[CONCEPT] Celts led by Boudicca

[Jeppetto]

Not sure If this is fit better for Mod Suggestions or Game Ideas Forum. Given that I am uncertain about interest of Civ 6 mod community, I prefered this one, at least talking about If you'd like Celts in Civ 6 as Pagan anti-religion civ, like upside down Kongo. This is beyond my mod ability so just throwing in suggestion.

CELTS Unique Ability - Druidic Lore:
May not earn Great Prophets, found Religion or build Temples. Holy Sites recieve double adjacency from Mountains and standard adjacency from Woods and Districts. Unimproved Woods in cities with Holy Site with no Majority Religion yield Culture equal to Faith. Shrines recieve 1 Relic Slot. May choose two Pantheon Beliefs, but Pantheon Beliefs only work in cities with no Majority Religion.

CELTS Unique Unit - Druid:
Replaces Missionary. May only be purchased in city with no Majority Religion or Capital City. Has 2 Charges. May Spread Druidic Lore or Settle in Woods.

Spread Druidic Lore requires 1 Charge and converts Followers into Pagans in Celtic city.
* Requires adjacent or present City Center with at least 1 Follower
* If 1 Follower of 1 Religion: converts them to 1 Pagan
* If 2+ Followers of 1 Religion: converts 2 Followers to 2 Pagans
* If 2+ Religions: converts 1 Follower from 2 most dominant (or randomly chosen) Religions to 2 Pagans

Settle in Woods requires 2 Charges and permanently grants +1 Faith to present Unimproved Woods.

CELTS Unique Improvement - Ceilidh Hall:
Unlocks Builder Ability to construct Ceilidh Hall. Requires Games and Recreation.

Locks the plot to the city. One per city.
+2 Local Amenities
+1 Culture
+1 Culture per adjacent Woods

BOUDICCA Unique Ability - Iceni Warrior Queen:
Land melee class and anti-cavalry class units gain several benefits:
* May be purchased with Faith at 25% discount
* Combat kills grant Faith equal to Combat Strength of the defeated unit, half for Barbarians
* +10 Combat Strength against civilization with Majority Religion being Majority Religion in at least one Celtic city
* Pillaging Barbarian Encampment spawns Pictish Warrior prior to Medieval Era

BOUDICCA Unique Unit - Pictish Warrior:
May only be acquired through Barbarian Encampments. Inherits Combat Strength, Modifiers, Movement and Promotion Tree of Spearman.+5 Combat Strength in Woods of enemy territory. Pillaging always heals for 25 health and harvests 25 Faith.

 

[Zaarin]

1. For the love of God, no Boudicca.
2. Boudicca had absolutely nothing to do with the Picts, who may or may not have been Celts.
3. Celtic religion was very organized, not the tree-hugging New Age neo-pagan stereotype. The Celts were sophisticated, urbane, and well-educated, not at all the savage barbarians Roman propaganda painted them as.

I'd like to see the Celts (or more specifically the Gauls) included, but they should be focused on craftsmanship, wealth, and raid-based warfare.

 

[Jeppetto]

1. For the love of God, no Boudicca.
2. Boudicca had absolutely nothing to do with the Picts, who may or may not have been Celts.
3. Celtic religion was very organized, not the tree-hugging New Age neo-pagan stereotype. The Celts were sophisticated, urbane, and well-educated, not at all the savage barbarians Roman propaganda painted them as.

I'd like to see the Celts (or more specifically the Gauls) included, but they should be focused on craftsmanship, wealth, and raid-based warfare.

Yeah I read Gauls specifically had decendly made net of domestic trading which made me think it might be better to split them all. But I really liked concept of anti-religion gameplay. Any suggestion what civ might fit this pagan playstyle more?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

1. For the love of God, no Boudicca.
2. Boudicca had absolutely nothing to do with the Picts, who may or may not have been Celts.
3. Celtic religion was very organized, not the tree-hugging New Age neo-pagan stereotype. The Celts were sophisticated, urbane, and well-educated, not at all the savage barbarians Roman propaganda painted them as.

I'd like to see the Celts (or more specifically the Gauls) included, but they should be focused on craftsmanship, wealth, and raid-based warfare.

Everything He Said.

The Gallic Celts were the most advanced of the Celtic culture groups in Civ terms - had started building cities, had sophisticated cart/carriage technology, roads, organized religion and higher education (Druids studied for 10 years or more according to Roman commentators like Cicero and Strabo). They were very accomplished metal-workers, probably invented both the long iron sword and link mail armor, and even indications of astronomical measurements/surveys have been found in the placement of their Oppida. (which would make a much better Gallic Improvement than the Ceilidh Hall)

Also, there are several historical, Gallic-Specific Leaders available for such a Civ without invoking a Cross-Channel Iceni, Vercingetorix is the best known, but I've put in a word or two on occasion for Diviciacus, and Dumnorix of the Aedui or Boduognatus of the Nervii would be 'alternate' military leaders to Vercingetorix. Cartimandua is available as a potential Female Leader, but since she was Pro-Roman, it might be tricky to find a "Gallic" trait to assign to her. He once-husband Caracacus (or Caratacus) was supposedly a "slippery character" who might make a good candidate for a Devious Diplomatic leader.

Let's leave Boudicca to her historically-dubious statue by the Thames in London and out of Civ except as a specific leader of the Icenii, presuming that the game ever runs out of better candidates for included Civ's.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'm in accord here. Boudicca made sense in earlier versions of Civ which cared more about very strong historical cults of personality. She just barely eeked by against V's standards, and arguably would not have without the additional context built out by other blobby leaders like Harald Bluetooth and Kamehameha.

VI seems generally more concerned with properly representing peoples first, and then finding a culture hero who best personifies those peoples second. In that respect, Boudicca doesn't make much sense, at least within VI's design, because the Iceni just aren't the best, most influential option among comparables. We are much more likely to get a Gaulish or Gothic civ because they have a larger, longer cultural legacy.

Also, druids? Seems a bit new age hippy-ish, or alternatively Christo-centric. Nearly every major culture had some sort of religion spread by some sort of priest or missionary--not sure why druids are any more deserving of having a unique than any other "pagan" belief system.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm in accord here. Boudicca made sense in earlier versions of Civ which cared more about very strong historical cults of personality. She just barely eeked by against V's standards, and arguably would not have without the additional context built out by other blobby leaders like Harald Bluetooth and Kamehameha.

VI seems generally more concerned with properly representing peoples first, and then finding a culture hero who best personifies those peoples second. In that respect, Boudicca doesn't make much sense, at least within VI's design, because the Iceni just aren't the best, most influential option among comparables. We are much more likely to get a Gaulish or Gothic civ because they have a larger, longer cultural legacy.

Also, druids? Seems a bit new age hippy-ish, or alternatively Christo-centric. Nearly every major culture had some sort of religion spread by some sort of priest or missionary--not sure why druids are any more deserving of having a unique than any other "pagan" belief system.

The 19th century Romantic Movement "Druids", whose descendants wander around the outskirts of Stonehenge in bedsheet 'robes', have nothing at all in common with the descriptions of Druids from the Greeks and Romans who had some contact with them personally (like Cicero) or the Gallic civilization in general (Tacitus, Strabo, Pliny).
First, they weren't entirely religious. Cicero describes Diviciacus (whom he calls a Druid) as being able to talk knowledgeably about medicine, astronomy, diplomacy, 'natural philosophy' and divination. Caesar speaks of 'Druids' having both religious and diplomatic functions. On at least one occasion two Gallic tribes who were arrayed against each other on a battlefield ready to fight were turned away by a delegation of Druids, so they had a powerful diplomatic/peace-keeping function within the Gallic realm, and Tacitus describes "Druids" cursing the Roman troops from the front of a Celtic Army (in Britain) before a battle, so they were not entirely 'pacific'.

I think a case could be made for the Druid as a Special Unit for the Gauls with a combination of features from Envoys, one or more of the Religious Units like Apostles or Gurus, and even a Science Booster somewhere between a Specialist and a Great Scientist for Gallic cities.
One possibility would be a Druid Civilian Unit that is 'bought' with Faith and can be Expended to build a Library (Science Boost) or Shrine (Religious Boost) in a city or sent out as an Envoy to a City State (unfortunately, the only use for Envoys as present).
Point being, they were apparently far more than simply another Religious Unit, and having a combination of Religious, Diplomatic, and Science (and even possibly Military, if Tacitus is to be believed - he says the Roman troops were terrified of them) 'effects' from one source would certainly be Something Different in the game, and, as far as I know, Unique in all those effects to the Gallic 'Civ'.

 

[Zaarin]

Any suggestion what civ might fit this pagan playstyle more?

The Huns? Honestly religion has just been central to virtually every civilization up until the 18th century, even if it varied in how organized it was. (And don't mistake polytheistic religions for being unorganized: Egyptian, Gaulish, and Hindu polytheism were all highly organized--and the latter still is.) You might get by arguing that Eastern religions are more...decentralized, but NB the Buddhism and Confucianism took turns persecuting each other in China and Korea (in fact, Nestorian Christianity got pretty effectively purged from China in the 4th century because the Jin government mistook it for Buddhism). If you really want an "anti-religious" civ, then, the best candidates are probably Revolutionary France, the Soviet Union, the PRC, and perhaps the USA if you pick the right president (none have been particularly religious).

First, they weren't entirely religious. Cicero describes Diviciacus (whom he calls a Druid) as being able to talk knowledgeably about medicine, astronomy, diplomacy, 'natural philosophy' and divination.

I'd argue that in historical context all of those things could be construed as religious. Our earliest astronomical knowledge comes from astrologers in Mesopotamia and Egypt, after all. But yeah, druids were definitely more than just priests, just like the vates were more than just seers or poets.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'd argue that in historical context all of those things could be construed as religious. Our earliest astronomical knowledge comes from astrologers in Mesopotamia and Egypt, after all. But yeah, druids were definitely more than just priests, just like the vates were more than just seers or poets.

Since people have worshipped things as different as supplies dropped by parachute to coyote practical jokers to parasitic pants (mistletoe), you'd be hard put to find something that can't be construed as religious.

For the game, though, the point, I think, is that the 'Druids' had an impact on their own Civ that might have been rooted in religion, but whose final results or effects were not: they were diplomatic, scientific, cultural (the Romans also describe Druids as 'Bards' - singers or poets) which gives us the potential of making them useful in various ways for a Gallic Civ.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

For the game, though, the point, I think, is that the 'Druids' had an impact on their own Civ that might have been rooted in religion, but whose final results or effects were not: they were diplomatic, scientific, cultural (the Romans also describe Druids as 'Bards' - singers or poets) which gives us the potential of making them useful in various ways for a Gallic Civ.

Sounds like a unique early rock band replacement.

Also I'd have no problem with Boudica as a leader for the Iceni. But I'd rather have Gaul lead by Vercingetorix or Brennus first.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Sounds like a unique early rock band replacement.

Also I'd have no problem with Boudica as a leader for the Iceni. But I'd rather have Gaul lead by Vercingetorix or Brennus first.

"Diviciacus and the Deviant Druids", new road tour through Aachen, Cairo, Nidaros, Sparta, Kyoto and other Alternate World Capitals!

My current preference is a Gallic Civ with two Alternate Leaders: Vercingetorix as Military, Diviciacus as Scientific or Cultural.

 

[Zaarin]

Also I'd have no problem with Boudica as a leader for the Iceni.

The problem isn't Boudica. The problem is dreadlocked, kilt-wearing, woad-tattooed*, Welsh-speaking Boudica throwing a ceilidh in Edinburgh with her Pictish woad warriors and neo-pagan hippie druids. There's also the fact that Boudica's revolt failed spectacularly, despite a brief period of initial successes when the Romans were caught off guard.

*Fun fact: woad is caustic. It literally burns your flesh. No one ever was tattooed with woad. Bog bodies suggest it was probably a copper-based pigment that was used.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The problem isn't Boudica. The problem is dreadlocked, kilt-wearing, woad-tattooed*, Welsh-speaking Boudica throwing a ceilidh in Edinburgh with her Pictish woad warriors and neo-pagan hippie druids. There's also the fact that Boudica's revolt failed spectacularly, despite a brief period of initial successes when the Romans were caught off guard.

*Fun fact: woad is caustic. It literally burns your flesh. No one ever was tattooed with woad. Bog bodies suggest it was probably a copper-based pigment that was used.

Woad was used to dye fabric or thread, not people. Tattoo art since the Neolithic has almost always used mineral pigments, which are much less likely to be poisonous than vegetable products - unless you try to make a tattoo 'ink' out of Chromium or Lead, in which case you deserve what happens . . .

And reference Boudicca, I think it would be nice to have at least an attempt by design to avoid Leaders Who Failed Spectacularly. That would definitely include Boudicca, also Jeff Davis for the Confederacy (in fact, the entire Confederacy), A, Hitler or B. Mussolini, Charles I of England, Louis the Almost Last (XVI) of France, and similar Great Losers.

I'd keep Vercingetorix because he at least made Caesar and the Romans Sweat, and I think he played a Bad Hand about as well as he could. The Gauls unfortunately were in the same fix as the Native Americans - there were always people willing to help the invaders, because the various Native/Gallic factions had been traditional enemies forever. It made real Organized Resistance impossible.

 

[Zaarin]

Woad was used to dye fabric or thread, not people. Tattoo art since the Neolithic has almost always used mineral pigments, which are much less likely to be poisonous than vegetable products - unless you try to make a tattoo 'ink' out of Chromium or Lead, in which case you deserve what happens . . .

Yep. "Woad tattoos" are honestly one of my biggest pop history pet peeves. No one ever has been tattooed with woad. Wool, yes, skin, no. Also mineral pigments are less likely to require a mordant than vegetable dyes.

And reference Boudicca, I think it would be nice to have at least an attempt by design to avoid Leaders Who Failed Spectacularly. That would definitely include Boudicca, also Jeff Davis for the Confederacy (in fact, the entire Confederacy), A, Hitler or B. Mussolini, Charles I of England, Louis the Almost Last (XVI) of France, and similar Great Losers.

I agree with all of this.

I'd keep Vercingetorix because he at least made Caesar and the Romans Sweat, and I think he played a Bad Hand about as well as he could.

I agree, and that's also why I'm not as harsh on Cleopatra as I could be (I hold it more against her for being Greek than for losing Egypt). In the case of Vercingetorix, he made one of the greatest military minds in history work hard for his conquest and earned his respect in the process; that is a noble accomplishment in itself.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . I agree, and that's also why I'm not as harsh on Cleopatra as I could be (I hold it more against her for being Greek than for losing Egypt). In the case of Vercingetorix, he made one of the greatest military minds in history work hard for his conquest and earned his respect in the process; that is a noble accomplishment in itself.

Vercingetorix and Porus are two commanders that deserve more respect from military historians: they fought against undeniable military geniuses and made them work their butts off to beat them.

 

[679x]

Though the consensus is that this isn't the best for a Celtic civ, I do like the anti-religion idea (and also the idea of an early rock band replacement, though that's kind of a separate idea). From what I understand, the purpose of spreading paganism here is to keep your two pantheon beliefs and block out majority religions? I think that's pretty cool, and the pantheon bonuses are always my favourite religious bonuses!

Perhaps there's some more obscure / minor civilization that could thematically receive such a bonus, but it might have to be relegated to a mod rather than taking up an official civ slot if such a civilization really is obscure. Cool idea nonetheless.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Though the consensus is that this isn't the best for a Celtic civ, I do like the anti-religion idea (and also the idea of an early rock band replacement, though that's kind of a separate idea). From what I understand, the purpose of spreading paganism here is to keep your two pantheon beliefs and block out majority religions? I think that's pretty cool, and the pantheon bonuses are always my favourite religious bonuses!

Perhaps there's some more obscure / minor civilization that could thematically receive such a bonus, but it might have to be relegated to a mod rather than taking up an official civ slot if such a civilization really is obscure. Cool idea nonetheless.

The problem is, the design seems to equate 'Paganism" with Anti (Formal) Religion, and that simply isn't true. Furthermore, it does it in the context of the Celtic paganism, which was actually opposed by another form of Paganism, the Roman agglutinative religion that, frankly, consisted largely of a Romanized version of almost every God they ever ran into: Greek, Egyptian, Eastern, whatever.
Everybody started out religious. The earliest Non-Religious 'belief system' you can even sort of argue for would be Greek Philosophy, since they were trying to come up with answers to the Big Questions that didn't devolve to "God(s) Wills It." - but to do that, you'd have to ignore quite a few of the Greek Philosophers, like Pythagoras and his followers and all the Neo-Platonists, just for starters. Real Non- or Anti-Religious fervor doesn't really come along until the Enlightenment tries to substitute Rational Thought for "Superstition", but although the established churches got pretty bent out of shape by the 'rational humanists', you'd be hard put to find any of the humanists who were not also religious, just not religious in the conventional sense of the time. Then about 150 - 200 years later, you start to get Ideologies like Communism and fanatic Nationalism that are specifically Anti-Religion but, frankly, they never managed to replace it, only submerge it under the weight of propaganda and physical coercion. Yes, the Soviets demolished one of the largest cathedrals in Moscow and converted most of the religious institutions in Russia into secular museums, schools, or public offices, but as soon as the Nazis attacked and Stalin needed to engage the people emotionally in the struggle, he re-opened the churches and had the Metropolitan of Moscow publicly bless the Soviet War Effort! On the other side, the Nazis publicly disparaged religion (and had some serious opposition from the Catholic clergy in Germany) and abolished military pastors in the units, but it didn't really take. As one German general pointed out, he'd seen many men cross themselves before going into battle, but he never saw anybody give the Hitler Salute. The 'secular ideologies' made and still make a very poor substitute for religion, and people seem to have a very basic need for reglion of some kind.

What is needed in Game Terms is not a Fantasy Civ that is anti-religion, but Religion that presents Problems to the Civ rather than being entirely at the control of the leaders of the Civ (gamers). Even in a state that merged political and religious leadership, there were some pretty basic conflicts between the needs of the religion and the needs of diplomacy, economics, the military, and other aspects of the society. Right now the game's only 'religious conflict' is between religions founded by different Civ's - no Civ has any conflict within itself from religion comparable to, say, the civil upheaval in Constantinople over religious questions, or the social unrest in the Roman Empire as "Eastern religions" (not only Christians, also Jews, Mithraists, and anything else that wasn't Traditional Roman Paganism in the early Empire) became popular or the conflicts between the followers of Kong-Fu-Tse and Lao-Tse and Gautama Buddha in Imperial China.

 

[AsH2]

The problem is, the design seems to equate 'Paganism" with Anti (Formal) Religion, and that simply isn't true. Furthermore, it does it in the context of the Celtic paganism, which was actually opposed by another form of Paganism, the Roman agglutinative religion that, frankly, consisted largely of a Romanized version of almost every God they ever ran into: Greek, Egyptian, Eastern, whatever.
Everybody started out religious. The earliest Non-Religious 'belief system' you can even sort of argue for would be Greek Philosophy, since they were trying to come up with answers to the Big Questions that didn't devolve to "God(s) Wills It." - but to do that, you'd have to ignore quite a few of the Greek Philosophers, like Pythagoras and his followers and all the Neo-Platonists, just for starters. Real Non- or Anti-Religious fervor doesn't really come along until the Enlightenment tries to substitute Rational Thought for "Superstition", but although the established churches got pretty bent out of shape by the 'rational humanists', you'd be hard put to find any of the humanists who were not also religious, just not religious in the conventional sense of the time. Then about 150 - 200 years later, you start to get Ideologies like Communism and fanatic Nationalism that are specifically Anti-Religion but, frankly, they never managed to replace it, only submerge it under the weight of propaganda and physical coercion. Yes, the Soviets demolished one of the largest cathedrals in Moscow and converted most of the religious institutions in Russia into secular museums, schools, or public offices, but as soon as the Nazis attacked and Stalin needed to engage the people emotionally in the struggle, he re-opened the churches and had the Metropolitan of Moscow publicly bless the Soviet War Effort! On the other side, the Nazis publicly disparaged religion (and had some serious opposition from the Catholic clergy in Germany) and abolished military pastors in the units, but it didn't really take. As one German general pointed out, he'd seen many men cross themselves before going into battle, but he never saw anybody give the Hitler Salute. The 'secular ideologies' made and still make a very poor substitute for religion, and people seem to have a very basic need for reglion of some kind.

What is needed in Game Terms is not a Fantasy Civ that is anti-religion, but Religion that presents Problems to the Civ rather than being entirely at the control of the leaders of the Civ (gamers). Even in a state that merged political and religious leadership, there were some pretty basic conflicts between the needs of the religion and the needs of diplomacy, economics, the military, and other aspects of the society. Right now the game's only 'religious conflict' is between religions founded by different Civ's - no Civ has any conflict within itself from religion comparable to, say, the civil upheaval in Constantinople over religious questions, or the social unrest in the Roman Empire as "Eastern religions" (not only Christians, also Jews, Mithraists, and anything else that wasn't Traditional Roman Paganism in the early Empire) became popular or the conflicts between the followers of Kong-Fu-Tse and Lao-Tse and Gautama Buddha in Imperial China.

I think, when looking at it in the big picture, religion is about crowd control (if you're a leader) and group affiliation (if you're a follower). There are population in Civ6, but people seems to be missing; so no crowd to control..

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think, when looking at it in the big picture, religion is about crowd control (if you're a leader) and group affiliation (if you're a follower). There are population in Civ6, but people seems to be missing; so no crowd to control..

Like so much in the Civ games, the 'population' is there merely to be Acted Upon by the ruler/AI/gamer, not to Act. I think that's a Major Failing in the game's design, because it means that the problems resulting from the independent action of all or parts of the Population are completely missing from the game, and they have been a Huge part of the history that the game purportedly is based upon.
The spread and influences of Religion is simply one example of Population Changes in attitude, belief, even culture, that governments/rulers had to react to in various ways, but the gamer has almost complete control over.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I think most everything that needs to be said at this point already has.

Just another vote for the Gauls here.