Humankind Game by Amplitude

[Uberfrog]

That's precisely why it would be interesting at least to think about it, though I doubt Civ will go in that direction at all. I do agree that it will not work for all and you definitely would be have to be linear with some such as playing through six Chinese dynasties with maybe a Mongolian in between.
I am wondering what kind of approach Humankind will make such as will they have both a Renaissance Elizabethan England and then a Victorian United Kingdom as separate Civs or will they focus one area of their history?

This is what I’m wondering too. It looks like you have a choice of ~10 options per era.

I’m expecting this means the usual suspects in their appropriate eras (Ancient Egypt, Classical Greece, Medieval Khmer we already know about, for instance), but there’s also room for multiple appearances from the “same” civilisation. So we could see Classical Rome alongside Medieval Byzantium, Achaemenid/Sassanid/Safavid Persia across the Classical/Medieval/Renaissance, and Imperial Russia alongside the Soviets in the modern era.

 

[Casworon]

You could have England as one for one era and then the United Kingdom for another era. Having that split between them. But yes i am also very curious about how they are going to tackle historic civilizations which have had huge impacts at multiple eras of history

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

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.

From the sound of things, they won't have leaders.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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 couldn't help but noticing that it looks like the Hittites have a sword icon that means they will probably more militaristic. I wonder if some in the same era would have the same traits because I wonder what Assyrian traits would be? I guess they could decide to the make them the cultural Civ with all their palace reliefs and library collections.

This is what I’m wondering too. It looks like you have a choice of ~10 options per era.

I’m expecting this means the usual suspects in their appropriate eras (Ancient Egypt, Classical Greece, Medieval Khmer we already know about, for instance), but there’s also room for multiple appearances from the “same” civilisation. So we could see Classical Rome alongside Medieval Byzantium, Achaemenid/Sassanid/Safavid Persia across the Classical/Medieval/Renaissance, and Imperial Russia alongside the Soviets in the modern era.

I'm quite sure with 60 slots that Byzantium will appear alongside Rome. Surely Persia will make it in, at least, in it's Achaemenid Era, the one it is most well known for. It's also quite possible that a separate Soviet Union will appear in the modern era as it was definitely one of the world's dominant superpowers then apart from Imperial Russia.

There is quite a big pool of Civs to choose from by the time you get to Medieval and Renaissance that you might have to sacrifice Renaissance Persia to put in Civs such as Spain, Portugal, and the Dutch to coincide with their golden ages, who probably wouldn't appear otherwise.

From the sound of things, they won't have leaders.

Bring on the playable Olmecs and their Colossal Heads.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I couldn't help but noticing that it looks like the Hittites have a sword icon that means they will probably more militaristic. I wonder if some in the same era would have the same traits because I wonder what Assyrian traits would be? I guess they could decide to the make them the cultural Civ with all their palace reliefs and library collections.


I'm quite sure with 60 slots that Byzantium will appear alongside Rome. Surely Persia will make it in, at least, in it's Achaemenid Era, the one it is most well known for. It's also quite possible that a separate Soviet Union will appear in the modern era as it was definitely one of the world's dominant superpowers then apart from Imperial Russia.

There is quite a big pool of Civs to choose from by the time you get to Medieval and Renaissance that you might have to sacrifice Renaissance Persia to put in Civs such as Spain, Portugal, and the Dutch to coincide with their golden ages, who probably wouldn't appear otherwise.


Bring on the playable Olmecs and their Colossal Heads.

Depending on how they break down their 6 ages (I've seen/heard devs refer to Bronze, Renaissance, Industrial, Modern, but also Enlightenment. So I'm not sure how both the classical and medieval fit in there) Rome would not be side by side with the Byzantines, rather Byzantines would be available in the next age.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Depending on how they break down their 6 ages (I've seen/heard devs refer to Bronze, Renaissance, Industrial, Modern, but also Enlightenment. So I'm not sure how both the classical and medieval fit in there) Rome would not be side by side with the Byzantines, rather Byzantines would be available in the next age.

Interesting take on the ages, especially if we do have an Enlightenment age. I would assume that Medieval/Middle Ages would definitely be there which would mean that Rome and Greece would appear with the Harappans and Egyptians for example. I guess it's okay but considering the Classical Era is my favorite era in history I would be kind of bummed if it didn't exist in the game.

I guess I worded it wrong. I meant to say with 60 options that the Byzantines will most likely appear in the game, not necessarily in the same era as Rome.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Interesting take on the ages, especially if we do have an Enlightenment age. I would assume that Medieval/Middle Ages would definitely be there which would mean that Rome and Greece would appear with the Harappans and Egyptians for example. I guess it's okay but considering the Classical Era is my favorite era in history I would be kind of bummed if it didn't exist in the game.

I guess I worded it wrong. I meant to say with 60 options that the Byzantines will most likely appear in the game, not necessarily in the same era as Rome.

My suspicion is that Renaissance and Enlightenment are the same thing.

 

[mitsho]

Or - since the medieval era is quite a European view and might not make sense in the development of humankind in another world - they leave it out. No „downfall“ so to say. Have it classical - imperial era or whatever. Could be an inspired choice. I‘m curious now .

EDIT: I know, the dark ages were no downfall, but it's a break in civ names and styles. Probably Eagle Pursuits explanation fits better, even though the Renaissance and the Enlightenment are different periods in history.

 

[Deliverator]

I couldn't help but noticing that it looks like the Hittites have a sword icon that means they will probably more militaristic. I wonder if some in the same era would have the same traits because I wonder what Assyrian traits would be? I guess they could decide to the make them the cultural Civ with all their palace reliefs and library collections.

The icons and the images are generally in sync (Egyptians=Builders, Harappans=Farmers) so it looks like Assyrians are most likely a different flavour of militaristic. In the image they are laying siege with archers and towers while the Hittites are out on a sortie with chariots.

Another preview describing the gameplay in the demo is here:
https://www.gamereactor.eu/humankind-preview/

Each culture gets three things - a faction trait, a special building, and a military unit - but as you evolve you keep your old faction traits, which essentially layers in new features on top of each other.

Regions are defined by their cities, and you can't drop multiple cities close to each other, rather you're limited to one per region (although you can drop outposts in unclaimed regions).

The Gamescom demo fast-forwarded us through the eras, and we saw an evolution from Roman into Khmer, with new units and buildings seen around the city, before later they took onboard Chinese traits before it transitioned into a Germanic culture .

 

[7daysofwar]

Interesting take on the ages, especially if we do have an Enlightenment age. I would assume that Medieval/Middle Ages would definitely be there which would mean that Rome and Greece would appear with the Harappans and Egyptians for example. I guess it's okay but considering the Classical Era is my favorite era in history I would be kind of bummed if it didn't exist in the game.

I guess I worded it wrong. I meant to say with 60 options that the Byzantines will most likely appear in the game, not necessarily in the same era as Rome.

I don't think Greece will added by the Bronze Age civs since I am 99% sure they are in alphabetical order and Greece would be shown before the harrappans so I think Greece and Rome would be added in the age after the bronze age

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I don't think Greece will added by the Bronze Age civs since I am 99% sure they are in alphabetical order and Greece would be shown before the harrappans so I think Greece and Rome would be added in the age after the bronze age

I expect the Greeks will be the same age as the Romans. In one dev interview they flashed a bunch of civ cards across the screen and one was pretty clearly Mycenaeans, which should be Bronze Age and precede the Greeks.

 

[Uberfrog]

There is quite a big pool of Civs to choose from by the time you get to Medieval and Renaissance that you might have to sacrifice Renaissance Persia to put in Civs such as Spain, Portugal, and the Dutch to coincide with their golden ages, who probably wouldn't appear otherwise.

I suppose it depends on how strictly they limit cultures or each “type”. Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands could each be Renaissance civs based around maritime trade, so directly compete in a way they wouldn’t with the more cultural/builder type Safavids. Of course the Safavids would be competing with Bourbon France, and Ming China...

The more I think about it, the more excited I am by this approach, if it’s handled well.

 

[Medopu]

As far as i understood the developers in that gamescon video, you could in theory play china from ancient to modern, you don't necessarily HAVE TO change the culture each era.

I think this addresses a lot of confusion in this thread regarding which era to put England, Spain or France.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The icons and the images are generally in sync (Egyptians=Builders, Harappans=Farmers) so it looks like Assyrians are most likely a different flavour of militaristic. In the image they are laying siege with archers and towers while the Hittites are out on a sortie with chariots.

I guess. If it were up to me Hittites could have ended up scientific while Babylonia would be cultural so Assyria would be the militaristic one if indeed there is only one type of trait for each era.

I don't think Greece will added by the Bronze Age civs since I am 99% sure they are in alphabetical order and Greece would be shown before the harrappans so I think Greece and Rome would be added in the age after the bronze age

That sounds true if the Enlightenment Era would indeed "replace" the Renaissance Era in the game.

I suppose it depends on how strictly they limit cultures or each “type”. Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands could each be Renaissance civs based around maritime trade, so directly compete in a way they wouldn’t with the more cultural/builder type Safavids.

If they have religion I could see Spain becoming "religious" and the Netherlands be the "maritime trade" while Portugal focus on "exploration" if those do become types. You also forgot Italian City-States but honestly they could have so many different traits rather than just cultural/builder.

I think this addresses a lot of confusion in this thread regarding which era to put England, Spain or France.

But you wouldn't start out as either of those in the Bronze Age.

 

[mitsho]

9 pages in and we are already playing the "guess the civilization" game again. I guess, Civfanatics can't help themselves.

Yeah, you can't do a thorough link from the past to nowadays. If you do that, you only have 10 civs. But you can do some links of course. Vikings - > Sweden or Harrapans - > Maurya - > Chola - > Mughal - > India. Depends entirely how much place you want each regions to take up. Guessing that you can stay in the culture, I'm hoping that staying as France throughout the eras is viable, from the Franks to Absolutism to Napoleonic Empire to the fifth republic.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

One thing that HK is doing that I would like to see in Civ is the Neolithic Age.

You start out as a nomadic tribe and you have to make progress before you can settle a city (and adopt a Bronze Age civ). The devs didn't say much about what you do to level up, but one thing is hunting animals to increase population. The various screenshots and intro video show mammoths and elk. The devs said mammoths are difficult to kill and you have to level up your combat strength to do it.

I would like to see Civ have the game start with forcing you to wander a bit before you can settle your capital. The Maori do it, yes. All civs should, in my opinion.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

One thing that HK is doing that I would like to see in Civ is the Neolithic Age.

You start out as a nomadic tribe and you have to make progress before you can settle a city (and adopt a Bronze Age civ). The devs didn't say much about what you do to level up, but one thing is hunting animals to increase population. The various screenshots and intro video show mammoths and elk. The devs said mammoths are difficult to kill and you have to level up your combat strength to do it.

I would like to see Civ have the game start with forcing you to wander a bit before you can settle your capital. The Maori do it, yes. All civs should, in my opinion.

Don't know about 'forcing you to wander", but you should definitely have the Option of 'wandering' to find a preferred City Site without essentially giving up on the game. I'm still hoping that something like the Maori mechanics adopted to land starts will be adopted for Civ VI/VII. We'll see.

Starting with a 'Neolithic Age' without cities at all has been proposed and even Modded in (Prehistoric Start Mods) several times, but all too often it results in a bunch of interminable early turns in which Very Little Happens and the result is Instant Boredom or what I call the One Less Turn syndrome, the opposite of what, supposedly, the game is reaching for.

Better would be an option to have a pastoral start, because, IRL, almost all of the Civs in Civ VI did not start building their first cities until long after the current and traditional Start of Game in 4000 BCE. Heck, the Greeks, Romans, 'Indians', Germans, Celts, Poles, Scythians, French etc. weren't even in their 'homelands' until over 2000 years after the Start of Game. For many Civs, most of the Ancient Era could be a Wandering Time, if it weren't suicidal in current game-play terms. Give a Pastoral Civ a set of advantages to match early cities which become less effective with time, and we could have a much more interesting Ancient/Classical Era early game situation in which some Civs don't settle down for some time but can still stay competitive, and a mediocre 'start position' doesn't wreck your early game or turn it into 'playing catch-up' for the first 50 - 100 turns.

 

[Krajzen]

I still can't decide if 'you choose one of 10 civs every era, roster changes every era' idea is insane or genius.

Regardless, it has one significant downside - it means there are only max 10 players in an unmodded game.
I have always been fond of killing my PC with Civ5 huge maps and 16-22 civs...

 

[CivLuvah]

One other small thing that the Endless games have largely done better than Civ is city sprawl. EL’s Cities visually spill out and takeover the land, and it looks like HK will have the same visuals. Civ VI’s Cities don’t really expand mechanically or visually, and so Cities feel very puny and hemmed in. I really think FXS need to improve that part of the game visually, so Cities spill out of their tiles more and just feel bigger and more like seething metropolis.

But it seems they don't intend to make city centers that sprawl into suburbs. That's something that Civ6 tries to do through districts. However, if you want to imagine that you are viewing the world as a satellite would (which I pretend to do) I think Civ6 is closer to that than what they have here in Humankind.

It sounds like it will use the Endless Legends model of units. Being able to upgrade them throughout the game by attaching better weapons and Armour to unit templates. Sounds like the templates you unlock depends on your Civ choices through the era's. Though if it is like endless legends it will be seeing people riding on chariots in the modern era. They might have guns but if the template is a chariot they will still be riding a chariot. I guess we are going to see how they are going to do it

They will either do this in a very innovative way visually, or it'll come out as uneven

I haven't seen anyone commenting on that, but It seems to me that the diferentes civ per era is something borrowed from rhys and fall, the mod in civ IV, where during the game, New civ spawn and try to carve their space into the world. If It is that, makes more sense than egyptians turning into Aztecs midgame. And a welcome feat, since i always felt that they should have added that to mainstream civ.

Although, from what I can remember from that mod, is that spawning and disappearing is a one-time thing, unless the AI decides to declare independence.

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?

Please, no. Please don't take the Paradox route.

9 pages in and we are already playing the "guess the civilization" game again. I guess, Civfanatics can't help themselves.

It has become almost a sport here in the forums.

 

[WillowBrook]

So, are there forums with the quality of discussion found here at civ fanatics that I should be checking out regarding Humankind? Or maybe we'll get another subforum on these boards?