Celts

[JLE3]

Why is it that the Celts always get stiffed? They were the dominant culture in ancient Europe, and their influence persists to this day.

 

[leif erikson]

The Celts were in Civ2 and were added by expansion pack in Civ3, Civ4, and Civ5.

 

[Xen]

Because "the Celts" were never a unified people. "Celtic" is a HUGE umbrella term the encompassed peopled wildly more different and geographically removed then the modern Germanic cultures (English, German, Norwegian, etc) or ROmance (Italian, Portugese, Romanian, etc) are from each other today, and it still has a reputation as being something of a 'trash bin" for cultural identification as the place you put pre Roman and pre German cultures in Europe who dont have an obvious affiliation elsewhere, but are still obviously Indo-European.

 

[Dragonflow]

Why is it that the Celts always get stiffed? They were the dominant culture in ancient Europe, and their influence persists to this day.

Celts, Vikings, Byzantines and Koreans are the most typical examples expansion pack civs in the entire series.
They are never in the vanilla game but are always in the first expansion.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

Celts is an important cultural identity around here, they represent proximity to nature and opposition to centralized power, along with a rich culture of crafts among other things. They are my fav and also why I like not having to play with a big capital hahaha.

 

[Krajzen]

Because "the Celts" were never a unified people. "Celtic" is a HUGE umbrella term the encompassed peopled wildly more different and geographically removed then the modern Germanic cultures (English, German, Norwegian, etc) or ROmance (Italian, Portugese, Romanian, etc) are from each other today, and it still has a reputation as being something of a 'trash bin" for cultural identification as the place you put pre Roman and pre German cultures in Europe who dont have an obvious affiliation elsewhere, but are still obviously Indo-European.

This.
This is also why I'd be fine with no 'Celts' ever in civ6 (expansions and dlcs included), that word has barely any meaning now.
If anything, 'Gauls' would be much better civ than horrible atrocity of "celtic civ" in civ5 which was the mix of completely disconnected ethnic groups (Iceni, Gauls, Picts, Wales, Scotland, Ireland - led by leader of idiotic revolt btw ), especially given the high advancement level of Gauls (definitely better than Iceni barbarians).
On the other hand, Gauls mostly cover the area of France and I'm interested with as diverse, exotic and spread civs as possible so...

Personally I'd be okay with total lack of 'Celts' in civ6 - and I definitely don't want to see Boudicca again. 'Oh yeah I won one battle and slaughtered many Roman civilians women and children, oh in the second major battle I am completely ruthlessly annihilated by the first competent Roman commander, my tribe gets destroyed'. Yet another overrated mythical noble savage that should be replaced with some competent leader/civ, same with Zulu.

 

[Dragonflow]

They'll probably to the name Celts because it's more famous but hopefully they'll base them on the continental Gauls. Kinda how they did it in Civ3&4.

 

[Stringer1313]

There are enough european civs as it is

 

[plasmacannon]

There are enough european civs as it is

True. They will need to bring back the Inca for World Map balance.
Probably the Maya also to fill the New World up some more.

 

[Metecury]

There are plenty of deserving civs that never made it to to the base game and unlike the celts were never added via DLC/expansion.








Italy for instance has never been in civ (though we have had Venice but is like putting in Saxony instead of Germany )

 

[Red Menace]

This.
This is also why I'd be fine with no 'Celts' ever in civ6 (expansions and dlcs included), that word has barely any meaning now.
If anything, 'Gauls' would be much better civ than horrible atrocity of "celtic civ" in civ5 which was the mix of completely disconnected ethnic groups (Iceni, Gauls, Picts, Wales, Scotland, Ireland - led by leader of idiotic revolt btw ), especially given the high advancement level of Gauls (definitely better than Iceni barbarians).
On the other hand, Gauls mostly cover the area of France and I'm interested with as diverse, exotic and spread civs as possible so...

Personally I'd be okay with total lack of 'Celts' in civ6 - and I definitely don't want to see Boudicca again. 'Oh yeah I won one battle and slaughtered many Roman civilians women and children, oh in the second major battle I am completely ruthlessly
annihilated by first competent Roman commander, my tribe gets destroyed'. Yet another overrated mythical noble savage that should be replaced with some competent leader/civ, same with Zulu.

I agree, Gauls would be much better than "Celts" and I do NOT want to see Boudicca again, who thinks "lets choose some one who led a failed rebellion against Rome Instead of the guy who sacked Rome" but there are plenty of good choices.

True. They will need to bring back the Inca for World Map balance.

also because there Awesome.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I think the best way to represent the celts would be to add another unique bonus to every civ as a kind of starting bonus that relates to how to civ or its precursors were in 4000 bc.

So many ancient civilisations are deserving involvement in the series but realistically will never be represented properly. So if we can show how they transitioned through time and eventually ended up forming Rome or England or the Inca, I think we would have a pretty cool solution, and it would feel very Civilization appropriate.

 

[Stringer1313]

I think the best way to represent the celts would be to add another unique bonus to every civ as a kind of starting bonus that relates to how to civ or its precursors were in 4000 bc.

So many ancient civilisations are deserving involvement in the series but realistically will never be represented properly. So if we can show how they transitioned through time and eventually ended up forming Rome or England or the Inca, I think we would have a pretty cool solution, and it would feel very Civilization appropriate.

Love this idea.

 

[Depravo]

This.
This is also why I'd be fine with no 'Celts' ever in civ6 (expansions and dlcs included), that word has barely any meaning now....

I quite liked playing AS the Celts in Civ 5, though I renamed all cities to continental sites associated with the Gauls. Their unique bennies had an interesting effect on play.

Playing AGAINST them was another story, because the Boudicca leader screen was about as true to history and geography as having Bismarck portrayed with women's breasts and rhino horns.

 

[Zaarin]

Celts is an important cultural identity around here, they represent proximity to nature and opposition to centralized power, along with a rich culture of crafts among other things. They are my fav and also why I like not having to play with a big capital hahaha.

Nice to know the Noble Savage stereotype is alive and well. Anyway, I hope the Celts do not return in Civ6; the Gauls would make better sense, be more specific, and be more interesting. Plus much more free of tree-hugging hippie stereotypes.

 

[Hannibal XIII]

I wish they got stiffed more. They were never unified, their biggest success was settling Galatia, and they got whupped by Julius Caesar. When they do get in, it's with a hodgepodge of Irish, Scottish and Welsh cities (or in Civ 4, continental Celtish cities) so as to appease the plastic paddies here in the US.

It's even worse than Gandhi, IMO.

 

[Scaramanga]

They're at least as important as the Scythians, so I agree they should be in. But of course they are geographically inconvenient.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

Nice to know the Noble Savage stereotype is alive and well. Anyway, I hope the Celts do not return in Civ6; the Gauls would make better sense, be more specific, and be more interesting. Plus much more free of tree-hugging hippie stereotypes.

explain?

 

[Xen]

explain?

"Celts" and "Celtic" has almost the same level of accuracy as saying "Native Americans", but more akin to saying "Germanic" or "Romance". At least the Gauls can be seen as more concrete cultual nexus to define a civ around, being more akin to saying "The Greeks" as group terms of different states/tribes unified by culture.

 

[Browd]

explain?

I suspect he is referring to the conflation of neo-druidry, or druidry (an 18th-20th Century creation), with the actual polytheistic religions attested to have been practiced by Iron Age Celts:

From Wikipedia: The core principle of Druidry is respect and veneration of nature, and as such it often involves participation in the environmental movement. Another prominent belief among modern Druids is the veneration of ancestors, particularly those who belonged to prehistoric societies.
Arising from the 18th century Romanticist movement in Britain, which glorified the ancient Celtic peoples of the Iron Age, the early Druids aimed to imitate the Iron Age priests who were also known as druids. At the time, little accurate information was known about these ancient priests, and the modern Druidic movement has no direct connection to them, despite contrary claims made by some modern Druids.