What additional DLC civilizations would you like to see in the Exploration Age?

[stealth_nsk]

From less popular civs, I'd be happy to see the return of Georgia in exploration and, for the first time, Armenia in antiquity

 

[Xandinho]

From less popular civs, I'd be happy to see the return of Georgia in exploration and, for the first time, Armenia in antiquity

A Caucasus path Armenia > Georgia is something I'd love to see as well. However, maybe the most appropriate successor to Georgia might be Russia, though I’m not sure how controversial that would be.

 

[The Fanatical]

Sassanian representations should still go in the Ancient Era - they fought with both Rome and Aksum. In Civ 6 we had Macedon, Sparta and Greece. There's no reason we can't have both Sassanids and Achaemenids in the same era.

I disagree that the Timurids are too similar to the Mongols - the Timurids could have a trade/science trait - and perhaps the unique ability of reviving a unique abilty from an antiquity era civ.

They fought with the Byzantines and the rising Muslim Caliphates as well, two civilizations that belong in the second age. In Civilization VI we had Greece and Macedon, not Greece, Sparta and Macedon. The southern Greek city-states and the northern Greek kingdom of Macedon coexisted during the same time period. On the other hand, the Achaemenid Empire and the Sassanid Empire never existed at the same time frame. This is like suggesting that Rome and Venice should exist in the Antiquity Age, which would be erroneous.

I'm not suggesting that the Timurid Empire and the Mongolian Empire should exactly have the same traits, but both of them were Mongolic. Again, this feels like having Scotland and Ireland in the same era, both of Celtic heritage. Should we get the Timurids in the Exploration Age? Maybe we should, but not as a replacement for the Sassanids, the true successors of the Achaemenids.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

They fought with the Byzantines and the rising Muslim Caliphates as well, two civilizations that belong in the second age. In Civilization VI we had Greece and Macedon, not Greece, Sparta and Macedon. The southern Greek city-states and the northern Greek kingdom of Macedon coexisted during the same time period. On the other hand, the Achaemenid Empire and the Sassanid Empire never existed at the same time frame. This is like suggesting that Rome and Venice should exist in the Antiquity Age, which would be erroneous.

I'm not suggesting that the Timurid Empire and the Mongolian Empire should exactly have the same traits, but both of them were Mongolic. Again, this feels like having Scotland and Ireland in the same era, both of Celtic heritage. Should we get the Timurids in the Exploration Age? Maybe we should, but not as a replacement for the Sassanids, the true successors of the Achaemenids.

I stand corrected by my Sparta comment - I rarely play Civ6 these days. I got confused by the leaders.

The 3 Age system will always have this kind of weirdness - Hatsheput reigned over 1,400 years before Augustus did. And for most of Rome and all of Aksum's history, Egypt was under foreign rule.

Your comparison of Rome & Venice doesn't hold up imo - the Republic of Venice was still founded after the fall of the Sassanids. The Sassanids only dealt with the rise of the Muslim Caliphates for the last 20 years of their existence. This conquest can be depicted by the age transition of Sassanids to Abasids.

You have a point about the Byzantine/Sassanid wars, although the Byzantines can be represented by the Romans. The Sassanids fought other civs, the Huns, Kushans, Hephalites, Ghassanids, Himyarites ect.. all those civs would be ancient era if they are ever added to the game.

That being said, I'm not opposed to placing the Sassanian Empire in the exploration era - they clearly straddle the boundaries of both eras. If Khmer can go in antiquity then Sassanids can go in Exploration Era.