What about the Ottomans ?

[TahamiTsunami]

Chances are that it will be called the Ottomans again but I wouldn't mind if it was called the Turkish Empire.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

Civ has numerous examples of multiple civs hailing from one region. USA/Native Americans, Germany/HRE in Civ 4, Ottomans + Byzantium multiple times, Russia and Mongols, China and Mongols, quite a few civs and Arabia, etc so Turkey should make it in IMO.

I agree it would certainly be bizarre to make Ataturk command Janisarries or Mehmed lead a "republic", so these would be different civs...is there a particular reason having both would be bad if appropriately represented? I can't imagine that would be more strange than say Civ 4's depiction of both Catherine and Stalin leading the same Russia (!!!) or QSH and Mao both leading the same China! India has similar strangeness in both Civ 4 (Asoka + Gandhi) and Civ 6 (Gandhi and Chandragupta).

Fredrick the great of Germany was always a little amusing in Civ 4, along with the HRE leader looking like the Burger King. I don't want to see this kind of thing happen with Turkey, but it certainly wouldn't be unprecedented.

 

[nzcamel]

Civ has numerous examples of multiple civs hailing from one region. USA/Native Americans, Germany/HRE in Civ 4, Ottomans + Byzantium multiple times, Russia and Mongols, China and Mongols, quite a few civs and Arabia, etc so Turkey should make it in IMO.

It's not about "one region" though. Out of all the examples you offer there are significant differences between the two from "the same region"; with only Germany/HRE coming close to being kinda what the Ottomans/Turkey would look like. Actually, no, that isn't even right as the leader of HRE was Charlemagne, meaning that it was the earlier version, which was a Frankish empire, not a German one. And the HRE has (rightly) never returned.

The Ottomans lost WWI, lost territory as a result, and changed their name and constitution. It was a huge change, but not enough on it's own to merit two different representations in Civ as it stands.

If they start extending the number of Civ's out to 70 or so, then sure, maybe countries like Turkey or Italy* could make an appearance. If we're sitting around 50 or so, I don't see the justification.

*Italy has a better case than Turkey by miles. It's relationship with Rome is very limited when compared to Turkey's relationship with the Ottoman empire.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The Ottomans lost WWI, lost territory as a result, and changed their name and constitution. It was a huge change, but not enough on it's own to merit two different representations in Civ as it stands.

Stalin's USSR vs Russia's Tsardoms I would argue are similar to pre/post WW1 Turkey also. Arabia isn't too far off either though much older.

And if you're going to go off territory held + type of regime, the contrast between Napoleonic France and France with De Gaulle at the helm are pretty different too.

If they start extending the number of Civ's out to 70 or so, then sure, maybe countries like Turkey or Italy* could make an appearance. If we're sitting around 50 or so, I don't see the justification.

We have Cree, Brazil, Australia, Georgia, and Scotland...what criteria allows the inclusion of such nations while Italy and Turkey don't make the cut? I don't think anybody has such criteria...Firaxis has clearly abandoned any need for "justification" beyond "we can give them unique mechanics to play without killing ourselves in controversy". Thanks to WW2 Italy might be hard in that regard, Turkey not so much.

 

[Uberfrog]

I think there's a whole debate to be had about what does and does not constitute two "different" civilisations (Rome vs Byzantium being the classic example), but it's clear the selections in Civ games are completely arbitrary.

Personally, I'm not sure that even a drastic political revolution, as in the case of the Russian and Turkish revolutions, give rise to two distinct civilisations, especially in Civ's quasi-ethnocentric definition. While having the "Russians" in 4000BC is an anachronism, who would your earliest settlers be for the USSR: the "Soviets"? I think the relative recentness of these two revolutions skews our perceptions somewhat. Few people, and certainly not Firaxis, would argue that France's ancien régime, Napoléon's Empire, and the modern Republic were different civilisations despite the stark political differences and tumultuous revolutions involved. In each case we can recognise the generalised people as being the same, even if who's leading them and how is completely different. That, I think is the closest approximation to how Civ models history.

Sure, the game only engages with politics on a very shallow level, but your empire transitions from a tribal chiefdom, to, say, a classical republic, an absolute monarchy, and then a democracy. You just have to imagine the revolutions .

You guys never forget that while in Independence war one of the enemies of Turkey's is Ottoman Empire by herself

This isn't uncommon in revolutionary wars, to have the outgoing regime fighting to cling on to power.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Few people, and certainly not Firaxis, would argue that France's ancien régime, Napoléon's Empire, and the modern Republic were different civilisations despite the stark political differences and tumultuous revolutions involved.

I'm not so sure. Is it really fair to treat France under Karlings or before even remotely similar to France under Napoleon? To me this is kind of like having Gandhi lead the Mughal empire or saying that Sumeria and Babylon were close enough to the same thing to just make an "Iraq civ" to cover them.

I'd prefer to avoid this route and keep the representations a bit more constrained, or at least separated by leader more acutely. Doing so keeps the flavor of uniques and what made a nation special at the time it was chosen to represent. This is the same reason we keep seeing CKNs from China, and not Mongol military variants from Yuan dynasty times.

 

[Uberfrog]

I'm not so sure. Is it really fair to treat France under Karlings or before even remotely similar to France under Napoleon?

Probably not – history is messy, and I arguably contradict myself since I would sooner have an Ayuubid or Achaemenid civ than a homogenised Arabia or Persia, especially in the latter case since Civ "Persia" always means the Achaemenids and just the Achaemenids.

To me this is kind of like having Gandhi lead the Mughal empire or saying that Sumeria and Babylon were close enough to the same thing to just make an "Iraq civ" to cover them.

This is where the ethnocentricity comes into it. At least in the case of the Mughals vs the Mauryans or modern India, and Sumeria vs Babylon, you have different ethnic (or at least linguistic) groups at the reins of power. Because the Ottomans were Turks (in the modern sense of the word, even if they didn't call themselves such) and the Soviets were, on the whole, Russians, they slot more neatly into Civ's vague definition of a civilisation as a continuation of the same state.

I'd prefer to avoid this route and keep the representations a bit more constrained, or at least separated by leader more acutely. Doing so keeps the flavor of uniques and what made a nation special at the time it was chosen to represent. This is the same reason we keep seeing CKNs from China, and not Mongol military variants from Yuan dynasty times.

This is the more compelling reason: a Soviet civ would undeniably play very differently to a Russian one led by Peter or Catherine. Firaxis could use a bit more creativity here, but I certainly don't want to see a game where we have three Frances and two Russias at the expense of a more obscure civ form another part of the world.

 

[Phrozen]

I'm not so sure. Is it really fair to treat France under Karlings or before even remotely similar to France under Napoleon? To me this is kind of like having Gandhi lead the Mughal empire or saying that Sumeria and Babylon were close enough to the same thing to just make an "Iraq civ" to cover them.

I'd prefer to avoid this route and keep the representations a bit more constrained, or at least separated by leader more acutely. Doing so keeps the flavor of uniques and what made a nation special at the time it was chosen to represent. This is the same reason we keep seeing CKNs from China, and not Mongol military variants from Yuan dynasty times.

A better example would be pre-Meiji Japan and Meiji and post-Meiji Japan where Japanese culture went from heavily Chinese influenced to heavily Western influenced specifically heavily Anglosphere influenced.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This is where the ethnocentricity comes into it. At least in the case of the Mughals vs the Mauryans or modern India, and Sumeria vs Babylon, you have different ethnic (or at least linguistic) groups at the reins of power.

It's not that clear cut. Having different "ethnic/linguistic" groups at reins of power was pretty darned commonplace in pre-colonial Europe for example. Catherine leading France demonstrates Firaxis is even willing to acknowledge this to a degree. The regional populations weren't quite THAT fluid, but Karling --> Napoleon is still a long time...on the order of Golden Horde ---> USSR . I can't even understand clips of English interpretation from > 600 years go...even if those aren't perfectly accurate I expect I wouldn't be able to understand the real thing either.

Firaxis could use a bit more creativity here, but I certainly don't want to see a game where we have three Frances and two Russias at the expense of a more obscure civ form another part of the world.

Could just tune what's associated with leader vs civ itself to avoid some of this problem, not sure Firaxis would want to go this route though. I agree though, I actually like seeing nations like Georgia in the game, though not so much the fast that they immediately started in the dumpster (then again, having not-overpowered DLC civs is refreshing).

A better example would be pre-Meiji Japan and Meiji and post-Meiji Japan where Japanese culture went from heavily Chinese influenced to heavily Western influenced specifically heavily Anglosphere influenced.

Possibly. Throw 700 years down and there are more areas that look culturally disparate than the same though.

 

[nzcamel]

Stalin's USSR vs Russia's Tsardoms I would argue are similar to pre/post WW1 Turkey also. Arabia isn't too far off either though much older.

Sorry, it sounded like you were making the case that both Turkey and the Ottomans should be in the game, given the comparisons you were making. We have never had both Russia and the USSR in the game at the same time even if we have had leaders from both eras. I also don't think the Civilization of Russia disappeared for 7 decades just because they had a communist government, though you could certainly argue said government was trying to reshape the culture significantly. Had they succeeded more and the USSR still existed centuries later, you may have had a point. Especially if communism had been also exported further than it was.

It's not that clear cut. Having different "ethnic/linguistic" groups at reins of power was pretty darned commonplace in pre-colonial Europe for example. Catherine leading France demonstrates Firaxis is even willing to acknowledge this to a degree. The regional populations weren't quite THAT fluid, but Karling --> Napoleon is still a long time...on the order of Golden Horde ---> USSR . I can't even understand clips of English interpretation from > 600 years go...even if those aren't perfectly accurate I expect I wouldn't be able to understand the real thing either.

Catherine married into the French family, as royals do. In that regard she's nothing special. Where she is special is that her husband died long before she did, and it turned out given half a chance, she was a capable ruler who was the mother of the Kings that followed Henry II. Hard person to turf out even if she wasn't French born. I don't think she quite makes the point you want her too?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Catherine married into the French family, as royals do. In that regard she's nothing special. Where she is special is that her husband died long before she did, and it turned out given half a chance, she was a capable ruler who was the mother of the Kings that followed Henry II. Hard person to turf out even if she wasn't French born. I don't think she quite makes the point you want her too?

She sort of does. Royal lineage was all over the place, certainly not aligned with regular populaces of a region.

 

[nzcamel]

She sort of does. Royal lineage was all over the place, certainly not aligned with regular populaces of a region.

Yeah, but you make it sound like the French imported Italian rulers for a bit there. They didn't.
Though with conquests you do get some interesting things like, with the English Normans fighting against the French, even though they were -by then- kinda French; and certainly had significant lands in France. But that still wasn't something the Anglo-Saxons chose.