I was pretty much assuming we'd be seeing the Ottomans today. It's a bit inconceivable to me that they'd be missing from the early modern era. Hopefully they're just out of alphabetical order like I believe the Aztecs were?
yes the Aztecs artwork was delayed because unfinished if I well remember.
Seems non-sense to have Poles (and Maybe Venetians) if the ultimate Ottomans menace in not here
It's like having medieval era without Mongols.
And Europeans go to west to the new world, because the east was controlled by Ottomans. hmmmm....
I'm lost ahaha...
Ottomans will be simply named Turks. It is CULTURE and PEOPLES after all, so it does make sense to not name them after dynasty.
I have managed to correctly guess Polans being militarist after all, not agrarian. I am fine with this, Poland was quite efficient at warfare before 18th century. I am just a little bit disappointed by the Polish quarter being barbican - it makes an entire set militarist, and I'd prefer sukiennice, folwark or sejmik. But it does indeed look very much like Polish medieval/renaissance city vibe, so that's for a plus.
yes on discord we are saying the same, maybe just named as Turks. Because Ottomans refers at too much cultures ? Idk. Maybe just delayed, or named Turk-Ottomans.
@Krajzen if I am not wrong, the Barbarican was one of your expectation !
I too would be disappointed if Ottomans were not included in the vanilla game - I expect your guesses about the use of a different name are correct. But everything about the Poles looks so cool, great faction card (though it has a lot of similarities with the Teuton card...). Well done @Krajzen for guessing Barbican!
Nah, Barbican wasn't mine, somebody else has mentioned it. I have however guessed them being Militarist, after first claiming they'd 'certainly' be Agrarian for a long time
The both work btw ! Like a lot of cultures, they could be a lot of the affinities. But I suppose the sexy winged Hussars have defined the whole card
And I suspect Poland neighbours expecting Militarist more than Agrarian ahah
99% sure Ottomans are delayed like were Celts and Aztecs.
There are not real reasons to change the name to Turks when modern Turkey is a reasonable option for Contemporary era.
CIV series already used the name Ottomans despite lack any other turkish civ, and the "Turks" on other games like AoE and RoN represent both a broader group of turkish nations and a longer time range.
Mughals and Ming are already based on specific dynasties, so the turkish representation for Early Modern on Humankind certainly would be just the Ottomans. The case of the "Persians" make sense for the classical zoroastrian dynasties, while "Iranians" could be saved for modern muslim persian dynasties/states, this probably is why devs didnt use a dynastic name for classical Persia.
Ottomans on Industrial era is not the best idea, their Golden Age is on Early Modern.
Hmm, still holding out hope for the Ottomans. Surely they have to be in?
And quite frankly, I'm disappointed that the Polish have been classed as militarist. There are better nations to fulfill this role in the early modern, and agrarian would have fit them fine. For example, the folwark could have been their EQ.
The case of the "Persians" make sense for the classical zoroastrian dynasties, while "Iranians" could be saved for modern muslim persian dynasties/states, this probably is why devs didnt use a dynastic name for classical Persia.
I mean, PLC was definitely a prominent expansionost aggressor in East European history. Making them into random farmers is more of an outsider view. But then again, all African nations are traders, because that's the thing Europeans knew about them. Koreans are scientists, again, mostly because of a lack of local perspective. So yeah, it's not all that fair to cultures, but the game's historian being someone who focuses on Eastern Europe and ancient Mesopotamia probably has something to do with it.
I just wanna say that I admire that it took us five non-European cultures to reach the next revealed European culture in an era that saw the rise of the West.
No Ottomans in the Early Modern era? That's a shocker to me! Imagine if the Portuguese got in instead of them.....If the Ottomans or Turks aren't present in Early Modern, I'm betting that the last three cultures are all European: Portuguese/or Swedish, Spanish and the Venetians.
I just wanna say that I admire that it took us five non-European cultures to reach the next revealed European culture in an era that saw the rise of the West.
Well the period of about 500-1000 could be seen as a low point but the period of 1000-1500 saw europe perform feats beyond what the Romans did and by the end developed stuff like mechanical clocks, eyeglasses and the idea of objects in motion.
Also at the later point europe built cathedrals taller than the pyramids if I'm not wrong.
Well the period of about 500-1000 could be seen as a low point but the period of 1000-1500 saw europe perform feats beyond what the Romans did and by the end developed stuff like mechanical clocks, eyeglasses and the idea of objects in motion.
Also at the later point europe built cathedrals taller than the pyramids if I'm not wrong.
Yeah, the Medieval Age wasn't a bad time overall for Europe, but, like I said, overlap with its low point and completely superseded by the rise of European powers you see starting in the Early Modern era.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
