Babylonians 24
Ethiopians 15
Incas 29
Khmer 20-3=17
Koreans 18
Malians 26
Mayans 24
Mongols 26
Ottoman Turks 3+1=4
Siamese 8
I seriously do not understand you people.
Ottoman Turks 15 - 3 = 12 (Downvoted because European. Cannons would be cool, but too late-game to really make a decent impact. Ottomans would have nothing cool for the early game...)
By what merits are The Ottomans Europeans? They conquered parts of Europe yes, and they moved their capital halfway onto European soil once they sacked constantinople and officially ended Byzantium, but would any European power of their era call the Ottomans European? Would the Ottomans themselves claim to be European? Culturally, linguistically, socially, geographically... how are they European?
Ottoman Turks 12 -3 = 9 Well, Adding Ottomans would be good but the civ location is closer to European which sometimes Ottoman is considered politically European.
Again, by who? More importantly by who during the actual time period of the Ottoman Empire? Certainly not the Serbs, Poles, Romanians, Austrians, Russians, Venetians, Greeks, Germanic States, etc.
Koreans 18 (17+1) should come sooner rather than later
Ottoman Turks 6 (9 -3) should return, but not before the others left on this list
Why? Both the Koreans and the Ottomans have been in the exact same number of main civilization games, in fact they've appeared in LITERALLY all the same numbered games (3,4, & 5 and both were absent from 1&2) and if you count Civilization Revolution on mobile devices than Korea has actually made more appearances than the Ottomans as Korea was added after launch whereas the Ottomans are still absent. They've both had exactly equal representation in the series (if not Korea having more representation), so why should Korea come sooner?
Babylonians 23+1= 24 (major priority due to history, playstyle, and defensive capabilities)
Ottoman Turks 6-3= 3 should return eventually but not a priority in terms of adding something unique at this point
How do you know what a side's playstyle is before it is even conceptual? And if we assume as you say that it's a defensive science side (presumably early game) then why is it a major priority if China is already an early game defensive science side? As for history I don't really have a counterpoint since any arguement on historical significance becomes pretty subjective pretty quick as it all comes down to what is more important to who. I disagree with you entirely and think the Ottomans are vastly more historically relevant but I realize that that is just, you know, like, my opinion, man,
