Making Iran and Mexico Playable from the Scenario
- Thread starter Phail
- Start date
Bonci
King
Seljuk change the Middle East permanently.
Before them, the Middle East is dominated by Arab & Persian.
Seljuk is Turks, they came from the Central Asia...
In DoC, Seljuk completes the missing link between the Arabian control of Middle East and sudden uprising of Turks to form Ottoman Empire like in vRFC (Vanilla RFC).
Pavel Chichikov
King
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 674
Dominant? It's had enough agonies just existing as a unified country.
It could be interesting though:
- Declare War on at least 3 civs with double or more of your own score
- lose at least 50 units to Iran without taking any cities
- Secede any cities 1tile north of Baghdad to independents without collapsing
- amass 500 gold from pillaging your own improvements by 2000 AD
This one made me laugh.
But yeah - Iraq should not be in the game taking up valuable processing time. Anything they've done in the world can probably be emulated through events and independent cities.
Other than the slightly different moustache - I'd do it.
awesome
Meme Lord
I kind of saw it as trying way too hard. Notice that I never said anything about them being dominant, just important. At first, I pretty much just said, "hey, Babylon should get a dynamic name giving Iraq a nod." Then I conceded that they could be represented as independents or natives with an appropriate unit.
To be fair, we could always give current civs negative goals. But I've already dropped the whole thing.
To be fair, we could always give current civs negative goals. But I've already dropped the whole thing.
Pavel Chichikov
King
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 674
Honestly, I'd think I'd really enjoy attempting for extremely negative UHV goals... it would be challenging in a very unique way. The real only problem I have is that Iraq only exists as a State invented in the 1920's for British oil interests.
It's a bit of a myth that Ancient mesopamian Civilizations don't actually correspond territorially with Iraq, something like a third of Iraq, a third of Syria, most of Kuwait and large chunks of Turkey and Iran.
Alternate History: If the Europeans were never in middle-east, Iraq would be split between of Saudi Arabia, Iran and maybe Turkey. Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria wouldn't exist. Possibly bits of Iraq, Lebanon and Syria would make some independent Syriac/Assyrian country and be fighting a never ending war with Kurdistan, with Israel and Saudi Arabia as main powers supplying weapons. In other words without European involvement in the 19th century, it probably would be as bloody as it is now (if not more), but in another form.
It's a bit of a myth that Ancient mesopamian Civilizations don't actually correspond territorially with Iraq, something like a third of Iraq, a third of Syria, most of Kuwait and large chunks of Turkey and Iran.
Alternate History: If the Europeans were never in middle-east, Iraq would be split between of Saudi Arabia, Iran and maybe Turkey. Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria wouldn't exist. Possibly bits of Iraq, Lebanon and Syria would make some independent Syriac/Assyrian country and be fighting a never ending war with Kurdistan, with Israel and Saudi Arabia as main powers supplying weapons. In other words without European involvement in the 19th century, it probably would be as bloody as it is now (if not more), but in another form.
Pavel Chichikov
King
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 674
Dangerous touching on this topic online, but the European were indifferent or outright hostile to Zionism from it's beginnings in the 1850's, with the exception of an ambivelent Britain. Over 50% of Israeli's are from the middle-east also. British made the mandate because they could no longer ignore facts on the ground, not the reverse.
It was only after 1967 that the United States took any interest in the country.
It was only after 1967 that the United States took any interest in the country.
Cosmos1985
King
Edit: Nevermind
That's true. I just find it hard to imagine that a hypothetical Ottoman state or successor state would let it even come that far. I'm talking about a strong centralized power here though. If the Levant ends up divided into several petty states the situation's different.
Argh alt-history is too complicated to be worth the effort.
Argh alt-history is too complicated to be worth the effort.
Yes, but the British were ignoring and passively supporting Zionism (with some philanthropists actively supporting it) for the entire duration of their Mandate. There's no way it would have even been seen as a possibility, and certainly would not have gotten much charitable support, etc., if development of proto-Israel were taking place in an Ottoman or other Muslim-ruled region rather than in a British-ruled state.
Doubtful that Ottoman/Turkish authority would have survived the years after WWI in the area regardless, but the local power would certainly have been some sort of Muslim leadership that would have opposed Zionism (prevented the forcible relocation of Palestinians, e.g.), or a chaotic power vacuum that also would have invited no investment.
Similar threads
