1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Culture (Unit + Quarter) Speculation Thread

Discussion in 'Humankind by Amplitude' started by Matthias Corvinus, Feb 12, 2020.

?

Who will you play first?

  1. Assyrians

    2 vote(s)
    2.9%
  2. Babylonians

    5 vote(s)
    7.2%
  3. Egyptians

    5 vote(s)
    7.2%
  4. Harappans

    12 vote(s)
    17.4%
  5. Hittites

    2 vote(s)
    2.9%
  6. Mycenaeans

    5 vote(s)
    7.2%
  7. Nubians

    3 vote(s)
    4.3%
  8. Olmecs

    6 vote(s)
    8.7%
  9. Phoenicians

    10 vote(s)
    14.5%
  10. Zhou

    9 vote(s)
    13.0%
  11. Random

    10 vote(s)
    14.5%
  1. FinalDoomsday

    FinalDoomsday Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    380
    Location:
    Maldon, Essex
    This is probably just my bias showing but I think it's more important to show the development of pike and shot into bayonets, line infantry and field artillery than it is to get multiple flavours of tanks and aircraft. I really hope industrial era does not become a turn of the century 'World War One' era and skips over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
     
    Jkchart and j51 like this.
  2. Narcisse

    Narcisse Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    298
    Gender:
    Male
    yeah I think we can expect bayonet infantry for industrial, still I don't know if it will be distinct from line infantry. And there is a screenshot with field artillery (I don't know if it will be industrial, because it was the same artillery than Ottomans artwork).

    There is already some unoptimal choices in the game about warfare, with pikemen evoluting into halbardiers. When halbardiers never "outclassed" pikes, they coexisted, and don't have the same job.
    IIRC halbardiers have more the job of the "Greatswordmen" if we check the description of melee units : "close combat unit useful for protecting ranged from cavalry " (from the Greatswordmen card)
    I mean halberds were the versatile weapon of the 14-16th, for infantry, with a short range purpose.

    When pikes stay used until their remplacement by bayonet tactics in 18th. And always have a very long range thrusting purpose.

    I think, than a more logical continuity of infantry in humankind (even if it can't be changed now) would be something like :
    swordmen -> greatswordmen -> halberdiers (melee)
    spearmen -> pikemen -> pike & shot (anti-cavalry)
    archer -> crossbowmen -> arquebusiers (ranged)

    And I don't know in which evolution come the bayonets and line infantry :p Maybe a job is removed and encompassed, to integrate new ones.
    And the ranged cavalry job seems to be always an emblematic unit and not existing as generic units, so I'm surprised there is no EU being ranged cavalry in Early Modern.
    For exemple the Haude EU could have been cavalry with muskets, and get generic arquebusiers with Haunde apparence anyway.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2020
    j51 likes this.
  3. Siptah

    Siptah Eternal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,172
    Location:
    Lucerne
    Archers and Crossbowmen in the same line? What nonsense is that?
    :crazyeye:
     
  4. Catoninetales_Amplitude

    Catoninetales_Amplitude Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    331
    If I recall correctly, both Greatswordsmen and Pikemen upgrade to Halberdiers, and I think they later upgrade into a Gunner unit when melee starts to phase out entirely.

    It's interesting to see all this speculation when you barely know any of the units in game yet.
     
    grug, Jkchart, Guandao and 6 others like this.
  5. FinalDoomsday

    FinalDoomsday Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    380
    Location:
    Maldon, Essex
    Honestly I'm just on alert that the Napoleonic era is going to be rushed over again but thats no fault of Humankind.
     
    j51 likes this.
  6. Narcisse

    Narcisse Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    298
    Gender:
    Male
    okay, I totally understand the game design choice now ! To reduce dominance of melee units, fusioning two roles, into one unit.
    (even if it not really make sense to upgrade pikemen into halbediers, in term of historical warfare, role, dominance, etc ...)

    @FinalDoomsday maybe some emblematic units will have a Napoleonic Era flavor. And being accessible earlier, as the japenese Samurai for Early Modern is not a replacement of Halberdiers
     
  7. Catoninetales_Amplitude

    Catoninetales_Amplitude Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    331
    I think it may be less to directly reduce the dominance of melee units, and more because in this era artillery starts to play a role, so in a way one unit type made way for another.
     
    grug, Jkchart, Guandao and 3 others like this.
  8. Narcisse

    Narcisse Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    298
    Gender:
    Male
    Legit new type of unit enter in the game in this era !

    And I can't find any other unit name which can "encompass" the idea of being an upgrade for both Greatswordmen and Pikemen, so I suppose than Halberdiers is really the best choice for that.

    So ... even if I'm okay with the Conquistadores as Spanish Emblematic Unit, now I really regret the Tercio which would have given the representation of Pikemen dominance in Early Modern Era warfare, instead of just looking like an "outclassed medieval weapon".
    I really wonder what will be the cavalry unit of early modern era too. (if there is one btw)
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2020
  9. Gwydden

    Gwydden Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2016
    Messages:
    103
    I wonder when the game will set the cutoff between Industrial and Contemporary. The historiographical division between Late Modern and Contemporary, when it's made, usually falls in 1945, but I don't see them chucking both World Wars with the Industrial Revolution. My guess currently is that Industrial will be the long nineteenth century (1789-1914), maybe covering World War I as well. I haven't done the guesses in a while, but they're fun so here goes:
    • Confirmed: Germans, Swedes, and Zulu.
    • Likely: British, French, Siamese, Russians, Meiji Japanese
    • Maybe: Mexicans, Ethiopians
    I don't know it's particularly likely, but it'd be nice to have the first Oceanic civ in this era. They already seem to be adding the Zulu, so Maori wouldn't be a stretch. Hawaii would be even better. But they're probably better as DLC material.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2020
  10. Narcisse

    Narcisse Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    298
    Gender:
    Male
    I know it's your own speculation, but if I can give some informations @Gwydden :

    Mexicans is likely, we have seen a screenshot of a culture from this geographical zone. Meiji Japanese are maybe, because there is absolutly no hints about them, no mentions, no artworks, no footage etc ...
    Swedes is likely, because there is zero hints about the era.
    Brits and French were confirmed by a ViP if I'm not wrong, and we can say than Russian and Siamese are confirmed because they are 100% identified on screenshots^^

    And we have seen a screenshot of an industrial middle-eastern culture.

    For the industrial era cutoff, they have answer to that, it's 1700-1920
     
    BuchiTaton and Gwydden like this.
  11. FinalDoomsday

    FinalDoomsday Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    380
    Location:
    Maldon, Essex
    does seem weird to squeeze WW1 in at the end of the era given all the changes it brought but until we see the tech tree properly its hard to think about how it will work out.
     
    Meluhhan and j51 like this.
  12. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,419
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    Historically (which seems to be how I start 'way too many of my posts) the 'Great Swordsmen' of the Medieval/Early Modern Era were, in the Middle Ages, mostly long axemen - at least, that's who is usually depicted in the contemporary artwork. Except for the similar English Bill, the Halbard was never a separate weapon in this period (it was in China much, much earlier - Classical Chinese infantry appears to have been almost all Halbardiers and crossbowmen), it was, rather, included with the 'pike blocks' along with 'double pay men' wielding two-handed 'great swords', all to help break up the enemy pikes and help your own pikes forward.

    The earliest 'pike and shot' units, the Spanish Colunelas and Tercios, in fact had not only pikes and arquebus/muskets, but also halbardiers and swordsmen.
    The Tercio, then the Dutch 'linear' Battalions and the Swedish Squadrons all evolved into 'pure' pike and shot by the early 17th century, and by the end of that century, when the matchlock was replaced by the flintlock, or Fusil, the socket bayonet was adopted at virtually the same time so that the 'musketeers' (Fusiliers) with fixed bayonets could both defend themselves from cavalry and fire fast enough to destroy anything in front of them.
    So, from about 1700 CE (very early Industrial/Late Modern Era) there is One infantry type: Fusiliers, the unarmored infantryman carrying a flintlock musket with bayonet. This type of infantry Screams to be included in any 4X Historical game, both because of its importance in cementing Europe's domination of the rest of the world in the 18th and early 19th centuries, but also because it coincided with the most colorful period of military uniforms in world history. Just by reskinning the basic figures, every Faction could have Fusiliers in different colors of coats, waistcoats, collars, cuffs and trousers.

    The 'riflemen' so beloved of previous Civ games were a historical footnote: while the Fusil dominated warfare for over 140 years, the black powder rifled musket or breechloading rifle lasted less than 40 years - from about 1850 to 1890, by which time the box magazine smokeless powder rifle was introduced, and remained the most common infantry weapon until the end of World War Two. The range of this weapon also finished off the colorful uniforms - everybody quickly adopted uniforms in colors like Swamp, Dust, or Field (Olivedrab, Khaki, or Feldgrau) and being colorful became a personality characteristic, not a militarily sartorial one.
     
    Guandao, j51, Narcisse and 2 others like this.
  13. FinalDoomsday

    FinalDoomsday Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    380
    Location:
    Maldon, Essex
    @Boris Gudenuf
    Agreed Fusiliers/Line Infantry or whatever they decide to call them should be represented. Theres a great deal of creative liberty one can take with their uniforms too as you say they tended towards bright colours. You can probably find good references for uniform design for all the cultures in the period although I have a soft spot for an old computer game Rise of Nations that made an attempt at imagining what an Aztec fusilier might have looked like!
     
    j51 likes this.
  14. Narcisse

    Narcisse Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    298
    Gender:
    Male
    Your insight about warfare historicity is really valuable Boris again, thanks !

    I was aware about the role of Great swordmen role being to break enemy pikes, I made the mention about that in a post about Great Swordmen on Games2Gether.
    If I'm not wrong, this tactic was really specific, and Great swordmen were really uncommon in most of the cultures.

    It's what I made a thread to explain than the emphasis of the Heavy Infantry being on the great sword, instead of being about the armor evolution (allowing to elite/noble infantry to use two handed weapons, and being less dependant to the shield) is a missing opportunity to have a better representation of medieval infantry. For exemple Norse having two handed axe instead of great sword, if the unit had another name. (Man-at-arms ? Plate soldier ? ...)

    I mean, it's really weird to see a Norse, a Khmer, a Ghanean or an Aztec with an european great sword, and not being heavy armored (the Khmer one don't have hip protection and have a skirt :p)

    But, it's a videogame so, historical equipement is a little meh sometimes.
     
  15. Siptah

    Siptah Eternal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,172
    Location:
    Lucerne
    Spoiler :

    0fWfr5A.jpg
     
    Jkchart, Guandao, BuchiTaton and 2 others like this.
  16. BuchiTaton

    BuchiTaton Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2019
    Messages:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    I would like to have a game were you could upgrade the guns infantry line like this:

    Arquebus (16th century) -> Musket (17th century) -> Fusil (18th century) -> Rifle (19th century)

    Of course this scheme is a simplification and generalization of their development, but I think could be a sweet way to represent the changes on both technology and tactics.

    Personally I prefer to put WW1 on the Contempary Era than on Industrial. I mean, mechanized WW1 elements like tanks and planes are common since then, so all you need is add several upgrades on the same era, like:

    Biplane Fighter -> Monoplane Fighter -> Jet Fighter -> Stealth Fighter

    Considering that Humankind have changing cultures as a key element, there is not point to have many late eras, because the changes are mainly on technology and some social and economic related elements, but the development of ethnocultural entities is limited. I mean we can easily have:
    1- "Early Ancient" Sumerians, Elamites and Minoans together with Egyptians and Harappans
    2- "Late Ancient" about Assyrians, Myceaeans, Hittites, Nubians and Vedics.
    3- "Early Classical" Achaemenids, Romans, Armenians, Carthaginians and Mauryans.
    4- "Late Classical" Sasanids, Goths, Huns, Kushans and Aksumites.
    5- "Early Medieval" Abbasids, Franks, Norse, Khazars and Tufans.
    6- "Late Medieval" Berbers, English, Hungarians, Mongols and Cholas.
    7- "Early Modern" Spanish, Dutch, Poles, Ottomans and Mughals.
    8- "Late Modern" British, German, Russian, American and Omani.

    The changes of the last couple of centuries could be modeled by in-era changing mechanics, instead of force over specific short lived adjetives to the name of the same cultures (please not a Japan culture for each emperor!).
     
  17. Gwydden

    Gwydden Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2016
    Messages:
    103
    I think Meiji Japan is plausible because it's the only East Asian culture that seems likely for the era, they already skipped the region for two eras in a row and I don't think they'll do it again, and much like with Germany I don't think they'll want to get into the controversial fascist period and can approximate it with an Industrial Japan.

    If there is a West Asian or North African culture, I guess that means Ethiopia's probably out. But I didn't suggest one because this strikes me as a pretty bad era for Muslim nations, and I can't think of any in particular that stands out. Morocco wasn't that big a deal, Iran was having a rough time of it, Egypt wasn't independent... Maybe a broader "Arab" culture to represent the Arab Revolt of World War I, of T. E. Lawrence fame?
     
  18. j51

    j51 Blue Star Cadet

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,199
    Location:
    Ping Island
    Oh, most definitely. But seriously, you've hit the nail on the head about Fusiliers. It's so weird how the Civ franchise has ignored them since II. (In I and II the generic "musketeer" unit was a tricorned fusilier.)
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2020
    Guandao likes this.
  19. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    6,177
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    My guess is since they've usually done one African culture per era, except the last one, they might do Zulu for Industrial and then save Ethiopian for Modern.

    I do think Iranians have a shot for Industrial if they are basing the era off of the various Russian wars, hence also Sweden's inclusion in the era.
    I would expect maybe a broader Arab culture, or Saudis, in Modern.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2020
    Guandao and j51 like this.
  20. j51

    j51 Blue Star Cadet

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,199
    Location:
    Ping Island
    Yeah, all true. It's just so boring. I feel its best to pick a unit with a gameplay "role" that covers the length of the particular era. I.E. it's ok to have an Ancient era "Archer" and a Classical "Composite Bowman," but only one kind of tank, even though there's less practical difference. You simply need to have some kind of upgrade per unit class per era.

    The length of the eras themselves should depend on how to best balance the selected factions evenly into 6 eras, and not historical periodizations. Era definitions vary any way between cultures and disciplines. Honestly just number the eras; don't name 'em.

    So, in my opinion, having a single Medieval era, but both an "Industrial" or "Late Modern" era, and a "Contemporary" era is a pink flag :mischief: (Get it: because it's not that big a deal. Okay, I'll let myself out.) that there will be too many modern nations and not enough long lived historic cultures. Besides, I'd hope that a French game studio would privilege the "longue durée" in their historical game design :mischief:. (Again, apologies. :p)
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2020
    Guandao, FinalDoomsday and BuchiTaton like this.

Share This Page