The Turkish Thread

Saint Leibowitz

Chieftain
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
22
Alright, you know the drill by now.

In this thread we discuss and design a possible Turkish civ for Civ VII.

I say "Turkish" specifically because my hope is that this can encompass more than the Ottomans and can include elements from the Seljuk or Kemalist eras.

If Atatürk is a leader than he could have a late-game mechanic that converts a certain percentage of Faith into Science or Culture. Alp Arslan could also be a good option (probably with some bonus to archers).

Great Bombards would make a great and fitting UU, and one that has been overlooked so far.
 
So, for starters, can we not have Suleiman as a leader and Janissary as a unit at least this one time?

Regarding non - Ottoman Turks, honestly Ottoman Empire was so enormous in so many aspects that I don't even protest it constantly reoccuring, it really overshadows all those other Turkish states, it's basically a guaranteed slot at this point. I mean, I'd gladly see Seljuks led by Alp Arslan, but as a separate civilization.

There are two problems with modern Turkey
1) The birth of the country and its political history are one of the biggest political minefields you can enter in this genre of video games. I honestly think only Israel and modern China are more controversial topics.
2) Modern Turkey lacks those 'spectacular' distinctive characteristics that make it stand out for non - Islamic audience.
Combine those two issues and the fact that Turkish people love Ottoman Empire and well, why struggle with two problems above, when alternately you can choose from six hundred years of one of the biggest empires in human history and everyone will be satisfied?
 
I'd love to see an Alp Arslan-led Seljuk civ, but I have to agree with @Krajzen that it has a hard time competing with the Ottomans in terms of significance, achievement, and uniqueness. I agree that it's time for a new sultan, but specifically because I want to see a different kind of Ottoman civ: one based on both conquest and culture. I would love to put to rest the "Ottomans as Jihad all day long" civ, and to that end I suggest Ahmed I. He wasn't the greatest sultan, but he did voraciously patronize the arts and architecture.

I say "Turkish" specifically because my hope is that this can encompass more than the Ottomans and can include elements from the Seljuk or Kemalist eras.
Poor Atatürk is rolling over in his grave for being lumped in with the Ottomans he so hated. :p
 
So, for starters, can we not have Suleiman as a leader and Janissary as a unit at least this one time?
Maybe if we get Mahmud II as the leader? :mischief:

But I feel like they are too iconic, especially if we keep getting the Ottomans, for them to be replaced. I could see the Great bombard coming as an extra UU in the future. The only reason they didn't go with that in Civ 6 is the generic bombard unit was already modeled after it.

I'd love to see an Alp Arslan-led Seljuk civ, but I have to agree with @Krajzen that it has a hard time competing with the Ottomans in terms of significance, achievement, and uniqueness. I agree that it's time for a new sultan, but specifically because I want to see a different kind of Ottoman civ: one based on both conquest and culture. I would love to put to rest the "Ottomans as Jihad all day long" civ, and to that end I suggest Ahmed I. He wasn't the greatest sultan, but he did voraciously patronize the arts and architecture.
To be fair you could still portray Suleiman as a cultured leader as well. Not only was he known as "The Lawgiver" but also a poet and patron of the arts. If Civ VII gets an immigration mechanic the Ottomans could also get abilities based off of this as well.
 
To be fair you could still portray Suleiman as a cultured leader as well. Not only was he known as "The Lawgiver" but also a poet and patron of the arts. If Civ VII gets an immigration mechanic the Ottomans could also get abilities based off of this as well.
For sure. In fact, I don't think you could do better for an Ottoman Empire with a side of culture than Suleiman. I just happen to agree with Krajzen that we've seen him a few times now and it would be nice to see someone new. To that end, I suggested Ahmed I as a post-Suleiman leader who wasn't a complete idiot who also sponsored the arts. (I mean, Selim II would also work for a cultural Ottoman leader, but there's the fact that he wasn't called "the Drunk" for nothing. :p )
 
For sure. In fact, I don't think you could do better for an Ottoman Empire with a side of culture than Suleiman. I just happen to agree with Krajzen that we've seen him a few times now and it would be nice to see someone new. To that end, I suggested Ahmed I as a post-Suleiman leader who wasn't a complete idiot who also sponsored the arts. (I mean, Selim II would also work for a cultural Ottoman leader, but there's the fact that he wasn't called "the Drunk" for nothing. :p )

Well, Selim the Sot would be controversial as H**l and probably get the game an R rating for sure, but imagine what fun the artists could have with an animated Leader who is essentially doing a W. C. Fields imitation in Turkish . . .
 
Well, Selim the Sot would be controversial as H**l and probably get the game an R rating for sure, but imagine what fun the artists could have with an animated Leader who is essentially doing a W. C. Fields imitation in Turkish . . .
Given CdM swills water and Poundmaker waves around an unlit pipe... :p (I'm pretty certain I've seen games preserve an E10+ rating with alcohol and tobacco so maybe that's just Firaxis being overly cautious--or maybe I'm just remembering back to the Wild West days of the early 00s when the ESRB was less...rigorous with its ratings.)
 
Given CdM swills water and Poundmaker waves around an unlit pipe... :p (I'm pretty certain I've seen games preserve an E10+ rating with alcohol and tobacco so maybe that's just Firaxis being overly cautious--or maybe I'm just remembering back to the Wild West days of the early 00s when the ESRB was less...rigorous with its ratings.)

"Ah, yes. I always carry a bottle of whiskey in my bombard in case I get bitten by a snake . . .
Which I also carry in my bombard . . ."
 
I would like to see Ottoman sultans who is not Suleiman I as he appeared in 3 games continously, I think Murad IV should be leader of Ottomans instead.

I also think that Ottomans civ should rename to Turkish civ instead as Turkish civ should represent both Sultanate of Rum and Ottomans aesthetics.


Ottoman only design

Leader: Murad IV
Unique Unit 1: Janissary
Unique Unit 2: Humbaracı
Unique Infrastructure: Hammam

Seljuk only design
Leader: Alp Arslan
Unique Unit 1: Turkoman Horse Archer
Unique Unit 2: Ghulam Cavalry
Unique Infrastructure: Caravansary

Combination of Seljuk Rum and Ottomans
Leader: Murad IV
Unique Unit 1: Humbaracı
Unique Unit 2: Ghulam Cavalry
Unique Infrastructure: Cami
 
Last edited:
Maybe if we get Mahmud II as the leader? :mischief:
You know, usage of one of the pair of modernist Sultans - Mahmud II and Abdülmecid I - was on my mind for a future Ottoman representation :mischief:.

I'll be kinda repeating my design from the design thread, but I could see Mahmud II in the game with an abilty like this:
Auspicious Incident - upgrading of obsolete Ottoman troops is 75% cheaper. Disbandment of a unit inside of borders of an Ottoman city raises its loyalty.
Not that I'm very fond of agendas, but Disbandment of the Janissaries which would have Mahmud dislike you if you fail to keep your army modern would be an agenda that would make some sense, and one that you can influence by your efforts to keep the leader's favour. Still looking at you, Vicky :p.
 
Count me as one more vote for "The Turks" over "The Ottomans". It would also tie in nicely with a more dynamic approach to the civ which I hope Civ7 takes up (the dynamic design approach).

The Ottomans would fall quite clearly into one trope (militarist, big empire with lots of diverse cultures in them), whereas going back and forth would allow for some change. For example, if we do have different starts for different civs, they could belong to the group with the nomadic starting phases (as opposed to a tribal federation, city state(s) or kingdom start). As you see, it depends on how Civ7 turns out. I do hope though that it will be creative and I do hope that the Turks will be there from the start.
 
The Ottomans would fall quite clearly into one trope (militarist, big empire with lots of diverse cultures in them)
Really? Expansionist and militarist is the most obvious choice for the Ottomans, but it's not the only choice. A design based on the latter-day Ottoman Empire could focus on administration and culture.
 
The Ottomans would fall quite clearly into one trope (militarist, big empire with lots of diverse cultures in them), whereas going back and forth would allow for some change. For example, if we do have different starts for different civs, they could belong to the group with the nomadic starting phases (as opposed to a tribal federation, city state(s) or kingdom start). As you see, it depends on how Civ7 turns out. I do hope though that it will be creative and I do hope that the Turks will be there from the start.
I secretly wish that every civ in Civ 7 could have a more nomadic start. Other civs could obviously benefit more from staying nomadic later than others though.
 
I secretly wish that every civ in Civ 7 could have a more nomadic start. Other civs could obviously benefit more from staying nomadic later than others though.
I have mixed feelings about it. Urbanization was already well underway at the game's starting date, but the idea of a nomadic start is appealing--if it can be done better than HK's, where I'm pretty much in a rush to meet the Neolithic requirements so I can get on to the interesting part of the game.
 
I have mixed feelings about it. Urbanization was already well underway at the game's starting date, but the idea of a nomadic start is appealing--if it can be done better than HK's, where I'm pretty much in a rush to meet the Neolithic requirements so I can get on to the interesting part of the game.
I mean my idea is still kind of similar, other than the fact you aren't racing to choose a civ because you already have chosen at the start of the game. Of course this also can mean civs like Mongolia etc. might have bonuses that would give them advantages for staying nomadic longer. :)

All in all it might be interesting to have a Prehistoric era at the beginning of the game now that we already experimented with a Future era, and therefore making the game start earlier than 4000 B.C. :mischief:

Plus if Civ VII takes the ideas of optional game modes again, it could very well be togglable which I wouldn't mind.
 
All in all it might be interesting to have a Prehistoric era at the beginning of the game now that we already experimented with a Future era, and therefore making the game start earlier than 4000 B.C. :mischief:
Taking "Prehistoric" to mean "Paleolithic," or a starting date ca.12,000 BC, that would be a bit of a stretch. I don't think starting early than ~6000 BC when we start seeing settled cultures like the Natufian in the Levant and Halaf in Mesopotamia makes much sense--and even then we're not talking about any civilization we'd recognize today.

Plus if Civ VII takes the ideas of optional game modes again, it could very well be togglable which I wouldn't mind.
That might work in this case, though I'm leery of too many toggleable features. Civ6 is barely coherent as it is.
 
Taking "Prehistoric" to mean "Paleolithic," or a starting date ca.12,000 BC, that would be a bit of a stretch. I don't think starting early than ~6000 BC when we start seeing settled cultures like the Natufian in the Levant and Halaf in Mesopotamia makes much sense--and even then we're not talking about any civilization we'd recognize today.
Call it what you will, I just wasn't sure if Neolithic would be the right term considering in my mind you'd have to discover agriculture to found a city and progress to the start of the Ancient Era.
 
Really? Expansionist and militarist is the most obvious choice for the Ottomans, but it's not the only choice. A design based on the latter-day Ottoman Empire could focus on administration and culture.

Yeah, you can do any civ in any direction. Literally!

But I do gotta give you that, there are other viable options for the Turks. I was a little bit hyperbole with my statement there, however, it‘s just the first association I had.

As for the nomadic start/phase. That doesn‘t necessarily mean they would need to wander over the map. I‘m not sure that could be feasible gameplay wise. But it could be a difference between developing the area around your cities heavily (Tall) and developing a larger area but only slightly so. That could make the map more varied and large swaths of plains viable - they just play differently. Whatever makes sense gameplay-wise!
 
Yeah, you can do any civ in any direction. Literally!
Yes, the major ones anyway.

But I do gotta give you that, there are other viable options for the Turks. I was a little bit hyperbole with my statement there, however, it‘s just the first association I had.
I agree that conquest/expansion is definitely one's first association with the Ottomans: they exploded across the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and into North Africa (before stalling then stagnating). However, it could also easily be given bonuses for religion, administration, or culture. Whereas the Seljuqs were mercenaries--I really can't think of anything to do with them other than combat bonuses. So I guess my point was generally that the Ottomans are probably the most flexible potential Turkoman civ if one wanted to do something else with them (ignoring the Afsharids and Qajars).
 
Since I did a lot of research on Neolithic cultures when Humankind first announced their 'Neolithic Start', got some input here.

First, Neolithic generally refers to the period 12,000 - 4500 BCE and is considered to have started when the first faint traces of farming and animal domestication appear and ends with the development of the first metallurgy - cold-worked or smelted copper, lead, gold, silver, tin.

It is also characterized by "the first Human fixed settlements" - but NOT cities. The earliest concentrations we can stretch to call "urban" aren't until 9000 - 8000 BCE: Jericho with stone walls and a population of 2500 - 3000 by 8300 BCE, Motza (modern name) near modern Jerusalem with 3000 people by 7000 BCE, Catal Huyok with 5 - 7000 people between 7500 - 6500 BCE - which was then abandoned for several centuries: the early 'cities' were pretty fragile and subject to collapse if things went wrong, like prolonged drought.

Second, really 'nomadic' cultures are later than the first permanent settlements: without draft animals, it is a real chore to move people, children, household goods and items no matter how primitive: until draft oxen (8500 BCE) and horses (4200 - 4500 BCE) were domesticated, no large groups were going to move anywhere unless forced. The earliest truly pastoral cultures: Afanasievo (3700 BCE), Botai (3700 BCE), Yamnaya (3400 BCE), Sintashta (2100 BCE) are all AFTER the first cities in Mesopotamia, China and the Indus Valley area (5000 - 4100 BCE).

That means the first 'pastoral' cultures were people who were in permanent settlements who discovered that they could live better by following herds in wheeled vehicles and on horseback herding their domestic animals - the same choice made by the Native Americans who moved onto the prairies in the late 18th century, in some cases after being settled farmers for some time (Comanche, Kiowa).

So, a Nomadic (pastoral) Civ would be one that makes a specific choice to be one. In every case, what led people to make that choice was their surroundings: being pastoral and able to move your 'base' meant yo could exploit wide areas, and if you lived in a place of wide areas (the Eurasian Steppe, the North American Prairie) you could exploit that environment and nobody who did not adopt your lifestyle could bother you - until centuries later when a whole suite of 'civilized' technologies allowed them to venture onto the wide Spaces and survive there.

Humankind got Neolithic right in that at 12 - 15,000 BCE everybody is in small groups hunting and gathering across the landscape, and no population concentration was possible without some special environmental niches: marshes teeming with fish and waterfowl or concentrations of wild plants and animals to exploit along lush riverine stretches. Once the small groups develop a way of sustaining the food sources with animal domestication or agriculture, they can become Big Groups and settle in one place. And Agriculture may or may not be absolutely necessary: the earliest indication of domestic cattle (at Mehrgahr in modern Pakistan) is postholes for corrals to keep the cattle close at hand as a food source, and the evidence is contemporary with the earliest indications of domesticated gains. Most early 'farming' settlements/cities also fished and hunted as well - DNA can differentiate now between wild and domestic animals, and the wild hunted types co-existed with domestic animals and agriculture as food sources for centuries.

Bottom Line: Everybody before about 8 - 9000 BCE would stat as a small mobile group (on foot). Where there is lots of food of any kind: animal, vegetable, fish and/or fowl, they can form small settlements ( 150 people and up, several times the size of the average hunter-gatherer groups that have been observed in the last couple of centuries). Whether the step up is to Cities (1000 + people) or to Pastoral depends on the Environment: horses or oxen to domesticate for mobility and wide plains to exploit for pasture, or Food Plants and fertile river bottoms that make it worth staying put and grubbing in the dirt for food.

Going back to the original subject, the Ottoman Turks, they migrated out of Central Asia around 1000 CE, but really aren't differentiated from any other bunch of pastoral refugees until the 13th century, when they settle down near the Sea of Marmara and try adapting a Turkic tribal organization and customs into a settled State whose original exceptional quality was that it accepted a wide variety of groups into their little kingdom: Islamic, Christian, pagan, and virtually all non-Turkic nationalities in the area.
 
Top Bottom