Janos
Prince
Well if you like... what would the question be?
Do you want the Turks in the game?
Or what?
Do you want the Turks in the game?
Or what?
Turks?
- Thread starter ahm
- Start date
- Status
mitsho
Deity
The Turks and Babylon are the great missing civilizations in the civ4 list. Both of them deserve to be in. The Turks could be splitted up into the Ottoman Empire and 'Turkistan' which sums the thing up quite good.
But as already said, there is very few place in the game, and the developpers decided, they did not want them in. However, it won't take long and you can add your Turks into the game, created and modded by some fans.
mitsho
But as already said, there is very few place in the game, and the developpers decided, they did not want them in. However, it won't take long and you can add your Turks into the game, created and modded by some fans.
mitsho
Janos
Prince
Didn't Firaxis say that one could mod in easily a completely new civ if one so chooses anyway?
As for the poll:
Are you upset that the Turks/Babylonians/et al. are not included in the game?
1) Yes, it's a travesty that these very important nations are not included.
2) No, the ones we have are just fine.
3) Don't care - will be happy either way.
I think that would be better as it doesn't just focus on one large civ that is missing.
As for the poll:
Are you upset that the Turks/Babylonians/et al. are not included in the game?
1) Yes, it's a travesty that these very important nations are not included.
2) No, the ones we have are just fine.
3) Don't care - will be happy either way.
I think that would be better as it doesn't just focus on one large civ that is missing.
y inculed italy as a sepreat civ from rome??? italy has, as a nation tho been a regonal power, never a world or great power, ether politicly, millitarly, or economicly. its like includeing canada, or yougoslavia , mexico or other nations like that... yet is sigificant, but not to the point whear its as worth as korea, japan, mongolia, russia, bablonia, ect ect ect.
Im not sure that the term "turk" is very logical as a civ name. From what i have read it applies to many nomadic tribes, which were organised pretty much in the same way as the mongolic tribes (infact the oldest of them (Okhuz, Vigurs etc) were in mongolia. and their "empires" were in mostly desolate lands, on the edges of China. Later tribes, like the cumans and the pechenegs, reached the black sea coast, and were often used by the byzantine empire as merceneries. Under Alp Arslan, and due to a rather strange twist of fate, another of those tribes, the seljuks, gained control of the persian empire (from what i have read the persian king had again used that tribe as merceneries, but then refused to pay them, so they took to the mountains; the king went after them but managed to kill himself by falling from his horse while inspecting his troops 
). The seljuk empire (essentially the persian empire of that king) got in a conflict with the byzantine empire, again in a strange fashion (a local byzantine ruler in typical ubermench style refused to allow some seljuk troops passage, although they offered to pay him, as they were retreating after a war in syria iirc, and insisted to engage them in battle).
Then, with the battle of Matzikert (1071), which was little less than a massive internal betrayal by the byzantine court (pun intented), and, finally, with the blinding of the emperor Romanos Diogenes by the nobleman Michael Psellos (which led Alp Arslan to proclaim his peace with Diogenes as null and void) the sultanate of Iconion was formed, again with byzantine help, since the seljuks were little more than illiterate barbarians.
Imo if a 'turkic' civ is in the game the best choice would be the ottoman empire, for reasons relative to the inclusion of other mostly agressive/fighting civs.
). The seljuk empire (essentially the persian empire of that king) got in a conflict with the byzantine empire, again in a strange fashion (a local byzantine ruler in typical ubermench style refused to allow some seljuk troops passage, although they offered to pay him, as they were retreating after a war in syria iirc, and insisted to engage them in battle).Then, with the battle of Matzikert (1071), which was little less than a massive internal betrayal by the byzantine court (pun intented), and, finally, with the blinding of the emperor Romanos Diogenes by the nobleman Michael Psellos (which led Alp Arslan to proclaim his peace with Diogenes as null and void) the sultanate of Iconion was formed, again with byzantine help, since the seljuks were little more than illiterate barbarians.
Imo if a 'turkic' civ is in the game the best choice would be the ottoman empire, for reasons relative to the inclusion of other mostly agressive/fighting civs.
the greatest empire of turks is ottomans. be sure, ottoman's race is turk. it is about that we should use the race name or the empire name?
and be sure, seljuks and the other mentioned ones are turkish states or empires. and only gokturks is semi-nomadic.
but it is normal that some parts of publics can be different races like persians, jewishs, arabs, rums....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_states_and_empires
and be sure, seljuks and the other mentioned ones are turkish states or empires. and only gokturks is semi-nomadic.
but it is normal that some parts of publics can be different races like persians, jewishs, arabs, rums....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_states_and_empires
As for the poll (thanks Janos):
Are you upset that the Turks(Ottomans)/Babylonians/et al. are not included as major civs in the game?
1) Yes, it's a travesty that these very important nations are not included.
a) Should be included in the first main version of game, civilization 4
b) Should be included in the first expansion pack
2) No, the ones we have are just fine.
3) Don't care - will be happy either way.
(Sorry about the english, could you help to do the best one)
Are you upset that the Turks(Ottomans)/Babylonians/et al. are not included as major civs in the game?
1) Yes, it's a travesty that these very important nations are not included.
a) Should be included in the first main version of game, civilization 4
b) Should be included in the first expansion pack
2) No, the ones we have are just fine.
3) Don't care - will be happy either way.
(Sorry about the english, could you help to do the best one)
Well there not in the first one so as long as there in the second one that would be fine as far as im concerned. If they had been in the first one i would simply say for the nation that had been taken out (Persia for arguements sake) as long as there in the second thats fine.
Its a tough question i am happy with the ones we have but i also feel more were needed. Its an expansion thing if they put loads in the first one then they wont have so many for the next one which will probably be one of it key selling points.
Its a tough question i am happy with the ones we have but i also feel more were needed. Its an expansion thing if they put loads in the first one then they wont have so many for the next one which will probably be one of it key selling points.
Janos
Prince
Of course, no problem. I feel this would be a good way of putting the poll. Let's just call the Turks Turks for the sake of argument:
Are you upset that the Turks are not included as major civs in the game?
1) Yes, it's a travesty that these very important nations are not included.
2) Yes, but i will be happy if they are included in a future expansion pack (or patch).
3) No, the ones we have are just fine.
4) Don't care - will be happy either way.
Janos
Prince
Good point, i'll edit the post to make it just Turks.
ok, i have posted the poll as "Are you upset that the Turks are not included as major civs in the game?".
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=123475
thank you.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=123475
thank you.
hewhocaves
Chieftain
I can't believe (what am I saying... this is a BB on the 'net, I can believe anything that goes on here) that this is actually a serious complaint. The Turks are no more "essential" to the game than the Poles (of which I am one), the Lithuanians, the Venetians, the Portugeese, the Swedes or a few dozen other socieites. Get over it!
I'd love for there to be a Polish Civ right out of the box, but I'm going to be realistic about it. I'm not going to throw a hissy fit over it - instead I'm going to go and *gasp* make a Polish Civ mod! Because, and correct me if I'm wrong here, this version of Civ is supposed to be customizable like no other one before.
And then once I have my Polish Civ there, I'm going to load it into the game and then PLAY THE GAME. Now this may strike you as something strange, but follow my steps here. 1) before the game comes out, I go get (and make up) all the city lists and etc... for my Civ. 2) build the Civ (once I've played the game a few times to sort out what the civ should be like) 3) test it out a little, tweak it some, etc... so that it plays well with others, and it isn't some uber-civ. 4) enjoy the civ, secure in my knowledge that no one can take it away from me.
I know... radical, radical thoughts. But then I'm an out-of-the box kinda guy.
/sarcasm
John
PS: heh.. I'm actually not going to build my own Polish civ.. Instead I'm going to wait paitently for the excellent people at civ.org.pl to do it first. Because they can do such a better job than I. (I only had to tweak the hussar slightly from their model)
I'd love for there to be a Polish Civ right out of the box, but I'm going to be realistic about it. I'm not going to throw a hissy fit over it - instead I'm going to go and *gasp* make a Polish Civ mod! Because, and correct me if I'm wrong here, this version of Civ is supposed to be customizable like no other one before.
And then once I have my Polish Civ there, I'm going to load it into the game and then PLAY THE GAME. Now this may strike you as something strange, but follow my steps here. 1) before the game comes out, I go get (and make up) all the city lists and etc... for my Civ. 2) build the Civ (once I've played the game a few times to sort out what the civ should be like) 3) test it out a little, tweak it some, etc... so that it plays well with others, and it isn't some uber-civ. 4) enjoy the civ, secure in my knowledge that no one can take it away from me.
I know... radical, radical thoughts. But then I'm an out-of-the box kinda guy.
/sarcasm
John
PS: heh.. I'm actually not going to build my own Polish civ.. Instead I'm going to wait paitently for the excellent people at civ.org.pl to do it first. Because they can do such a better job than I. (I only had to tweak the hussar slightly from their model)
nebuchadnezzar
King of New Babylon
they were neither illiterate nor barbarians. they were just unlucky. alp arslan managed to expand the empire from lake aral to euphrates river. however, after his death, crusades begun. anatolia and syria were under attack by crusaders (they were no more than barbarians). to the east, mongolia and united tribes begun the world's largest invasion. all the world easily call them barbarians. that age was the age of war, battles of religions, and everyone was as barbar as each other.varwnos said:
@alireza
Turks are COMPLETELY different from arabs or persians. i insist on what i say. the only thing that connects us is a NAME, islam. persians are shi'ite, arabs are in a different "mezhep" section and most of turks are sunni. the application of religion is completely different in these three cultures. the lifestyle of these cultures are barely different, arabs and persians are fundamentalists (mostly), turks live a modern life. turks are european more than middle-eastern.
nebuchadnezzar
King of New Babylon
I don't understand the name conflict here. Some of you say xxx's were not Turks, some say xxx's were more civilized than yyy's, some say Turk is not a suitable name for this race, some even say Turk is not a race.
Khazars were Turk. Look at the history. The empire was founded by Uyghur, Bulgar, Khazar, Sabir and Pecheneg tribes, which are known to be Turkic tribes.
Tatars are different then Turks in Turkey, you say. Tatars speak Turkish language, live a similar life. They seem different, they live in a different geography (Tatarstan, in Russia Federation). If I try hard, I can understand most parts of wikipedia's Tatarça page. (http://tt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Täwge_Bit)
Turks were not barbarians, and I don't understand why westerners always call easterners as barbarians!! Yesterday, my instructor told something about India. Under the British rule, the British cut all fingers of cloth-maker women of India to cutoff the Indian cheap cloth to enter the market. Instead they sell their own not-worth-to-buy cloth. Be careful before using the adjective "barbarian".
Turk is a generic name, first used by Gokturks to represent all Turkic-language speaking tribes as one. All those tribes were originated from the same culture. They were so much, and soon seperated that some of them were assimilated by other cultures, some assimilated by religions and some founded great empires. There always were a competition between the Turkish states, and ironic, most of the Turkish states were destroyed by Turkish states. That's why here you fight on names Turk/Ottoman. Ottomans were officially destroyed by Turkish Republic in 1 Nov. 1922. Last Seljuk state, Karaman state was destroyed by Ottomans (Mehmed II). Gazznavids were destroyed by Seljuks. Karahans, the first Islamic Turkish state was destroyed by Gazznavids. This goes on like this. You see, the states are known by dynasty names, all have in common, they are absolutely Turks. So, the name should be Turks if some wise guy in Firaxis decides tu put this underestimated race to the game (hoping in xpack).
Khazars were Turk. Look at the history. The empire was founded by Uyghur, Bulgar, Khazar, Sabir and Pecheneg tribes, which are known to be Turkic tribes.
Tatars are different then Turks in Turkey, you say. Tatars speak Turkish language, live a similar life. They seem different, they live in a different geography (Tatarstan, in Russia Federation). If I try hard, I can understand most parts of wikipedia's Tatarça page. (http://tt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Täwge_Bit)
Turks were not barbarians, and I don't understand why westerners always call easterners as barbarians!! Yesterday, my instructor told something about India. Under the British rule, the British cut all fingers of cloth-maker women of India to cutoff the Indian cheap cloth to enter the market. Instead they sell their own not-worth-to-buy cloth. Be careful before using the adjective "barbarian".
Turk is a generic name, first used by Gokturks to represent all Turkic-language speaking tribes as one. All those tribes were originated from the same culture. They were so much, and soon seperated that some of them were assimilated by other cultures, some assimilated by religions and some founded great empires. There always were a competition between the Turkish states, and ironic, most of the Turkish states were destroyed by Turkish states. That's why here you fight on names Turk/Ottoman. Ottomans were officially destroyed by Turkish Republic in 1 Nov. 1922. Last Seljuk state, Karaman state was destroyed by Ottomans (Mehmed II). Gazznavids were destroyed by Seljuks. Karahans, the first Islamic Turkish state was destroyed by Gazznavids. This goes on like this. You see, the states are known by dynasty names, all have in common, they are absolutely Turks. So, the name should be Turks if some wise guy in Firaxis decides tu put this underestimated race to the game (hoping in xpack).
nebuchadnezzar said:
it is not ok for me. ony way is that they put turks into main version. if they say that it is late for main version, i say that you have ottomans instruments from civ3 play the world, use it. it is ok for me ottomans in civ4, perhaps in xpack turks come too
- Status
Similar threads
