Celts in Civ VI

[MantaRevan]

What do you mean? The Vikings were "Vikings" in three Civ games (II, III and IV).

I mean recently. Yes, they did this in the past, I'm just wondering why they are now routing the viking civ into its modern day countries, other than the fact that they have a large portion of the current market.

 

[MantaRevan]

I'm on the autistic spectrum which gives me a near-eidetic memory, and history, anthropology, and especially linguistics are among my interests. More specifically on this topic, I once had a very keen but sadly romanticized interest in the Celts as a teenager; I grew out of the romanticism but retained the interest (albeit largely shifted away from Ireland and towards the Continental Celts)--but consequently became rather sensitive to the romanticized stereotyped crap that the previous games' representations of the Celts embody. I also have a minor in history (I was a literature major), but I've probably learned more researching on my own, especially for my sundry novels and world building exercises.

Very interesting. Not to derail the previous conversation, but I got diagnosed with Asperger's back when it was still in the DSM, though I doubt the accuracy of the diagnosis. It didn't give me any cool superpowers though, unless you count a bizarre and persistent interest in manta rays.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Thumbs up for novel-writing, world-building and interests in history and philology. As for me, I'm just a normal guy with a Master's Degree in History.

Now to get my post at least marginally back on topic, what do we all think about the UU? In previous versions of Civ, it's usually been pretty bland, whether as a "Gallic" or "Pictish" Warrior that replaces the swordsman or spearman. Pretty redundant names if you ask me.

At least some games try to throw in a little flavor with terms like "Oathsworn" or "Chosen," generic though they may be. Europa Barbarorum tried to give their units actual Gallic names, albeit I'm no expert in Celtic languages, so I doubt I could verify their authenticity.

I think the preferred choice would have to be either a heavy cavalry unit for the Gauls, of the sort that the Romans and Carthaginians used as auxiliaries, or perhaps a chariot unit for a Celtic Civ based on the Britons.

Alternatively, they could try to add some more flavor to their infantry unit, by perhaps giving stronger emphasis to their proclivities for behavior that their opponents would find... unsettling?

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

Geeze, y'all are all adults and stuff. I'm not even college educated yet.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Geeze, y'all are all adults and stuff. I'm not even college educated yet.

I could make the case, having been exposed to college for a number of years, that 'college' and 'educated' do not necessarily have anything to do with each other. As the old saying goes:
BS - everybody knows what that means
MS - means 'More of the Same'
PhD - means 'Piled Higher and Deeper'

Meanwhile, back to the Point of the Thread:

Now to get my post at least marginally back on topic, what do we all think about the UU?

I think the preferred choice would have to be either a heavy cavalry unit for the Gauls, of the sort that the Romans and Carthaginians used as auxiliaries, or perhaps a chariot unit for a Celtic Civ based on the Britons.

Alternatively, they could try to add some more flavor to their infantry unit, by perhaps giving stronger emphasis to their proclivities for behavior that their opponents would find... unsettling?

NOTE: All the actual numbers given below are Pure SWAG, and probably need to be Play-Tested for Balance.

My suggestion for the unit could be "Furor Gallicae" - All Celtic/Gallic Melee and Mounted Units have +5 strength when attacking.
OR
Some kind of 'Gallic Swordsman' who gets +X points when attacking AND is faster moving through Forest and Hills

For other Celtic/Gallic attributes - here are some Off the Top of My Head suggestions:

1. Based on the Ritual Sacrifice of leaders which seems to have been part of the culture:
Can 'sacrifice' or delete any Great Person for Benefits. Benefits would vary with the Person, for example:
Great General - heals every unit within X tiles (no more than 1 - 2)
Great Scientist - gains Eureka-type Bonus for next 2 Techs researched.
Great Artist (any kind) - gain 1 Amenity, + X Culture for the next X Turns
- you get the idea: temporary Boost from Ritual Sacrifice.

2. Recent research indicates that the placement of Gallic settlements and Oppidae may have been astronomically/geometrically determined, therefore:
Oppidum - Gallic/Celtic Improvement, replaces Forts. Provides Defense in the tile equal to 1/2 an Ancient Wall, 50 Hit Points, AND +1 Science. Must not be built adjacent to a city, District, or other Oppidum.

3. While most of what we think we know about the original Celtic religion is filtered through their Roman enemies, we can be pretty certain that the 'Druids' were concerned with both religion and healing, transmission of culture, and Morale of the warriors.
Possible Mechanic:
Gallic/Celtic Apostle replacement: Druid. In addition to the normal Apostle capabilities, a Druid can be expended on any Forest tile not otherwise improved within Gallic/Celtic territory to build a Sacred Grove. Such an Improvement provides +2 Religion, +2 Culture,+1 Science in the tile, and +5 Combat Strength to any Gallic melee or mounted unit in combat within X Tiles. Sacred Groves cannot be built next to a city or District tile, or another Sacred Grove.

As said, these are Off the Cuff, but I think they show the possibilities: the Celtic/Gallic Civ should have 'extra' capabilities in At Least the military and religious arenas, and probably in Culture and Science (slight) as well. I'm not so sure how to integrate the Irish Monastic tradition into it, although that could be an extension of the Druid's Sacred Grove into Medieval and later Eras. Lots of possibilities...

 

[Zaarin]

The UU could be the gaesum, which refers to a kind of spear, but the druid might actually be a better one--getting past the stereotypes, druides were not only priests but also warriors akin to Medieval knights (albeit not mounted). The Celts also effectively wielded a variety of chariots, but that might be too similar to Egypt. As for abilities, the Celts were the premier iron workers in Europe; the Romans learned their iron working techniques from the Gauls and Celtiberians. I would propose bonuses related to iron. I would propose that the oppidum would be a much better UI than a nemeton; yes, sacred groves were a thing (as were sacred springs) but I think the oppidum was overall more significant to Gaulish culture.

1. Based on the Ritual Sacrifice of leaders which seems to have been part of the culture:
Can 'sacrifice' or delete any Great Person for Benefits. Benefits would vary with the Person, for example:
Great General - heals every unit within X tiles (no more than 1 - 2)
Great Scientist - gains Eureka-type Bonus for next 2 Techs researched.
Great Artist (any kind) - gain 1 Amenity, + X Culture for the next X Turns
- you get the idea: temporary Boost from Ritual Sacrifice.

For the Phoenicians or Carthaginians, sure. But archaeological evidence strongly suggests that Celtic "human sacrifice" was either Roman propaganda or at the very least grossly exaggerated--something that happened once in a century at most. NB that most scholars agree that bog bodies represent executed criminals, not ritual sacrifices.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The UU could be the gaesum, which refers to a kind of spear, but the druid might actually be a better one--getting past the stereotypes, druides were not only priests but also warriors akin to Medieval knights (albeit not mounted). The Celts also effectively wielded a variety of chariots, but that might be too similar to Egypt. As for abilities, the Celts were the premier iron workers in Europe; the Romans learned their iron working techniques from the Gauls and Celtiberians. I would propose bonuses related to iron. I would propose that the oppidum would be a much better UI than a nemeton; yes, sacred groves were a thing (as were sacred springs) but I think the oppidum was overall more significant to Gaulish culture.

Especially since there is now some argument for the Oppidum being at once a religious, geometrical/astronomical and defensive work, it would be a real shame not to use it in some way.

As for Iron Working Bonuses, I can think of a few:
Automatic Eureka for Ironworking, or,
a Strength Bonus to any unit requiring Iron (which would tie in neatly with "Furor Gallic" or any other military bonus for the Celts), or,
after researching Iron Working, the Celts automatically get an Iron resource if they don't already have one in their territory.

For the Phoenicians or Carthaginians, sure. But archaeological evidence strongly suggests that Celtic "human sacrifice" was either Roman propaganda or at the very least grossly exaggerated--something that happened once in a century at most. NB that most scholars agree that bog bodies represent executed criminals, not ritual sacrifices.

Ah, thank you - it's been a couple of decades since I was looking into the archeology of Northern Europe with any intensity, and the 'ritual sacrifice' thesis was en vogue then.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd propose something like this:

Celtic Ironcraft: All sources of iron provide +1 , +1 , and +1

...or something along those lines. Iron wasn't just used to make weapons after all, and iron was a major link in the Gaulish trade network--and prestige goods were the foundation of Gaulish social status, much like later Germanic ring-lords. If Scythia can have a start bias for horses, the Gauls/Celts could have one for iron.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I'd actually love to see them use some sort of mechanism to show how the different tribal confederations functioned.

For example, the Aedui and Arverni were very different in their socio-political organization.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'd propose something like this:

Celtic Ironcraft: All sources of iron provide +1 , +1 , and +1

...or something along those lines. Iron wasn't just used to make weapons after all, and iron was a major link in the Gaulish trade network--and prestige goods were the foundation of Gaulish social status, much like later Germanic ring-lords. If Scythia can have a start bias for horses, the Gauls/Celts could have one for iron.

Then the only change I'd suggest would be an 'Amenity' bonus from Iron for the Celts, reflecting the central nature of iron goods in all aspects of daily life.

I'd actually love to see them use some sort of mechanism to show how the different tribal confederations functioned.

For example, the Aedui and Arverni were very different in their socio-political organization.

To take a lesson from the Civ V Modders, in several of the Modded Civs (Switzerland, Olmecs for instance) they tried to model 'confederacies' similar to the Tribal Confederacy of the Celts. One possibility from the Olmec Mod, would be that each city founded starts as a Puppet, but, taking a page from Civ VI, each Puppet has a specialized set of attributes or advantages based on what Celtic group they represent. The exact type would be randomized so you don't 'beeline' found cities to get the one you want, and on Declaration of War against the Celts all cities might, for the duration of the war, stop being puppets long enough put their units under unified control (and if the Celts declare war, they might do this IF you have a Great General available only - Vercingetorix Unifying the Tribes!).
As Puppets, you couldn't specify what they built, but the builds would be 'specialized' in accordance with the Special Attributes of that tribal group. Take a heck of a lot of work to get each group ironed out (and a lot of research!) but the result could be a single Civ that actually starts to represent the wide range of the Celtic realm.

 

[Zaarin]

To take a lesson from the Civ V Modders, in several of the Modded Civs (Switzerland, Olmecs for instance) they tried to model 'confederacies' similar to the Tribal Confederacy of the Celts. One possibility from the Olmec Mod, would be that each city founded starts as a Puppet, but, taking a page from Civ VI, each Puppet has a specialized set of attributes or advantages based on what Celtic group they represent. The exact type would be randomized so you don't 'beeline' found cities to get the one you want, and on Declaration of War against the Celts all cities might, for the duration of the war, stop being puppets long enough put their units under unified control (and if the Celts declare war, they might do this IF you have a Great General available only - Vercingetorix Unifying the Tribes!).
As Puppets, you couldn't specify what they built, but the builds would be 'specialized' in accordance with the Special Attributes of that tribal group. Take a heck of a lot of work to get each group ironed out (and a lot of research!) but the result could be a single Civ that actually starts to represent the wide range of the Celtic realm.

That's a really cool idea, but it's also starting to sound like grand strategy again. Multiple leaders would be a better solution (viz., Greece), but I don't really think the Celts merit multiple leaders. Still...

I'd actually love to see them use some sort of mechanism to show how the different tribal confederations functioned.

For example, the Aedui and Arverni were very different in their socio-political organization.

That's actually an interesting idea for an expansion. It would be interesting to have a mechanic to represent civilizations that were culturally and linguistically unified and politically intertwined without acting as a monolithic whole, confederations like the Gauls, Iroquois, Cherokee, Creek, Mitanni, Holy Roman Empire, Medieval Ireland, etc.


On the topic of the Celts, I have a great idea for the ruler of a hypothetical Scottish civ: Mac Bethad mac Findlaích! His lines when declaring war: "Stars, hide your fires! Let not light see my black and deep desires!"

 

[The Kingmaker]

Macbeth would be hilarious, I have to say. Although my heart yearns to see my ancestor Robert the Bruce, I've got to admit, hearing "is this a dagger which I see before me?" right before a DoW would be pretty cool.

Never mind that the real Macbeth is nothing like Shakespeare's version.

It would also be fun to see him hefting an Uzi in the modern era like the Macbeth from Disney's Gargoyles.

 

[Zaarin]

I could have died happy had Elizabeth only spoken in lines from Shakespeare in Civ5. (I think she did that in an earlier version--Civ3 maybe. I recall her saying "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" when declining trade deals.) All in all, Civ dialogue could use more literary allusions...

 

[The Kingmaker]

Going back to Vercingetorix, I expect his agenda might be entitled something like "Gallic Wars." Perhaps he doesn't like civs who settle on his borders? He respects defensive or retaliatory military action but not military expansionism?

He'd be a good friend if you give him space and don't pick fights with your neighbors? Seems like that might be similar to some existing agendas.

 

[Liufeng]

As for me, I'm just a normal guy with a Master's Degree in History.

Welcome to the club : just a master's degree normal guy here, specialized in late medieval-early modern history (my "mémoire", or final work, don't know what's the equivalent in English, is about portuguese-burgondian duchy diplomatic relations What's yours, just out of curiosity ?

Multiple leaders would be a better solution (viz., Greece), but I don't really think the Celts merit multiple leaders. Still...

Well, at least, it is a way to represent more "variation" into the Celts civ. Of course, I would FAR prefer the "Viking" solution I explained earlier, but I don't see Firaxis doing it at all. At least, I expect to not see Boudicca, since they seem to really avoid Civ V rulers for now. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they brought back Brennus. All in all, I'm not fond on any Celt civ at all for now, since I believe Europe is just, in priority, missing Netherlands and Portugal and maybe an eastern Europe civ. The rest (including Celts) may come up later, after filling a little bit of the rest of the world.

 

[The Kingmaker]

In English, we call that a "Master's Thesis." Mine was about how elite women were instrumental in the promulgation of Christianity in early Anglo-Saxon England.

 

[The Kingmaker]

In my experience it's been the reverse, with the longer paper being the doctoral dissertation.

As for the Celts as a religious civ, I like including a Druidic component to the civ, but I don't think that should be their central focus. They should be balanced between religion, military and one other component. Either industry for iron working or culture for their rich tradition of epic poetry and bardic songs.

 

[Horizons]

I think the marketing department had a much bigger stake in deciding what civs/leaders to include in Civ6. Catherine de Medici for France? Over Napoleon or King Louis? You can't be serious ...

As Americans, Firaxis probably think a Queen of England is enough for 'Britain' and they probably don't even know who the Celts are or could care less.

But I just had to laugh when they put Australia in, as represented by a white (British) settler. I can't think of any other reason for such a bizarre choice, than that they want to increase sales of Civ6 in Australia.

They've also totally given up trying to balance the various bonuses, and some of them are just downright weird, like Kongo, where mud huts in jungles apparently equal enormous amounts of food and gold and culture. Ah, and no Zulus.

 

[Zaarin]

Well, at least, it is a way to represent more "variation" into the Celts civ. Of course, I would FAR prefer the "Viking" solution I explained earlier, but I don't see Firaxis doing it at all. At least, I expect to not see Boudicca, since they seem to really avoid Civ V rulers for now. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they brought back Brennus. All in all, I'm not fond on any Celt civ at all for now, since I believe Europe is just, in priority, missing Netherlands and Portugal and maybe an eastern Europe civ. The rest (including Celts) may come up later, after filling a little bit of the rest of the world.

I don't want the Celts right away--I want to see some of the rest of the world filled out first. But I most certainly do want them.

Or dissertation, depending on the size. Thesis, implies the longer document and alludes to a full blown PhD Thesis.

But back to the topic: previous Civs have had religious bonuses for the Celts. Is that fair? Where they more religious (did religion play a bigger part in their personal/social lives) than for other peoples in antiquity?

Eh...I think you can make an argument either way. The Celts were certainly dominated by an aristocratic priest class (the druides) and prophet-poets (the vates) with an array of interesting rituals like the mistletoe ceremony, but honestly I think the appeal is more to Neopaganism than to anything inherent to the Celts. It's certainly hard to call what they had a "religion" in the modern sense of the word; they had predominantly local deities with few pan-Celtic gods, and most of those were less important than the local ones. I wouldn't object to some small faith bonus--help them get an early pantheon--but I'd associate the Iron Age Celts with craftsmanship, reckless raid-based warfare, and fluid social structure based on wealth and accomplishments rather than pedigree. If you want a religious Celtic civ, Medieval Ireland with its monastic traditions and illuminated manuscripts is the civ you want--but I'm quite content with the Armagh city-state.

rich tradition of epic poetry and bardic songs.

Unfortunately in the case of the Gauls, we have to take their word for it. The poetry of the vates was oral, like Nordic skalds or Saxon scops (thank heavens for the poet--probably a monk--who wrote down Beowulf--on which note, we really need a way to include some great works of writing by anonymous authors, like Beowulf, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Le chanson de Roland, El Poema de mio Cid, The Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.--and why is Snorri Sturluson not a Great Writer?). Bardic epic poetry is more of a Welsh thing (we have the Welsh to thank for Arthur, after all, not to mention the Mabinogion and other such works) and to some extent Irish (albeit mostly copied down and to some extent Christianized by the aforementioned Irish monks rather than by bards directly).

 

[The Kingmaker]

Agreed on all counts.

I'd say they have the opportunity here to do one of three things:

1) a really good, detailed civ based on one particular Celtic group (whether Gauls, Britons, Irish, Scots, etc.)

2) a passable conglomerate civ with two leaders reflecting different groups (presumably Gauls and Britons). Not my first choice, but acceptable.

3) a terrible hodgepodge conglomerate civ that doesn't do justice to any of the Celtic nations (cf. Welsh Boudicca)