Post-Classical Age (Between Antiquity and Exploration)

[crimson mirage]

The game has definitely been improving a lot since release but there is still one thing that really bugs me. I understand that a lot of people talk about an "Information" age after "Modern", and that's pretty much teased and confirmed at this point (which is great!) BUT to me the one that feels the most lacking, since release, is a proper medieval age or - to be more historically neutral - a "post-classical" age.

I personally feel like the transition from Exploration to Modern works decently, you end Exploration with gunpowder units and such and you start modern at the height of napoleonic warfare, line infantry and knocking on the door of industrialization. That works. Might not be perfect, but works.

However, Antiquity > Exploration always felt really abrupt and awkward to me. Many games later I still feel like it's definitely the most jarring transition in the game, we're basically going from the consolidation of the old world empires (Romans, greeks, egyptians, etc.) to the rush of the Age of Discovery and Age of Sail, effectively skipping a thousand years of dynamic history in-between. We're going from "We've built the 7 wonders of the ancient world!" to "I must secure spice from the distant lands!". That feels very, very odd.
And personally I feel like this is actually the biggest hurdle about the so controversial Exploration Economic legacy path; I quite like it, I think it's a great idea, I just feel like its placement in the game is the reason it has given so much trouble. It starts awkwardly early, because (IMO) we're squishying 1000 years of history/Medieval age in a few turns of the early Exploration Age.

So yes, in my opinion a "Post-classical" Age is the age that is missing the most from the game right now. It could be all about the consolidation of the continental powers estabilished in the Antiquity. If the Antiquity was all about exploring your continent and estabilishing your empire, the...

...Post-Classical age would be about developing and consolidating that empire in preparation for exploring the seas on the coming age.

There could be some mix-matching of existing civs to change here and there, and obviously new civs would have to be introduced to fill the gaps (too few civs per age) left once you redistribute them, but should be fine.

As for legacy paths, I feel like the current Exploration Age Cultural path (consolidating your religion) could be in the Post-Classical age

So we'd have for it:

Domination: A new path, perhaps based on raiding and pillaging rather than conquest?
Cultural: Current Exploration path, consolidate your religion
Scientific: Perhaps connected to cultural and some sort of great work accumulation on monasteries/religious buildings representing the build up of knowledge held up by the clergy in medieval times
Economical: Could be about estabilishing industries/the rise of advanced metalworks and such, could culminate (last objectives) in the development of sailing/better ships, directly connecting with the Exploration Age economy path. Then starting with a Cog on the Exploration age could be a "Golden Age" legacy reward from the Post-Classical age!

And for the Exploration Age itself we'd then have as legacy paths:

Domination: Same, but with even more focus on the distant lands
Cultural: Perhaps something similar to the Modern Age but with "interacting with the cultures of Distant Lands". Something like collecting great works from "Goody Huts" that only appear for you in the distant lands; or spreading your religion to the Distant Lands, etc.
Scientific: Unchanged, I quite like it as "stacking bonuses on tile" really feels like a gamefied way to represent the beginning of the academia, knowledge hubs, rise of universities and such
Economy: Unchanged
.

This would connect most paths even more to the Distant Lands concept, while still keeping Scientific more "free form", making these paths more natural to the historical context of the game (There was a buildup to the exploration age, we didn't go from Pyramids to the New World exploration), and personally I feel like this would make the game a lot better, and also give us a lot more time to play with one of the "funniest" times to play Civ: the age of castles, chivalry and all that!

Anyway, these are my thoughts. It's just a rough idea but I hope it can be read, polished and perhaps assimilated by whoever wants it!

And, of course, feel free to contribute with your own thoughts on the matter!

[shell quarry]

I feel like 4th age is completely a fan theory and there's nothing anywhere that really suggests its happening other than ageless buildings in the modern age. For me, this is more like to be copy & paste of previous mechanics than confirmation that there's a 4th age.

Saying that, I do 100% agree that if they do another age, it should be pushing forward exploration and modern and squeezing medieval into the gap.

The other option is making the ages longer and gating the ocean exploration to the 2nd half of the exploration age (search for "eras" for some discussion on those ideas - where ages were each split into 2 eras).

[crimson mirage]

Thank you for the response! Just to clarify about the "Information Age", I'd say it's pretty confirmed - not just fan theory. I don't have the exact quote but I definitely remember Ed Beach on one of the livestreams before launch - maybe around the time Modern age was revealed? - saying with more or less these words: "Post cold war content that is so familiar to the players will not be in the game at launch but will find its way into the game when it is time"

And yeah, I did find some interesting discussions on splitting the age or adding a medieval age, very similar to what I suggested, but it was in the general chat so I felt like someone should make a thread for it here!

[shell quarry]

Hmm, i did forget about that. Checked the transcript and it says:

...now there's some content after that that players are familiar with the Cold War kicks in you know and and obviously history has marched on to the present that's not something you're going to see in civ7 at launch but we'll be talking about the plans for how that gets into the game when it's the right time lots of room to grow for sure...

Not sure its quite confirmation, but fair enough. Extended ages would also fit that description, for example.

I think the problem with any 4th age, whether its digital or medieval, is adding a 3rd age transition. Its already a controversial mechanic and it does disturb the flow of the game. I would be happy for either solution because i fully agree that medieval is completely ignored in civ7 really, but i would lean to wards making the 3 ages longer personally just for that reason.

[crimson mirage]

That's a fair point. I do believe age transitions can be further improved, in which case more ages could definitely be okay - but indeed just making ages longer could also work.

I suppose my main "concern" with longer ages is how hard would these limits be. Because one of the reasons why the Exploration age feels so off (and the medieval age feels skipped) imo is due to the nature of how legacy paths work, you're somewhat forced to rush to them as fast as possible. So exploring the seas for new lands and trying to bring goods from there is not something you can "slowly get into whenever you want", you're forced to rush it because if you don't start ASAP you might as well not bother.

So while "extending" the ages could definitely work, they'd still need some sort of "hard" limit, like a hard half, where you really can't push these objectives early, otherwise - as long as the option to do so exists - you'll always be compelled. One simple thought that comes to mind is to simply move the boat breaking mechanics further into the tech tree so at the beginning of the exploration age you can't at all sail into deeper waters, so you'd need some technological advancement to start it and even more to do it safely. So yeah, I can see ages being reworked to be better, but I personally would just prefer an entire new age. it's also a nice opportunity for getting even more "different/period-based" civs into the game - and that for me is a plus because while it does go a bit against the current, I was actually one of the people that did enjoy the civ-swapping; and while the age transitions are indeed jarring, I do like the concept and still believe that it can be refined enough.

I look forward a lot to the ability of actually playing on a single age if I want (like, having an Exploration only game, for example) and having a 4th and even a 5th age could make for really fun, specific, marathon games focused on certain periods. So I'm all in for fixing and adding ages

[thorny raptor]

Medieval vibes

[alpine phoenix]

That's a good idea! Don't add an age to the end, add one to the middle!

[crimson mirage]

Thanks!
Yeah, I've once again played a game yesterday and was jarred by the Antiquity > Exploration transition. It definitely feels missing to me, a lot more than an "Information age"; Not saying that getting both wouldn't be great (for a total of 5), it definitely could! But right now I feel like this is the biggest, most awkward gap

[uncut mountain]

This is really interesting!

Do u want me to give Civ suggestions for this era too?

[crimson mirage]

I actually gave this a thought for a while! Of course I'm no expert historian or anything, and have only performed simple/amateur research, but I've considered this:

If we take the current roster of Exploration Age civs, some of them would definitely be more fitting for this new "Post-Classical Age" while others are ok to remain in the Exploration Age. It's not possible to determine hard dates or anything because the current roster is literally everywhere when it comes to dates, we have civs from the early 8th century and civs that peaked by the 18th century in the current formation, lol - which to me is only more evidence of the need for a new Age between Antiquity and Exploration, and a testament to how "squished" History has been by that design.

So, again, taking into account the existing Civs and going for a very simple geographical/historical pairing - which is not necessary but easier to come up with - we could redistribute the current Exploration Age civs (and add new ones, marked with 🆕 ) like this:

Post-Classical Age / Exploration Age
Abbasid / Ottoman 🆕 - (No single entity directly "inherited" the Abbasid caliphate after its downfall in the late 1200s but most of its extension and tradition was continued by the Ottomans)
Bulgaria / - (After the first and second Bulgarian empires, roughly the Bulgaria represented in the game, the region was then part of the Ottoman Empire - already covered above. So perhaps this spot could be used for something else entirely like an Exploration Age pick for Japan, as many people have requested)
Chola / Pandya 🆕 - (Pretty straightforward choice, although the Pandya Dynasty existed at the same time as the Chola dynasty, it came on top by the end of the 13th century and became the new largest empire of the region until the 17th century or so)

Polynesia 🆕 / Hawaiian - (Can be a bit confusing but considering that the Hawaiians in the game seem to represent the height of the Hawaiian kingdom (the wonder is from the mid 1600s, approaching the famous Kamehameha dynasty in the coming centuries), I feel they should stay in the Exploration age and we could "split" them into their Polynesian ancestors before landing on Hawaii, which fits the more general timeline of the other civs in this redistribution)
Tiahuanaco 🆕 / Inca - (There's a bunch of pre-Incan empires/cultures that could fit the bill nicely here to keep the Inca for the Exploration Age, which not only makes sense time-wise but also gameplay-wise; the Tiahuanaco empire (known as Tiwanaku as well) is probably one of the most notable ones tho, since it was very powerful and built many structures that influenced andean cultures as a whole)
Srivijaya 🆕 / Majapahit - (Again, not exactly a very direct transition but a cool geographic one, with some added benefits like the Chola and the Srivijaya existing in the same age in the game (and they had wars IRL), so could be fun to explore)
Song 🆕 / Ming - (Another "obvious" choice, the Song Dynasty being the greatest chinese dynasty before the Ming dynasty IF we skip the Yuan dynasty which was the Mongol-ruled period of China (Kublai Khan, etc.), so I think it's a pretty good pick.
Mongolia / Golden Horde 🆕 - (Tough one, since Mongolia could arguably be reasoned to be on either Age for several reasons, but I feel it is thematically more fitting to the first one, with one of its resulting splits (and the longest thriving one, the Golden Horde) being a fun "continuation" for the Exploration age, although choices like Ming and Mughal in the future would also be viable since Mongolia broke up in several parts)

Norman / England 🆕 - (The Kingdom of England is a direct continuation of the Norman dynasties and would be a great fit for this new, more focused Exploration Age as it seeks new lands alongside Spain and such. Also gives a nicer transition between the Normans and Great Britain in the Modern age)
Muscogee 🆕 / Shawnee - (While the land that the Shawnee moved into was "cleared" from different cultures (Fort Ancient people and Erie people) by the Iroquois confederacy, I think in this case it would perhaps be more interesting to give a continuation to the Antiquity's Mississippians rather than a precursor to the Shawnee, and the famous "Creek" (Muscogee) fit the bill nicely!)
Ghana 🆕 / Songhai - (Now this is a cool one, imo! While the Civ fan-favorite "Mali" empire could definitely be an interesting alternative for what came before the Songhai empire, I feel like this is a great opportunity to branch somewhere new and explore the Ghana Empire, which was the oldest of the major western Africa empires of the time, with their height between 800-1000s; The Ghana empire itself was later absorbed by the Mali empire, so there could definitely be a "reference" of that at their late age civics before it "changes" into the Songhai on Exploration Age.)
Castille 🆕 / Spain - (There's a bunch of possible other kingdoms that could be considered a precursor of the Spanish empire, like Aragon or León. I think Castille is a good choice, however, because it does "ally" with León down the way, becoming the biggest kingdom that will later unite as Spain, but also because they have (IMO) the most interesting story conflict-wise)

Vietnamese / Lan Xang 🆕 - (This one was a bit troublesome for me. I've tried reading and studying as much as I could about the Vietnamese dynasties but only to reach a conclusion that the Vietnamese in Civ 7 are very generic, with elements from almost a 1000 years of different dynasties. Unsure what to do (do we just break it into different dynasties? etc) I've actually had a different idea: look at the neighbors. And then I remember the Lancang (actually Lan Xang, apparently) kingdom. And this felt great - not only because the Lan Xang kingdom was one of the biggest and most powerful southeast asian kingdoms but also because it gives a very nice and smooth transition to Siam in the Modern Age.)

That's it! These are my suggestions! Feel free to chip in and such, but let's try to not derail the main idea of this suggestion which is the new Age itself; In the end the choices of civs and such are all up to the Devs, and we can only but dream about them - however I feel it is nice to show the amount of things it could "allow" the game to go for, which I guess complements my point of the Exploration Age squishing too much History in it!
Like I said, please forgive me any misconceptions or wrong spellings and such. I mean no offense to any world culture, I'm just an amateur lover of History 😄

[low gorge]

All I have to say is that I really don't want a generic "Polynesia" to be a thing again. Civ 5 had a generic Polynesia that was a mixmash of things all from different places and a specific nation like Hawai'i is much better.

[crimson mirage]

I agree, I just don't know enough about that area and such to make a good pick 🙁

[low gorge]

I think the Maori could make an interesting modern age civilisation (based on early contact/colonial time period Maori), but I also don't really know enough to suggest a good earlier Polynesian group that would fit a Post-Classical age

[uncut mountain]

I disagree, I don’t think with the way civ is covered that they want direct descendants/ancestors of civs , just continuations within the same region but a different civ.

Only China and India kinda had that
But agree for many of these that they’re cool choice tho

[uncut mountain]

Ik my friend who knows Polynesian history and tonga was his top pick for new civ, and it would definitely fit well within post classical timeframe

My idea to align more with civ 7’s theme would be to use less direct descendants and more vague inter regional nations that allows people to choose more varied paths

I’ll keep your idea for

• ottoman (exp)
• tiahuanacu (post-classical)
• song (post-classical)
• Ghana (post-classical)
• lan xang (post-classical)

(Not sure on pandya , will need a minute to think about it)

I would like to make some changes for the rest to fit Civ 7 ‘s idea of actually switching civs, not just using the same Civ with new era flavor

-srivijaya cannot be post-classical if Khmer is classical. However, I would actually suggest

Srivijaya(antiquity)
Majapahit (post-classical)
Malacca (exploration)

• tonga (post-classical)

• timurids (exploration)

• Native American is a hard choice, Muscogee is definitely good if you keep the descendant line of eastern US, but with the way Civ works rn it jumps all over the place. If they really wanna base it off era instead of location they can do pueblo, but honestly I would rather have both, the more native and African civs the better

• Swahili post classical (or exploration) so you don’t skip from Songhai to buganda

• Oman exploration

• maybe Tibet post-classical if they’re not worried about getting banned by China

• Dutch exploration

• etc etc

Also PLEASE add nazca or Norte Chico antiquity

[magic basin]

Ethiopia does. We did get Aksum to start that lineage.

[crimson mirage]

I mean, I think eventually we'll have all "bases" covered - both direct "lineages" and just regional lines and so on. So I don't think we should limit ourselves on thinking about one (or the other way), both are great ways to go.

I'm 100% with Nazca as well, and was tempted to have it instead of Tiahuanaco (I'm latin american myself) but ended up going for it due to having slightly greater significance
but I mean... the Nazca lines as a wonder would be LIT 🔥

But as much as I appreciate thinking the civs (and I really do, and we should continue if we want -- but let's just remember the focus of this suggestion is on the new Age itself, and these civs are more like... Suggestions for Firaxis if they do consider the idea pertinent. There are other threads for suggesting Civs that would probably benefit with these contributions as well

[uncut mountain]

But we have no exploration and modern Ethiopia to continue that lineage

Also Axum and medieval Ethiopia are different civilizations just within vicinity, Ethiopia is very diverse and I’m pretty sure they descend from a different cultural tradition

[magic basin]

China wasn't all Han, India has hundreds of languages. There is no single, continuous, never evolving culture throughout history. But Ethiopia was ruled by the same dynasty for over 1400 years. The city of Axum still exists in the Tigray region of Ethiopia. That's why the devs relied on the concept of history being built in layers. Nothing was monolithic. Everything is dynamic. Nothing fits in neat little boxes. Everyone has bits and pieces of everyone else within them.

[uncut mountain]

True true. I just mean that we didn’t have ethiopia civ past antiquity so I didn’t count it

And yes the Chinese dynasties are very different. India is ofc different rulers and based off different regions, i just checked ans I forgot we didn’t have North Indian exploration civ so ur right that Indian isn’t direct descendants. The closest one, Han to ming, is still a significant shift. So fair.

[uncut mountain]

Oh, since we’re suggesting post-classical age anyway, I was thinking we do nazca for antiquity and tihuanacu for post-classical

Also sorry for being focused on civs, I’m more of a civ creation fan myself than suggesting mechanics 😅 , so I worked on that

[rose falcon]

I think that about all agree that there is something, more or less wrong with the ages. I can imagine that this would balance the game lots, especially if we get 5th age at the end.

The current age system feels tedious where you don't have much time to play with the last techs that you have been drooling over and then we have the massive changes in map goals. The jumps are big and you feel disconnected also from the civ that you play, when there is no clear continuation.

If paced right, this could also enable the last age units to be around for the next age and be able to do something too. I really would like to see the ages more linked, in other ways too than that your now upgraded armies stay put during the transition.

[uncut mountain]

How do you plan smoother transition can worm with more age? You said the units would carry over, but they’re Civ specific right?

[crimson mirage]

I don't know if I like the idea of the "top" unit of one age being the starter unit of the next (I mean, I don't dislike it either, I just think it is fine the way it is) but I do agree that sometimes, if you're not focusing on science, you get to the last unit too late to ever use it or sometimes don't even get there at all... I'm not sure what would be a better fix for that, however. I guess one could say that perhaps the tech tree could get to the tier 3 units of each age a bit "faster", and deepen the scientific development for legacy paths vertically instead, but it might also be a pacing issue, not sure.

Either way, as for the post-classical age itself, I'm glad others also see the "gap" that exists there and are onboard with it. I definitely agree with what Shinerz said, and (imo) the game will be "perfect" and a lot more fluid in terms of progression with 5 ages: Antiquity, Post-Classical (or I guess Post-Antiquity), Exploration, Modern, Information. As they smoothen and improve the age transitions, they'll be less radical events and more interesting game twisting/changing moments, and thus having 4 transitions wouldn't be a problem at all imo. As I've said before, the "transitions" are so controversial right now not because of the concept itself but how they're executed. Getting them right is essential for the implementation of ages to become an interesting and nice thing, and so I support their efforts in the last few patches to start improving on the transitions.

[uncut mountain]

You guys might be interested

[shell quarry]

That is very cool.

[uncut mountain]

My best guess for where they draw the line

Also fixed Bulgaria

The line between exploration and antiquity is the most open
So you can put post-classical somewhere in there

Purple is window currently open

If we adjusted the civ a bit we can get the second image

It depends on whether you can justify Mississippian being post classical or not

Civs like Abbasid or Norman can actually be in either age it doesn’t matter

[shell quarry]

They described in the stream that it was much more about what a civ's identity was like rather than exactly when they appeared in history. Which makes sense given that the world did not continue in a linear fashion. The 'western' world advanced at 1 pace, but South America and Australasia did their own thing. Similarly sub-saharan Africa was different. So its ok as far as i'm concerned if the lines from your graph dont have a neat boundary.

[crimson mirage]

Nothing represents my point about the need of a post-classical age more than this cropping:

[uncut mountain]

Dammit! I made mistakes

Here’s modern age corrected
I graphed 2250 instead of 2025

[uncut mountain]

Yeah, but what’s an “antiquity/exploration/modern character”? Who to say what character a civ has? Their age relative to their region? Nation building? Cultural focus?

[crimson mirage]

That would put Rome in future age then 😎

[shell quarry]

Well the guy from the stream. The firaxis historian is the one who is saying that...

[crimson mirage]

Would you mind doing another one of these but with the hypothetical new age between Antiquity and Exploration and the hypothetical civs/relocation of civs we've discussed before?

It's a lot to ask, so don't worry if you don't want to - I just feel like it would be a nice way to visualize it!

[uncut mountain]

Sure, feel free to post the list here

I’ll do it after exam, unless I can’t resist it and did it first

[torpid peak]

Just my 2c, but the current age structure works fine. It basically takes the first 7 Eras from V/VI and splits them into thirds. Antiquity got Ancient+Classical, Exploration gets Medieval+Renaissance, and Modern gets Industrial, Modern, and Atomic. Presumably, a 4th Age DLC would be Information+Future to cover the full Civ timeline.

Personally, I think the way they handled it by focusing on Medieval naval powers like Normans and Chola over, say, England and the Netherlands worked out ok.

The issue for me is more of a gameplay matter. A common criticism of Humankind is that you switch too often. On the plus side, its age structure has far more granularity. IMHO, it should be an either/or thing. If Exploration is split into two, Antiquity and Modern probably should be as well.

It is a bit weird that we have Abbasids worrying about New World colonies, but it’s equally weird that we have Assyria worrying about the Silk Road or the Mughals worrying about Communism.

[torpid peak]

If anything, I think the Exploration legacy paths could be reworked a bit to be less Spain-flavored.

Based on the Civ selection, the “thematic anchoring” for Exploration is the High Middle Ages. Stuff like the Norman Conquests, Crusades, Marco Polo, Mongol Invasion, Ming Treasure Fleets, and other stuff from the 11th-15th century seems to be what they use to pick Civs.

The issue, IMHO, is that the game map abstraction makes it hard to create a difference between “Europe and China are very distant, but accessible by land travel” and “America is a distant land to Eurasia” to get the vibes to match history.

[uncut mountain]

Post-classical will eat up both antiquity and exploration in my opinion, and honestly wiyh the way civ 7 works we don’t really need to consider it’s age in relation to civ 6 since there’s totally different mechanics, like civ switching

Also if I’m not wrong the Jade road existed during Assyria time and that was practically a Silk Road.

I think the new map generation can help with the map issue, but honestly I think bigger ocean will benefit as well

[torpid peak]

The point I’m making is that the distribution as-is emphasizes gameplay considerations over historical accuracy. You can emphasize historical accuracy instead, like humankind does, but then you would want more divisions like they have.

“Antiquity” is almost as silly as Exploration when you look at the tech tree and see Bronze Working and The Wheel smack-dab in the middle.

Anyway, all this to say that Civ’s periodization has always been driven more by gameplay and “vibes”. So, while adding a Medieval/post-classical period would make more historical sense, the key consideration would be how it improves gameplay. And, IMHO, humankind has demonstrated that more discrete Civ switches and eras is generally worse than the broader groupings.

IMHO, I would rather add more medieval flavor to Exploration, given that is already has most do the trappings, rather than fracturing the civ roster further

[uncut mountain]

I’m not the one to judge which is better for gameplay, but I think there are ways to avoid trappings of humankind. Civ already does this by not having infinite civ unlocks.

[uncut mountain]

Just finished my test

[uncut mountain]

Do u have a list?

[crimson mirage]

Sorry, I got busy with other stuff this week 😭

Alright, let's see....
Combining a bit of what both of us said before, let's try this:

Post-Classical
Abbasid
Bulgaria
Chola
Tiahuanaco
Song
Mongolia
Majapahit
Norman
Muscogee
Ghana
Castille
Vietnam
Tonga

Exploration
Ottoman
Oman
Hawai'i
Inca
Malacca
Ming
Timurids
England
Shawnee
Swahili
Spain
Lan Xang
Dutch

Feel free to add or change, It's mostly for a better visualization!

[uncut mountain]

Dw dw I just got free this week

[teal spruce]

gating distant land settling behind a later tech in explo would be a nice experiment in terms of game pace imo

gameplaywise i think being able to explore the distant lands is needed from the start

so the post classical age would be your planning phase ('where to settle?') while establishing more medieval infrastructure ('castles etc') & 'knights' on your homelands

followed by the actual settle phase ('sending civilian units') and thus starting the actual renaissance exploration era

the economic explo victory path would also need a slight rework, so it could actually be finished with this change of pace

[uncut mountain]

I think ottoman was revealed to be a modern civ but I’ll map it as explo for your scenario

[crimson mirage]

Yeah, that empire was quite long and definitely fit both ages in some capacity
Personally I feel like in the modern age they're basically dissolving on its first half (they're basically gone after WW1 and modern age in the game goes to the end of WW2 so I feel like a better choice would've been Turkey, maybe, but oh well...)

I don't know if there's anything that it can be "broken down" into for the exploration age if you want to keep the ottoman empire in the modern age, as announced, but feel free to replace it with something else

[uncut mountain]

I’m pretty sure ww1 doesn’t make up half the modern age

[crimson mirage]

yeah, like I said, they're basically gone on the first half but not even the entire half 😄

[uncut mountain]

No I mean like I’m pretty sure modern age starts long before ww1 and the ottoman will count as early modern

[uncut mountain]

I don’t know why I decided to do this instead of medschool work but here it is 😅

I didn’t plot Castile cuz I don’t know what logo to use,and come on they’re literally just Spain precursor. At least England have a different culyure and lack the scottish and irish element inside British.

also would recommend a substitute for muscogee cuz it’s the only one that skips to more of an exploration timeframe and I could be wrong but it seems to have a lot of unclear stuff with Shawnee

[uncut mountain]

I actually looked up the date, pueblo would fit perfectly in post-classical if you wanna try that for natives, unless you want a seperate line between east and west.

Also the tiwanaku logo was especially difficult, so hope you like what I made! XD

[crimson mirage]

It looks pretty good! And it really helps visualizing it like that. Can definitely think of improvements in choices. I think Pueblo is a great choice tbh, and would love to see them get a unique building/city look

Might be a hot take, but personally I feel like that image, with maybe slightly more refined picks like changing the muscogee and such, gives a much more interesting age definition to me than the one you made that shows the game's civs and how mixed up they are in that weirdly timed "exploration age".... I think that a new age there would definitely do a lot of good for the game... BUt oh well, that's me -- let's hope the devs are reading and some of them find it interesting too 😄

Thank you very much for taking the time and dedication to do that!

[uncut mountain]

Done!

I think there’s still some mix up, especially with how some civ span through entire ages but I think if we focus more on their peak periods they’re organized better yeah