Turks?

[nebuchadnezzar]

the only nomadic (more accurately, semi-nomadic) turkish civ here is the Gokturks. Uyghurs and the others were known to settle and found great cities.

I hope the western people tries to understand that Turks, Arabs and Persians are completely different nations, only connected under a name, Islam.

Without Turks, Europe would never be enlightened.

 

[Himalia]

I think that most Western people realise that Turkey, Arabia and the Persians are very different civilizations in there own right as you stated just about there only common ground is Islam. But to state that Europe would not be enlightened if it was not for the Turks by some would been deemed a racist statement and im sure its not ment like that at all. Jus tabout every nation in the world has influenced another in some way, direct or indirect. Every country in Europe as a claim to be in this game just some more than others. One thing for crtain to is each country has contributed something historically.

Anyway for those who are not so up on Ottaman history here is a good link to get started with. Its not fully comprehensive but its very good starting place to get good background knowledge of this Empire.

http://www.friesian.com/turkia.htm

 

[alireza1354]

I hope the western people tries to understand that Turks, Arabs and Persians are completely different nations, only connected under a name, Islam.

Thats not true. Turks are intermingled with Arabs, Kurds, Greeks, Hittites, Assyrians, Slavics, Armenians, Georgians and Persians and many many more. Turks are not a race. Tatars are entirely different than the Turks of Turkey.

We (I am part Berber, part Arab, part Jewish and part Persian and my wife is Turkish) arent just etnically mixed, but we have very much in common on cultural, linguistic, traditional and other grounds. So saying we are COMPLETELY different nations is a grave exaggeration and a violation of clear facts and obviously influenced by blind nationalistic feelings. Well, those feelings only count for a minority of the vast masses of the middle east.

Greetings

 

[Superkrest]

please dont allow this thread to become a 195 reply argument over who deserves to be in and who doesnt....the game include mali becuase they needed a rep from africa. they have numerouse reps from central asia and thats also understandable...the thing to remember is that there are only 18 civs...thats it...and they're not entirely done on importance..there done by region, MARKET, and then importance..there selling the civs to the most likely buyer...most westerners recognize the civs ...and most africans(african americans etc.) would be appualed if there was no true African civ..the turks were very important..but would not help the games sales as much as the civs included...dont be fooled. civ devolopers want to make money too

 

[Mirc]

Ahm,
the 4th map you posted is wrong! The Ottoman Empire never conquered the western coast of the Black Sea. They conquered Hungary, but they didn't conquer any of the three romanian countries at the Black Sea (Wallachia, Transilvania and Moldavia). They payed tribute but they were the only one independent countries in Eastern Europe.
I'm not very sure about Transilvania, but Wallachia and Moldavia were surely not conquered by the Ottoman Empire.

This doesn't mean they are unimportant, it means just the 4th map is wrong. They brought many things to European culture, such as music on the battlefield, but don't you think the statue of Venus from Milo is pornography ?

 

[Mirc]

Superkrest, they had Zulu, why did they need Mali?

 

[Superkrest]

it was just a replacement..i would have been happier with the ethiopians..but oh well..alot of people didnt like the zulu i guess..

 

[ahm]

please dont allow this thread to become a 195 reply argument over who deserves to be in and who doesnt....the game include mali becuase they needed a rep from africa. they have numerouse reps from central asia and thats also understandable...the thing to remember is that there are only 18 civs...thats it...and they're not entirely done on importance..there done by region, MARKET, and then importance..there selling the civs to the most likely buyer...most westerners recognize the civs ...and most africans(african americans etc.) would be appualed if there was no true African civ..the turks were very important..but would not help the games sales as much as the civs included...dont be fooled. civ devolopers want to make money too

ok. lets accept malis from afiricans. it is a good decision. because it represent african people and have some deal (about marketing) from america. what about mongols? there is only one country, mongolia. do you think is there electricity in mongolia(!). only 2 million population and the first economical material is bulls,horse... do you think any marketing? lets accept they are from middle asia. turks are too from middle asia and there is more than 500 million turk over world. only in turkey, there is 70 million population and ~20 million computer user. but dont think about all...

if there were more different cultures, different military units, different buildings in the game, it would be better. and i think you cant find another civilization has the culture high as ottomans.

but after all everybody can say everything but the gamers always realize realities....

 

[Superkrest]

no...im definitly not disagreeing with you..some should have definitly made it over others...its just marketing...westerners are more apt to think of the great mongol hordes then the ottomans...that..and mongols have been in the game now all along...the ottomans made there debut in the last expansion..im sad to see them leave...ill be super upset if an expansion is missing them as well...im just saying that they will sell way more games to some lil american kid who just learned about ghengis khan...the to a turkish person who wants to play as his nation...its nothing to do with who i like or dislike

 

[ahm]

ok you say, some western people wants mongol. it is normal. i am trying to remember that lots of people wants turks.

I SUGGEST THAT THERE SHOULD BE A POLL IF TURKS IS WANTED OR NOT.

is it a good idea? i am asking this to you and also to the developers.

 

[Superkrest]

i definitly think that in some shape or form they should be in...i think a revised version of all the civ3 civs.(conquest and play the world included) should have been in the new game.. i think 18 kinda sucks..but i guess its better then a huge list that some have suggested...i think its easy to go overboard.

 

[Janos]

What would you rather have:

- Lots of civs which are all basically the same just with a few minor differences (in order to simply please people who want them in).

- A small amount of civs which are well thought out and very different.

I'd rather have what we currently have. Let's judge if there are enough races after we have actually played the game shall we? But i do think Turks should've been in instead of other less major nations.

 

[Superkrest]

i think the big lists are a lil silly..but i liked the civ arangment in civ3..jsut wish they would have stuck with it...but as far as the game..i guess i should know by now that theres always one that some one thinks should be in there...and understandably. but ill agree to just wait it out and see how the game goes..i keep forgetting that with 2 leaders...it will be like having 36 civs

 

[Dark Khan]

Turks must be in.they were nomadic people once.But their fighting skills were extreme( return of the parthian shot).They found cities and build modern structures such as blue mosque .protectors of islam they were(for 500 years). and conquerors of İstanbul.Turks must be in not Ottomans(seljuks,khazars) Turks are a major race ;they are a race sure they must be in and they will be (sure about this)

 

[Himalia]

Hasnt Turkey only been around since 1923 ? or something very close to that date. What i mean is the Ottamans Empire that has been around for over 600 years (1299-1923) effectively became Turkey after they lost alot of territory from the allies during world war 1. Yes this leads to the war of Turkish independance which was making me think if they both count as seperate civilizations it is obvioues that the Ottamans have a more significant history of the two. Which brings it all back to.... yes but Turkey has all of that Ottaman history behind it. In which case there not truly seperate . To be completly seperate from each other there history must also be kept seperate which wouldnt make sence as they are unavoidably entwined. So the conclusion to this is only one should be in the game (prehaps named differently for specific campaigns) and i thinbk there wouldnt be a major issue over if the chosen one was the Ottamans or Turkey. Although a more generic term such as the Turks would work very well as that would cover both without any major problem.


One thing that does spring to mind that is missing from the game other than the Turks is Babylon and Sumeria. Seeing Babylon go was a shocker and for those who are aware of Sumeria surely they must for logical reasons be one of the first choice candidates for the game along with the Cannities. Prehaps the game really needs a group of civilizations from different periods it would be alot easier to get nations in that way without upseting anyone. Even if the game can only allow 18 at a time to play in one game jus thaving a greater list to choose from would be nice.

 

[Afgnwrlrd]

khazars aren't turks. The reason they are such great warriors is becuase they are uncivilized. Thry live daily with the hardships and rigors of nomadic life so the pwn anyone they attack (on their own turf). Turks are barely a single race. They are so huge you could be mongolian or greek and still be turkic. I say if people want turks so much they should alow us to play as barbarians.

 

[ahm]

Hasnt Turkey only been around since 1923 ? or something very close to that date. What i mean is the Ottamans Empire that has been around for over 600 years (1299-1923) effectively became Turkey after they lost alot of territory from the allies during world war 1. Yes this leads to the war of Turkish independance which was making me think if they both count as seperate civilizations it is obvioues that the Ottamans have a more significant history of the two. Which brings it all back to.... yes but Turkey has all of that Ottaman history behind it. In which case there not truly seperate . To be completly seperate from each other there history must also be kept seperate which wouldnt make sence as they are unavoidably entwined. So the conclusion to this is only one should be in the game (prehaps named differently for specific campaigns) and i thinbk there wouldnt be a major issue over if the chosen one was the Ottamans or Turkey. Although a more generic term such as the Turks would work very well as that would cover both without any major problem.

 

[ahm]

I say if people want turks so much they should alow us to play as barbarians.

what did you mean?

 

[Janos]

what did you mean?

He means that Turks are so widespread nowerdays. You have your Turkish Cypriots, your German Turks, and another load in England and the like. They are a very widespread race, and over history have mingled and bred with people of many different races.

There is also the issue of the Ottoman Empire - as someone mentioned earlier, Turkey is a relatively new nation in the modern world. But whatever, i've already stated that it would be nice to have them in, but Firaxis are hardly going to put them in vanilla are they?

They'll probably make it in an expansion, and in the meantime there are a lot of interesting races already in the game. I can't wait to try out the Arabs, Incas/Aztecs myself.

 

[ahm]

do you thing it is a good way if i start a poll?