Celts need to be an ancient era civilization.

[FORRREST]

That's it.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Celts should not be a single civilization

 

[FORRREST]

Celts should not be a single civilization

why?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Too heterogeneous a group. Better off split into groups like Gauls and Picts and Galatians

 

[Patine]

Too heterogeneous a group. Better off split into groups like Gauls and Picts and Galatians

And, Brythons, of course.

 

[Uberfrog]

Yes they are heterogeneous (but so are the Greeks and Maya), but I don’t think there is value in having multiple Celtic civs in antiquity when there are numerous other contenders.

One antiquity civ, preferably the Gauls, is practically a certainty I think.

 

[Patine]

Yes they are heterogeneous (but so are the Greeks and Maya), but I don’t think there is value in having multiple Celtic civs in antiquity when there are numerous other contenders.

One antiquity civ, preferably the Gauls, is practically a certainty I think.

I'd prefer the Brythons, myself, but you have a valid point.

 

[Uberfrog]

I'd prefer the Brythons, myself, but you have a valid point.

Sentimentally I would too — I always used to rename my cities in Civ 4 to British settlements while playing as Boudicca. Especially now it looks likely that modern Britain has been snubbed from the base game .

I also think Ireland is long due some representation, but that’s more an Exploration era pick with a more fleshed out religion mechanic I think.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes they are heterogeneous (but so are the Greeks and Maya), but I don’t think there is value in having multiple Celtic civs in antiquity when there are numerous other contenders.

One antiquity civ, preferably the Gauls, is practically a certainty I think.

I'd actually argue that having one homogeneous blob of Celts might be appropriate for this game only because they could form multiple pathways to other civs. Of course, you could also pull that off with the Gauls just as well, and those would be the ideal pick if we are choosing one group.

I also think Ireland is long due some representation, but that’s more an Exploration era pick with a more fleshed out religion mechanic I think.

Yes, for Ireland, but in the Exploration Age.

 

[Zaarin]

Yes they are heterogeneous (but so are the Greeks and Maya)

The Maya are comparable depending on their depiction, but the Greeks are not. The Greeks were a single ethnos but many polities; the Celts were many ethnoi.

And, Brythons, of course.

The problem with the Britons is that, compared to the Gauls or even the Celtiberians, the Britons were incredibly backwards--until they were Romanized, at which point they were more Roman than the Romans themselves. Given the paucity of material on Pre-Roman Britons, I have a hard time imagining a Briton civ that didn't have Thermae and Mithraeum unique builds forming a Castrum quarter--and if we're having a second Roman civ, I'd prefer Etruria.

I do agree, though, that we don't need multiple Antiquity Celtic civs. I'd go with a Gaulish civ with Britons and Celtiberians as Independent Peoples. Ireland with religious/cultural bonuses is a prime candidate for Exploration. (Ireland could be squeezed into Antiquity, but both chronologically and thematically it fits better in Exploration.)

 

[FORRREST]

Too heterogeneous a group. Better off split into groups like Gauls and Picts and Galatians

Maybe, but then you've got several different similar civs. Before Romans and Germans, Celts were all over Europe. Alexander referred to them as "haughty".

 

[FORRREST]

The Maya are comparable depending on their depiction, but the Greeks are not. The Greeks were a single ethnos but many polities; the Celts were many ethnoi.


The problem with the Britons is that, compared to the Gauls or even the Celtiberians, the Britons were incredibly backwards--until they were Romanized, at which point they were more Roman than the Romans themselves. Given the paucity of material on Pre-Roman Britons, I have a hard time imagining a Briton civ that didn't have Thermae and Mithraeum unique builds forming a Castrum quarter--and if we're having a second Roman civ, I'd prefer Etruria.

I do agree, though, that we don't need multiple Antiquity Celtic civs. I'd go with a Gaulish civ with Britons and Celtiberians as Independent Peoples. Ireland with religious/cultural bonuses is a prime candidate for Exploration. (Ireland could be squeezed into Antiquity, but both chronologically and thematically it fits better in Exploration.)

Ireland could have a unique settler that can found two settlements each.

 

[Zaarin]

Ireland could have a unique settler that can found two settlements each.

Given how small it is, expansive isn't the route I'd take Ireland. I'd focus instead on its monasteries and missionaries.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The problem with the Britons is that, compared to the Gauls or even the Celtiberians, the Britons were incredibly backwards--until they were Romanized, at which point they were more Roman than the Romans themselves. Given the paucity of material on Pre-Roman Britons, I have a hard time imagining a Briton civ that didn't have Thermae and Mithraeum unique builds forming a Castrum quarter--and if we're having a second Roman civ, I'd prefer Etruria.

I do agree, though, that we don't need multiple Antiquity Celtic civs. I'd go with a Gaulish civ with Britons and Celtiberians as Independent Peoples. Ireland with religious/cultural bonuses is a prime candidate for Exploration. (Ireland could be squeezed into Antiquity, but both chronologically and thematically it fits better in Exploration.)

I feel like the biggest draw to the Britons is Boudicca herself, which means she could still show up as a leader herself without a Briton/Iceni civ.

 

[Zaarin]

I feel like the biggest draw to the Britons is Boudicca herself, which means she could still show up as a leader herself without a Briton/Iceni civ.

I have no confidence she won't show up in tartan-themed lingerie for a third time. Somehow the artists read "long red hair and colored cloak" and get "dreads, painted blue, a small piece of tartan cloth, and lots of cleavage."

 

[Evie]

Given that fans have a deathgrip on thinking of antiquity civs in terms of "one civ able to evolve a half dozen civs in the next era is great! We need ancient civs with lots of paths!" despite the Devs clearly communicating both in so many words and in their actions that they want to keep the number of unlocks for each civ limited, I don't think there's much fruitful discussion to be had on how to subdivide - or not - Antiquity culture blobs. Fans will keep imagining and yearning for kinda blobby civilizations with many paths ; the devs, if they stick to their stated plans and actions, are more likely to subdivide them.

I'd say if the Devs stay on their current paths, we should expect probably more than one Celt civ. But who knows if they will.

 

[Phrozen]

I really wish the devs decided on four ages rather than three. I would of gone with

Bronze Age
Classical Age (goes until early middle ages)
Imperial Age (middle ages to early industrial revolution)
Modern Age

 

[Zaarin]

I really wish the devs decided on four ages rather than three. I would of gone with

Bronze Age
Classical Age (goes until early middle ages)
Imperial Age (middle ages to early industrial revolution)
Modern Age

Even as a Bronze Age nerd, I think three ages is the correct decision from a gameplay perspective.

 

[FORRREST]

Given how small it is, expansive isn't the route I'd take Ireland. I'd focus instead on its monasteries and missionaries

Even as a Bronze Age nerd, I think three ages is the correct decision from a gameplay perspective.

Nations rose and fell thousands of years before people started writing "the classics".

 

[Citron]

He is talking about it in a gameplay perspective