Humandkind review by Infixo

Infixo

Deity
Joined
Jan 9, 2016
Messages
4,012
Location
Warsaw
Disclaimer. I am not affiliated to any company which is related to this game, a similar game, or any game news website. I didn't get any restrictions what to write, besides a time limit when to post it. I got this game for free though, to write this review.

I haven't played any beta versions. I played approx. 30 hours, one full game and half into the 2nd one. These are my observations and thoughts I had while playing.

Overall / summary

First things first: the game is absolutely worth playing. It is beautiful, engaging, dynamic and it is 100% pure “just one more turn” addictive. Exploring the map is fun. Especially in early eras. Animals, curiosities, hostile tribes, etc.Battle are fun. Building your empire feels good. This all is very dynamic and engaging. I didn’t sleep much in the last week lol

The game is beautiful. The map is gorgeous. The terrain details, zooming in and out working smoothly, it is incredible, giving you the details relevant for a zoom level. Plus you have a really neat UI, not only in a form, but also pretty good in content. Modders will make it better ;), but right now I don’t see anything super important missing.

I have not encountered any bugs or issues that would prevent me from playing. That is something worth noting. Yes, there are some minor issues (see later in the post), yes probably balancing will be still in question, and yes there will always be people complaining about the AI, but considering this is its premiere and there will be certainly patches, etc. – the QA people did their job pretty well.

However, what is most important in a strategic game: how strategic is it? What systems are available? How are they designed? This is where it shines – the game is really well thought out and designed. When you play it – you can feel like you actually manage an empire, have actual diplomatic relations with your neighbors and when it is necessary – raise armies (actual armies) and go for battles.

Subsystems / Ideas

Cultures – the cornerstone of the game. You either like or don’t J I am on the “like” side. I like the idea that your empire changes, this is good. Getting new abilities allows for much more dynamic gameplay. Each faction has an affinity, a legacy trait, an emblematic unit, and an emblematic district. No more, no less. Legacy traits allows you to build your empire the way you want, because they stay for the rest of the game.

Cities and regions. Another fundamental idea of the game. It grows on me the more I play. It helps AI, also it moves your mental focus more to “empire” level, not “city” level. Same with districts. They are built pretty quickly, plus there are so many of them. You can really develop your cities and regions any way you like.

Diplomacy. It is well done. All the parts cooperate to give the feeling of actually building a relation with other nations. Starting from treaties, through trade, culture and religion, up to grievances and demands that could finally lead to war. Or you can have alliances and be peaceful.

War support. Another idea that when badly implemented could backfire. Here is seems it is working good. It forces you to look for a reason to start a war, plus changes perspective on how to actually conduct a war. A hint – starting an unjust war may get you into lots of troubles ;)

Ideologies – an example of a well designed system which is simple, elegant and meaningful. First, it is simple – 4 axes, 8 ideologies, and each one gives you a specific edge. Second, in the middle they give you stability, when you radicalize – you loose stability, but gain other effects. Third, it is connected with diplomacy via Ideological proximity and influences i.e. war support.

Religion. It exists in the game, but atm is rather a background thing. You have a minimal control over spreading, mostly via a passive mechanic. It gives you 4 tenets, plus some civics. It influences a bit diplomacy (grievances, etc.) This is it. The is a good ground for future developments which I assume will happen. What is missing is an active form of spreading, like missionaries, building missions in other regions, inquisition, maybe reformation, etc.

Units – a wide variety, pretty much everything is covered. I really didn’t have a chance yet to play with late-eras units, especially artillery, air units and nuclear ones.

Combat / warfare. I like it that it more resembles the real life. There are armies, they grow in time, can have a mixture of units. You can attack, but you can also retreat. There are reinforcements. 3 turns for a battle that actually consume 1 in-game turn is great, because you actually have time for wars and the game isn’t running away. Also – the AI is pretty aggressive. They do skirmish, they build armies, they have modern units and they attack you.

Battlefield. This is what is advertised – terrain matters. And, boy oh boy… it matters. It really matters. Where you start a battle can be a difference of losing entire army or not a single unit. I had such a case – after I lost everyone, I reloaded the battle and moved my army into an adjacent tile, and then won with no losses. This taught me quickly that choosing a right battlefield is super important. Which also goes to where you settle your outposts and build cities. A good defensive position is precious.

Now some grievances. Maybe later we will be able to convert them into demands ;)

Probably the biggest one – I wasn’t able to setup a game with “random” personalities. You have to select them upfront, so you know in advance how they will behave (ofc, to the extent in which personalities actually influence the game). The lack of “random” option just boggles me – this should be obvious.

I couldn’t find the an option to speed-up movement of units. There is one for battles, but not for movement. I actually abandoned military activities in the 2nd half of the game because the units moved so slow that it would take forever to go to another continent and do conquest. Please add quick movement option (or tell me where it is J)

There is no minimap. Ok, I can understand that is because you can really smoothly zoom-out the map. But still – these are additional clicks, an no matter what the zoom, you never see the entire map. And I was playing on Normal and Large, what about bigger maps?

Scarcity of strategic resources. On my map there were 3 Irons, literally. I had 1 and the other faction the rest. And I couldn’t buy it from them, no matter how hard I tried. They were either aggressive or hate filled entire game, and on another continent. So, I couldn’t get access to many units. Same happened with Uranium – 2 on the entire map. I had 1, they got the other. Nuclear warfare was out of the question. And lack of 1 another prevented me from finishing interplanetary expedition.

The fact that there is no easy way to quickly connect a new leader with an old one when they change factions. Like “English don’t like me” – ok. We do things, etc. Several turns passes and then suddenly Mexicans are in the game and who the heck are they? The only thing that you can use to easily connect them is their color and where they are on the map. Then I have to reprogram my brain.

The find function in Encyclopedia searches only for game content (i.e. units), you cannot find concepts, or keywords, etc. This is important when learning a game.

Finally, last but also maybe least. Cartoony style of leaders. Not my style. Not much more to discuss here.

End of complaining (for now)

In conclusion: “finally a worthy opponent; their battle will be legendary” ;)

Enjoy your game!
 
Ideologies – an example of a well designed system which is simple, elegant and meaningful. First, it is simple – 4 axes, 8 ideologies, and each one gives you a specific edge. Second, in the middle they give you stability, when you radicalize – you loose stability, but gain other effects. Third, it is connected with diplomacy via Ideological proximity and influences i.e. war support.

So for all the ideologies the disadvantage is that you get less stable, right?
Okay, that is nice, since you're penalized for all decisions in the same way.
But does the stability effect different cities differently? Ar there some which are more adherent to the ideology than others, or is the disadvantage evenly distributed?

EDIT: And obviously I like the description of the battlefield, thanks :).
 
But does the stability effect different cities differently?
Most districts you build give -10 stability to a city
And having extreme ideologies give you bonuses and less stability. You can be a middle ground person and have stability instead of extremism.
It all makes perfect sense
 
Stability is a city-level metric, and really a lot things influence it. Each district built decreases it, I assume it represents the fact that bigger cities are harder to manage. So you need to build some districts to increase it like an aqueduct. Events may influence stability on a city level.
Then there are empire wide effects that affect stability in all cities. Like civics, or ideologies.
It is pretty dynamic, you have to watch it more closely than amenities in Civ.
And if stability falls hard, the city is mutinous, stops producing, and may finally detach from your empire. This hasn’t happened to me yet ;)
 
And if stability falls hard, the city is mutinous, stops producing, and may finally detach from your empire. This hasn’t happened to me yet ;)
I've also newer seen this, and also no revolution, which is apparently a thing as well. But there's a middle point that I've encountered between mutinous and detaching: it spawns a group of rebels (from your cities pops).
 
Really surprised at the lack of Random Opponents, that's going to be annoying, I like randomness in my games, so that omissions is indeed baffling.

Looking forward to playing it though, just under 24 hours before it suppsedly unlocks.
 
and also no revolution
I got one in my first game, a max stack basically as strong as one of my stacks, all carrying meat cleavers.

Really surprised at the lack of Random Opponents,
The independents pop up, but also that agrarian race next to you just turned warlike in the new era.
 
@Infixo Please expand on the idea of random personalities (or is that random opponents). I'd like a better understanding of what you mean and what you would like to see in the game. I just want a better understanding so I can provide feedback to the dev team.


Yeah, there is no quick movement option. One of the first things I noticed when I started playing the game, and I provided feedback to that effect. My understanding is it would require quite an effort to implement, but I hope it does happen eventually. Battles are fine, but moving on the map needs to have a quick option.
 
Last edited:
@lymond
I am talking about this:
20210816221810_1.jpg

You have to manually select AI personas like Midas, Beowulf, etc. There is no "random" option.
Random could work in two ways - just randomly select X personas from a pool, or even create some random ones on the go. I suppose the latter could be a bit tricky as they also have avatars (so, the face), but I could live with just "select randomly from a pool". I suppose in time there will more to choose from but you still have to select them manually, so you know e.g. that there will be Agammemnon, who is Cruel and Militaristic.
 
You can choose avatars made by other players like @lymond or me. And those change whenever we do so :p so there is some surprise.
 
You can change the traits with the button on the icon.

I was thinking maybe you meant not seeing the AI competitors before starting the game. You just select number of competitors and start the game, but don't know who you are playing, like in Civ. I think that would certainly be a nice option to have, with just a simple checkbox at the top to activate it.

edit: Ha...AI lymond will ruin your game. I will destroy!
 
Last edited:
The second approach - not seeing the AI competitors.
I know I can change the traits - but then I still know them upfront, right?
It appears so.

I will definitely mention this, and honestly it is something that has crossed my mind more than once.
 
"Overall / summary

First things first: the game is absolutely worth playing. It is beautiful, engaging, dynamic and it is 100% pure “just one more turn” addictive. Exploring the map is fun. Especially in early eras. Animals, curiosities, hostile tribes, etc.Battle are fun. Building your empire feels good. This all is very dynamic and engaging. I didn’t sleep much in the last week lol

The game is beautiful. The map is gorgeous. The terrain details, zooming in and out working smoothly, it is incredible, giving you the details relevant for a zoom level. Plus you have a really neat UI, not only in a form, but also pretty good in content. Modders will make it better ;), but right now I don’t see anything super important missing.

I have not encountered any bugs or issues that would prevent me from playing. That is something worth noting. Yes, there are some minor issues (see later in the post), yes probably balancing will be still in question, and yes there will always be people complaining about the AI, but considering this is its premiere and there will be certainly patches, etc. – the QA people did their job pretty well.

However, what is most important in a strategic game: how strategic is it? What systems are available? How are they designed? This is where it shines – the game is really well thought out and designed. When you play it – you can feel like you actually manage an empire, have actual diplomatic relations with your neighbors and when it is necessary – raise armies (actual armies) and go for battles."

Infixo i just read your review and can't wait to play. Pozdrowienia z Skierniewic.
 
Thanks! The complaints are so precise that it actually feels reassuring to read them, that you didn't dislike a main concept of the game.
The one about Encyclopedia bothers me though - how would you rate the easiness of understanding of the game? I remember I spent quite a lot of time reading the Civilopedia on my first Civ.
 
@lymond
I am talking about this:
View attachment 605694

You have to manually select AI personas like Midas, Beowulf, etc. There is no "random" option.
Random could work in two ways - just randomly select X personas from a pool, or even create some random ones on the go. I suppose the latter could be a bit tricky as they also have avatars (so, the face), but I could live with just "select randomly from a pool". I suppose in time there will more to choose from but you still have to select them manually, so you know e.g. that there will be Agammemnon, who is Cruel and Militaristic.

Modding candidate number One... ;)

Let the race begin.
 
You can look at the AI opponents at start up and see what characteristics they have, but you don't know who is playing what Neolithic Tribe or Faction until you meet them diplomatically - pretty much like Civ.
You have only a limited ability to 'choose' AI opponents and no ability to have no clue of the personalities of the Avatars of the AI opponents - and that needs to change to give you at least the same Randomness options as Civ.

The real 'randomness' right now is that you don't know what Faction the AI is going to choose in the next and succeeding Ages, and therefore what kind of Faction they are building as the game progresses. I think there is one of the 'standard' AI Avatars that stays with the same Faction throughout the game, so that one you know will 'transcend' to the bitter end: if they start as Babylon, you will be facing Babylon until they are building Babylonian Mutli-Role (Jet) Aircraft. Other 'standard' Avatars are pretty aggressive, so you know what to expect if they are your neighbor and pick Huns and then Mongols (possibly a very short game, unless you are prepared)
 
The one about Encyclopedia bothers me though - how would you rate the easiness of understanding of the game? I remember I spent quite a lot of time reading the Civilopedia on my first Civ.
There is a tutorial, which explains the things along the way. Pretty well done, the tooltips are quite thourough. So for a new player the game is very friendly.
Ofc when you start digging into details and want some deep knowledge, then it is not always there. But it is the same as with civ, many info is missing in Civilopedia.
I’d say that HK much better explains the concepts and mechanics, but Civ is better at showing the details of game content (units, policies, etc.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PiR
Probably the biggest one – I wasn’t able to setup a game with “random” personalities. You have to select them upfront, so you know in advance how they will behave (ofc, to the extent in which personalities actually influence the game). The lack of “random” option just boggles me – this should be obvious.

The fact that there is no easy way to quickly connect a new leader with an old one when they change factions. Like “English don’t like me” – ok. We do things, etc. Several turns passes and then suddenly Mexicans are in the game and who the heck are they? The only thing that you can use to easily connect them is their color and where they are on the map. Then I have to reprogram my brain.

To me, this is the biggest "oof how did no one in QA say anything". If they switch to random personalities (fixed characters randomly chosen from a pool) and use the personality names instead of the current culture names I won't have any major issues with the game.

GIVE ME CHARACTERS TO HATE!
 
To me, this is the biggest "oof how did no one in QA say anything". If they switch to random personalities (fixed characters randomly chosen from a pool) and use the personality names instead of the current culture names I won't have any major issues with the game.

GIVE ME CHARACTERS TO HATE!

I agree, colours are incredibly hard to memorise, especially since I can pick symbols for historic leaders (tend to give the Civ 6 Phoenician's icon for Elissa).

But then in-game everyone is refered by culture, not by name, which is a massive UI oversight, it is INCREDIBLY counter-intuitive.
 
Top Bottom