I think that may be an error and it is supposed to be an unique improvement. The reason being that last line:
I guess Era and Civ-Switching combined means there is now a hidden rule of "Every region should have at least one Antiquity civ for the sake of making a full 3-Ages progression route possible".
Yeah I think you’re right; seems like a mistake.
One per Settlement as opposed to One Per City, perhaps?
If this is their actual design philosophy then my enthusiasm for the era system has been significantly reduced. We may as well put Incas in Antiquity and Phoenicia in Exploration.
This is the most charitable explanation I can think of. I suppose it might allow for e.g. Mississippians in Antiquity, now that Shawnee occupies the Exploration slot. Even so, I don't love it.
The post came with a few typos already, so I believe it. I'm looking forward to the clarification though, it would open some interesting possibilities for other civs designs if it was a building.
Inca may actually be Exploration, hopefully
Correct, Sanskrit and Pali was heavily used in texts by the ruling class in early Khmer society, which was also the time when Hinduism was the dominant religion. The Khmer language would really take its shape to what we know today around the time when Buddhism would replace Hinduism. Which is why in the Khmer language, Hindu-centric terminology like caste names, and occupations are similar to their Sanskrit counterparts, while more everyday words such as “fish” or “river” or “livestock”, are more original.
Interestingly, Khmer does have a unique Merchant, and historically Khmer was a notable trade hub in the late Medieval period. I wonder if some draft designs indeed have them in the 2nd Age.
I see, the last two words I’m looking for seem to be Khmer though
It could be, but in that case it would make more sense to say "Can be built in any settlement" or "Can also be built in towns". There wouldn't be the need to use the term "one" there, as it implies it is something you would generally be able to build multiple, but this one you can only do one so you point it out.
"Expansionist" is a Growth trait in Civ 7. Which makes sense because expanding your city is directly caused by, and correlated with your Population Growth.
The Military Unit also translates to “The Elephant Battle” apparently
I figured this to be the case as well. That's why I won't be surprised to see Antiquity Norse show up, at least later, as a pathway to the Normans and all the other Scandinavians.
I'm pretty sure I've heard that they have a requirement to fulfill, as in settle near enough mountains to transition to them, so they surely would need to be.
As I see it, civilization age is defined by:
Doesn't mean it made sense, now with extra civs per era, I hope the Aztecs get their Jaguars at exploration.
I don't mind it myself, but I hope it doesn't happen often and when it does it is because they have a clear succession in line where they have like 2 time wise exploration civs without a very good antiquity version so they make the older one be the ancient (people who are more informed of the speculations threads probably already know the likely path for Khmer). Because if they are too lenient with it, I can see it creating a controversy where people would see them picking civ x who only existed in exploration as antiquity as they saying they think that civ is behind the others of similar time and would fit that older age better. I don't think the creators would do it with that judgement in mind, just worried that doing this many times could easily leave space for people to speculate on that.
I really hope that is something they don't take in consideration as I see it as a field mine for controversy...
We know Siam are a modern age civ and Borobudur has been sighted so the speculation is that Majapahit/Indonesia will probably be one of their historical civs (Chola or Vietnam too?). Some areas of the world just don't have enough history pre-400 for a properly detailed civ unfortunately.
