Turks?
- Thread starter ahm
- Start date
- Status
angryllama
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 22, 2005
- Messages
- 36
And lets not forget that Constantinople (Istanbul) was the capital of Rome for a period.
Janos
Prince
They'd be a bit too similar in style to the Arabs though, surely?
Dudedudeyo
Chieftain
Well i bet the Ottomans will be in the first expansantion pack(They better be or 
)
)frankthe butler
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 71
It's true; turks should be in there. they're more significant than Koreans. they're not arabs either. And with all the talk about Italy deserving its own civ separate from rome, i don't see how anyone could include it without first including the Turks.
Ottoman shouldn't be the name of the civ-that was just the empire; Turks is the civ.
The Turks have invented many things throughout history--i should know. for example, the first pornography. A quick internet search shows that Turks invented Turkeys, and the mother-in-law. i think the Turks also forged the dead sea scrolls and invented sliced bread. and the towel. They also invented the method of changing your mind when the going gets rough. In the 20th century they were the first to invent efficient genocide and pizza. so let's not say this is not a civ that's contributed to the world.
Ottoman shouldn't be the name of the civ-that was just the empire; Turks is the civ.
The Turks have invented many things throughout history--i should know. for example, the first pornography. A quick internet search shows that Turks invented Turkeys, and the mother-in-law. i think the Turks also forged the dead sea scrolls and invented sliced bread. and the towel. They also invented the method of changing your mind when the going gets rough. In the 20th century they were the first to invent efficient genocide and pizza. so let's not say this is not a civ that's contributed to the world.
Its the same old problem there are so many nations that could fill the limited space in the game. So to have both Ottamans and Turks would be a poor choice just as having Italy and Rome or prehaps just to name one other possible occurance. Yes they are all worthy of being in the game but some simply have to be dropped I would suggest the Turks over the Ottamans as to have both would mean another civilization would have to be dropped completly. I would be similar is some respects (not entirely the same before someone saies) to have England and the United Kingdom or prehaps Great Britain. If you had more than one of those it would simply lead to someother unique civilization being dropped. They will probably turn up in one of the expansions. At least i belive that they should.
Grohan
Bug-hunter
Porn existed in ancient Rome.
i think, it is forgotten that, civ4 doesnt include turks or ottomans(http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/ ).
in fact it isnt important for me the name is turk or ottoman. the most efficient emperior of turks is ottomans. yes the name isnt important, but one of them must be in the game.
for a wide look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks
in fact it isnt important for me the name is turk or ottoman. the most efficient emperior of turks is ottomans. yes the name isnt important, but one of them must be in the game.
for a wide look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks
No ones suggesting they should not be there its just a case of limited spaces in the game. Many of the nations who did not make it into the first version of Civ IV are likely to turn up in the first expansion pack. Cant imagine that the Turks or Ottamans (which ever one gets choosen) wont be in the extension pack. Hey that a good site in your link and many people dont realise what historical significance Turkey has.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Molock said:
The Celts are already in the game. But, if you were to include the Irish, one of their main traits would *have* to be Religious.
Himalia said:
there are
America,Arabs,Aztecs,China,Egypt,England,France,Germany,Greece,Inca,India,Japan,Mali,Mongolia,Persia,Rome,Russia,Spain
civilizations in civ4.
do you think malis, mongols or some others are more significant then turks??
and there are same ones, for example, greece and rome?? they are same civilization. (you can say different, yes may be)
i think, turk civilization, is a requirement for a complete civilization game, isnt it?
mythmonster2
BEC NOIR! RUN!
I NOE I MEAN SEIOROUSLY the turks were the one that introduced gunpowder to the Eyropeans without that the Native Americans would have whooped Europes big sorry !@#
i myself can be considered a turk or well close enuf
EDIT
in conclusion turks should be included
i myself can be considered a turk or well close enuf
EDIT
in conclusion turks should be included
frankthe butler
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 71
mythmonster2 said:I NOE I MEAN SEIOROUSLY the turks were the one that introduced gunpowder to the Eyropeans without that the Native Americans would have whooped Europes big sorry !@#
i myself can be considered a turk or well close enuf
EDIT
in conclusion turks should be included
there's nothing more disgusting than arguing in favor of something that will recognize or benefit one's own ethnicity. no offense.
ahm said:
Greece and Rome are simply not the same country. As for the Mali and the Mongels they cover specific geographical regions. I was surprised they included the Mali, then again theres always a surprise it seems. If the Turks had been included i certainly wouldnt question it. The truth is if that was the case and someone said hey why are the Mongels not in this i would of probably said the same thing to them as i have to you.
As do i think are the Mongels or Malis more significant than the Turks. Well i think thats a dodhy question its looks like who are you saying is more important or worthy to be in the game. If i had to put a top 10 list of civilizations in my own personal opinion i would not put the Turks in that list however they would easily make my top 20. The Mali would not make my top 20 but the Mongels may just squeeze in. There are alot of changes i would make to that list. The biggest problem with it is the fact that theres only 18 on it needs more. No matter who you put in that group of 18 there will always be major historical players missing. Someone will not be happy with it no matter how it is dealt with.
Some of turkish states and emperiors(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_states_and_empires)
Gokturks:
Uyghurs:
Seljuks:
Ottomans:
turkmenistan, kazakhstan,uzbekistan,kyrgystan
Turkey:
I HOPE THERE IS NOT A BAD INTENTION??? I THINK, IT IS A JOKE FOR GAMERS!
there is " the malis" and there is not "the turks".
and here the Malis:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CIVAFRCA/MALI.HTM
AN EXTENSION PACK IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!
Gokturks:
Uyghurs:
Seljuks:
Ottomans:
turkmenistan, kazakhstan,uzbekistan,kyrgystan
Turkey:
I HOPE THERE IS NOT A BAD INTENTION??? I THINK, IT IS A JOKE FOR GAMERS!
there is " the malis" and there is not "the turks".
and here the Malis:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CIVAFRCA/MALI.HTM
AN EXTENSION PACK IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!
Nomadic civs would be an intresting concept for the game. I would imagine one of the big reasons Mali made it to game was in the name of political correctness. They had to have an African nation. Africa should have one for obvioues reasons (at least one) Mali however would only of made my short list by no means by first choice. Zimbabwe or Benin may well of been my first choices
- Status
Similar threads
