HUMANKIND a Civ VI killer?

[Kupe Navigator]

I agree wholeheartedly. Civ 6 and Humankind are both historically inaccurate, because that's not what they are supposed to be. They are what-if games where you get to fulfill fever-dreams of the Mayans reaching Space or the Mongols being the exception. These games would be boring even with history nerds because you just get the same game over and over and over again. Nobody wants that.

this is why I like to play with "underdog" civs- civs that don't exist anymore or civs that are poor and uninfluential today.

 

[KayAU]

How late does old world go? Like do you ever get to the modern era?

No, nowhere near that. Late game units are things like mangonels and cataphracts.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

There is No historical accuracy at all in Civ VI. Apart from from The Civs/Leaders Names and some of their Abilities/Uniques, the Game is just a History inspired Game. A random Religion Systeme, Leaders staying as Civ Rulers the whole game, Tech/Civic Research that is the same for all Civs,...etc and not to mention the biggest nonesense of all (if we look at it as a historical Game): Civs lasting for Millennia!! I mean, Civs in a pefectly historical Game should "Rise and Fall" (I would have loved it if they did the RnF Exp adapted this concept and not the Loyalty flipping as RnF). No Macedon that stays till the Future Era, and No TRs America in the Ancient Era.

And Humankind is no different from this. Yeah, it has a lot of mechanisms that are more realistic and more historically accurate than Civ VI, But in the End It's a 4X Strategy Game, that's based on/inspired by history. And tbh I wouldn't like a Game if it was purely history based.

Of course Civ games are not railroaded history simulators. But Civ VI has gone too far with the fantasy stuff.

Another note on HK is the new tactical battle map approach. Civ V and VI really failed by going to 1 UPT and NOT separating the strategic and battle maps. HumanKInd addresses this quite nicely.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In the History Versus Fantasy discussion I am probably the most solidly in the History camp, but here's a Revelation:

ALL History is, to some degree, Fantasy.

That's because all history contains elements that are estimations, deduction, induction, and outright guesswork. Heck, I just spent over four years researching a single battle in a single month in a single place and still would not dare say I understand everything that happened - or ever will: by definition in military history, some of the eyewitnesses didn't survive the process and others have good reasons to lie to cover up their own mistakes.

BUT there is a difference between Fantastic Things Happening - which happens all the time in history, because History doesn't have to be believable and doesn't have to conform to any narrative conventions - and Introducing Fantasy because you can't be bothered to study and find out what might have happened IRL. I'm not saying that's what anybody does, but it is how it appears when we get Vlad Tepes the Gnosher instead of Vlad Tepes the Impaler - the historical character is unbelievable enough without invoking B. Stoker's Fantasy!

As fo Alternative History, I'd postulate that to some extent, that is every history ever written, which is why we have had, just in the past year, over 100 new books on WWII, 20 new books on the US Civil War (two of the most popular subjects in all military history) and also new books about Alexander the Great (and his father Phillip) and the Hapsburg Dynasty - all subjects that have been covered by hundreds or thousands of books before, yet each new book covers some alternative 'bit' or aspect or viewpoint of the historical subject.

Civ as an example, tries to focus on the Personalities and Peculiarities of Civilizations. Old World and CK3 (which I have't had a chance to play yet, so bear with me) appear to focus on the Family Dynamics of ruling groups and dynasties, Humankind on the forces that influence and change cultures/Civs through the ages. Like the blind men and the elephant, none of them are going to produce a complete historical picture, and if they tried to the result would be, I firmly believe, utterly unplayable as a game.

BUT we have choices, and we have a chance here and elsewhere to remind the Game Providers of the amount and kind and blend of history and fantasy that we want to play and how we want it presented to us. And if anything, despite the Real World historical problems presented in the past year, the choices seem to be getting more varied and better presented.

 

[Zaarin]

Civ as an example, tries to focus on the Personalities and Peculiarities of Civilizations. Old World and CK3 (which I have't had a chance to play yet, so bear with me) appear to focus on the Family Dynamics of ruling groups and dynasties, Humankind on the forces that influence and change cultures/Civs through the ages. Like the blind men and the elephant, none of them are going to produce a complete historical picture, and if they tried to the result would be, I firmly believe, utterly unplayable as a game.

BUT we have choices, and we have a chance here and elsewhere to remind the Game Providers of the amount and kind and blend of history and fantasy that we want to play and how we want it presented to us. And if anything, despite the Real World historical problems presented in the past year, the choices seem to be getting more varied and better presented.

This is why I'm excited about all of the titles you listed. They each represent a different approach to the historical strategy genre, and I think each of them has something interesting to offer. This is also why I balk when people talk about cutting the leaders from Civ. That's kind of Civ's thing. What does Civ have if it doesn't have the interesting historical personalities?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is why I'm excited about all of the titles you listed. They each represent a different approach to the historical strategy genre, and I think each of them has something interesting to offer. This is also why I balk when people talk about cutting the leaders from Civ. That's kind of Civ's thing. What does Civ have if it doesn't have the interesting historical personalities?

I agree. This iteration of Civ has gone beyond to not make only the civs unique, but the leaders as well. Even some of the same leaders have different personalities. It would be a shame if they got rid of them. I might not necessarily like the portrayal of some not only physically but personality wise (Pedro II and Menelik II come to mind ), but all in all I even think the idea behind agendas is a good thing.
Pedro should dislike you if you don't recruit enough Great People, while Kristina should get his agenda. Then Ashurbanipal could get in and get hers.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I agree. This iteration of Civ has gone beyond to not make only the civs unique, but the leaders as well. Even some of the same leaders have different personalities. It would be a shame if they got rid of them.

That's what made the whole Civilization series different from other turn-based Strategy Games, what made it unique. The personalities of the Leaders in this game are some of the most emotive, expressive, things I've seen in my life.

 

[Zaarin]

Then Ashurbanipal could get in and get hers.

Of course, it would mean something completely different if Ashurbanipal called you a Philistine.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

That's what made the whole Civilization series different from other turn-based Strategy Games, what made it unique. The personalities of the Leaders in this game are some of the most emotive, expressive, things I've seen in my life.

From way I see it.. Civ is a basically 4x RPG game- where you "role play" as the leaders- Catherine de Medici, Teddy Roosevelt, John Curtin ect... while Humankind seem to be more "open-world" 4x game- you create your own kingdom and avatar ect.

 

[Zegangani]

Of course Civ games are not railroaded history simulators. But Civ VI has gone too far with the fantasy stuff.

Another note on HK is the new tactical battle map approach. Civ V and VI really failed by going to 1 UPT and NOT separating the strategic and battle maps. HumanKInd addresses this quite nicely.

If we look at it with the way Gudenuf pointed out, then we could also say that Vampires ARE Historical figures and the Heros really existed, but in the Human Fantasy and Imagination. And that's not far from the Truth. Many people believe even Today in things that haven't any proof that they exist (or a proof that they don't). But Fantasy is and has always been part of the Human Nature.
And even Today with all the Advanced Technology we might leave false information about the current Events for the Future.

But Yes, I totally agree that Civ VI has gone too far with this stuff. If it's just for the purpose of attracting the mainstream "Fun" players, then they could have come with better Ideas that aren't Fantasy, that would satisfy both, CivFanatics and New Players that just want to have fun and enjoy the Game. The Secret Societies Mode for example, could have been an oppotunity to improve Spys and to introduce intergovernmental Alliances/Organisations As the opposite of SS (or half fantasy half realism if kept the fantasy stuff).

 

[Kupe Navigator]

The Secret Societies Mode for example, could have been an oppotunity to improve Spys and to introduce intergovernmental Alliances/Organisations As the opposite of SS (or half fantasy half realism if kept the fantasy stuff).

I don't get what is wrong with SS...is vampire really that damning?

 

[8housesofelixir]

I don't get what is wrong with SS...is vampire really that damning?

If you check the older threads posted around the time when SS was revealed, you will see a large number of forum users were absolutely mad about Vampires as if the Vampires would bring the end of the world, or at least the end of this game.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

If you check the older threads posted around the time when SS was revealed, you will see a large number of forum users were absolutely mad about Vampires as if the Vampires would bring the end of the world, or at least the end of this game.

yes I know... I can't believe people are still harping on about it. I for one like SS and think Fraxis has made the right call in SS. In fact, so far SS is one of the must have game mods on NFP... along with Heros and possibly upcoming industry mods.

 

[Zegangani]

I don't get what is wrong with SS...is vampire really that damning?

It's Fun to play with, that's for sure, but I would have preffered if you couldn't spam them as you want and not available by all other Civ of the same SS.
A good approach to implementing fantasy stuff, is to add more realism to them. As an examlpe, you could only Train Vampires in a City that's adjacent to some specific kind of Mountain (have no Idea what that could be, that's just to limit things), and for a limited number.
If you have watched "Carnival Row" (a Fantasy Series), then you would agree that the showrunners/producers/writers did a really good job by making the Events play in a Rennaissance/Industrial era where Fantasy Creatures are treaded with racist prejudice und only tolerated because they do the dirty Jobs for them. The show is really realistically made, with Political intrigues and a Postwar Scenario. Sometimes you could even forget that it's a Fantasy Show, but a show based on historical events.
(Tbh I didn't thought that the show would break the Fantasy Glasses you put on when watching Fantasy, but this one did, at least for me. A LOTR made realistically like that show, with events based on real history (implemented history, I know that LOTR is based on WWII), would be an ALL-Time #1 hit)

That to say, a good Lie that even you believe, can be considered as the Truth.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It's Fun to play with, that's for sure, but I would have preffered if you couldn't spam them as you want and not available by all other Civ of the same SS.
A good approach to implementing fantasy stuff, is to add more realism to them. As an examlpe, you could only Train Vampires in a City that's adjacent to some specific kind of Mountain (have no Idea what that could be, that's just to limit things), and for a limited number.

I'm not sure the reasoning on this?
I mean vampires are already limited as you only can get 4 per game.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

It's Fun to play with, that's for sure, but I would have preffered if you couldn't spam them as you want and not available by all other Civ of the same SS.
A good approach to implementing fantasy stuff, is to add more realism to them. As an examlpe, you could only Train Vampires in a City that's adjacent to some specific kind of Mountain (have no Idea what that could be, that's just to limit things), and for a limited number.
If you have watched "Carnival Row" (a Fantasy Series), then you would agree that the showrunners/producers/writers did a really good job by making the Events play in a Rennaissance/Industrial era where Fantasy Creatures are treaded with racist prejudice und only tolerated because they do the dirty Jobs for them. The show is really realistically made, with Political intrigues and a Postwar Scenario. Sometimes you could even forget that it's a Fantasy Show, but a show based on historical events.
(Tbh I didn't thought that the show would break the Fantasy Glasses you put on when watching Fantasy, but this one did, at least for me. A LOTR made realistically like that show, with events based on real history (implemented history, I know that LOTR is based on WWII), would be an ALL-Time #1 hit)

That to say, a good Lie that even you believe, can be considered as the Truth.

"Although you can only have a maximum of four Vampires per game, "
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Vampire_(Civ6)
WTH is with these unlimited Vampires?

 

[Zegangani]

I'm not sure the reasoning on this?
I mean vampires are already limited as you only can get 4 per game.

"Although you can only have a maximum of four Vampires per game, "
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Vampire_(Civ6)
WTH is with these unlimited Vampires?

Ok, Sorry for that. I didn't knew that, as I only played just a few Times with SS, and got most of the Times either owls of minerva (most of the Time) or the Voidsingers.

But anyway, the Idea is to not get Vampires via a SS, but through some kind of Mountains (where the Vampires live in caves) for examples. an Assasin Unit could have replaced them. (would have attracted more players and not something purely fantasy)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ok, Sorry for that. I didn't knew that, as I only played just a few Times with SS, and got most of the Times either owls of minerva (most of the Time) or the Voidsingers.

Yeah, you get one every time you promote the Sanguine Pact governor.
It might seem like your opponents have so many because instead of dying they teleport back to the capital or nearest vampire castle.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Vampires, it seems, are always worth a discussion, if nothing else.

But here's my point: in a game that bills itself as Historical 4X, the Vampires should be Vlad Tepes the Impaler, not B. Stoker and company.

Heroes should be Leonidas (closer to the Real One, not that screaming nutter in the movie), Montrose, Josuah Chamberlain, Lev Dovator, Alcibiades - the Historical Heroes are so much more interesting than the Fantasy wannabees.

After all, what Fantasy character ever had a better line than Henry IV at the Battle of Ivry:

"I am your king. You are Frenchmen. There is the enemy. Charge!"

- best, and shortest d****d Pep Talk ever!

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Heroes should be Leonidas (closer to the Real One, not that screaming nutter in the movie), Montrose, Josuah Chamberlain, Lev Dovator, Alcibiades - the Historical Heroes are so much more interesting than the Fantasy wannabees.

I think they should be a Great People if nothing else...