Head Serf in "starting civics for spawning civs" said:
Do we really need the Ottomans? They'll just clog up the already full Asia Minor and middle east. There are already Greece, Persia, and Arabia in that area.
Exactly, all these civs start in these areas and all of these civs (+ Turkey) are still present if we look at the modern world. Let's take a look at history.
When the Turks came from Central Asia (yes, that's where they should start) in the Middle Ages, the following civs were present in the region: greece (the Byzantine Empire) and the Arabs. Persia and Egypt were conquered by one of these. The Turks rolled over the Arabs, were then bent back by the Crusades and the Mongols and afterwards finally went on to conquer the Minor Asiatic part of the Greek lands, making it their homeland. So, my point is, although the area was clogged, the Turks still decided to invade and build up their homeland there. In my opinion, it would lead to an interesting game if we could try to simulate that, meaning the Turks start with a force that has to conquer its homeland first, or stay in the region of the so called Turk states (all the countries with -stan). They are in no way a nation too much in the region (hey, we already want to include the Mesopotamians on top of that), no they would stir up the things already.
In my experience, one of these civs (Greece, Persia or the Arabs) always end up dominating the region. This is a difference to other regions, in Europe, the civs rarely battle in the homeland (successfully), as they have the possibility to expand into colonies, with the exception of Germany. The same happens with Egypt, China and Japan (etc.) These other civs (Greece, Persia and the Arabs, but to an extend also Rome) are "boxed in" which always creates interesting situations. Adding now another two civs to the region just balances it out, it'll be more problematic for one to rise to absolute power and they therefore must search other "ways out". More wars, less building of the Asiatic-Siberian steppes which would in turn allow the Russians more to evolve "historically" (I btw. would therefore like an Arabia which would (with a little starting help) try to expand a bit over the seas, Dar-es-Salam and Indonesia come to my mind)).
In conclusion, we need the Turks, as they were a) very important historically and b) fill up a hole gameplaywise that could again hinder the "evolution to a uber-civ" by the Persians, or the Arabs, or the Greeks, or the Romans (whoever takes the lead in the region in each game).
mitsho
. I am with adding the Ottomans, as long as the other civs (Babylon, Arabia, Persia and Greece) are tweaked respectively, so that we can achieve historical accuracy.
.
