Turkey should be added?

Ahimsadharma said:
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 ? WTH ?
At this rate, we'd have Indians and chinese demanding half a dozen more leaders each !
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also i would add that the ottomans are much more deserving of a place than post ottoman turkey. Since the break up of the ottoman empire Turkey has not done anything that qualifies as giving them a spot as a great civ except attempting to regain the former glories of the ottomans and failing miserably. Probably there are other civs in the game that shouldn't be there (native america comes to mind) but that is NO excuse for including Turkey when we already have the Byzantines and Ottomans.

I really like playing as the ottomans but if it were changed to Turkey I am sure I wouldn't play it all.
 
The only idea I would support is changing the name of the current "Ottomans" to the "Turks", but understanding that the civilization, with two Ottoman leaders, still essentially represented the Turks at their high point as the Ottomans. Much like the leaders of Germany are both Prussians.

@The Person who said the Byzantines never existed: They existed, but just called themselves something different than the modern name for them. Should I eliminate the Greeks from the game because they called themselves Achaeans initially and then Hellenes? I think not.
 
Shakespeare said:
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
Click to expand...

I agree - they're all English names anyway.... the Greeks still don't call themselves the Greeks! :D There aren't many civs on there that maintain their true name in their own language.
 
Good use of the Shakespeare quote...I was tempted to look back in the thread to see if a guy with a Shakespeare screen name actually posted that, and then decided it would be way too much of a coincidence.
 
I think it should be Turkish Empire.There are 35 other states were founded by Turks.
I said,i am satisfied with Ottomans.But i think it would be cool,if it were Turkish Empire.And with red flag of course.
 
The Ottomans were more significant than all of the other Turkish kingdoms combined. Except maybe Troy.
 
Why would Troy be ascribed to being Turkish in any way? It was destroyed long before a Turk ever set foot in that part of the world. Just because it was in the region that is now Turkey doesn't automatically attribute it to the modern people.
 
I thought Troy was Turkish. My mistake, then.
 
I think it is a myth.Maybe there is a theory,that the Trojans are Ancestors of Turks.There is something too,Atatürk may have said,"We revenged Hector" or like this.
Trojans believed Greek Gods.Turks never did it.Even now there are Turks and Greeks,who think they are enemies.That is a different story.And pretty stupid.Let Troy out of this.:)
 
Antilogic said:
The only idea I would support is changing the name of the current "Ottomans" to the "Turks", but understanding that the civilization, with two Ottoman leaders, still essentially represented the Turks at their high point as the Ottomans. Much like the leaders of Germany are both Prussians.

@The Person who said the Byzantines never existed: They existed, but just called themselves something different than the modern name for them. Should I eliminate the Greeks from the game because they called themselves Achaeans initially and then Hellenes? I think not.
Click to expand...

Again, the "Byzantine empire" never existed.They never called themselves Byzantine or Byzantium. They simply called themselves Roman and the Roman empire. It was the greek speaking eastern Roman empire. Basileia ton Romaion or just Romania which means Roman empire. Byzantine is a made up name by historians in the 1500's to describe the greek speaking Roman empire.


http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm

Read page 3 and 4 for good quote wars by Calgacus and Gaius about the "Byzantine empire"

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=228224&page=3
 
Umm,then English empire never existed too.Called they themselves English empire or UK?
It is Byzantine Empire...
 
What a bizarre argument Titus001 - so you are saying that because a distinctive part of an empire was later named separately due to its distinctiveness from its western counterpart.... it never existed?

How odd! :)
 
Spearthrower said:
What a bizarre argument Titus001 - so you are saying that because a distinctive part of an empire was later named separately due to its distinctiveness from its western counterpart.... it never existed?

How odd! :)
Click to expand...
Well, I guess we've been imagining China for thousands of years....CHINA NEVER EXISTED AND SHOULDN'T BE INCLUDED! In fact, neither should Japan, because Japan doesn't exist....
 
Quildavyr said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think it is kind of unnecessary to change it, although I wouldn't be greatly opposed to changing it if a lot of people wanted it. (Adding Turkey in addition to the Ottomans would be overkill, though)

And no, you couldn't have that UU and UB. Kemal would have a 22 strength, 2 move Infantry with two promotions right out of the gate, because he's charismatic in your plan. That's ridiculously overpowered. And really - modern Turkish/Ottoman infantry isn't all that spectacular, so it doesn't make much sense anyway. The Janissaries were pretty good for their time, so they should stay in - but the guys you're suggesting would be, as far as I can tell, inaccurate and seriously overpowered.
 
Have you ever seen a Turkish Infantry at war?Trust me,they deserve 2 movement and +2 Strength.:lol:
Anyway if Ottomans replaced by Turkish Infantry,then there is more UUs for the civ,it can be an Elite Horse Archer,Janissary,Sipahi,Infantry..
Well i must wait until next Civ approaches,maybe Firaxis has some Surprises for us all:)
 
Andvare said:
No.
Attatürk wasn't a war leader (everyone else in the game is, okay, not Gandhi, but he shouldn't be in either).
Click to expand...

Sure, Atatürk was a war leader. When he was Mustafa Kemal he fought in World War I, making his name at Gallipoli, fought in the Caucasus and in Palestine. After World War I, his army defeated the Greeks. There were wars with France and Armenia at the same time as the Greek war. That's how he got the prestige to reform the country.
 
sydhe said:
Sure, Atatürk was a war leader. When he was Mustafa Kemal he fought in World War I, making his name at Gallipoli, fought in the Caucasus and in Palestine. After World War I, his army defeated the Greeks. There were wars with France and Armenia at the same time as the Greek war. That's how he got the prestige to reform the country.
Click to expand...

Well, I probably should stay away from any discussion when I'm running a fever ;) , and probably should have explained what I meant. He didn't have the strategic leadership of any famous battle or war (famous outside Turkey). But in any case, it is a poor argument from my side, and should be ignored.
 
Titus001 said:
Again, the "Byzantine empire" never existed.They never called themselves Byzantine or Byzantium. They simply called themselves Roman and the Roman empire. It was the greek speaking eastern Roman empire. Basileia ton Romaion or just Romania which means Roman empire. Byzantine is a made up name by historians in the 1500's to describe the greek speaking Roman empire.


http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm

Read page 3 and 4 for good quote wars by Calgacus and Gaius about the "Byzantine empire"

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=228224&page=3
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't understand or care to read my post. So, I'll try to explain this more clearly: there was an "Eastern Roman Empire" and a "Western Roman Empire". Modern historians, as you point out, call the Eastern Romans, who called themselves Romans and spoke Greek, the Byzantines. As I said, though, irrelevant of what you call them, there existed some civilization headquartered in Constantinople with Justinian I leading it in the past, irrelevant of what you prefer to call it. If you insist on calling them the East Romans, fine. It doesn't change the fact that they existed independent from Rome for roughly a thousand years after Rome fell, spoke a different language, worshipped a different version of Christianity (East Orthodox), and in general were distinct from the West Romans. They grew apart from their Roman roots, and are distinguished as a unique civilization in Civ because of that. I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend.

I'd rather have the "historic" UUs and UBs for the civilizations over the modern ones, simply because they are better balanced and I'm against adding anything more "modern" into the Civ game. If you want to know the reason why, take a look at one of my many posts on the excessive number of WW2 leaders in the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom