call his civ? The Turkmens, perhaps?

On a final note, I hope they don't call the Ottoman capital 'Constantinople'. That would be rather Eurocentric. I think the Europeans were in denial for a number of centuries about all that. As far as I know, the inhabitants of the city itself have called it 'Istanbul' since 1453, and I hope that's what Firaxis calls it.

Notice your justification of the Ottomans is strictly from a European perspective? I do not mean the Ottomans were not important to history, instead I am merely stating that Turkish history predates the Ottomans and that should be acknowledged.

If for example the Turks were in the game in Asia, then all Turkic Empires would fall under this group including the Ottomans.

Even up until the 20th century, however, they occupied a large amount of land (Turkey, etc.). I believe Firaxis chose them because at a crucial point of time (the turn of the century), they were a major player. In comparison, right now I don't think .1% of the Western World knows what the capital of Mongolia (Ulaanbaatar, I think, although I'm not sure of the spelling), it's not exactly a major player in...well...anything. However, at one point in time it was (the whole reason for the Great Wall and a reasonable threat to Ancient China).

Okay, I guess what I'm saying is that they were powerful at one point in time and they are a recognizable name, and after all, in this day and age beacuse want something they can recognize.

I may be completely off-track, however, so feel free to flame me.

Aside from the Great Wall of China, the modern state of Pakistan is the legacy the Turks left in India - the Moghuls were Turkish in racial stock.

Anyhow I have written in the past of many Turkic tribes that impacted different parts of the world. All these tribes however started in Central Asia, as did the founders of the Ottomans who were Oghuz Turks. So you see, having them start there would still be in a sense correct.

Teturkhan,

You are just beating a subject here that plays to the cheap seats with what firaxis wants you to do. Civs are not real or historic and they do not play real or historic. They are just graphics wrappers around a set of traits and numbers to give a varied dimension to the game.

I now you have just completed the worlds most ginormous perfect world map, but 99.9% of the civ3 games will not be played anywhere near a "quote unquote worldmap". Most real and challenging games that are played the way the game is designed to be played include the element of the unknown that comes from having your neighbors and your surroundings be unknown until you commit resources to complete those discoveries. Knowing that you start off controlling the Bosporus or the Steppes is not part of that excitement.

Fundamentally, this new civ "the Ottomans" could be "the blue man group" or "The Dallas Cowboy Chearleaders" and it would not change how they play in the smallest bit, just as long as the traits and settings are the same.

If the traits, settings, and UU combo turn out to be lame for the Ottomans, then the civ will be lame. If they turn out to be exciting then this is how the civ will play. It has no relationship to history, or political correctness, or one person's cultural bias for or against the historic civilization that donated their name to the graphics wrapper.

A bigger issue here is to look at the current black holes in the game continuum, to see where there currently are not units or civilizations that provide play diversity. There are lots of opportunites here to understand the game and improve play without falling victim to arguments of whose turban is blue or whose swordsman should be the strongest.

A number of the new civs will hopefully fill these holes in the without getting sucked into the debate over social issues

What most people want is more civs that play different even if they do not understand that. Just having the 44 flavors of turk/arab/whatever civs that all play the same would quickly turn into a whack 'em fest or beating up different graphics in the same ole' way. Just not a lot of fun in what you seem to keep advocating for.

I now you have just completed the worlds most ginormous perfect world map, but 99.9% of the civ3 games will not be played anywhere near a "quote unquote worldmap". Most real and challenging games that are played the way the game is designed to be played include the element of the unknown that comes from having your neighbors and your surroundings be unknown until you commit resources to complete those discoveries. Knowing that you start off controlling the Bosporus or the Steppes is not part of that excitement.

With all due respect, can you really speak for everyone? I understand what your saying in that unknown elements in the game can offer more challenge, surprise and thus enjoyment – but there is much fun to be had in playing on a real world map as well. So many mods such as Rise of Rome, Alexander the Great, Mongol Invasion are based on pages taken right out of history. Games like Total War, Europa Universalis, Age of Empires are all of this genre, and contrary to what you’re saying many people including myself have found these type of games to be very challenging and fun. You see the part you don't seem to understand is that game players like reenacting history. That is why we all debate such things like who should be in the game, where they should be located, what should they look like etc… and your probably correct in that we are playing right into the hands of Firaxis by doing so, but then when you think about it we all are guilty of that from the moment we purchased the game.

If the traits, settings, and UU combo turn out to be lame for the Ottomans, then the civ will be lame. If they turn out to be exciting then this is how the civ will play. It has no relationship to history, or political correctness, or one person's cultural bias for or against the historic civilization that donated their name to the graphics wrapper.

A bigger issue here is to look at the current black holes in the game continuum, to see where there currently are not units or civilizations that provide play diversity. There are lots of opportunites here to understand the game and improve play without falling victim to arguments of whose turban is blue or whose swordsman should be the strongest.

I completely agree, and that is my main reason I want the Turks to be located in Central Asia. In my posts, I was merely pointing out the historical merit in such a move, and though you might not think it worth time to provide a historical basis for such suggestions - I assure you many people do (as evident in the responses in this thread). Furthermore I also support having unique units that add dynamism to the game rather than another unit with different graphics.

Finally, the part about my map or any World Map not being used 99.9% of the time for gameplay is in my opinion just a cheap shot on your part – Only time will tell if my map gets used or not, and from the response so far I would say your 99.9% wrong

Originally posted by teturkhan
Notice your justification of the Ottomans is strictly from a European perspective?

Click to expand...

Not at all. It was Columbus' heading west to reach the East that led to Europe's finding out there was an American continent. (I'm ignoring the Vikings for the sake of this discussion, since their one attempt at colonization failed and was never followed up on, and they don't seem to have ever told anyone else what they found.) From the perspective of the people who were already living here at the time, this was a major earth-shattering event. They may not have known who the Ottomans were, but they did know that these strange, greedy pale-skinned people were just coming out of nowhere and laying waste to their regions. So that's important from a non-European perspective.

It was also this discovery that led to the existence of the nations that are over here now, like the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and all the others. And I would hardly consider the role America has played on the world stage since then to be of interest only to Europeans. In a sense, then, I think we Americans and Canadians and so on indirectly have the Ottoman Empire to thank for our even being here.

Not that I think the 'discovery' of America wasn't an inevitability. Some European would surely have found it eventually, but the circumstances would have been different, and the outcome may well have been different as well. For one thing, it was convenient that Spain learned of the New World in 1492, the same year they completed the Reconquista. Now they had a lot of bored soldiers and a religious fervor they couldn't just shake off. The New World proved to be the perfect outlet for their situation, and nations like the Aztec Empire and the Inca Empire paid the price for it. But if the New World had been learned of later, under different circumstances, who knows what may have happened instead? Perhaps the Aztec Empire would have become a large and glorious nation, trading with European powers and growing stronger instead of just being crushed outright.

All I'm saying is, if Osman had not created an empire that eventually destroyed the Byzantines, the world would be a very different place today, and not just for Europeans and their descendants.

I do not mean the Ottomans were not important to history, instead I am merely stating that Turkish history predates the Ottomans and that should be acknowledged.

Click to expand...

Granted. Personally, I'd have been just as happy with, say, the Seljuks under Alp Arslan. (Was his capital at Isfahan or Konya? I forget whether he was Rum or just normal Seljuk. If Konya, then it's still in what we today call Turkey. And if Isfahan, then it's too close to Babylon and Persia, and game balance is not really restored; at least not for those of us who like playing on real world maps.)

But the Ottomans are fascinating, too, and I don't object at all to their inclusion. For the record, though, I still want to see another civ in central Asia. I still think Tamerlane is the answer, but I don't see that the Ottomans should be sacrificed for it. The more the better, I say. I wouldn't object to the inclusion of Tibet, either.

[Edit: Fixed a punctuation problem.]

(Seljuk capital I believe was Konya)

Game balance as far as start locations go is lacking. Mind you I understand how placing Civs in the game just based on empty spots isn't such a sound approach either.