Turkey should be added?

[Quildavyr]

Ok,i know Ottomans are representing allready Turkey and Turks.I am satisfied with Ottomans,but i will be extremely satisfied,if Turkey would be added instead Ottomans. And it would be a perfect marketing trick for Firaxis.(Everyone makes profit)

With 2 leaders;
Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (Charismatic&Philosophical,Free Religion)
İsmet İnönü(Protective&Organized,Universal Suffrage)

UU:Mehmetçik(replaces Infantry,+2 str,mov:2)
UB:Kışla(replaces Barracks,+4 experience,+1 )

So what you think about?

 

[Underdawg]

I say no.

Now to observe the pages long futile discussion of topic.

 

[Traun]

Now to observe the pages long futile discussion of topic.

You are going to be disappointed, everyone will say "no" on this matter. Turkey is a degenerated version of the empire and as we know, Civ IV is a place for great civilizations(or those that are cool, which turkey isn't).

 

[Quildavyr]

Turkey is a degenerated version of the empire and as we know, Civ IV is a place for great civilizations(or those that are cool, which turkey isn't).

I am a little bit disappointed,but i am angry too...

 

[EdCase]

mmmmm turkey

but no I would just fall asleep all afternoon.

 

[Figaro]

I agree with this. Considering how many other situations there are in Civ4 when one Civ represents multipule nations or empires at different points in history (China and India being the most obvious examples), it makes perfect sense to have a Turkey Civ for the Ottomans, Seljuks & modern Turkey.

In the West (and I'm assuming in Turkey itself as well) the Ottomans were simply referred to as The Turks, and they were by far the dominant power of their peoples while they were around. Having the Ottomans is like having Ming China or something.

 

[LightSpectra]

Change Ottomans into Turkey. Problem solved.

Really, what else is Turkey known for? Troy? Yes, there were multiple dynasties. That's why you have the "Chinese Empire" and "Persian Empire," which are vague. Though unlike China and Persia, none of them were known for being ravenous conquerors along the lines of Mongolia and Britain the same way the Ottoman empire was.

 

[Underdawg]

You are going to be disappointed, everyone will say "no" on this matter. Turkey is a degenerated version of the empire and as we know, Civ IV is a place for great civilizations(or those that are cool, which turkey isn't).

Yeah... I forgot this was the CFC and not the totalwarcenter forums.... it's polish nationalists here and not turkish nationalists

But can't the problem just be alleviated by renaming the Ottoman civ into Turkey and thus encompassing all points of history of the Turkish peoples and nations? It would then be like how almost every other civ is named (China, India, Arabia, etc)

 

[LightSpectra]

Though I would have no problem renaming the Ottomans into Turkey, I can see why there's a difference.

Qin dyansty, Tang dynasty, People's Republic, etc. all had monumental impacts on the world.
Achaemenid dynasty, Cyrian dynasty, Parthian empire, Iran, etc. all had monumental impacts on the world.

None of the Turkish dynasties, save for the Ottoman and possibly Trojan dynasties, did enough to make it into the game. I could see debate towards Sejluks, but could you honestly see the Seljuks and Ottomans legitimately being in the same game, similar to Rome and Byzantium?

 

[DrewTate]

How about wild turkey as a resource instead?

 

[Quildavyr]

How about wild turkey as a resource instead?

Maybe goat can be,and some dogs,but turkeys are not significant in Turkey



There is one thing...
Just Turks have defended the whole empire.The Empire is no more,because other nations lived in empire made alliances with the enemies of empire.(Arabs and Kurds helped English,Bulgaria was Russian ally,Greeks,Armenia was ally with other ones)
Turks made Ottomans,Seljuks and the other states big.Not other ones.

 

[Underdawg]

Maybe goat can be,and some dogs,but turkeys are not significant in Turkey



There is one thing...
Just Turks have defended the whole empire.The Empire is no more,because other nations lived in empire made alliances with the enemies of empire.(Arabs and Kurds helped English,Bulgaria was Russian ally,Greeks,Armenia was ally with other ones)
Turks made Ottomans,Seljuks and the other states big.Not other ones.

Were it not Caucasians from the Balkans that made up the Janissaries? Who, in turn, were the ones that conquered all that land?

 

[Quildavyr]

Were it not Caucasians from the Balkans that made up the Janissaries? Who, in turn, were the ones that conquered all that land?

Not everyone from Balkans was made up Janissary.Only the %10 of them were not Turks.(I am not sure about the number ,but the army members were at most Turks.)

 

[Ahimsadharma]

From wiki:

The first Janissary units comprised war captives and slaves, selecting one in five for enrollment in the ranks (Pencik rule). After the 1380s Sultan Mehmet I filled their ranks with the results of taxation in human form called devshirmeh: the Sultan’s men conscripted a number of non-Muslim, usually Christian Balkan boys, taken at birth at first at random, later, by strict selection – to be trained. Initially they favoured Greeks, Armenians, Albanians (who also supplied many gendarmes), and Bulgarians, usually selecting about one boy from forty houses, but the numbers could be changed to correspond with the need for soldiers. Boys aged 14-18 were preferred, though ages 8-20 could be taken. Greeks formed the largest part of the Janissary units. Next the devshirmeh was extended to also include Bosnians, Serbs, Croats and other Balkan countries, later especially Ukraine and southern Russia. The Janissaries started accepting enrollment from outside the devshirmeh system first during the reign of Sultan Murad III (1546-1595) and completely stopped enrolling devshirmeh in 17th century. After this period, volunteers were enrolled, mostly of Muslim origin.[3]

Janissaries trained under strict discipline with hard labour and in practically monastic conditions in acemi oğlan ("rookie" or "cadet") schools, where they were expected to remain celibate. They were also expected to convert to Islam. All did, as Christians were not allowed to bear arms in the Ottoman Empire until the 19th century. Unlike other Muslims, they were expressly forbidden to wear beards (a Muslim custom), only a moustache. These rules were obeyed by Janissaries, at least until 18th century when they also began to engage in other crafts and trades, breaking another of the original rules.

For all practical purposes, Janissaries belonged to the Sultan, carrying the title kapıkulu ("door slave") indicating their collective bond with the Sultan. Janissaries were taught to consider the corps as their home and family, and the Sultan as their de facto father. Only those who proved strong enough earned the rank of true Janissary at the age of twenty-four or twenty-five. The regiment inherited the property of dead Janissaries, thus amassing wealth (like religious orders and foundations enjoying the 'dead hand').

Janissaries also learned to follow the dictates of the dervish saint Hajji Bektash Wali, disciples of whom had blessed the first troops. Bektashi served as a kind of chaplain for Janissaries. In this and in their secluded life, Janissaries resembled Christian military orders like the Johannites of Rhodes.

In return for their loyalty and their fervour in war, Janissaries gained privileges and benefits. They received a cash salary, received booty during wartime and enjoyed a high living standard and respected social status. At first they had to live in barracks and could not marry until retirement, or engage in any other trade but by the mid-18th century they had taken up many trades and gained the right to marry and enroll their children in the corps and very few continued to live in the barracks.[2] Many of them became administrators and scholars. Retired or discharged Janissaries received pensions and their children were also looked after. This evolution away from their original military vocation was the essence of the system's demise.

.....
...
..
Janissaries’ reputation increased to the point that by 1683, Sultan Mehmet IV abolished the devshirmeh as increasing numbers of originally Muslim Turkish families had already enrolled their own sons into the force hoping for a lucrative career. Every governor wanted to have his own Janissary troops.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

So basically from late 1600s onwards, Janissaries stopped being 'foreign slave/child levy' powered completely and by mid 1700s, janissaries were mostly Turks, as more and more turks wanted to get in to the 'elite' corps of their military.

 

[Antilogic]

My vote is to rename the Ottomans "Turks" and then add Atatürk as a third leader. Thus, I am not in agreement with the OP.

Although, I have to say, the OP suggests some really imbalanced unique benefits. A 22 Str Infantry that moves 2? Combined with a barracks that provides +1 XP (so that a Charismatic leader like Atatürk gets 2 promotions out the gate)? Ouch, that's approaching Praetorian-level.

I would suggest going with a Strength bonus or a Movement bonus...or give the infantry a withdrawal chance or something else odd like that. A UB barracks that provides happiness and extra experience...those ideas are already used in the game for unique buildings. How about a barracks that increases military unit production by 10%? There's a really unique benefit to distinguish them. Just suggestions...take them or leave them.

 

[Figaro]

Actually the OP wants Turkey added

instead Ottomans.

So actually everyone seems to be in agreement here.

 

[Antilogic]

Oops, I must have mis-read that.

In any case, I would keep the current UU and UB then. Current meaning the "Ottoman" UU and UB.

 

[Andvare]

No.
Attatürk wasn't a war leader (everyone else in the game is, okay, not Gandhi, but he shouldn't be in either).
Turkey had next to no impact (or rather, plenty of countries had the same impact).
The units/buildings proposed are completely unbalanced (they are given what is effectively double boni, yes I know it's actually bonuses, but I refuse to take part in mauling Latin). They are also somewhat unknown.
It wouldn't help sales. Turkey aren't really a market that big, and there are still plenty of people that would turn away from it. Too politically charged still.
Ismet Pasha is no leader material. He had very little impact on the world, though he was a president of Turkey during WWII. He was also dead set on keeping Turkey out of any war. If he should be in, then everybody and their grandmother should be. All of the crusader kings, for example, every HRE emperor, pretty much all of the Habsburgs, all of China's emperors and so on.

There are plenty of good choices, and I guess the space is quite limited. Like Sweden with Gustav II Adolf, the first to really employ mobile artillery, and one of the greatest generals ever to have walked this earth (says I, Nappy and Clausewitz, and I am Danish ). I also believe that Sweden is actually a bigger market (not potentially, but sales are, AFAIK, bigger in Sweden). But then, Sweden as a nation should never be in the game, too small.

Ottomans are another thing.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Ok, seriously, this is just ridiculous. I dunno if anyone here's noticed or not, but Turkey, if anything, is OVER-REPRESENTED in the game.
It has TWO civilizations representing it : Ottomans and Byzantine ( which was based in Constantinople, run mostly out of TURKEY!) and has 3 leaders representing it !
And someone wants even more Turkey in the game ? wtf ?
At this rate, we'd have Indians and chinese demanding half a dozen more leaders each !