HUMANKIND a Civ VI killer?

[Duke William of Normandy]

I think it would be interesting if it was put into an optional game mode where you had a "Prehistoric" era before the age of urban settlements, like they do in Humankind.
I think the combat system wouldn't be too different from what we already have in Civ especially trying to chase after Barbarian scouts already.

They should remove barbarians and tribal villages from the Ancient Era, in my personal likes. It's too early a time to have barbarians roaming around as they would just be like us, except more militant.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

They should remove barbarians and tribal villages from the Ancient Era, in my personal likes. It's too early a time to have barbarians roaming around as they would just be like us, except more militant.

Partially agree. There are not many instances of 'Barbarian Armies' in the Ancient Era: perhaps the 'Sea Peoples' that hit the Levant and Egypt, but most of the Barbarian Army effects are the product of what in Civ would be, well, Civs: the big wars were between groups like Egypt, Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians - all Civs, or Hsung-Nu and China - mostly raids on either side, but not mass sacking of cities and abandonment of countless acres of territory.
On the other hand, the 'nuisance value' of hill tribes or pastoral mounted raiders was considerable, and if somewhat overblown, Civ's Barbarians represent that.

My view in Humankind is that the animals in the Neolithic represent the 'human nuisances': beating them up can be lucrative, and they can harass the heck out of your units (I learned the hard way that a Mammoth or Bear can beat the snot out of a scout or tribe unit easily) but you won't find a Mammoth charging up the steps of your palace, so they aren't really dangerous.
They could replace them with 'barbarian' graphics, but then they would have both 'random barbarians' and Minor Factions, which currently seem to fill the niche occupied by both City States and Barbarians in Civ, so in a way that would be redundant: better to leave them as separate graphically, even if the idea of Babylonians hunting down Mammoths or giant Cave Bears is historically dubious to say the least.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Partially agree. There are not many instances of 'Barbarian Armies' in the Ancient Era: perhaps the 'Sea Peoples' that hit the Levant and Egypt, but most of the Barbarian Army effects are the product of what in Civ would be, well, Civs: the big wars were between groups like Egypt, Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians - all Civs, or Hsung-Nu and China - mostly raids on either side, but not mass sacking of cities and abandonment of countless acres of territory.
On the other hand, the 'nuisance value' of hill tribes or pastoral mounted raiders was considerable, and if somewhat overblown, Civ's Barbarians represent that.

My view in Humankind is that the animals in the Neolithic represent the 'human nuisances': beating them up can be lucrative, and they can harass the heck out of your units (I learned the hard way that a Mammoth or Bear can beat the snot out of a scout or tribe unit easily) but you won't find a Mammoth charging up the steps of your palace, so they aren't really dangerous.
They could replace them with 'barbarian' graphics, but then they would have both 'random barbarians' and Minor Factions, which currently seem to fill the niche occupied by both City States and Barbarians in Civ, so in a way that would be redundant: better to leave them as separate graphically, even if the idea of Babylonians hunting down Mammoths or giant Cave Bears is historically dubious to say the least.

Maybe they should portray the "Barbarians" as more of organized raiders with their own agendas, rather than just mindless savages. Hwck, maybe we could have an option to form good relations with them and even Pay them to attack other Civilizations.

 

[c4c6]

I learned the hard way that a Mammoth or Bear can beat the snot out of a scout or tribe unit easily) but you won't find a Mammoth charging up the steps of your palace, so they aren't really dangerous.

In civ4 the early Barbarians were wolves, panthers, lions & bears which were not able to enter tiles belonging to cities of major Civs but strong enemies in the wilderness.

[[edit: I mean, it is possible to avoid potential problems already in the design phase.]]

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Maybe they should portray the "Barbarians" as more of organized raiders with their own agendas, rather than just mindless savages. Hwck, maybe we could have an option to form good relations with them and even Pay them to attack other Civilizations.

Don't even get me started on the limitations of Civ VI's Mindless Barbarians. Realistically, Barbarians should be capable of Trade with Civs, can be bribed, hired, join the Civ voluntarily or involuntarily, raided for slaves, raid you for gold, slaves, or Just For the Heck Of It - they desperately need to be completely rethought for Civ VII.

Meanwhile, Humankind seems to be providing a lot more variety of interaction with their Minor Factions. They start as outposts or 'camps', grow into cities, expand their territory to come extent, and can apparently be bought off with gold or diplomacy - a much better representation of the 'barbarian other' than Civ's.

In civ4 the early Barbarians were wolves, panthers, lions & bears which were not able to enter tiles belonging to cities of major Civs but strong enemies in the wilderness.

And as I remember, your Scouts had 0 combat strength, so even a rampaging Wombat could kill them off: it made for a fun early game . . .

 

[ThunderLizard2]

I really liked Endless Legend and thought that the way the factions we're extremely differentiated from each other made it fun to play each one. When Civ 6 was announced I was excited that they went more in that direction with the civs and also added districts. With so many civs in the game now, a lot of them, especially the early release civs, have lost their flavor, but the district system is still fun. In fact, it's the only thing that is fun about Civ IV.

I haven't sunk this few hours into a Civ game since at least Civ III, if ever. I've played every Civ since I and VI is by far the weakest. III and V started out very weak, but the expansions filled them out and added depth. In VI, all the expansions do, as many have stated in this tread, is add more broken mechanics on top of other broken mechanics without tying anything together into a single holistic system of play. It's like a toy-box full tons of cheap plastic toys that some kid has chewed and drooled on.

I have hope, based on Amplitude's previous track record and their open-dev process that Humankind will be a great option for people looking for a meatier and more thought-out historical 4X game. I also hope it teaches Firaxis a thing or two and that they course correct when developing VII.

There's a good chance Amplitude will pull something off that's worthwhile.

A deep AI improvement would only happen if Firaxis releases the source code. Right now they can only tweak a few exposed modifiers, which can help a bit, but not reach the level you can with the source code (as it was the case with VP, for example).

Why is Firaxis not releasing the code so modders can fix it for them?

 

[Zaarin]

so even a rampaging Wombat could kill them off

Everything in Australia wants to kill you intensifies.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

They could replace them with 'barbarian' graphics, but then they would have both 'random barbarians' and Minor Factions, which currently seem to fill the niche occupied by both City States and Barbarians in Civ, so in a way that would be redundant: better to leave them as separate graphically, even if the idea of Babylonians hunting down Mammoths or giant Cave Bears is historically dubious to say the least.

Washington D.C founded in 4000 B.C. is already is already a thing anyway, so I don't see the problem.

The way it would have to work is if there is a "Prehistoric" era that appears before the Ancient Era, before you found your first city It would be similar to the way that Humankind does it, at least if you want to put in Mammoths or Cave Bears, and acquire enough resources to maybe discover the first technology, agriculture, that allows you to permanently settle.

Everything in Australia wants to kill you intensifies.

As part of Australia's ability, Land Down Under, special emu units spawn next to them.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

No. Civ 6 is zero fun for me because the AI is so weak. I like the "idea" of the game but not the actual game. And the DLC path seems largely oblivious to the glaring AI problems.

I'm looking forward to starting fresh with a new game system.

You said 'out on Civ' not 'out on Civ VI', so I inferred that you meant the franchise.

Civ VI has had a long life already, I can completely understand moving on and waiting to see what VII has to offer.

 

[MrRadar]

And as I remember, your Scouts had 0 combat strength, so even a rampaging Wombat could kill them off: it made for a fun early game . . .

Civ4 scout has 1 combat strength, but cannot attack, it can only defend. And it has +100%, so 2 cs against rampaging Wombats. Animals, that is Can serve as jolly good supermedics later on.
Animals first, then barbs was a nice thing. Shame civ5 and 6 dropped that.

 

[Kwami]

Civ4 scout has 1 combat strength, but cannot attack, it can only defend. And it has +100%, so 2 cs against rampaging Wombats. Animals, that is Can serve as jolly good supermedics later on.
Animals first, then barbs was a nice thing. Shame civ5 and 6 dropped that.

Eh, it kind of sucked in Civ IV, though. Your Scouts would just die all the time. And also, I think a lot of players don't like killing animals. Even the dogs and horses that make up part of the Civ VI units always run away instead of dying with the people.

 

[Zaarin]

And also, I think a lot of players don't like killing animals. Even the dogs and horses that make up part of the Civ VI units always run away instead of dying with the people.

Which may be the most cloyingly saccharine and yet tone deaf thing in Civ6 TBH.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Which may be the most cloyingly saccharine and yet tone deaf thing in Civ6 TBH.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it tone-deaf, just a little too sentimental with animals.

 

[pokiehl]

Which may be the most cloyingly saccharine and yet tone deaf thing in Civ6 TBH.

There are plenty of legitimate complaints to be had with the game but this one comes across as complaining simply to complain, no offense.

I don't particularly want to see a warrior club finish off a scout by bashing the dog over the head. Doesn't make me or the game "saccharine" or "tone-deaf."

As for a "prehistoric" phase where you fight animals, no thanks for that. Fighting beasts is corny in the Humankind demo and was corny in Civ 4. I'm glad the series has dropped it personally.

 

[Zaarin]

There are plenty of legitimate complaints to be had with the game but this one comes across as complaining simply to complain, no offense.

I'm not sure how you read my post, but that seems like a complete non sequitur to what I said. I didn't say it spoiled my enjoyment or ruined the game. I said it was cloying and tone deaf.

I don't particularly want to see a warrior club finish off a scout by bashing the dog over the head. Doesn't make me or the game "saccharine" or "tone-deaf."

But bashing the human scout's head in is fine? This is why I call it tone deaf: you can kill the people, but heaven forbid you kill the animals.

 

[pokiehl]

the human scout's head in is fine? This is why I call it tone deaf: you can kill the people, but heaven forbid you kill the animals.

Yes, actually. It is quite normal and common for humans to be averse to animal violence but less phased by violence towards humans.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Yes, actually. It is quite normal and common for humans to be averse to animal violence but less phased by violence towards humans.

Yeah, exactly. Some of us are like John Wick...

 

[Zaarin]

Yes, actually. It is quite normal and common for humans to be averse to animal violence but less phased by violence towards humans.

That seems morally inverted but okay.

 

[Joij21]

As for a "prehistoric" phase where you fight animals, no thanks for that. Fighting beasts is corny in the Humankind demo and was corny in Civ 4. I'm glad the series has dropped it personally.

How exactly is it corny?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

How exactly is it corny?

Because chasing an elephant with fur with two units for around 5 turns isn't exactly enjoyable. Is it more difficult than combat with A.I. in Civ 6? Yes. Is it more enjoyable to chase wooly elephants? No. And besides, we can just assume that the people at the settlement are doing this. It would be irrational to chase these animals around the map just for some extra food.