FinalDoomsday
Prince
I think Gwydden is spot on perhaps later expansionist civs could be focused on maintaining an already large empire, pick militarist if you're looking to expand your borders in the late game.
Culture (Unit + Quarter) Speculation Thread
- Thread starter Matthias Corvinus
- Start date
Medieval Ghana is way worse documented than Mali and Songhai, or many other Subsaharan civilizations really (it boggles my mind how is it infinitely more known than Yoruba people, culture and civilizations, who imho are among top 5 Subsaharan civilizations). It couldn't appear in civ series because it has no discernible leaders at all IIRC (even mythological ones). In Humankind it could appear, but I see no reason why, if Mali and Songhai represent the same cultural area are much better known, and having more "story" to tell than "well there was this sort of desert trade kingdom described by Moroccans as a nice place".
Also, medieval Ghana has the unique problem of having very confusing name, being completely and utterly unrelated to the modern Ghana in both geographical and cultural terms. The reason modern Ghana took this name is literally only because its leaders were inspired by Ghana as a "first West African civilization". IMHO ridiculous reasoning for countless reasons (couldn't you guys reference your own and much much cooler Ashanti civilization?) but let's not go offtopic. Now, this is especially problematic because modern Ghana is actually one of the most important countries in African postcolonial history, to the point it would be totally legit as a modern African culture in Humankind, so I would rather have this Ghana than quite boring and insignificant medieval one! And they have no alternate names at all, so you either take one or another. Modern Ghana >>>>> medieval Ghana.
So, medieval Ghana would be very far on my dev list of new civilizations.
Adding Ghana to the game is like adding Iberia to the game. By "Iberia" I mean, obviously, the classical era kingdom of Caucasian Iberia, prelude to medieval Georgia (and no this name is not an exonym, just completely random coincidence, to the point medieval Georgians were wondering if Spanish are their faraway cousins because of that). Sure, you can add very badly documented medieval Ghana or classical Iberia, and generate bonus points of confusion among players, but why do that if you can add medieval Mali, classical Armenia, medieval Georgia or even classical "Iberians but those Spanish", all of whom are much, much better documented and just plain cooler?
NEVERMIND LOL
Oh well. At least we got something new and fresh, which we wouldn't get in civ (no recognizable leaders)
I think next faction is Builder Khmer.
Also, thank God we didn't get Mali as medieval scientific civ, it would be really stretching it (honestly even Franks would make more sense in this role regarding their intellectual impact).
I think at this point either we do stil get scientist Arabic civ, even if Umayyads instead of Abbasids, or no medieval scientist at all, no other civ we suspect or know first this role.
Last edited:
BuchiTaton
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 1,261
Have something different or new just because is not the best either. Some examples:
- Dacians instead of Celts.
- Vandals instead of Goths.
- Champa instead of Khmer.
- Purepecha instad of Aztec.
- Khazars instead of Huns.
- Hurrians instead of Assyrians.
- Somalians instead of Ethiopians.
No one of those are on previous historical based games (of course without count Paradox or Total War series), still people would ask for the more popular ones.
- Dacians instead of Celts.
- Vandals instead of Goths.
- Champa instead of Khmer.
- Purepecha instad of Aztec.
- Khazars instead of Huns.
- Hurrians instead of Assyrians.
- Somalians instead of Ethiopians.
No one of those are on previous historical based games (of course without count Paradox or Total War series), still people would ask for the more popular ones.
I'm not sure what do you criticize in your post.
Personally I'd quite enjoy Khazars and Somalia has actually wonderful history of civilization, unfortunately the name got very negative conotations with modern, particularly terrible history of this nation.
Other examples are, well, quite overshadowed by those competitors. Hurrians are cool, but Assyria is incredibly massive tier 1 civilization (honestly its crazy how it never got into civ before 2013). Champa are nice civilization, pity it was wiped out, but a little fish when compared with the impact and power of Khmer. And so on.
BuchiTaton
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 1,261
All of them are great options and I would love to have all of them on a game like Humankind, BUT is kind of obvious that the more popular options have reasons why are the usual choice.
Ghana vs Mali is still the same situation, Mali is better know and bigger than Ghana. Even with 60 cultures at release I dont see this game with two medieval western Sahel cultures, so NO-Mali (even if could be I would prefer Mali plus something like Songhai or Kanembu). The problem is not to have new and different cultures, but have them at the cost of the obvious top similar options.
For example the fun of Somalia is to fight Ethiopia, Purepechas to fight Aztecs, Champa to fight Khmer or Viet. Some robust regions with 3 similar cultures to play along could be awesome, but is almost sure that only Europe, ancient Middle East, classical Mediterranean and maybe early modern East Asia would have that privilege at the end.
j51
Blue Star Cadet
Very happy with the Khmer obviously, but very worried we won't get an Andean culture in the base game! 
The Civ series has this problem too. Only Civ 4 had a base game Andean (Inca).
The Civ series has this problem too. Only Civ 4 had a base game Andean (Inca).
j51
Blue Star Cadet
I hope so!
BuchiTaton
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 1,261
People, do you think would be more that one medieval arabic culture?
I mean in the future with all the DLCs, not at release.
I say it because Humankind could use old names to differentiate old from modern versions. For example Persians > Iranians, Franks > Frenchs, Teutons > Germans, etc.
In a AoE style, we could get Saracens (Medieval) > Arabs (Contemporary), plus the additional Berbers (Medieval) who are easily to characterize.
Now dynastic names could give ous many medieval arabic cultures Umayyad (Damascus), Abbasid (Baghdad) and Fatimid/Ayyubid (Cairo), each one with their own focus.
Also, do you know any way to differentiate ancient egyptians from muslim egyptians with one word without use dynastic names?
Could be nice if finally we get some game that recognize the "recent" history and culture of Egypt.
I mean in the future with all the DLCs, not at release.
I say it because Humankind could use old names to differentiate old from modern versions. For example Persians > Iranians, Franks > Frenchs, Teutons > Germans, etc.
In a AoE style, we could get Saracens (Medieval) > Arabs (Contemporary), plus the additional Berbers (Medieval) who are easily to characterize.
Now dynastic names could give ous many medieval arabic cultures Umayyad (Damascus), Abbasid (Baghdad) and Fatimid/Ayyubid (Cairo), each one with their own focus.
Also, do you know any way to differentiate ancient egyptians from muslim egyptians with one word without use dynastic names?
Could be nice if finally we get some game that recognize the "recent" history and culture of Egypt.
I think we could see multiple Islamic Arabicized cultures, but not multiple with the same core regions in the same era. So it would be Abbasids or Umayyads in the Middle East, Ayyubids or Mamluks in Egypt, but not both, as they would sort of be mutually exclusive.
I'm not sure what exactly the difference between a culture and a dynasty would be though. Would any Arabicized sultanate/ caliphate fall under Arabic culture? How do you differentiate between Arabic and Islamic when the two are so closely tied together by language, law, literature, architecture...? I would hope, though, that there are still multiple Islamic factions included in DLCs.
I think dynastic names would be good enough for referring to medieval Egypt though, if it works for the Indians and Chinese factions. Could even include contemporary era Egypt as the Arab Republic of Egypt if they are also including PRC and USSR.
If the Inca are Early Modern one would think the Aztecs have to be Early Modern as well.
BuchiTaton
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 1,261
Not necessarily.
Incas resisted longer and incorporated western warfare technologies on the Neo-Inca state, plus the Túpac Amaru II rebellion. Not to forget that Inca empire was way more similar to old world empires in terms of administration, politics and warfare than Aztec empire.
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue, Hlai and Langkasuka
Looks like we ain't getting a new culture reveal this week.....
Hopefully, they will reveal it next week.
Hopefully, they will reveal it next week.
They have done two reveals in a week to catch up at some point before. And next week will bring lots of news anyway!Looks like we ain't getting a new culture reveal this week.....
Hopefully, they will reveal it next week.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
Why so?
IGN scheduled a hands-on impression of the game on Tuesday and a Gameplay Interview on Thursday. This may show us some more of the game.Why so?
j51
Blue Star Cadet
Now that the Mongols are confirmed as militarist, I'm wondering who of these three the other expansionists and militarists for the Middle Ages will be: Aztecs, Norse, Teutons. Maybe the Aztecs will be Agrarian? Maybe the Aztecs will be E. Modern with the Inca and there will be a different Amerindian culture in the Middle Ages (Tiwanaku, Mississippian, etc.)?
