What about the Ottomans ?

[nzcamel]

The Ottomans and modern Turkey is essentially the same "civilization" for the purposes of this game, especially since they are direct successors. Much like the Germans covers everything from modern Germany back to at least the HRE, the Chinese through multiple dynasties, the Russians with the Soviets, the English with the British, etc.

Ignoring the vast difference religion played in their politics...

 

[Uberfrog]

Ignoring the vast difference religion played in their politics...

An equally vast difference to Tsarist Russia vs the Soviet Union, and England pre-and-post- Henry VIII. The (admittedly ill-defined) concept of "civilisation" in Civ transcends religious and political changes, and rather focuses on a continuity of a people/broader culture.

 

[MistyRonin]

An equally vast difference to Tsarist Russia vs the Soviet Union, and England pre-and-post- Henry VIII. The (admittedly ill-defined) concept of "civilisation" in Civ transcends religious and political changes, and rather focuses on a continuity of a people/broader culture.

I'd say they use the concept "civilisation" as the political evolution of the states in certain territory more than the culture / nations that actually lived in them.

For instance Germany is an evolution of the HRE, although with a different configuration of nations / cultures. Same with China, Spain from the peninsular countries of the Hispanic Monarchy, India, etc.

I guess they can't really depict each country or culture so they look for certain historical Empires that included many countries and nations; and their historical predecessors and ancestress.

 

[ehecatzin]

I'm actually happy they aren't around for release, Ottomans on civ5 were really, well dissapointing. I'd rather they come back in an expansion (or DLC) alongside Byzantium.

 

[Scaramanga]

The Bombard cannon always strikes me as the Ottoman weapon against the walls of Constantinople. They will be back methinks.

 

[Lyoncet]

I'm actually happy they aren't around for release, Ottomans on civ5 were really, well dissapointing. I'd rather they come back in an expansion (or DLC) alongside Byzantium.

I kind of get this sentiment, but I don't really see the equivalency between "Was bad in Civ V" and "Would be bad in Civ VI vanilla, but better in a DLC." Unless you mean that the relationship has soured, maybe some time apart would be good for you.

 

[ehecatzin]

I kind of get this sentiment, but I don't really see the equivalency between "Was bad in Civ V" and "Would be bad in Civ VI vanilla, but better in a DLC." Unless you mean that the relationship has soured, maybe some time apart would be good for you.

You are right, probably should have explained myself better.

The Ottomans in civ5, ability wise, always felt like an after thought to me, mods made them so much more enjoyable to play as. I'd rather wait for Firaxis to come up with a very cool design for the Ottomans than just slap them ingame in a hurry to please the fans ("because X civ must be in"), same thing with Mongolia and Persia.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I'm hoping the Byzantines won't be in...instead a byzantine leader of the Romans.

Similarly, I would prefer the Turks instead of the Ottomans (so they could have an Ottoman leader, but also Ataturk, or other nonOttoman Turkish leaders)

 

[Couch Tomato]

Well I'm hoping the Byzantines won't be in...instead a byzantine leader of the Romans.

Similarly, I would prefer the Turks instead of the Ottomans (so they could have an Ottoman leader, but also Ataturk, or other nonOttoman Turkish leaders)

True, this is one of the biggest inconsistencies in Civilization.

Take three empires, the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Soviet Union. All were multiethnic/multinational superpowers, but their primary base was in the English, Turkish, and Russian people, respectively. Civ has consistently used "English Empire" (despite there being no such thing) and the Russian Empire, but still use Ottoman Empire.

Just a glaring inconsistency, IMO.

 

[ehecatzin]

It is an inconsistency when you compare it to other civs in game, I agree, however, I don't think Firaxis really minds, or that split would have been fixed when they introduced multiple leaders in civ 4, the important thing is, Byzantium has appeared as its own civ multiple times already, and seeing as they also appeared in civ5 when Ed Beach was in charge I see no reason for it to be diferent this time around.

Multiple leaders will after all be sold as DLC, and if we take into account the civ6 leader rooster, it's clear that they choose certain leaders knowing they can sell us the fan favorite later, as in, Phillip and Isabela, and most likely Catherine de Medeci and either Napoleon or Louis XIV. I think we'll get a diferent Byzantine leader this time tho, and Theodora will be DLC (again, fan favorite).

 

[nzcamel]

Well I'm hoping the Byzantines won't be in...instead a byzantine leader of the Romans.

It is an inconsistency when you compare it to other civs in game, I agree, however, I don't think Firaxis really minds, or that split would have been fixed when they introduced multiple leaders in civ 4, the important thing is, Byzantium has appeared as its own civ multiple times already, and seeing as they also appeared in civ5 when Ed Beach was in charge I see no reason for it to be diferent this time around.

I hope you're right ehecatzin; but if both eventual versions of Rome can play in the same game then they need different capitals.... There is only one other city that could credibly be the capital of Rome

I don't like it mostly because it limits the leaders they can choose. Good bye Cicero, J Ceaser, A Ceaser, Cincinnatis etc - hullo Constantine. Constantine will be fine I'm sure and can fit the 'big character' criteria for VI; but it' still sad that the whole roster might not be an option to be selected merely because they choose to let both be playable in the same game.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

Well I'm hoping the Byzantines won't be in...instead a byzantine leader of the Romans.

Eh. I really don't want to see this. The Byzantine empire is a titular remnant with a completely different culture.
It makes as little sense as Frederick and the HRE being an option for 'Rome.'

 

[Lyoncet]

No other credible capital doesn't necessarily mean that they can't feature another leader. It's a small hurdle from a technical perspective, and just takes a bit of adjusting to occasionally having a different capital name. It would feel kind of weird when it came up, is all.

If they really want to do it, nothing stopping them.

 

[nzcamel]

No other credible capital doesn't necessarily mean that they can't feature another leader. It's a small hurdle from a technical perspective, and just takes a bit of adjusting to occasionally having a different capital name. It would feel kind of weird when it came up, is all.

If they really want to do it, nothing stopping them.

I agree with you, and I hope they take that approach. I don't mind in the odd game where you had two civs the same (won't happen in most of mine!) if one of them has a random capital.

 

[Uberfrog]

No other credible capital doesn't necessarily mean that they can't feature another leader. It's a small hurdle from a technical perspective, and just takes a bit of adjusting to occasionally having a different capital name. It would feel kind of weird when it came up, is all.

If they really want to do it, nothing stopping them.

Exactly. Athens and Sparta happen to provide an obvious example for two leaders not to share a capital. But when it comes to other civs (especially Rome), this will not be appropriate. I don't think they're going to pass up on a good alternate leader just because they share a capital. It is far from a necessary requirement when designing a new leader. They will just take the next available city name.

I think there's not a way to really do justice to a Byzantine Civ with just an alternate leader for Rome.

 

[MistyRonin]

Exactly. Athens and Sparta happen to provide an obvious example for two leaders not to share a capital. But when it comes to other civs (especially Rome), this will not be appropriate. I don't think they're going to pass up on a good alternate leader just because they share a capital. It is far from a necessary requirement when designing a new leader. They will just take the next available city name.

But the Roman Empire actually had two simultaneous capitals during the late Empire period.

 

[Ikael]

It would be great if they would include the Ottomans, since you can go into so many directions with them:
- Trade networks (builders of the great bazaar)
- Capital cities / tall gameplay (from Bizantium to Istambul)
- Naval warfare (mediterranean power struggle against Spain, Piris Rei map, etc)
- Suzerainity and high stakes diplomacy (playing "the great game" against Russia during the XVIIIth century)
- Assimilation of conquered minorities (Janissaries and the likes)
- Religious gameplay (Caliphate sheanigans)
- Modernization and secularity (Attaturk)

Makes for a really multi-facetted civ!

 

[nzcamel]

Oh they will.

 

[Uberfrog]

But the Roman Empire actually had two simultaneous capitals during the late Empire period.

Sure, but for most of the leaders they are likely to pick Rome is the undisputed capital. They could do something interesting with Constantine or something, but if they want someone from the Republic, or Augustus...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Eh. I really don't want to see this. The Byzantine empire is a titular remnant with a completely different culture.
It makes as little sense as Frederick and the HRE being an option for 'Rome.'

You could easily say that about Ptolemeic "Egypt" as well
(And Charlemagne as a leader for France/Germany or Rome would be interesting)