Changes to Existing Civ's?

[ferretbacon]

You know one civilization that needs a bit of a boost? The Celts.

The UA is just too conditional. There has to be a forest. The forest has to be adjacent. You only get to +2 faith if there are THREE forests. You only get anything if the forests are undeveloped. Four conditions have to be met for the UA to work optimally. And the trade off? You are almost guaranteed to found the first Pantheon, if you start adjacent to a forest. With start bias, sure, this ought to happen. But first pick on a Pantheon belief isn't that great.

Okay, sure, maybe you also get first pick on religious beliefs because you found the first religion. Still. Come on.

I think this could be improved without getting too overboard merely by allowing a Celtic player to improve the forest tiles and keep the faith. Does a deer camp really sap the faith from the forest? If I chose Goddess of the Hunt, how ironic is that?

Another solution would be to tack on some sort of addendum. For instance, why can't all their units get faith per kill? I suggest this because their UU, the Pictish Warrior, doesn't even get to keep this attribute. Why not get faith from forests, and then, when you start warfare, also get faith per kill, a la Aztec? And no, this wouldn't undermine the Aztec UA: faith per kill is hardly better than culture per kill. I'm just saying, if the idea of the Celts is to farm faith, why the restrictions? Let them farm.

Speaking of that Pictish Warrior... the poor thing eventually becomes an Anti-Tank Gun. How ignoble. And sad. I suppose if they turned into Musketmen, it would be a tad unfair, especially to France (the Pictish Great War Infantry would have the same foreign land bonus plus no cost to pillage). But still, it's an unfortunate upgrade path for such an offensive unit to turn into such a defensive one.

Ceilidh Hall is pretty decent really, except that it comes pretty late in the game.

I feel that the Celts suffer mostly because the developers were being cautious with how much faith they could get. In practice, they could use more faith with less restrictions - as of right now, they get too little faith because of too many restrictions.

If you're building a civilization defined by faith, let them at it. This is just fresh on my mind because I'm currently playing as them.

Generally, it just seems that when a civilization has a limited or conditional UA, it is offset by undeniably powerful UUs or a UB. I certainly wouldn't classify the Pictish Warrior as especially good compared to other UUs and the Ceilidh Hall is ho-hum, IMO.

Edit: I will say though, the Celts are pretty fun to play on Arborea with raging barbarians. But that's essentially optimal conditions for them. In a normal game, say on continents with raging barbarians off, they're lackluster.

And one more thing: Look at Ethiopia with their Stele. Let's be honest, everyone, including a Celt player, is going to build a monument in the early game for the culture boost. For the measly exchange rate of ~6 turns, an Ethiopian player gets the same faith boost as a Celtic city with three adjacent forests and he can do whatever he will with his forests and still keep that faith. I just think Firaxis was being too cautious with the new faith system when it came to the Celts, because it shows in their UA.

 

[Tyrvos]

I agree with ya. The pictish warrior has always been extremely good for me, because how durable they are in foreign land and cost effectiveness, but that's all I really get from them. By their current design, it seems like they want you to be aggressive at the start but then start walling up, turning your pictish into pikeman, and going for possibly a cultural victory with that UB. The faith for kills would at least allow for some more interesting play past early game.

 

[Stellarnight]

I always find it disappointing that in the intro of India, they speak about how India was a breeding ground for religions and then the UA has nothing to do with it. Anyway their UA is underpowered unfortunately and would benefit from a religious flavor added. Perhaps lowered faith cost for founding Pantheon/Religion? And when in excess happiness, add certain percent to GP generation?And when unhappy, negative modifiers for GP generation.

Also perhaps they can have a UA related to their importance on the World Trade System in the pre 18th century in terms of spreading religions and controlling the spice trade. Maybe extra benefits from trade routes and extra religious + Cultural pressure from trade route. This would reinforce Ghandi's bias towards peaceful play and maintaining trade instead of throwing nukes all over the place. Victory through Peace. The Truth Force (satyagraha) would prevail in the end

 

[iconocast]

they have a Forrest start preference, and get bonuses from Forrest. there is nothing at all wrong with there ua. infact there one of the more balanced civs imo ( and one of my favs)

there not meant to generate a monstrous amount of faith. they are meant to get a pantheon first, and barb hunt /warmonger with picts uu to get the first religion.

as for picts uu themselves they are a extremely powerful uu
can go toe to toe with anny unit up untill muskets, and even then when they are upgraded to pikes they can still stand there ground against muskets. the faith per kill dosent carry with upgrades, but the free pillaging and forgein lands combat bouns do. oh yeh and they get a ub that gives a huge amount of happyness, letting u go wide quite happly

 

[mitsho]

For Celts, I suggest expanding the bonus to Jungle and maybe letting them keep it when improved. I also agree that the Celts lack direction and distinction. All the Religion civs of G&K seem to suffer from the same problem: Byzantium doesn't get anything to help them get a religion, Ethiopia is a one trick pony (the UA and UU are not really good, but first to Religion is), Celts are meh as described above, Mayan are good at other things when going for Religion. Who am I missing?

But I doubt they will change them...