Humankind Game by Amplitude

[Imaus]

Endless Legend is still one of the best 4x games out there.

Amplitude giving some serious competition to Firaxis could be just the thing the 4x genre needs to give it a good kick into next gear. Getting it to rethink some of its questionable design choices it's held onto because of history rather than being good game design

A quick look at the game's features it seems to include two thing's which many experienced 4x players have asked for

A civilization that you build yourself as you play through the game rather than decide upon at the beginning and a single unified victory condition which pools all your achievements in science, culture and warfare into a single pool, so victory comes from being the greatest civilization rather than being the one which completely slanted itself in one direction the most.

These two features immediately shift the game to adapting to the world your presented with rather than deciding at the beginning that you are going to do a 'sicence run' or a 'domination run' and choosing a civ and having almost your entire strategy planned out before you have even hit the begin game button.

I am super, super, super, super excited.

The best thing about this is that Firaxis is definitely aware of Amplitude and their games. Will be interesting to see if any of the game design choices in 'Humankind' end up working their way into future civilization titles. Pushing the genre forward through competition

Umm... I have to agree with this:

Don`t you think that having one single victory with all your achievement makes your general path to victory even less diversified? If you always have to do the same kind of actions to win, the same way, every game..

There's nothing wrong with multiple victories. Helps replayability, really. Having just ONE victory (basically Civ's point victory) every game? That's going to get stale quick. We need to expand on victories if anything, not cull them. Science, Economics, Religion, Diplomatic, Militant, maybe add an Environmental, Democratic, Authoritarian (Domination?) and so forth....

 

[Elhoim]

Don`t you think that having one single victory with all your achievement makes your general path to victory even less diversified? If you always have to do the same kind of actions to win, the same way, every game..

Not really. Just imagine the different victories in Civ granting different points. So you might go science to get the points from reaching AC, while another will try to grab culture victory to counter your points, and what both of you did before, what you achieved can make the difference.

Basically, it's not about cutting the steps and events that the different victories give (build a spaceship, influential culture, religious spread), but just that they do not "end" the game right there.

 

[Potworny]

Spoiler :

Some screens from the Steam page, looks intriguing.
By the way, do we have an official thread about this?

 

[Casworon]

So there are 60 civilizations. And through the game you choose 6. One for each era and each era having 10. I wonder what they all are?

I also wonder if some exist in multiple ages.

For example England (The United Kingdom) is still pretty important in the modern era if there are only 10 choices. Plus being a huge player in the industrial era

 

[Elhoim]

Civ has become increasingly stale over the years, it's great to see a new take on the concept without the baggage. I REALLY loved Endless Legend mechanics, but I couldn't get into the world. I loved the region system, armies, etc, so being able to play a similar game in the historical setting I love so much it's a dream come true

 

[Arraz]

Just from a business perspective, I really doubt they would give up on the "Civilization" Title so I would guess they are a new competitor

 

[player1 fanatic]

I love how they kept their own style of resource icons. Like food and production.

Of course, they will probably have something else for money, and not "Dust".

 

[Victoria]

Looks like another 1UPT iteration. Will be interesting to see how it plays.
Legacy traits? Just how similar legally does something have to be?

 

[Caprikel]

I wonder how the AI will be. How is the AI in their other games?

 

[Haig]

I stopped playing Endless Legend, AI was one of the reasons.
Felt like I was alone in the world, the other empires did not do much and the interactions with them felt limited.

Some very cool designs there as well, but I dont miss that game.

 

[CivLuvah]

This is all very... interesting. I am genuinely curious about this. *says in a very skeptical but intriguing tone*

 

[altayrneto]

I think we’re going to have some news about a new expansion for Civ VI or a standalone game (Like Colonization or Beyond Earth) any time soon. The time just after the release of Humanking would be a great opportunity to release a expansion pack, because while Vanilla Humanking may be still unbalanced and not at its full potential, Civ 6 would be more complete than ever.

 

[Weraptor]

Liked Endless Legend. Love civ. Very much looking forward to this.

 

[steveg700]

Don`t you think that having one single victory with all your achievement makes your general path to victory even less diversified? If you always have to do the same kind of actions to win, the same way, every game..

There's nothing wrong with multiple victories. Helps replayability, really. Having just ONE victory (basically Civ's point victory) every game? That's going to get stale quick. We need to expand on victories if anything, not cull them. Science, Economics, Religion, Diplomatic, Militant, maybe add an Environmental, Democratic, Authoritarian (Domination?) and so forth....

This is the huge misconception that has dogged the Civ games.

The worst problem civ has is the "multiple paths to victory" that superficially creates the impression of variety but in actuality leads to the monotony of singular focus and overspecialization. Many if not most dissatisfaction with a Civ game can, in part, be traced to its use of multiple victory conditions.

In a score-based victory, you don't necessarily repeat the same actions every game to win. That's what Civ has conditioned the player to think because at the start of a game you pick one of the available victory conditions and repeat the same actions over and over to win that type of victory. The supposed replayability comes in choosing another victory, and then your cookie-cutter cities spam whatever it takes to win that victory type, and dabbling in anything that doesn't contribute directly to that victory is a deviation from course.

A score-based victory lets you aggregate success as a civilization in a multitude of areas. Science, economics, religion, diplomacy, military, and so forth. It means the ability to pivot and diversify. That's what variety in gameplay is supposed to consist of.

Think of how the era system works in Civ VI right now and how working towards a golden era can be tackled in myriad ways. Now extrapolate that into a greater scoring system.

 

[Elhoim]

Looks like another 1UPT iteration. Will be interesting to see how it plays.

It's very similar to EL, from this screenshot:

Spoiler :

Basically, you move around armies that are composed up to 8 units (max is 4 at the beginning, tech increases the limit). So there's no carpet of doom, and the player and the AI have to move "less units" around the map, fixing the issue of pathfinding. When the armies clash, a battle area is marked in the actual map, 3 hexes around from each army. You can see it as the white area in the screenshot above. You can then place the armies in any disposition you want on your side of the battlefield, which would make it much easier for the AI to make proper formations (melee in front, archers behind on hills, etc). In EL you could give the all the units some general instructions (attack this enemy, move here) and a general fallback tactic if it couldn't do what you said. Then the battle plays out using initiative.

From what it seems, battles here could be manual to get the civ crowd, which would be great.

This is the huge misconception that has dogged the Civ games.

The worst problem civ has is the "multiple paths to victory" that superficially creates the impression of variety but in actuality leads to the monotony of singular focus and overspecialization. Many if not most dissatisfaction with a Civ game can traced to its use of multiple victory conditions.

In a score-based, you don't necessarily repeat the same actions every game to win. That's what Civ has conditioned the player to think because at the start of a game you pick one of the available victory conditions and repeat the same actions over and over to win that type of victory. The supposed replayability comes in choosing another victory, and then your cookie-cutter cities spam whatever it takes to win that victory type, and treating anything that doesn't contribute directly to that victory as a deviation from course.

A score-based victory lets you aggregate success as a civilization in a multitude of areas. Science, economics, religion, diplomacy, military, and so forth. It means the ability to pivot and diversify. That's what variety is supposed to consist of.

This SO much. Couldn't say it better.

 

[Victoria]

A score-based victory lets you aggregate success as a civilization in a multitude of areas. Science, economics, religion, diplomacy, military, and so forth. It means the ability to pivot and diversify. That's what variety is supposed to consist of.

What I have always been after in Civ. I sort of play this way anyway. When I get tired of a game I stop and think how I am seen compared to the others.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

The Endless games always look great, but I personally never like the actual gameplay in them. But might help spur some new ideas for future Civ games, and a bit of validation for the genre is always a good thing.

 

[Elhoim]

The Endless games always look great, but I personally never like the actual gameplay in them. But might help spur some new ideas for future Civ games, and a bit of validation for the genre is always a good thing.

In my case I loved the gameplay and mechanics in EL, but the lore and visuals were what kept me back. Even if there's a sci-fi pseudo justification, the lore felt made by a teenager (So we have this techno vikings, and armored ghosts, and flesh eating insects, and animated cult statues, and BDSM female mages, and DRAGONS!). I always wanted the same mechanics in a Civ type game, so I'm really eager to try this out.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

From the sounds of things, this has an idea that I always wanted. Maybe not for Civ, but something like Civ.

You start as a generic tribe, then gain traits as you go along. So a tribe on the Steppes with horses might choose a trait that benefits mobile cavalry or a civ with fertile fields and access to stone might choose a trait for building wonders. And you pick new traits as you go to address new challenges.

And Humankind seems to have that. Only instead of simply calling them traits, they call them civs. And they come with new art styles in addition to traits. And they fuse with your previous traits.

So it's sort of like how the Romans became Byzantines. An organic evolution in culture over time. Only the Romans might become the Vikings instead.

 

[The googles do nothing]

It doesn't look like the city building or exploration will be any different then Civ6. That's a big part of the game for me so I will be interested to hear if the ruleset and combat changes make this a better game.