What about the Ottomans ?

[Zghuk]

If you want a strong Ottoman Empire or play Timurids, just play EU IV

 

[Gökcan]

Allright boizz here i go now...

First of all as a Turkish player i am so sick to see Turks as Ottoman Empire on games... I mean yeah, Ottoman's were powerfull and one of the strongest empires in medievel age but thats enough for us. really stop showing that over and over. Especially with Suleiman The Magnificent. He makes the borders at top level but he also makes Ottoman Empire to collapse slowly. If you guys gonna make us as Ottomans again at least change the leader please. I prefer Mehmed II the Conqueror (no one needs an explanation for him i guess) or Selim the Resolute (he conquered the most of the eastern provinces like all of the middle east, arabian peninsula, egypt).

mostly i want to see us as Turkish Republic with Atatürk. I mean that guy was insane why the f he didnt shown in any civ games. He rebuild the WHOLE nation. He fight against western powers and surprisingly he wins the war and makes Turkey one of regional powers again. Also Republic of Turkey can have some interesting mechanics for the game. Like wounded soldiers can resist more, there can be unique science building (refer to Atatürk's science reform), maybe even unique ranger named Kuvayi Milliye. There can be so much things that i cant write.

BUT

If there will be no Republic of Turkey at least u guys make other Turkic empires instead of Ottomans like;
Seljuk Empire
Timurid Empire
Turkic Khaganate (AKA Göktürk)
Hunnic Empire
etc...

 

[nzcamel]

Civ games tend to base their depictions of all Civs at the greatest reach of their power. Hence why Italy has never appeared in game either.

Of course you could make an even stronger case that Italy should be in the game as the links between them and Rome are...not great. Whereas the modern nation of Turkey replaced the Ottoman Empire directly.

The great thing about the growing popularity of Civ and the addition of dlc is that they can keep adding more and more civs; and we'll potentially see more Civilizations represented at different periods of history.

 

[Uberfrog]

Allright boizz here i go now...

First of all as a Turkish player i am so sick to see Turks as Ottoman Empire on games... I mean yeah, Ottoman's were powerfull and one of the strongest empires in medievel age but thats enough for us. really stop showing that over and over. Especially with Suleiman The Magnificent. He makes the borders at top level but he also makes Ottoman Empire to collapse slowly. If you guys gonna make us as Ottomans again at least change the leader please. I prefer Mehmed II the Conqueror (no one needs an explanation for him i guess) or Selim the Resolute (he conquered the most of the eastern provinces like all of the middle east, arabian peninsula, egypt).

mostly i want to see us as Turkish Republic with Atatürk. I mean that guy was insane why the f he didnt shown in any civ games. He rebuild the WHOLE nation. He fight against western powers and surprisingly he wins the war and makes Turkey one of regional powers again. Also Republic of Turkey can have some interesting mechanics for the game. Like wounded soldiers can resist more, there can be unique science building (refer to Atatürk's science reform), maybe even unique ranger named Kuvayi Milliye. There can be so much things that i cant write.

I can sympathise with this, even if my own preference would be for the Ottomans to return.

Turkey is in a similar position to Persia in that while there are many periods of its history they could choose to focus on, Firaxis always opts for the Ottomans and the Achaemenids. I think in both cases the historical significance and cultural recognition of both empires is too strong to ignore, even if it would be nice to see, say, the Seljuks or the Turkish Republic and the Sasanians or the Safavids get a feature for once.

 

[humble serf]

To me Civ 6, with the multi-leader system established by Pericles and Gorgo, Gandhi and Chandragupta, seems like the perfect game to start introducing different incarnations of major historical empires like Turkey and Persia. I know some people hate it when the different features of a civilisation don't line up historically -- Frederick Barbarossa training U-boats, for example -- but personally I think it opens up a whole host of options for diversifying the larger civs.

Persia's garden UI would work perfectly under a Safavid alternate leader with his own unique ability, and I wouldn't mind Shah Abbas using a CUA named "Satrapies" and training Immortals -- just as long as his personal leader ability created some real Safavid flavour, making him play differently to Cyrus. Equally, all of the Roman unique features (bathhouses, better road infrastructure, strong Classical-era infantry) would work just fine for a Byzantine alternate leader, who could also create some unique Byzantine flavour via his or her leader ability. (Having said that, I also think Renaissance Italy deserves to be its own civ, entirely distinct from Rome).

Perhaps the best thing to do for the Ottomans is to add a "Turkish Empire" to the game, with one Ottoman leader and one leader from a different period -- probably Ataturk or one of the Seljuqs, although Timur would be an interesting alternative. Different leaders can have a huge impact on gameplay, to the extent that Gandhi and Chandragupta feel almost like two entirely different civs. I don't see why the devs couldn't achieve the same thing with Turkey.

 

[Absolution]

Well, while Atatürk and an Ottoman can be really interesting shifting leaders, and to a lesser extent the Seljuqs as well, I find it hard to include Timurids, and certainly Gokturks, and why Huns?
Turkish and Turkic are a hell of a different thing. Would you bring Genseric the Vandal and Harold Hardrada together with Bismark to form shifting leaders for the German civilisation?
That's the thing with Germanic and German. Quite less complicated, but still similar to the Turkic-Turkish issue.
Gokturks are absolutely welcome as a Central Asian civilisation, for what's often called Turkestan (not Turkey!), with leaders such as the Qaghans Bumin, Muqan, and Tong Yaghbu.
Timurids will better be a Persian second leader, won't they? While a small group of people of Turco-Mongol (from the word Turkic) origin ruled the empire, it was an perfect example of a Persianate society, laying in Iran, inheriting the previous Iranian empires and laying the foundations for the latter ones. Adding Timur to the Turkish civilisation is quite similar to adding a Mughal emperor.

And to get a bit closer to the point of the thread - While I'm a hard advocate of the 2nd leader idea, I don't find the Turkish to be the most urgent choice. It is not the most interesting of the changing civilisations.
China must have one more leader, or even two (why not six?)
Persia - as mentioned earlier, any leader of the Muslim era.
Arabs or Romans, who had their capitals in different coral zones (if you count Byzantium as Roman by nation).
Russia and France would also be nice nations for a 2nd leader, but unfortunately their existing leaders (Peter and Catherine de Medici) are in a middle period, too close to either of the distinguished eras. A good split would be a Kievan or an early Muscovite with a Soviet second leader, for example.
So all in all I don't see any reason to add both and Ottoman and Ataturk, though it would be interesting to see only the latter appearing for once.

 

[Gökcan]

To me Civ 6, with the multi-leader system established by Pericles and Gorgo, Gandhi and Chandragupta, seems like the perfect game to start introducing different incarnations of major historical empires like Turkey and Persia. I know some people hate it when the different features of a civilisation don't line up historically -- Frederick Barbarossa training U-boats, for example -- but personally I think it opens up a whole host of options for diversifying the larger civs.

Persia's garden UI would work perfectly under a Safavid alternate leader with his own unique ability, and I wouldn't mind Shah Abbas using a CUA named "Satrapies" and training Immortals -- just as long as his personal leader ability created some real Safavid flavour, making him play differently to Cyrus. Equally, all of the Roman unique features (bathhouses, better road infrastructure, strong Classical-era infantry) would work just fine for a Byzantine alternate leader, who could also create some unique Byzantine flavour via his or her leader ability. (Having said that, I also think Renaissance Italy deserves to be its own civ, entirely distinct from Rome).

Perhaps the best thing to do for the Ottomans is to add a "Turkish Empire" to the game, with one Ottoman leader and one leader from a different period -- probably Ataturk or one of the Seljuqs, although Timur would be an interesting alternative. Different leaders can have a huge impact on gameplay, to the extent that Gandhi and Chandragupta feel almost like two entirely different civs. I don't see why the devs couldn't achieve the same thing with Turkey.

Well i know today its hard to see the diffrence but Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey is way too far to each other. One is build on others ashes with a way diffrent perspective and ideology. You guys never forget that while in Independence war one of the enemies of Turkey's is Ottoman Empire by herself... So it would be not the best idea to bring Ottoman sultans and Atatürk in same civ. It would make lot of Tukrish player upset.

Turkey's root between other Turkic cultures are surprisingly very strong. We still see our selves as a part of Hunnic (Not the European one, the Asian one with Mete Han), Göktürk, Timurid empires etc... But you guys are right. It's hard to refer Modern Turkey with Göktürks or other Turkic Empires.

But at least there is Seljuk Empire. Seljuk's are not that old to refer Turkey. And they are the one who conquers the Anatoilan Peninsula at 1071. So as a alternative to Ottomans at least fraxis can make us as Seljuks with Sultan Alparslan.

 

[Morningcalm]

I don't see how a putative "Turkish Empire" could have one civ bonus that makes sense for both the Ottoman Empire and Ataturk's distinctly more Western Turkish state. I wouldn't mind Seljuks, but the long-lasting Ottoman Empire was the powerhouse everyone associates "Turkey" with (also the Byzantine Empire). Same with Persia and the Achaemenid Empire.

 

[Absolution]

It doesn't have to make sense for both.
It has to fit for any kind of characteristic of that civilisation, throughout its history and segments.
How can Gandhi's India and Chandragupta's Magadha sit together with the same traits? Both having the waters of the Ganges? Just use a trait for either, for maybe for a third period.

 

[Greywulf]

Why do we have to have a dynastic civ? Which other civ is named after a specific dynasty? Let's call them the Turkish Empire this time, please...It's more inclusive.

 

[nzcamel]

A few different Civ's have names that aren't relevant to their entire history. Rome, England (though that made a bit more sense once Scotland was unveiled), Germany, Arabia, etc. The Turkish empire could be a few different places throughout history. The Ottoman Empire is distinctly the strongest representation of the Turks based in Anatolia.

Or at least it is to English speakers. Again...Germany isn't the proper name for Germany, but it's what we've known it as for far longer than there's been a united country there (flippen Romans oh...I mean Roma lol). Is there an Arabic translation of Civ, and if so, are all the civilizations named within named according to how they themselves like to be known? Or how Arabic speakers are familiar with labeling them?

 

[Greywulf]

A few different Civ's have names that aren't relevant to their entire history. Rome, England (though that made a bit more sense once Scotland was unveiled), Germany, Arabia, etc. The Turkish empire could be a few different places throughout history. The Ottoman Empire is distinctly the strongest representation of the Turks based in Anatolia.

Or at least it is to English speakers. Again...Germany isn't the proper name for Germany, but it's what we've known it as for far longer than there's been a united country there (flippen Romans oh...I mean Roma lol). Is there an Arabic translation of Civ, and if so, are all the civilizations named within named according to how they themselves like to be known? Or how Arabic speakers are familiar with labeling them?

But are any of the other civs named after dynasties? Besides this, the Ottoman Empire was also called the Turkish Empire.

 

[nzcamel]

Not sure. But in the English language version of Civilization, Civilisations are named the vast majority of the time after what they're most commonly known as in English.

 

[Greywulf]

Not sure. But in the English language version of Civilization, Civilisations are named the vast majority of the time after what they're most commonly known as in English.

What a subject is most commonly known as is not always correct or accepted by the subject. Some examples of this include Native Americans being called "Indians" (though that seems to vary by community), and the Romani people being called "Gypsies" (in some regions it is even viewed as a racial slur now because of its derogatory use)...Both these terms are the most commonly used terms for each respective group in English.

 

[Uberfrog]

What a subject is most commonly known as is not always correct or accepted by the subject. Some examples of this include Native Americans being called "Indians" (though that seems to vary by community), and the Romani people being called "Gypsies" (in some regions it is even viewed as a racial slur now because of its derogatory use)...Both these terms are the most commonly used terms for each respective group in English.

Sure, but that argument is a stretch in this context.

"The Ottoman Empire" is the common term, the historical term, and quite close to what the Empire was called internally at the time (Osmānlı Devleti, the "Ottoman State").

The only arguments in favour of calling it "The Turkish Empire" would be to maintain the quasi-ethnocentric convention we see in the other civ names, or if you wanted to represent different parts of Turkish history in the game. Personally, I think if it is to be a purely Ottoman civ, they should call it such. I'd also be happy if they referred to the "Arabic Empire" under Saladin, or the "Indian Empire" under Chandragupta, the Ayyubid or the Mauryan Empire, respectively. Likewise the "Indonesian" Empire should really be the Majapahit.

 

[Absolution]

A nice compromise could be having a name of a Civilisation differ from the name of the State in the game.
You choose the Greek civilisation, and then you can pick Groggo, leader of Lacedaemon.
If you choose India, you can pick the Mauryans.
This mechanic could be used regardless of having an alt leader - The official name of the Civ and its abilities will be "Indonesia", while in the game it will be referred to as "Majapahit Emprie", or "Majapahit" as an adjective. Same for Turkey and Ottoman.

 

[nzcamel]

A nice compromise could be having a name of a Civilisation differ from the name of the State in the game.
You choose the Greek civilisation, and then you can pick Groggo, leader of Lacedaemon.
If you choose India, you can pick the Mauryans.
This mechanic could be used regardless of having an alt leader - The official name of the Civ and its abilities will be "Indonesia", while in the game it will be referred to as "Majapahit Emprie", or "Majapahit" as an adjective. Same for Turkey and Ottoman.

I like your idea, but for simplicities sake, it'll never fly as part of the unmodded game. Too confusing for too many people.

 

[Greywulf]

Sure, but that argument is a stretch in this context.

"The Ottoman Empire" is the common term, the historical term, and quite close to what the Empire was called internally at the time (Osmānlı Devleti, the "Ottoman State").

The only arguments in favour of calling it "The Turkish Empire" would be to maintain the quasi-ethnocentric convention we see in the other civ names, or if you wanted to represent different parts of Turkish history in the game. Personally, I think if it is to be a purely Ottoman civ, they should call it such. I'd also be happy if they referred to the "Arabic Empire" under Saladin, or the "Indian Empire" under Chandragupta, the Ayyubid or the Mauryan Empire, respectively. Likewise the "Indonesian" Empire should really be the Majapahit.

I think it was more common in Western Europe at the time to call the Ottoman Empire the Turkish Empire, although that name would have been fine within the Ottoman Empire. Regardless, the issue I am considering here is that it is the only civ to have a dynastic title, and it doesn't really fit in with the game concept. If the game was set specifically during the time period that the Ottoman Empire existed, then the Ottoman Empire would be the ideal title as it is, however this game begins in the stone age and takes the player all the way into the future...Thus the title Turkish Empire would work better in this setting, as it is more inclusive to the history of that civilization. Granted, the game has already broken its own rules with this multiple times, including civs such as colonial civs, period civs, and blob civs, so it's not perfect or ideal anyway...still, doesn't mean we should throw the towel in and just do anything, I like the fact that this game attempts to be somewhat true to history, and the closer we can get then the more realism the game will have.
Now, if they add the civ with the title "Ottoman Empire", I will accept that. However I really think it makes better sense to call it by their more inclusive title "Turkish Empire"...Anyway, we will just have to wait and see what they do this time.

 

[Uberfrog]

the issue I am considering here is that it is the only civ to have a dynastic title, and it doesn't really fit in with the game concept. If the game was set specifically during the time period that the Ottoman Empire existed, then the Ottoman Empire would be the ideal title as it is, however this game begins in the stone age and takes the player all the way into the future

[...]

I like the fact that this game attempts to be somewhat true to history, and the closer we can get then the more realism the game will have.

Now, if they add the civ with the title "Ottoman Empire", I will accept that. However I really think it makes better sense to call it by their more inclusive title "Turkish Empire"...Anyway, we will just have to wait and see what they do this time.

You are right, we will wait and see – while I think it's unlikely that Firaxis won't just call them The Ottomans again, the Turkish Empire works fine and is consistent with how the other civs are named.

But I have to take issue with your implication that this would be somewhat more "true to history". Defining Empires or Civilisations along ethnic nationalist lines is no more "realistic" or "inclusive" than doing so along dynastic lines. What works and seems natural for western Europe and its colonies is not necessarily what is best for other historical civilisations. Thus we have an unsatisfying "Indian" blob civ that somehow links Chandragupta Maurya to Gandhi, an "Arabian" civ ruled by a Kurdish sultan from his Egyptian capital, and Dyah Gitarja ruling over an empire with a name that wouldn't be adopted by her people for another 500 years. For many Asian civilisations, dynastic definitions like "Achaemenid" or "Safavid" or "Abbasid" or "Ayyubid" are more instructive than broad generalisations of hundreds or thousands of years of different states with different rulers, often of completely different ethnic origins. Even within Europe, the "Habsburg" dynasty was, in the time before central European nationalism, perhaps a more useful descriptor than what you might otherwise call "Austria". There is a reason why historians generally refer to these empires in such dynastic terms, and why you would be hard pressed to find any scholarly source on an "Indian" or "Arabian" empire, whatever those are supposed to be.

Likewise, ethnicities are not static. While it is obvious that a group in 4000 BC identifying as "American", "Brazilian", or "Australian" is absurd, the same absurdity applies to pretty much every nation in the game. "English" people simply did not exist prior to the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms by Germanic settlers after the 5th century AD. Likewise modern Anatolian "Turks" didn't start being an identity until the Seljuks invaded Asia Minor in the 11th century, only a few hundred years before Osman would establish the dynasty that's causing all this debate.

In any case, apparent naming convention aside, there is nothing consistent about the way Firaxis represents their civs. Why, for instance, does the Indian subcontinent receive a single civ that is expected to represent millennia of various disparate ethnic groups and independent states while the southern tip of the Balkan peninsula gets two distinct civs –Greece and Macedon– representing the classical period alone? Why does "China" encompass features of multiple successive dynasties when "Persian" history seems to end abruptly with the arrival of Alexander the Great?

The only common thread is how these countries' history is viewed by a general western audience, and that is exactly why I think we will see the Ottomans return, simply because that is what they've always been in Civ games.

 

[awesome]

Well i know today its hard to see the diffrence but Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey is way too far to each other. One is build on others ashes with a way diffrent perspective and ideology. You guys never forget that while in Independence war one of the enemies of Turkey's is Ottoman Empire by herself... So it would be not the best idea to bring Ottoman sultans and Atatürk in same civ. It would make lot of Tukrish player upset.

Civ4 had Catherine, Peter, and Stalin.