Analysis - The Beauty of Humankind's Expansion and Exploitation System

[tedhebert]

Two other potential reasons to create a new city vs attaching the outpost:
1. The cost of attaching outposts rise the more are already attached, right? So, at some point it may not be the most efficient use of money.
2. There may be a territory with very juicy yields, e.g. from special tiles or natural wonders, that is too far away to attach directly. By creating a city you could benefit from those yields sooner.

Yeah, those are good points, especially number 2. Attaching to a city is much cheaper for the first outposts. The current balance in open dev is:

- City: 100/250/400.
- Attachment: 50/100/150/200/250.

So the "money saving" balance seems to be to attach one or two outposts to your first city. Attaching a third one is more expensive than outright building a city, plus the stability would be taking a big hit already. A third city in the beginning is hardly recommended, since you ran out of administrators and for 250 gold you can attach two territories to your second city and still have 100 left. But of course, as you said, you might find a far-off wonder and might be the best investment to plop a city and get 10 gold per turn for it.

BTW, the attachment cost is per city. So the first outpost in any city is 50, even if you had 3 in another one. Plus there's also a tech bonus that lowers the value. The game REALLY encourages to attach territories, and I'm thankful for it, as managing a lower number of cities makes the game much more enjoyable. In Civ I really like the beginning when you have a few cities and you care what happens in them. By the end, with 20-30, the game just becomes an endless pop-up of generics what to build that has less and less impact.

yes, as @Elhoim mentions, it does increas, but so does the cost for cities. He has explained it very well. My feeling is that there's going to be a right number of attachment by city before if becomes less expensive to simply create another one. but it also seems to me like the cost is NOT going to be the only factor in the decision; Or even the principal one !

 

[Siptah]

I think that when military and borders come into play, the balance might go in favor of more cities, especially around the borders. It‘s, of course, just a guess.

Cities are probably better to defend than attached territories which might be conquered quite easily in a turn or two, just like outposts. Also, being able to produce units close to the borders might prove necessary. And - pure speculation - ideological pressure might be less effective.

 

[tedhebert]

I think that when military and borders come into play, the balance might go in favor of more cities, especially around the borders. It‘s, of course, just a guess.

Cities are probably better to defend than attached territories which might be conquered quite easily in a turn or two, just like outposts. Also, being able to produce units close to the borders might prove necessary. And - pure speculation - ideological pressure might be less effective.

It'll be interesting to see if it's possible to conquer only that territory once it's attached ? Will you be able to target only the administrative center and get the territory if you conquer it ? Still LOTs of game systems to find out about ;-)

 

[Shadowhal]

A suggestion: if it doesn't exist already, could we have some form of advance or mock planning of quarters and other buildable map objects?

With Civ VI I found myself putting a lot of thought into where I would build districts when deciding where to put my cities. But without notes I would sometimes forget after returning to a game after several days and would need to partly go through the process again. In Civ VI I used customisable labels extensively to mark where I want to build things eventually and that helped free up mental space for other game planning.

Given that advance planning would be similarly important in Humankind to some degree to obtain decent synergies, a similar a better tool would be useful, I think.

 

[Elhoim]

Could be useful, but in general by having simpler rules, I didn't find the need to plan too much as in Civ in which a very specific spot was great while other very sub-par. Plus you can replace districts in Humankind. I've found the district placement to be more additive and flexible that the plethora of placement rules and bonuses from Civ VI (which I found fun, but in the long run became to me a bit too rigid and prone to annoyance).

 

[Shadowhal]

Could be useful, but in general by having simpler rules, I didn't find the need to plan too much as in Civ in which a very specific spot was great while other very sub-par. Plus you can replace districts in Humankind. I've found the district placement to be more additive and flexible that the plethora of placement rules and bonuses from Civ VI (which I found fun, but in the long run became to me a bit too rigid and prone to annoyance).

Could you explain what you mean by "replace"? Can you move a district to a different location, once you built it? Or did you mean tear down and build something else in that spot instead? The former would be very powerful, but somewhat anti-thematic. The latter seems more situational, but can come in handy I suppose.

 

[Elhoim]

Could you explain what you mean by "replace"? Can you move a district to a different location, once you built it? Or did you mean tear down and build something else in that spot instead? The former would be very powerful, but somewhat anti-thematic. The latter seems more situational, but can come in handy I suppose.

First, it's not like civ that you can have only one district per type, you can have as many as you want without the city limit, which is quite generous. By replace is that you can build on top of another district. So you might start by placing a lot of production districts, and then replace one of them with a science one to pivot to research (science districts synergize with production ones).

Same that if you get an unique district that's a replacement for a regular one, you can build on top to improve it. For example, if you select a culture that has an unique harbor, you could build on top of any regular harbor you built.

 

[Shadowhal]

First, it's not like civ that you can have only one district per type, you can have as many as you want without the city limit, which is quite generous. By replace is that you can build on top of another district. So you might start by placing a lot of production districts, and then replace one of them with a science one to pivot to research (science districts synergize with production ones).

Same that if you get an unique district that's a replacement for a regular one, you can build on top to improve it. For example, if you select a culture that has an unique harbor, you could build on top of any regular harbor you built.

Thanks, that makes sense. It's also convenient and simpler that you don't have dismantle the old district first.

 

[Krajzen]

I can't even express in words how superior the entire system of territorial control is over civ's solutions. On mechanical as well as historical simulation layer.

 

[CivLuvah]

As much as I love the expansion in Humankind, I'm still stuck in grasping how exploitation works - how yield increase works and interacts with adjacent tiles. In scenario 1, whenever I try and hover over a tile to put down a quarter - for instance, a maker's quarter - there's this thing that appears on top that indicates a number (using @Elhoim's photo):

Where does this number come from? This looks like a different number from the actual yields that I get from both the original tile and after I put down my maker's quarter. For example, in the firs turns of the game I put down a maker's quarter and that thing hovering says 7, but the tile says 2, and the quarter adds one yield, so that makes it 3. Where did the 7 come from? I know the numbers aren't final, but I just wanted this cleared up.

 

[mitsho]

From the hexes surrounding it? And from Infrastructures in the city? That‘s how I understood it, but I agree, a little UI to help the new player understand it could be helpful. I am not terrible sure about my answer as well ;-)

 

[Narcisse]

from the hexes surroundings, there is an huge bonus from mountain, and I think than deposit like coffee give some bonus prod too

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

As mitsho and Narcisse were pointing out, that pin shows you the total increase in raw production (that is, before any percentage modifiers from Civics, etc) placing the quarter there will give you, so it takes into account the new tiles being exploited, and the bonus of the quarter itself.

Coffee does not give an Industry boost, though. As a Luxury resources, it interacts with Market Quarters to boost money.

 

[CivLuvah]

As mitsho and Narcisse were pointing out, that pin shows you the total increase in raw production (that is, before any percentage modifiers from Civics, etc) placing the quarter there will give you, so it takes into account the new tiles being exploited, and the bonus of the quarter itself.

Coffee does not give an Industry boost, though. As a Luxury resources, it interacts with Market Quarters to boost money.

I get it now! So that pin is the indicator for the quarter, while the yield number on the tile is just for that tile, and not what the quarter actually produces. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Elhoim]

I get it now! So that pin is the indicator for the quarter, while the yield number on the tile is just for that tile, and not what the quarter actually produces. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The bolded part is what I think you are missing. It's for all the surrounding tiles. UI feedback is buggy/wrong there, as I think it should show the surrounding tiles instead of hiding them.

The exploitation system works like in Endless Legend. You take the corresponding yields of all the tiles. If you are placing a makers quarter, you only exploit the production of tiles, while a farmer's exploit the food. You can see it in the tooltip:

So, if a tile has 1 food and 2 production, you'd only get the 2 production. For example:

The 15 comes from the yields from the tile, the surrounding tile and the quarter inherent +1 (the 1 in the coffee is already exploited).

3+2+2+2+2+4 = 15.

So for example, if you see a science tile, you need to place a science quarter to exploit it:

If you select a makers quarter the science doesn't appear:

If you select a science quarter the production does not appear:

 

[CivLuvah]

The bolded part is what I think you are missing. It's for all the surrounding tiles. UI feedback is buggy/wrong there, as I think it should show the surrounding tiles instead of hiding them.

The exploitation system works like in Endless Legend. You take the corresponding yields of all the tiles. If you are placing a makers quarter, you only exploit the production of tiles, while a farmer's exploit the food. You can see it in the tooltip:

View attachment 566332

So, if a tile has 1 food and 2 production, you'd only get the 2 production. For example:

View attachment 566333

View attachment 566334

The 15 comes from the yields from the tile, the surrounding tile and the quarter inherent +1 (the 1 in the coffee is already exploited).

View attachment 566336

3+2+2+2+2+4 = 15.

So for example, if you see a science tile, you need to place a science quarter to exploit it:

View attachment 566337

If you select a makers quarter the science doesn't appear:

View attachment 566338

If you select a science quarter the production does not appear:

View attachment 566340

Thanks for clearing it up!

 

[Elhoim]

Thanks for clearing it up!

You are welcome! I really like this system, as the "terrain adjacency" is quite intuitive and flexible with the simple rule of "the quarter exploits the yield of the tile".

 

[tedhebert]

You are welcome! I really like this system, as the "terrain adjacency" is quite intuitive and flexible with the simple rule of "the quarter exploits the yield of the tile".

honestly, I wouldn't use the word "intuitive"; for me it's really not. But once you DO understand the concept, I find it nice and fun. I really like the fact that placing a quarter is not a single tile decision, and how it'll make us work the terrain much more than what we're used in CIV. But it took me a long while and a few explanations like yours to grasp it, so no, it's not intuitive. In fact, after about
15 playthroughs of the first scenario, I was still convinced this was a UI bug making erroneous calculations, a little like @CivLuvah thought !

 

[Elhoim]

honestly, I wouldn't use the word "intuitive"; for me it's really not. But once you DO understand the concept, I find it nice and fun. I really like the fact that placing a quarter is not a single tile decision, and how it'll make us work the terrain much more than what we're used in CIV. But it took me a long while and a few explanations like yours to grasp it, so no, it's not intuitive. In fact, after about

Yeah, I was definitely thinking if of terms of adjacency design, not in how it's explained and implemented, which DEFINITELY need some work.

Mostly, it was in regards to how Civ VI handles district adjacency. Here, a production quarter gets more "adjacency" in tiles with high production. No matter if it's a forest, rocks, mountains or strategic resources vs Civ VI in which for many years wasn't even considering lumber mills. Or same for science, you here see science in a tile, you'll get it with a science quarters. In that regard, the adjacency with the terrain is very clear to see.

 

[Stringer1313]

I know this wasn't the point of OP's thread but what is that "+9 production" bit when placing the harbor? Where the hell is that coming from? certainly not from adjacent tiles? I was deeply confused by the difference between the small number showing the increase in X (the thing in the little upside down triangle), and then the giant +X text that takes up the tile (the +9 production from placing the harbor).

I'm thankful Elohim summarized the expansion mechanics but this thread demonstrates that it is confusing. Having played OpenDev, I remain concerned about the learning curve, and the need to rely on forums to decipher things. Having said that, I understand that once you to learn it (i finally managed--barely--to barely understand combat), it becomes very rewarding.

I am the most confused by tile placement and yields and where they come from. The numbers all seem random to me. Like is it coming from adjacent tiles, some inherent thing in the district, some thing from neighboring districts, what? I read this thread and now I kind of understand it, but it's not easy to memorize or intuit, and I feel like i have to come back to this forum. I'm hopeful Devs will increase clarity by 500% on this stuff, and I know they are aware of that complaint from scenario 1. The example I gave of big number versus little number is a classic example of how confusing things are.

I just want to know exactly where my FIDS is coming from! And quickly. (And I'll throw in for good measure my complaint that the FIDS tooltip showing you where the FIDS is coming from in the city screen needs to be made more detailed. "Infrastructure" is just meaningless to me, and it hurts immersion, and it makes me feel like I'm playing Excel.)