Yeah, that's why I would hope they refered to the civ as 'Gaelic' as opposed to 'Celtic' (although it should be called Scotland). Firaxis and Sid have never been consistent on the matter (throwback to the day Byblos and Jerusalem were cities in the Egyptian and Roman city lists, not to even mention Greece and India, the original blob Civs.)
All of this is hypothetical though. I am sceptical of the leak, because passing up on the Ottomans and/OR Inca at this point would be a pretty big deal (since you can't have both of those in, if three of last 4 civs are Celts led by a man, Zulu (99% led by Shaka) and Mystery Woman with Golden/Dark Age Interaction ability) and there's no photographical evidence to support the claim.
Regardless, Switzerland should not be able to capture non-Swiss cities, only able to bring them down to 1HP, thereby preventing Switzerland from provoking other civs to declare war on it and thus not allow Switzerland to win a domination victory.
Regardless, Switzerland should not be able to capture non-Swiss cities, only able to bring them down to 1HP, thereby preventing Switzerland from provoking other civs to declare war on it and thus not allow Switzerland to win a domination victory.
Do we know if they would be called the Celts? The could be called the Gaels/Gaelic Empire encompassing both Ireland and Scotland.
Edit: I remember now that Armagh is still a city-state though located in Northern Ireland. This complicates things.
Armagh would be a shoo-in for any sensible Gaelic city list. It being in what is now Northern Ireland would be a pretty poor reason to exclude it though you never know with Firaxis. We did have Wittenberg as a CS in V after all.
Armagh would be a shoo-in for any sensible Gaelic city list. It being in what is now Northern Ireland would be a pretty poor reason to exclude it though you never know with Firaxis. We did have Wittenberg as a CS in V after all.
The leaker has predicted many things, including Chandragupta's depiction. The leaker claims they're a localization QA that's making some tweaks to the Civilopedia.
They referenced the Zulu as something like "That African ruler from V" and specifically mentioned a warmonger.
Then there was a one-off line about "Brave Heart".
Source: Discussion from the other tread
==================
Personally, while the idea of a unicorn icon is hilarious, I'm really disappointed with this.
If it's true, R&F just looks...lackluster. most of the bigger issues we've discussed in civ communities are not being addressed. Governors have gotten a mixed response, emergencies haven't been shown at all yet (which tells me they're underwhelming) and loyalty, while nice, just restricts play styles.
Also, this XPAC seems to be discouraging warmongering a fair bit. Why include not one, not two, but potentially three all-out warfare civs?
If Scotland takes out Georgia, Italy, Inca or the Ottomans, I'm not going to feel great about it (unless their design is super, super cool).
Thinking about it more, is there a chance this isn't a civ at all? Maybe Wallace is the new GG that replaces Genghis that they didn't want to reveal in the Mongol stream?
Let's not forget that the poster was talking about localizing civilopedia pages, which exist for all elements of the game, not just leaders. With Genghis being promoted to leader there's currently a missing medieval-era Great General, and William Wallace is as good of a fit as any.
If the Celts get in then that almost certainly bumps either Georgia or Italy from being in this expansion. I doubt Firaxis would add three European Civs and since we pretty much expect the Inca at this point, and maybe the Zulu now, there would only be one spot for a new Civ to be introduced. I mean there's a chance the Ottomans get in too since Anatolia does need a Civ. In which case none of the last 4 Civs to be introduced would be new, which would be a huge disappointment. Hopefully some new Civs will get introduced via DLC.
Hopefully the leak is fake and this wont happen since Im expecting at least two new Civs out of the remaining four.
If the Celts get in then that almost certainly bumps either Georgia or Italy from being in this expansion. I doubt Firaxis would add three European Civs and since we pretty much expect the Inca at this point, and maybe the Zulu now, there would only be one spot for a new Civ to be introduced. I mean there's a chance the Ottomans get in too since Anatolia does need a Civ. In which case none of the last 4 Civs to be introduced would be new, which would be a huge disappointment. Hopefully some new Civs will get introduced via DLC.
Hopefully the leak is fake and this wont happen since Im expecting at least two new Civs out of the remaining four.
People keep saying they doubt that there would be 3 European civs, but since civ III every expansion has had at least 3 European civs in it so it wouldn't be that surprising at all.
Not that I advocate it but I anticipate it at the same time. Personally I hope for a sub-Saharan West African civ but I'm OK with the Zulu if they are included.
And if this "leak" is correct I think that the Celts/Scotland replaces Italy in my predictions and that Ottomans will be a DLC cause I can't imagine them waiting until a 2nd expansion for them with the Byzantines still to come too.
Or Georgia is a huge red herring in the trailer which I would find very strange and we still need that female leader who plays with the golden ages.
And I personally can't imagine that the Inca aren't in this expansion.
Perhaps its just naive optimism that Firaxis has changed and wont add three European Civs. To me its incredibly wrong to have over a dozen European Civs yet have just 4 African Civs at the same time.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
