[Feature] Turkic Civilization

[Leoreth]

How about just Atabegate of <capital>? Seems to be the pattern here.

 

[DC123456789]

How about just Atabegate of <capital>? Seems to be the pattern here.

That seems like it could work, yeah.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

Sorry, it should be Atabegate (Atabeg being the ruler title).

Based on Seljuk vassal dynasties, I think the Zengids might make a feasible vassal name, so Zengid Emirate/Atabegate or alternatively Atabegate of Mosul, which would probably be best for Babylonia. In that vein we could also have:
- Phoenicia: (Burid) Emirate/Atabegate (of Damascus)
- Persia: (Salghurid) Emirate/Atabegate (of Fars)
- Ottomans: (Ottoman) Emirate/Atabegate (of Söğüt/Konya) -> Söğüt would be a reference to the Ottoman's origins, while Konya would serve as a somewhat disguised reference to the Sultanate of Rum.

I'd prefer Emirate to "Atabegate", which sounds like an obscure political scandal or something

 

[MechatronicJazz]

Do the Turks get Conquerors even if all the cities in the region are barbarian/independent? Just played a game as the Vikings and periodically checked in the the Turks via WB. They never got any conquerors, never expanded much beyond the initial flip, and collapsed when the Mongols took their city just to the west of China. It doesn't look like the Mongols got conquerors either, but I might have just not waited long enough to see them.

 

[KeeperOT7Keys]

How about just Atabegate of <capital>? Seems to be the pattern here.

I think "Atabegs of" sounds better or "Atabeylik/Atabeglik of".
Since Ottomans already use "Eyalet of", I think it's consistent to use the original Turkish name again.

 

[Leoreth]

Do the Turks get Conquerors even if all the cities in the region are barbarian/independent? Just played a game as the Vikings and periodically checked in the the Turks via WB. They never got any conquerors, never expanded much beyond the initial flip, and collapsed when the Mongols took their city just to the west of China. It doesn't look like the Mongols got conquerors either, but I might have just not waited long enough to see them.

Okay, I'll monitor this a bit more. Conquerors are intended to spawn even if the cities are independent/barbarian.

I think "Atabegs of" sounds better or "Atabeylik/Atabeglik of".
Since Ottomans already use "Eyalet of", I think it's consistent to use the original Turkish name again.

That's true.

 

[Leoreth]

New update:
- Atabeylik as name for Turkic vassals
- updated C++ leaderhead constants
- added more Tibetan vassal names

 

[Leoreth]

New update: fixed and adjusted conquerors

 

[Leoreth]

Rebased on and then merged into the develop branch.

 

[soul-breathing]

Rebased on and then merged into the develop branch.

Failed Initializing Python, can't enter the game.

 

[1SDANi]

FINALLY!

THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU!!!

 

[Bernd-das-Brot]

I fetched the latest git-version, but the new turkic civ ist not in the game. Is there something else to do?

Thanks for all your efforts!

 

[Leoreth]

Did you do so with the turks branch? You might have run into conflicts. If you did so with develop, it should be there. Can you try another pull?

 

[Bernd-das-Brot]

Thanks for the fast reply! I deleted the turks branch a while ago, because it did not work for me as intended and decided to wait until it gets part of the normal git version, as restoring did not work for me either. Probably fault on my side.

That's likely. I also checked the improvement pillage code and it worked as intended, so that should also be fixed once you update.

To resolve your issue, it is probably easiest to switch to develop again, then follow this guide to delete the turks branch and afterwards run fetch again and switch back to the restored turks branch.

Pull option is not even available. Should I reinstall DoC Git version?

 

[Leoreth]

Are you sure? It should be labeled "Git Pull ...". For me it is right on the top level of the right click context menu, not in the "Tortoise Git" submenu.

 

[Bernd-das-Brot]

Yes, I am.

It is still there for the DOC community mod compilation, but gone in RFC Dawn of Civilization.

 

[Leoreth]

Weird, maybe you should try a reinstall then.

 

[Bernd-das-Brot]

Have reinstalled and eerything worked as it should.

Or nearly I could finish UHV I of the turks after the deadline.

 

[LikeNothing]

Playing with this new Civ, I think it is the most significantly improving Civ addition to DoC in a long time, comparable to the Moors or even Byzantium.

One of the things DoC does better than any other historical grand strategy game I know is the dramatic flow and ebb of population along the Silk Road across millenia. The new Turkic Civ just made this much better. It is IMO essential to any 3000BC or 600AD start, as it dramatically improves both historical realism and strategic depth for all Eurasian Civs, especially the fan favorites.

It surprises me how this Civ is not added earlier, compared to some other Civs which IMO slow down the game performance without adding any meaningful effects to the other Civs in the game (and hence I always disable unless I am playing them) such as Tibet or Kongo. This is a reminder of the still enormous untapped development potential of DoC.

 

[Leoreth]

The reason is that the idea behind these civs was to cover areas where you could easily add civs without needing to design interaction with much else in the world. The Turks required more effort to make work both as an AI and player civ, and may need additional effort.