Poor Celtic tribes!
Did'nt they play an important role in ancient history?
Here is a suggestion:

Celtic
6 nations: LONDINIUM; GLEVUM; GESOCRIBATE
5 nations: LONDINIUM; GLEVUM; COL AGRIPPINA
4 nations: LONDINIUM; LUTETIA; GESOCRIBATE
3 nations: LONDINIUM; LUTETIA; COL AGRIPPINA

Romans
6 nations: ROMA; ANCONA; MASSILIA
5 nations: ROMA; ANCONA; MASSILIA
4 nations: ROMA; CARALES; NEAPOLIS
3 nations: ROMA; CARALES; CAESAREA

Greeks
6 nations: ATHEN; BYCANTIUM; EPHESOS
5 nations: ATHEN; BYCANTIUM; PELLA
4 nations: ATHEN; BYCANTIUM; PELLA
3 nations: ATHEN; KNOSSOS; ALEXANDRIA

Phoenicians
6 nations: TYROS; PETRA; ANTIOCHIA
5 nations: TYROS; PETRA; ALEXANDRIA
4 nations: TYROS; PAPHOS; ANTIOCHIA

Carthaginians
6 nations: CARTHAGO; TACAPE; LEPTIS MAGNA
5 nations: CARTHAGO; TACAPE; CAESAREA

Germans
6 nations: CASTRA REGINA; VINDOBONA; SIRMIUM

Who gets first player for each?

Do you think, then, it might not really throw the game off for people to pick their own starting spots (one of each resource as always) and just let it go from there, as long as everybody agrees on the equity of the starting positions?

Yes, selecting starting cities freely works quite well.
But I would NOT recommend it with people who are highly analytical, because it will take them hours to select their optimum starting spots. At least this is my experience when testing it. There won't be historic nations either, as everyone spreads whereever he wants.

Methinks you're giving your theme a bit more credit than it desrves

I'm gonna try it with my own starting positions, though. I think that might be fun, and I'll try and report back any really good ones.

I'd have to agree. One of the great strengths of this game is that it moves extremely quickly for its genre. The hard-and-fast setup is a bonus.

That being said, I'm also interested in additonal "races."

I'd also be very interested in expansions covering other parts of the world, or perhaps a mega-map including everything from Great Britain to India.

Mac, for the above Celtic setup, who gets the first player at different numbers of players; for that matter, does it matter, or is that just another thing to make setup go faster?

Cheers!
Andy

As for the celtic version above, I'd say as follows:
6 nations: Carthaginians
5 nations: Greeks
4 nations: Phoenicians
3 nations: Celts

Because there are so many turns and possible strategies in the game, it is not *that* important who begins. But this information certainly helps to shorten setup.

Andy, feel free to experiment with different setups! Why not invent new tribes and nations? And why not giving the Greeks an extra gold city (they were scientific people), giving the Romans an extra marble city (they erected many buildings in the ancient world), and giving the Germans/Celts an extra iron city (they were feared as invading barbarian hoards)? Antike is very flexible for alternative setups, you can easily adopt it to your own personal scenarios!

Have fun!
Mac

Cheers Mac!

I'll give it a try! To be honest, I'm also tempted to have home-made a close-up board on Egypt and her surrounds. The wife is an amateur Egyptologist, and I'll be more likely to get her to play more often if I can offer her the Hyksos, Kushites, Hittites, and the other "bows" as her foes. ;-)

As for me, I fancy a close-up board with the Israelites, the Judeans, the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Macedonians for an Ancient Near East themed game...maybe the Philestines in there instead of one of the two Hebrew peoples.

Only had the game for less than a week, and I can easily see it becoming a family favorite...now all I need to do is wait for the 4-year-old to get a bit older so we can have a four-person game. :-P