In terms of race, 80% of Europe is either Germanic or Slavic. 20% of them Latin, Celt, Jewish etc… One race could have a lot of civilization.
This really kind of seems to me like you are just rolling the following civs into one:
(This follows the syntax: < Civ: > < Example from your civ > < Reasoning: > < Example from actual civ to demonstrate point.)
-
Britons: Hunters and shepherds work 15% faster.
Reasoning: Britons have a bonus: Shepherds work 25% faster. -
Mongols: Hunters and shepherds work 15% faster. (Elite) Steppe Lancer cost -30% food.
Reasoning: Mongols have bonuses: Hunters work 40% faster, and Steppe Lancers have 30% more HP. -
Bulgarians: Blacksmith upgrades 30% cheaper.
Reasoning: Bulgarians have bonus: Blacksmith and Siege Workshop technologies cost 50% less food. -
Spanish: Shaman (Mounted monk, can heal while moving) and Blacksmith upgrades 30% cheaper.
Reasoning: Spanish have missionary (Mounted monk, but it cannot heal and move), and Blacksmith upgrades cost no gold. -
Berbers: Böri (javeline thrower cavalry, high pierce armor) and (Elite) Steppe Lancer cost -30% food.
Reasoning: Berbers have Genitour (Mounted skirmisher, high pierce armor) and Stable units are 15%/20% cheaper in Castle/Imperial Age. - Persians: Archer 33% of gold cost replaced by wood.
- Reasoning: Persians have the Kamandaran technology, which replaces the entire gold cost with additional wood.
That’s just my take on it, and I might have missed some stuff, but it seems to me like you might want to try and make them a bit more unique.
1 Like
Reasoning: Göktürks society was hunter and animal shepherd. Their entire livelihood depended on hunting and husbandry.
Reasoning: Göktürks were master lancer. Their prowess and dexterity on lance is praised by all contemporary sources.
Reasoning: "the Turks [Göktürks] lived for generations north of the Altai Mountains, where they 'engaged in metal working for the Rouran" from Wikipedia article of Göktürks.
Reasoning: Göktürk society was Tengrist and Shamanist. Shamans engaged in herbal medicine rather than missionary. Therefore, their healing ability is better than Monks but conversion ability is sucks. They had good quality white horses, thus I chose to make them fast.
Reasoning: Göktürks used javeliner troops but Böri was guard of Khagan like Keshik and they were heavy cavalry. I firstly think them as heavy cavalry but after that I wanted to try different things and I envisioned this unit. It behave a lot different than Genitour by the way.
- Reasoning: This bonus is combined with lacking imperial age upgrades of archers and +2 range. It is true that it resembles Persian tech but Persian crossbow is only for countering Halberdiers. Göktürks archers has more purpose.
Just another Turkic civ…It would be very absurd to have one more.We have allready ‘‘Turks,Tatars,Cumans,Huns’’
maybe after this civ added game name would be changed into ‘‘Age of Turks’’ 11
Sorry bro i dont want to be disrespect your proposal but Gokturks are old period of Modern Turks as far as i know.And is perfectly represented by Huns or Cumans.We just dont need another Turkish civ in a game we allrdy have bunch of them.
This is like asking for French as a civ despite of the fact that we have franks.
5 Likes
The Tatars and Cumans are not parts of the in-game Turks since the in-game Turks are specifically for the Seljuks and Ottomans, so the Turkic peoples should be compared to whole the Germanic or Slavic peoples instead of the Franks who are part of Germanic peoples.
The Turks are ones Islamic and Middle East, the Tatars are ones influenced by the Mongols, the Cumans are ones influenced by the West, and the Huns are probably not a Turkic people at all. The Gokturks are actually suitable to be the final piece of the puzzle for the in-game Turkic peoples.
.
My ideas for the Gokturks:
- A Hunting bonus, such like that Huntable animals contain +50% food, or that Hunters and Fishermen can drop-off the food directly, but work -10%.
- Free Heavy Cavalry Archer upgrade.
- Those 2 bonuses above may be enough. If not, Units at Barracks, Stables and Archery Ranges upgrade costs -10%/-25%/-40% in the feudal/castle/imperial age.
- Team Bonus: Barrack, Stable and Archery Range cost -25%.
UU: Böri (or named Fuli, Wolf Guard.)
Heavy cavalry who were imperial guard corps of the ruler, able to keep moving, attacking and sustaining damage for 3 seconds after HP down to zero.
(sorry I can not agree the idea about javelin horsemen. Almost every horse civ had javelin. I would prefer a special mechanic for the heavy cavalry Böri should be.)
Castle UT: Komg
A quite cheap tech. Makes the Scout Cavalry line and Outpost +7 LoS, other units and buildings +4 LoS.
Imperial UT: Tengrism
Makes Relic generate +0.5 all types of resources per sec.
So Relic generates 1 gold and 0.5 food, wood, stone per sec. If there is a Burgundian ally, generates 1 gold and food, and 0.5 wood and stone per sec.
(Sorry I don’t think introducing another horse mounted monk is a wise choice when Missionary is still useless. If any idea about horse mounted monk is useful, it should fit Missionary rather than becoming a new one and abandoning Missionary.)
.
I assume that the Gokturks would quickly enter to the strong period, but tend to be mediocre in the late game. The hunting bonus helps them ahead in the Feudal, and the free HCA upgrade makes them have a sharp offensive in the early Imperial.
Having Parthian Tactics, Steppe Lancer, full Champion and all Blacksmith techs, but no Paladin, no Arbalesters, no Halberdier, no Siege Onager, no Siege Engineers and no decent navy.
3 Likes
Turks are as broad as Germans who rn include Britons, Burgundians, Franks, Goths, Italians, Sicilians, Teutons, Spanish, Vikimgs. While you may argue that 4 is enough still, your comparison is stupid. Also Huns arent Turkic
Also what else can I say except that Turks were extremely succesful during the middle ages and created some of the most powerful empires of their time. Honestly they are comparable in influence to Germanic peoples.
1 Like
You missed vikings so all in all 10 germanic civis. 4 slavic civis 3 or 4 turkic civs depending on adding huns with them or not.
True, thats a big one
I’m not sure about Gokturks, maybe if there weren’t (Ottomans) Turks civ already. It would be better to add Seljuks if you want to add another Turkic civ. Besides they were short lasted. To me it’s like adding Greeks after Byzantines.
Undoubtedly, the Seljuks are clearly the main part of the in-game Turks, another important part are the Ottomans. Its introduction should be likened to the Byzantines after the Georgians and Armenians, not to the Greeks after the Byzantines. Imagine, it’s like the Georgians have always been used to represent the Byzantines, and now the Byzantines are introduced, and there is finally a suitable representation to present the old Roman power and the Byzantine Empire itself.
The influence of Gokturks on the entire Turkic peoples is far-reaching. They may not be very long just looking at their own khanates, but just like the Goths in the game also represent the Anglo-Saxons, the Gokturks will also represent a number of ancient Turkic tribes, definitely not only going to the 8th century.
Several recent new civs have paid considerable attention to the post-Mongol world. It’s time for the game to focus on the world before 13th century AD.
I wouldn’t say it’s like that. The Georgians were influenced by Byzantines not the other way around, and they are not ethnically same people. I understand your comparison in smaller and younger representing older and bigger, and in a sense i agree, Gokturks had a large empire, but in my opinion if you add them then you could almost justify to add Western Roman empire.
Maybe i’m wrong, i’m not so hung up on this it’s just my opinion…
The Turks, Tatars, Cumans and even Chinese, Persians, Mongols and Saracens were influenced by Gokturks.
In the conception of the game, they are shared a same umbrella.
That’s not my intention at all.
I mean, the Byzantines are the representatives of the ancient powers, They present it well with some editor units like Legionary in the current game.
Western Roman Empire is collapsed in 476 which is AOE1 time frame more than AOE2. First Göktürk Khaganate lived in 552-630 and second lived in 680-744. It is closer to AOE2. Göktürk had a importance of being largest Empire of Turks and it had relationship with both China, Byzantines (Göktürks took Crimea from Byzantines) and Persians due to its large area and power.
I don’t know much about influence of Göktürks. Uyghurs and Khazars are more influential than Göktürks for instance, Mongol Empire’s bureaucracy consisted of Uyghur secretaries. Empires can be less influential comparing to their strength, most influential thing of Göktürks (they defined themselves as “Türk”, Kök (in old Turk language, Kök adjective means celestial, in modern turkish, it is different which means sky (noum)) is only used in 5 times in Orkhon Inscrpiton to praise) they managed to give their tribe name “Türk” to all Turkish Race. Before Göktürks, all Turk race used their own tribal name (Oğuz, Basmil, Tatar, Kıpçak, Kırgız, Uygur etc.) instead of “Türk”. Göktürks Khaganate changed this.
Simply put, their khaganates shape the geolocation, culture, and dominant beliefs of Turkic peoples. As a huge nomadic power in the early Central Asia, they established the common core cultural characteristics of Asian nomads, just as Chinese characters and Chinese ancient philosophy directly influenced the traditional thinking of whole the Orient. Although not as “solid” as your Uyghur example, the medieval Uyghurs and Khazars also received much of their legacy as the successor to Gokturk khanates. Even people say that the Khazars and early Uyghurs can be represented by the Gokturks in the game. In warfare, they made the Sogdians submit, which meant they mastered the Silk Road, and had many interactions with the Tang Dynasty and the Sassanid Empire, especially the former, their people launched a rebellion that could rewrite Chinese history.
1 Like
Göktürks Khaganate is more influential to 20th and 21th Turkish people rather than Medieval Turk khaganates and people. For instance, there is no Ottoman source referring to Göktürks and Huns but there is tons of Ottoman sources referring to Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Seljuks. Seljuk Empire are more influential than Göktürks as well. People make comments history according to what they learned from high school. Real history is different.
It is not true, Uyghurs are earlier than Göktürks. Uygurs are most ancient Turk tribe. Khazars mentioned in 450s contemporary to Göktürks.
These people think wrong.
Military and political power is importance of Göktürk Khaganate but they didn’t influence other kingdoms as much a Khazars and Uyghurs. It can’t be told a Russian and Caucasus history without mentioning Khazars. Uyghurs also influenced Mongol Khaganate and its successors.
Let me start by saying that I am not a Turkish, and Pan-Turkism has nothing to do with me.
If you can read Chinese sources and historical records, you will understand the influence of the Gokturks and other medieval Turkic peoples in China and Inner Asia.
Both Uyghurs and Khazars originated from the Tiele tribes, while the Tieles and Gokturks were both Turkic and ruled by the Rourans. After the disintegration of the Rouran Khanate, the Gokturks were the first to conquer Central Asia. The Khazars established their own regime just after the collapse of the Western Turkic Khanate, while the Toquz Oghuz, later Uyghurs, became a major Turkic force in the East just after the overthrow of the Second Turkic Khaganate.
That is basically all. There were the Tieles and Gokturks that coexist, not who is earlier or who is later. And the Tiele peoples like Khazars and Uyghurs were subordinate or rebel to Gokturks, as part of the khanates, naturally influenced by them.
There is no problem as long as the Gokturks (or named Tieles or any other suitable else) represent the primitive Turkic culture of the early Middle Ages and the Turkic culture of the East. Just like the Turks represent the Turkic Muslims of the Middle East south of the Caucasus, the Tatars represent the Mongol-influenced Central Asian Turkic peoples, and the Cumans represent the Turkic peoples who were influenced by European culture north of the Caucasus.
It can’t be told Sassanid and Tang history without mentioning Gokturks.
There are the Tatars to represent the Turkic peoples in Mongol khaganates in the game specifically.
2 Likes
They syill lasted 200 years, built a massive empire and had a huge influence over other turkic peoples. Imo Seljuks are a bad idea for another Turkish civ as well, sonce they werent just more shortlasting compared to Gokturks but they also are represented by the current Turks. Rather keep Turks representing the Oghuz branch of the Turks.
The comparison with Greek or Romans is also terrible since they werent just more shortlived but they werent powerful nor influential in the time frame of the game and they are also extremely closely related to Byz. Rn the best thing you have to represent them is the Tatars who were very very diferent and imo dont represent Gokturks at all since Tatars are based on the western, muslim, Mongol-influenced Turkic empires of the late middle ages. Also Gokturks could represent Uyghurs.
1 Like
Being Pan-Turkist isn’t a problem. In Turkey, Göktürks is favorite Turk Kaganate of People because all Turkish history is told as if it consisted of only Ottomans, Seljuks, Göktürks and Huns. I simply pointed out that this was wrong, there are many Turk Khaganates that are as important as the Göktürks such as Bulgars, Avars, Northern Wei, Pechenegs etc…
I am talking about cultural, military technique, state organization influence, Göktürk Khaganate was once a great military power but it didn’t influence people in terms of culture and in other parts. Khazars firstly mentioned in 450 (it was menitoned in Armenian sources I don’t remember) comptempory to Göktürks, then they became Vassal state of Western Göktürk Khaganate but they existed at the same time of Göktürks. Göktürks also mentioned in Persian sources in 420. Göktürks was strong tribe before they established their khaganate in 552.
Only Uyghurs were descendant of Tiele tribes. Therefore, it is most ancient among all Turk tribes.
Tiele tribes is older than Göktürks. I remember Tiele tribe is mentioned in 3rd century BC which is 7 century prior to Göktürks mentioning 420.
I agree with this sentence.
In game, Tatars (they were ethnically Kipchak) represent Golden Horde and Timurid Dynasty. Yes, Tatars is influenced by Mongols but they weren’t Central Asian. There was strong, wealthy and highly populated Central Asian Turk “Tatar” tribe but Tatar name changed meaning in 12th century. After 12th century, Tatar name is used to describe Mongols, Golden Horde was defined as Tatar for same reason, Dynasty of Golden Horde was Mongol, Its people was Kipchak.
Khazars effected Rus state organization and demography. There is tons of Turk word in Russian language coming from Khazars. Majority of Russian Jews are descendant of Khazars. Göktürks lacks these kind of influence. Military strength is only one buttress of Empire.
The tribes that were to comprise the Khazars were part of the Tiele Confederation. In other words, they originated from the Tieles. Also, the ruling family of Khazars may have hailed from the Ashina clan.
Not true. “Chile” and “Gaoche”, may the formers of Tieles, were mentioned in the 4th Century “AD” firstly by Chinese. Then, the term “Tiele” itself appeared in the 6th Century AD. On the other hand, The Göktürk rulers originated from the Ashina clan, who were first attested to in 439 AD. Basically, The Göktürks and Tieles are believed that belong to the same era. According to some researchers, even the Ashina clan were also regarded descended from the Tieles, and there seems never been said that the Uyghurs are the oldest Turkic people.
That is how the game defines and works.
The Göktürks in the Tang Empire changed the way the army fought, and even destroyed the peace of the empire. This is exactly the kind of influence that is suitable for showing through the game, and the cultural aspect you are talking about is just not so suitable. If you want to reflect the Turkic influence in Russian culture, it is more accurate to start with changing the existing Slavs.
1 Like
Speaking of the Sogdians, I think they should be introduced as a new civ too, cause I don’t think they have been represented by any of the existing civs, not even the Persians. Their existence goes back to the antiquity but they lasted well into the Middle Ages. They were a sedentary people and built the first cities in Central Asia. They played a pivotal role in trade and in the spread of ideologies and religions on the Silk Road, introducing Manichaeism and Nestorianism to China.
Speaking about their UU, I’m not really sure about it. In Total War Attila they were given a unit called Sogdian Camel Raider, but through my researches I found that they were actually known for their heavy infantry.
And since their culture was heavily focused on trade, they should also have access to a unique upgrade of the trading cart with higher HP and higher pierce armor.