Modding civ traits: The Ottomans

[Predator145]

I wanna use this thread to continue discussing the modding of civ traits. My goal is to give each civ a unique 3 trait combo that tries to be as historically accurate as possible. It's been quite a fun challenge. The new AI technology makes doing research so much quicker.

I still can't decide how to mod the Romans with 3 traits. Since we have Byzantines (Sea, Com, Rel in my mod) to represent the much different eastern part and many maritime medieval Italian Republics like Venice and Genoa, Romans can be used to just represent the western Romans, who of course were landlubbing, road laying military powerhouses. So Mil+Ind are no brainers. But what about the 3rd trait?

The early Roman Republic while no slouch in commerce didn't have a cultural emphasis on it. Agriculture and conquest were considered noble pursuits by the elites. As territories were conquered, the west itself became a raubwirtschaft, taking from more productive conquered peoples. By the end of the ancient period, the western empire was broke. It didn't collapse from being conquered, it was overthrown by its own troops for failing to pay them. Its collapse allowed the successor states to economically recover into the prosperous medieval Italian city states. So -1 for the commercial trait.

But there are also medieval Italian inland non seafaring powerhouses in both commerce, banking and manufacture like Milan and Florence. The Romans represent them better than Byz. So that would make commercial+industrious attractive. Their militaries while not big were well trained and equipped with superbly manufactured armor. Early modern fortification designs also came from these factions. This makes com+ind+mil look really good.

But the city of Rome itself and the Papal States were neither particularly commercially rich or seafaring. They were however immensely religiously influential, being the center seat of western Christianity. But what about the ancient early Roman Republic centered around Italy? What were they more? Religious zealots or savvy merchants?

 

[Arexander]

I'd definitely put the Romans as religious over commercial since the Byzantine already represent the Italian merchant republics, as you said, though scientific is also one possibility considering the amount of advancements that came from the Roman Empire and Italian Renaissance. Although in this case the religiousness is less zealotry and more adaptability as the Romans largely allowed the annexed cultures to keep their gods, and even integrated a lot of them into their own pantheon, which leads to increased stability in the conquered territories and the empire overall. I think that fits the lessened anarchy period when switching governments, though your mileage may vary if it warrants the 'religious' tag since it can have other implication by name rather than by mechanics.

 

[Predator145]

I'd definitely put the Romans as religious over commercial since the Byzantine already represent the Italian merchant republics, as you said, though scientific is also one possibility considering the amount of advancements that came from the Roman Empire and Italian Renaissance. Although in this case the religiousness is less zealotry and more adaptability as the Romans largely allowed the annexed cultures to keep their gods, and even integrated a lot of them into their own pantheon, which leads to increased stability in the conquered territories and the empire overall. I think that fits the lessened anarchy period when switching governments, though your mileage may vary if it warrants the 'religious' tag since it can have other implication by name rather than by mechanics.

Here's what the AI would answer:

"Yes, the Romans did construct temples, alongside roads and other infrastructure, in freshly conquered territories as a way to demonstrate Roman power, assert control, and promote Roman culture and religious practices, though they often also allowed and even incorporated local deities into their religious system. These structures, along with public spaces, baths, and theatres, were often built by or with the investment of local elites to gain prestige and integrate with imperial rule.

Reasons for Temple Construction

Political Power and Control:
Temples were significant symbols of Roman wealth, authority, and the permanence of Roman control over the territory.

Religious Integration and Romanization:
They served as focal points for Roman religious practice, which was often integrated with the local pantheon, helping to "romanize" the region by introducing Roman deities and cults."

The Romans were indeed avid builders. Religious would reflect them being able to conquer and hold on to and govern that land. This synergizes well with the UU that promotes a methodical, bite and hold approach. The Romans were literally the "conquer cities and then rush temples to prevent flips" civ in real life.

When it comes to the early Roman Republic that was mostly Italy, here's what the AI has to say:

No, the early Roman Republic was not highly commercial; it was primarily an agrarian and military society, with its economy focused on land ownership and the spoils of war. Commercial activity grew significantly over time, leading to the development of a sophisticated economy in the late Republic and the Empire, but this expansion of trade was a gradual process driven by conquest and the need to manage a growing territory rather than being an inherent trait of the early Republic.

Bummer about Florence and Milan not being Com+Ind. Would have suited them so well. Ind alone does a decent job of showing how much of economic and commercial powerhouses these were. With broad umbrella civs, you've gotta make compromises, even with 3 traits.

 

[timerover51]

I would view a third trait as Expansionist. Rome kept expanding until basically it hit its geographical limits. The Sahara Desert to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the west, the North and Baltic Seas and the German forests to the north, and the arid plains of Mesopotamia to the east.

 

[Predator145]

I would view a third trait as Expansionist. Rome kept expanding until basically it hit its geographical limits. The Sahara Desert to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the west, the North and Baltic Seas and the German forests to the north, and the arid plains of Mesopotamia to the east.

That would be military conquest. Expansionist in Civ3 seems to represent migration and settlement over a large range. The civs given that trait are either nomadic (Arabs, Mongols, Zulus) or settled large swathes of territories (America, Russia). Rome didn't settle sparsely populated land. They fought and defeated highly advanced, urbanized Hellenic enemies in Carthage, Macedon and Ptolemy Egypt.

In my 3 trait mod I also give the English and Iberians Expansionist on top of their Seafaring. They didn't just conquer overseas colonies, they settled them so heavily that the natives in these places are now tiny minorities. That's why Exp civs in my mods have cheaper settlers.

 

[Ceithernach]

I feel like early Romans were extremely religious. Ditto for medieval Italians. It feels right for them to throw up Cathedrals everywhere.

I would vote Religious

 

[Predator145]

I wanna use this thread to continue discussing the modding of civ traits. My goal is to give each civ a unique 3 trait combo that tries to be as historically accurate as possible. It's been quite a fun challenge. The new AI technology makes doing research so much quicker.

Next are the Ottomans. Firaxis made them Sci+Ind for some reason, ignoring it's greatest strength which was the military.

Here's what the AI summaries the Ottomans were best at:

"The Ottoman Empire excelled at military conquest and control of key trade routes, building a vast and influential empire through advanced gunpowder warfare and a highly disciplined army. It was also known for its architectural achievements, vibrant cultural and artistic contributions in fields like calligraphy and textiles, and a generally stable, multi-ethnic, and religiously tolerant society for its time. Furthermore, it fostered a strong agricultural sector and banking system, contributing to its economic prosperity. "

So Mil is a no brainer. Next would be "controlling" key trade routes. This was a highly commercial empire. It was their crucial Silk Road location that prompted the Western Europeans to look for different trade routes:

"Yes, the Ottoman Empire was highly commercial, with rulers actively promoting trade to generate income from customs and taxes, and investing in infrastructure like markets, caravanserais, and ports to facilitate commerce. Its strategic location between Europe, Asia, and Africa made it a major trading hub, controlling routes for the lucrative spice, textile, and coffee trades until the 16th century. The empire also boasted a substantial internal trade network and a significant presence in international trade, which influenced its policies of conquest and shaped its economy. "

So Commercial would suit them really well. They were still commercially dominant well past their peak:

"Yes, the Ottoman Empire was highly commercial in the 18th century, experiencing economic growth and significant international trade, particularly through ports like Izmir, which linked the empire to Western markets for both exports and imports. While a major global trading power for centuries, this period saw continued, albeit changing, commercial activity, including the export of raw materials and agricultural products like textiles and fine handcrafted goods, and the import of manufactured goods and colonial goods. The empire's commerce was supported by its vast territory, improving infrastructure in cities like Istanbul, and its participation in the larger European economic system."

Commerce will always be the dominant trait of any faction centered on the Bosporus with an Anatolian heartland.

The Ottomans, while having made significant contributions to science and inherited the Islamic Golden Age, IMO don't deserve the trait. Even in their heyday, they weren't the world's tech leader:

"No, the Ottoman Empire was not the global leader in science during the 15th century; European countries were beginning to invent crucial technologies like the printing press and matchlock guns during this period. While the Ottoman Empire built upon the scientific heritage of the Islamic Golden Age and made contributions to fields like medicine and astronomy, its scientific activity was not comparable to the leading nations of Europe in the 15th century."

Also, religious conservatisms like banning of the printing press slowed down their tech once we're into the 17th century. Though Commercial alone should give them good research output esp on higher dif levels esp when you may not be able to afford to build science multipliers.

What about Industrious? Were the Ottomans extremely good at road construction or manufacturing? Here's what the AI has to say:

"The Ottoman Empire's road construction capabilities were inconsistent, generally focused on military needs rather than comprehensive networks, and varied significantly over time and by region. While the Ottomans preserved and improved upon Byzantine roads, their infrastructure saw a decline from its 16th-century peak into the 18th century. Later periods, particularly the late 19th and early 20th centuries, saw renewed efforts with new road and bridge regulations and the introduction of railways, although financial limitations and lack of a long-term plan for a comprehensive road network were significant challenges. "

So overall, just ok. They were good at building bridges. But what about manufacturing? We all know they fell off badly when it came to industrializing. But what about early on?
"Yes, the Ottoman Empire was strong at manufacturing in the 16th century, known for producing high-quality textiles, carpets, and ceramics, with a state-driven system to mobilize labor and resources for military supply and public works. Cities like Bursa were centers for a prosperous silk manufacture, though the importance of this manufacturing was balanced by a significant agricultural sector and a large internal market that traded agricultural goods and other products."

So they were quite strong in that in their heyday. But combined with the slow industrialization later on and the just ok road construction prowess I would say they're any more "industrious" than their western rivals and competitors. However, Mil+Com+Ind doesn't look bad.

Expansionist harkens back to their nomadic roots. Which is certainly a thematically suitable trait. Unfortunately, Mil+Com+Exp is already taken by the Turco-Mongols. Mil+Ind+Exp is an option.

The Ottomans were impressive structure builders and architects. They constructed many splendid mosques. The empire was a blend of fanatical zeal and tolerance. Religious minorities were tolerated and protected. The Eastern Ortho church was able to carry on based in Constantinople. So the Ottoman empire wasn't just the main seat of Sunni Islam, but still the center for Eastern Orthodoxy and a refugee haven for many western Jews. The Rel trait in my mod grants the player a free SW with the effect of John Bach's to offset that all civs now have 2 turn anarchies. Religious tolerance means more religious people around practicing the religion of their choice and that means more happy people.

Right now I'm leaning more towards Rel than Ind. Mil+Com+Rel has yet to be taken as a unique trait combo. It's also cool that the Ottomans share 2 traits with both the Romans (Mil+Ind+Rel) and Byz (Sea+Com+Rel) in my mod, highlighting their Roman legacy.

What do you think? Were the Ottomans an industrious powerhouse? Or were they fanatical yet tolerant ghazis?