Humankind Game by Amplitude

[Eagle Pursuit]

One thing that caught my attention was the Harrapan civ. One would think that indicates they might not treat India as one monolithic civ.

 

[Jkchart]

One thing that caught my attention was the Harrapan civ. One would think that indicates they might not treat India as one monolithic civ.

They seem like a prime builder culture for the early game. Instantly I was like - "I want to play them."

EDIT: Plus, they've never been featured before, so it's cool to see their culture being represented.

 

[Medopu]

They seem like a prime builder culture for the early game.

Actually if you look at the below image, they have a wheat icon next to their name so i'm guessing they're more of an agricultural/growth civ. Egypt has hammer and nail, they are probably a prime builder civ (which makes sense based on how popular culture stereotypes these early cultures.

Spoiler :

I'm not sure what the thought process is that says Egyptians deciding to call themselves German after some times goes by is any less historically accurate than the Chinese building the Statue of Liberty after conquering the neighboring Mapuche for converting their cities to Judaism, or for Sumeria to narrowly win a Space Race versus the Aztecs, but here we are.

What would be even cooler was if in modern age, the look and architectural style of buildings changed based on the selected ideology (communism, fascism and capitalism) instead of culture.

You would have three types of ideologies (like in civ 5) and each gave you the following looks:
-Communism: soviet architecture, brutalism, commieblocks
-Capitalism: glass skyscrapers, suburbia
-Fascism: Neoclassicism, ??? (i'm drawing a blank but you get the idea)

I wanted to see this since Civ 5

 

[Jkchart]

Actually if you look at the below image, they have a wheat icon next to their name so i'm guessing they're more of an agricultural/growth civ. Egypt has hammer and nail, they are probably a prime builder civ (which makes sense based on how popular culture stereotypes these early cultures.

Fair - I used builder very generally, i.e. peaceful and focused on development as opposed to war, including agriculture in that. But you're right that Egypt is likely the construction/typical "builder" civ.

 

[ChocolateShake]

First question, why do you think Amplitude chose to announce their new game right now? I mean, they said it will arrive "sometime in 2020," so that could be as little as five months from now — or as much as fifteen months from now. Is it typical in the gaming industry to make an announcement like this so far in advance? What do they have to gain by doing that, and what do they have to lose?

Second, how does Firaxis respond to this, if at all, in their own game design? It seems likely, doesn't it, that they'd already heard rumors about Humankind before Amplitude went public, so this may not come as a huge surprise to the Civ developers. But do you think it might influence their plans going forward? Or will they stay the course, sticking to an overall strategy they've previously laid out?

Interesting points, I think they could have a third expansion announcement in mind and maybe they're trying to get the announcement in before it overlaps too much with that. I don't think they have too much to lose and potentially might have a lot to gain.

I think Firaxis will probably stick to their current/planned strategy. They've definitely increased their communication recently, I don't think that's related to Humankind. I do think though their plans for Civ 7 could be adjusted based on how things go.

Personally I'm looking forward to it, although the idea of separating civ choices by era/choosing multiple civs will really give a different feel to the game. That's a good sign though, I think like others have said competition will be great - I'll always be a civ fan but there's definitely room for more 4x games focused on history.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I wonder if that if there is a 3rd expansion, will they try to include any features from Humankind, like the multiple altitudes terrain, in order to fend off competition?

 

[DWilson]

I doubt they would have time to adjust their intended mechanics for a hypothetical expansion at this stage. I would expect that (if the expansion plan exists) was nearly locked down, barring unavoidable issues, since around the time of Gathering Storm's release.

 

[Buni0ns]

What a risky and gutsy move by Amplitude! I mean we all know Civ is the 400 lb gorilla in the room in the 4x space. To lock horns directly with Firaxis for this next title is courageous.

Speaking as a huge Endless fan, (especially Endless Legend), I am seriously happy at this move from Amplitude. I hope this is the move that will break the 1UPT loggerhead. Between this upcoming title and the recent release of Age of Wonders - Planetfall I think studios are showing that combat in 4x games can simply be done better.

Art is a battleground ripe for competition.

Another serious competitive advantage to be gained in any head to head battle of studios will be in the areas of AI and Mod-ability.

Something else that Amplitude does so well is they allow multiplayer with all expansion access if the host has all DLC. This keeps the multiplayer community more viable and cohesive and allows people to obtain DLC at their own pace financially.

Speaking of community, the communication and community on Amplitude forums is suuuuuper solid too, and believe me I love Civfanatics, but Firaxis doesn't interact nearly as well as Amplitude does with its fans. Solid competition for hearts and mind is good for everyone involved.

Firaxis needs a solid kick in the slats and I hope this will help. I love Civ and want it to be its best.

 

[steveg700]

What a risky and gutsy move by Amplitude! I mean we all know Civ is the 400 lb gorilla in the room in the 4x space. To lock horns directly with Firaxis for this next title is courageous.

Oh, it's actually a very smart and safer move for Amplitude than anything else it's done, even if it is perhaps the most ambitious. As Mark Cuban likes to say on Shark Tank, it's better to own 10% of a watermelon that 100% of a grape.

If Civ is the biggest game in in 4X, and nobody else is actually in that space, it's much safer to enter that space than go off and do some outre genre of 4X that has never had its temperature taken. Don't weep for Pepsi and Burger King. They're pretty happy in their second-place spot.

This isn't really a mixed metaphor about locking horns with a 400 lb. gorilla. It's not like the audience has to make a choice. I think we can think of at least three major franchises in the space 4X genre, and about twenty more less-successful ones and more on the way.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

One thing that caught my attention was the Harrapan civ. One would think that indicates they might not treat India as one monolithic civ.

What struck me is that since we know nothing about Harappan leaders and language, and can only make guesses about their religion, politics, government and society - and don't even know what they called themselves, for that matter - then Humankind is obviously taking a much different path than Civ with its requirement for recognizable Leader figures, city names, and specific 'Civ' traits related to culture, government or religion.

That alone will make it worth investigating.

 

[anandus]

It definitely looks interesting and I'm all for more competition in this gaming niche.

Two things that I'm worried about:
First, my biggest worry, is the battles. Although interesting that you actually get battles, I'm afraid it'll take far too long. And even if it'd only take five seconds it'd be way too long.
Can you imagine if there's a war with ten battles? Or multiple players in a war?
It's the opposite of dynamic turns, which is there for a reason.

Secondly I'm afraid of balancing regarding the civs. Civ games always seem plagued with 'golden lines'. The ideal path through the tech tree, for instance. And I'm afraid this will also be the case with civs, that there's a 'best' civ for every era, thus your playing (or trying too) with the same civs over and over, or that the player that gets the 'golden' civs wins.

Edit:
I think Endless Legends has battles, right?
How long do those take and how does it impact waiting times?

 

[Haig]

anandus:
Personally I started doing autobattles, because the battles themselves were very tedious and unnecessary.
It's like one of those thigns where you are "I wish civ had tactical battles!" but in reality it's not that great imho.

My problems with Endless Legend (haven't played Endless Space):

1. A.I. doesnt feel like it's competing and interacting with me and the rest of the world

2. Enemy leaders don't really have a personality. Maybe it's becacuse you are used to larger-than-life characters from Civilization, but somehow it didn't matter if you are having diplomacy with Ancient lord of Dragons or some Undead cult king.

3. Again, compared to Civ, there doesn't seem to be as much different options on what to do in the world, besides building cities, conquering and making quests. Granted, the game added stuff little by little from patches like expansions, for example in the beginning there wasn't naval units and no espionage.

4. No memorable music themes in my opinion, again maybe spoiled by Civilization's amazing music..

From positives I give great graphics, _excellent_ UI, good tech tree and brave innovations like the very asymmetrical factions.

 

[Medopu]

Secondly I'm afraid of balancing regarding the civs. Civ games always seem plagued with 'golden lines'. The ideal path through the tech tree, for instance. And I'm afraid this will also be the case with civs, that there's a 'best' civ for every era, thus your playing (or trying too) with the same civs over and over, or that the player that gets the 'golden' civs wins.

The most optimal meta is unfortunately unavoidable in all strategy games especially the ones with more than 5 factions/races/classes.
There are games with intentionally few races like starcraft, so that its easy to balance them. But even chess (2 players) has balancing issues. If one could pick, one would always prefer white figures.

What firaxis did with multiple victory types is quite smart in my opinion. there are as many optimal civs to pick as there are victory conditions, since each civ has specific victory type bonuses. This means that instead of there being one optimal civ for any situation, you chose an optimal civ depending on what victory condition you're playing towards.

Humankind will not be made this way. In this game you accumulate 'fame' to win and like you said, there will most likely be an optimal path to accumulate the most of fame in each era. There are 60 civs in the game so it's basically impossible to balance them all. There is no game where such a large number of factions would ever be completely balanced. There will always be an advantage for some civs, thats just how it is unfortunately. You better realize this now than be disappointed when it comes out.

 

[Buni0ns]

Oh, it's actually a very smart and safer move for Amplitude than anything else it's done, even if it is perhaps the most ambitious. As Mark Cuban likes to say on Shark Tank, it's better to own 10% of a watermelon that 100% of a grape.

If Civ is the biggest game in in 4X, and nobody else is actually in that space, it's much safer to enter that space than go off and do some outre genre of 4X that has never had its temperature taken. Don't weep for Pepsi and Burger King. They're pretty happy in their second-place spot.

This isn't really a mixed metaphor about locking horns with a 400 lb. gorilla. It's not like the audience has to make a choice. I think we can think of at least three major franchises in the space 4X genre, and about twenty more less-successful ones and more on the way.

Fair enough but a small studio like Amlitude can afford a failed game a lot less than say Firaxis (Beyond Earth).

It definitely looks interesting and I'm all for more competition in this gaming niche.

Two things that I'm worried about:
First, my biggest worry, is the battles. Although interesting that you actually get battles, I'm afraid it'll take far too long. And even if it'd only take five seconds it'd be way too long.
Can you imagine if there's a war with ten battles? Or multiple players in a war?
It's the opposite of dynamic turns, which is there for a reason.

Secondly I'm afraid of balancing regarding the civs. Civ games always seem plagued with 'golden lines'. The ideal path through the tech tree, for instance. And I'm afraid this will also be the case with civs, that there's a 'best' civ for every era, thus your playing (or trying too) with the same civs over and over, or that the player that gets the 'golden' civs wins.

Edit:
I think Endless Legends has battles, right?
How long do those take and how does it impact waiting times?

Endless Legend does have un-spooled armies going into tactical battles, and many people dislike them because its not 100% direct control. There is an orders issued phase and then each side attempts to carry them out. These videos cover Endless Legend combat. It seems that the new game will be closer to Age of Wonders type however and give complete direct control more like an X-COM inside your 4x.

anandus:
Personally I started doing autobattles, because the battles themselves were very tedious and unnecessary.
It's like one of those thigns where you are "I wish civ had tactical battles!" but in reality it's not that great imho.

My problems with Endless Legend (haven't played Endless Space):

1. A.I. doesnt feel like it's competing and interacting with me and the rest of the world

2. Enemy leaders don't really have a personality. Maybe it's becacuse you are used to larger-than-life characters from Civilization, but somehow it didn't matter if you are having diplomacy with Ancient lord of Dragons or some Undead cult king.

3. Again, compared to Civ, there doesn't seem to be as much different options on what to do in the world, besides building cities, conquering and making quests. Granted, the game added stuff little by little from patches like expansions, for example in the beginning there wasn't naval units and no espionage.

4. No memorable music themes in my opinion, again maybe spoiled by Civilization's amazing music..

From positives I give great graphics, _excellent_ UI, good tech tree and brave innovations like the very asymmetrical factions.

There is a Community AI patch you might like, as far as the rest you kinda adressed it yourself, you have seasonal events & weather being a factor before Civ ever got there. The quest system is pretty solid, too.

I really have to beg to differ on the music tho - Endless Legend has outstanding music, but don't take my word for it check it out yourself and see how you like it.

 

[ChocolateShake]

There's still not a lot of info, but I'm wondering about these two things:

• The selection of 10 civs per era - How do you handle civs like China? I could see them having representation through different dynasties I suppose, but I'm very curious to see how that's handled, and which civs are selected for each era. This really does change the narrative completely.
• Combat - it looks like the game has a strong focus on combat, but it's too early to tell. I'm hoping there will also be a well-developed empire management system.

I've read lots of good things about Endless games, I'll give them a try to see how they are.

Overall I'm definitely looking forward to trying it out. New ideas are always welcome, of course they're taking quite a risk and they'll have to innovate to help them stand out.

 

[Uberfrog]

I wonder if that if there is a 3rd expansion, will they try to include any features from Humankind, like the multiple altitudes terrain, in order to fend off competition?

I don’t think they realistically could, and I definitely don’t think they should.

Humankind is being built from the ground up with new features in mind, whereas any 3rd Civ expansion would need to carefully add new mechanics to an already feature-packed game.

Besides two teams coming up with their own ideas is much better for the games and development of the genre.

 

[Zenstrive]

I hope they ditch the sector based city placement mechanic a la Endless Legends and can actually place cities anywhere on the map.
From the screenshots, looks like the borrough system mechanic to expand a city is carried over here but in hopefully improved manner.
Also are there any mentions about Heroes/Legends/Governors everywhere? Since in Endless Legends you can appoint a hero to govern a city or to act as general of an army. You can even have one for each city and one for each 8 units army.
Multiple terrain levels are already in Endless Legends too, but not used much outside of battle.

 

[KayAU]

Oh, I actually forgot the sector based cities in Endless Legend...yeah, that would not be my first choice. It is interesting to consider how different games handle this, though:

• Civilization: cities can be founded on any passable land tile, limited by minimum distance
• Endless Legend: the map is subdivided into sectors, one city can be founded for each sector
• Fallen Enchantress: cities can be founded on fertile tiles...and city yields are determined only by the tile you found it on, resources within reach, buildings in the city, and spell effects

Of all these, I prefer the Civilization approach, although I will say Fallen Enchantress' system works well within the its fantasy context, where you are essentially reviving a broken world. It creates a strong desire to scout out and secure a limited number of attractive city locations, and turns the map into an interesting mix between imposing wilderness and beacons of order and civilization.

 

[mitsho]

It could be annoying when you try to reach a good spot and the AI founds a city just one tile into the region on the opposite site. On the other hand, regions may be easier for the AI and you may need to strive less for that perfect spot. But fixed regions are also very static. And again, I hope that the map is already full and living. Founding a city in an empty land didn't really happen. (but of course the Romans f.e. founded cities close to existing Gallic settlements, so some sort of mechanic would be needed).

Civ's minimum distance for cities and area effects (i.e. the colloseum) doesn't take into account the geography of the map. It should factor in movement cost (and thus trade routes, railroads and technology). The minimum distance is there to allow for enough space for districts. But that means you plan for 1800 AD in 1000 BC.

I'm excited for that game.

 

[universecreep]

Thank goodness there's finally someone to challenge Firaxis and offer an alternative. I've always thought Firaxis took the community for granted (only communicating with the fan-base when they had something to sell - DLC/expansions). Maybe if they're knocked down a few notches they'll realize how lucky they were to have such dedicated fans.

Also, I love Civ games so an alternative is always a good thing!