HUMANKIND a Civ VI killer?

[8housesofelixir]

But many of the things they are doing wouldn't shock me as new mechanics in civ7 - like the outpost and territory system, or the slightly more flexible district system they have.

IIRC, Beyond Earth was the first Civ game that introduced the Outpost system into the Civ series. It can also begin from there.

 

[Sostratus]

IIRC, Beyond Earth was the first Civ game that introduced the Outpost system into the Civ series. It can also begin from there.

That’s why I wouldn’t be surprised!
BE had some great ideas but didn’t have the time and resources to be fully fleshed out.
I personally think it’s set of improvements that cost upkeep (Manufactory, academy, terrascape) conceptually would make a great in-between of districts and improvements, something to spur a later game economic transition.

But that’s just me. I’m much more excited about the empire building of HK than the other stuff- and we will see how the modding support is.

 

[PhilBowles]

Firaxis has the exact opposite experience: beyond Earth had extremely similar gameplay to civ5, without the historical factions, and it went poorly. Historical factions are free worldbuilding, just like the nintendo characters in super smash bros don't need exposition because players presumably already know who they are.

The difference is, Firaxis makes a decent core game but isn't good at building a fantasy world. Beyond Earth did badly because it wasn't immersive rather than because it was a bad game. Amplitude is the exact opposite: they're notable for their flavourful factions and good writing - but the underlying games are ultimately mediocre.

If you're taking a real-world setting that piggybacks on existing flavour, you want a company with a history like Firaxis' more than one like Amplitude's.

Now, the HK gameplay system does, for many civfanatics, seem to be offering a promising alternative - the economy/districts/settling/tiles/etc could be seen as an evolution of what civ6 did.

From what I've seen it's basically culled from Endless Legend, which is a less sophisticated version of what Civ VI did (for all that it probably inspired Civ VI). It has visual appeal (which frankly is also much of the appeal of Civ VI's system - the districts being in the landscape don't really add much compared with the bonuses from having certain terrain in the city radius that older Civ games used, but even recognising that going back to Civ V feels lacking to me just because its cities aren't unpacked), but it's a replacement for citizens rather than Civ VI-style districts. Basically Endless Legend automatically works any tile you've developed, so it's much like having a specialist in Civ IV or earlier - a static resource gathering mechanism.

It's admittedly less useful than I'd like it to be - and than it was traditionally - to manually move workers and specialists around in Civ VI, to the point that it's approaching busywork that could be automated rather than a meaningful strategic choice, but being able to move citizens or otherwise adjust your tile yields is a core part of Civ. I can see that newer players to the franchise might see less of a point to it now that the automated placement is optimal in most situations and so might like a system that automates the process, but the Endless system isn't doing anything Civ doesn't already.

IMO it will really come down to how players narrate their games - in civ you are one civ for the whole game, in HK you add new cultures to your empire each era. So really you are playing an empire in a generic sense more than a civilization. But many of the things they are doing wouldn't shock me as new mechanics in civ7 - like the outpost and territory system, or the slightly more flexible district system they have.

It's striking how much of the flavour in Civ I find comes down to simply having so many of the familiar city names around. NFP Civ VI feels more 'complete' to me when Constantinople and Thessalonica are in the mix along with all the pre-existing stalwarts - while at the same time I get a healthy mix of city states I'm not familiar with and those I wasn't expecting to see in a Civ game but welcome (such as Ayutthaya in the current version, and Antananarivo since Civ V). I found Civ VI uniquely flavourless for a Civ game right up until they hit on the idea of culturally-defined names for landscape features.

I think a lot of people will feel the same but not necessarily consciously - Civ's flavour comes from the world more than from the identity of the civs. Having a civ that starts out as Phoenician and can turn English at will, aside from being thoroughly counter-immersive to me, is not I think what people want from civs that evolve over time and I think Amplitude has misread the part of the audience that wanted civs that evolve. It would be very complex to implement, but I think what people who wanted to break from Civ's one-civ-all-the-time structure wanted was something that could develop procedurally, such as developing improved sailing and fishing skills by settling a coast, in a way that settling a coast and actively deciding "Okay, now I'll be Phoenician for a while" doesn't capture.

Basically, Humankind hit on a halfway house that I suspect fewer people than they want will consider satisfactory. Babylon aside I'm not a fan of Civ VI's eureka/inspiration system, but I think it's on the right track in understanding the sorts of mechanic people were asking for in a way Humankind's is not.

 

[CivLuvah]

I suspect Amplitude is squandering its greatest asset with a history-based 4x where they don't get to design the world or the factions and if it has to directly compete with Civ on gameplay merit alone I strongly suspect it will fail.

I remember one of the founders of Amplitude said that Humankind was his dream project. The Endless franchise was just a training ground for that since it seems easier to create a fictional world because you get to have a say on how each of the pieces of the world fit in the gameplay, compared with real-life material in which everything has to make sense while you create the gameplay.

 

[Zaarin]

it seems easier to create a fictional world because you get to have a say on how each of the pieces of the world fit in the gameplay, compared with real-life material in which everything has to make sense while you create the gameplay.

As someone who has dabbled with writing both speculative fiction and historical fiction, I can confirm it's easier to create from scratch. It's a lot easier to avoid anachronisms when things exist because I say so. Example: In my bronze age fantasy setting, coffee is consumed. There is no reason it couldn't be: you can absolutely roast, grind, and brew coffee with bronze age equipment. All you need is fire, a mortar and pestle, water, a jug, and a cup--all of which have existed since the Neolithic. It was simply coincidence that coffee wasn't discovered until millennia later. So I just bumped up the discovery. If I were writing historical fiction, however, it would be a glaring anachronism for several reasons if Moses were chugging Turkish coffee.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . Example: In my bronze age fantasy setting, coffee is consumed. There is no reason it couldn't be: you can absolutely roast, grind, and brew coffee with bronze age equipment. All you need is fire, a mortar and pestle, water, a jug, and a cup--all of which have existed since the Neolithic. It was simply coincidence that coffee wasn't discovered until millennia later. So I just bumped up the discovery. If I were writing historical fiction, however, it would be a glaring anachronism for several reasons if Moses were chugging Turkish coffee.

Among other reasons, because there was not only no coffee, but also no Turks yet.

Interesting 'Coffee Trivia': the first time Europeans were introduced to coffee was during the Crusades, at what was supposed to be a 'peaceful' meeting to get transit rights to Jerusalem. The Crusaders brought 'burnt wine' (distilled brandy) the latest luxury from France, while the locals gave them quantities of 'kaffee' which was boiled rather than roasted. Problem was, of course, that distilled liquor is much stronger than wine, which in any case the pious Muslims were not used to, while the coffee contained caffeine, an extremely powerful drug which no European had ever had access to before in any concentrated form. Result, apparently, was a whole bunch of extremely intoxicated warriors with weapons: not pretty.
Note that similar results - quick intoxication - were also noted when Europeans were first introduced to tobacco. Again, nicotine is an extremely powerful and poisonous drug when you have had no prior exposure to get used to it.

 

[Zaarin]

Among other reasons, because there was not only no coffee, but also no Turks yet.

That was the implication, yeah. On which note, trying to filter out things whose names come from proper names is an interesting challenge. In the case of Turkish coffee, though, that's easy enough: I just call it coffee. Not like I foresee someone inventing the americano in the near future of my setting.

Note that similar results - quick intoxication - were also noted when Europeans were first introduced to tobacco. Again, nicotine is an extremely powerful and poisonous drug when you have had no prior exposure to get used to it.

Last quarter in my Atlantic history class I read an article on Europeans' first encounters with chocolate. Apparently Europeans were in pretty much universal agreement on hating it (I can sympathize: I don't hate chocolate, but I'm not particularly fond of it). Then conquistadors got accustomed to drinking it because drinking chocolate was, of course, a status symbol among the indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica. The author even argued that things we do to hot chocolate now are imitations of traditional Aztec preparation: sugar replacing honey, cinnamon replacing chili peppers and annatto--she even suggested marshmallows might be an unconscious attempt to recreate the foaminess of traditional Aztec hot chocolate, though I think that might be a stretch as I suspect marshmallows are a more modern addition. (It's vaguely amusing that chocolate went from something noble elites drank to something more or less relegated to children. Also funny that many of the same people who give their children chocolate and soda truly, deeply believe that even a sip of coffee will kill their children, but I digress.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I remember one of the founders of Amplitude said that Humankind was his dream project. The Endless franchise was just a training ground for that since it seems easier to create a fictional world because you get to have a say on how each of the pieces of the world fit in the gameplay, compared with real-life material in which everything has to make sense while you create the gameplay.

To an extent some parts of fictional worlds need to make some sense too. You can't have a sea-people faction whose bonuses in game come from a desert. Well I guess you can but expect a lot of questions/criticisms/complaints.

Among other reasons, because there was not only no coffee, but also no Turks yet.

And no Austrians to help distribute it.

Last quarter in my Atlantic history class I read an article on Europeans' first encounters with chocolate. Apparently Europeans were in pretty much universal agreement on hating it (I can sympathize: I don't hate chocolate, but I'm not particularly fond of it). Then conquistadors got accustomed to drinking it because drinking chocolate was, of course, a status symbol among the indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica. The author even argued that things we do to hot chocolate now are imitations of traditional Aztec preparation: sugar replacing honey, cinnamon replacing chili peppers and annatto--she even suggested marshmallows might be an unconscious attempt to recreate the foaminess of traditional Aztec hot chocolate, though I think that might be a stretch as I suspect marshmallows are a more modern addition. (It's vaguely amusing that chocolate went from something noble elites drank to something more or less relegated to children. Also funny that many of the same people who give their children chocolate and soda truly, deeply believe that even a sip of coffee will kill their children, but I digress.)

Was sugar used in chocolate back then? Because if not I agree it would taste horrible as somebody who does love chocolate, maybe a little too much, as long as it's sweetened.

 

[Zaarin]

Was sugar used in chocolate back then? Because if not I agree it would taste horrible as somebody who does love chocolate, maybe a little too much, as long as it's sweetened.

The Mesoamericans sweetened it with honey; the Europeans substituted honey with sugar. It was always sweetened, however.

 

[CivLuvah]

To an extent some parts of fictional worlds need to make some sense too. You can't have a sea-people faction whose bonuses in game come from a desert. Well I guess you can but expect a lot of questions/criticisms/complaints.

Yeah, but the logic of that comes from one's imagination, therefore it's relatively easy. For historical games, the logic is already there, you just have to adhere to it and the limitations it brings.

 

[PhilBowles]

Interesting 'Coffee Trivia': the first time Europeans were introduced to coffee was during the Crusades, at what was supposed to be a 'peaceful' meeting to get transit rights to Jerusalem. The Crusaders brought 'burnt wine' (distilled brandy) the latest luxury from France, while the locals gave them quantities of 'kaffee' which was boiled rather than roasted. Problem was, of course, that distilled liquor is much stronger than wine, which in any case the pious Muslims were not used to, while the coffee contained caffeine, an extremely powerful drug which no European had ever had access to before in any concentrated form. Result, apparently, was a whole bunch of extremely intoxicated warriors with weapons: not pretty.
Note that similar results - quick intoxication - were also noted when Europeans were first introduced to tobacco. Again, nicotine is an extremely powerful and poisonous drug when you have had no prior exposure to get used to it.

This is probably apocryphal, much like the notion of the 9th Century cattle farmer who noticed his animals were invigorated by chewing coffee beans - or, if based on a true story, is substituting modern coffee for whatever would have been used in Turkey at the time. There appears to be no clear recorded evidence of coffee being consumed even in Ethiopia or Yemen prior to about the 15th Century, suggesting its introduction to Europe (including Turkey) came fairly soon after it was first cultivated on a significant scale and long after the Crusades.

 

[Zaarin]

This is probably apocryphal, much like the notion of the 9th Century cattle farmer who noticed his animals were invigorated by chewing coffee beans - or, if based on a true story, is substituting modern coffee for whatever would have been used in Turkey at the time. There appears to be no clear recorded evidence of coffee being consumed even in Ethiopia or Yemen prior to about the 15th Century, suggesting its introduction to Europe (including Turkey) came fairly soon after it was first cultivated on a significant scale and long after the Crusades.

Quoted the wrong person. (Coincidentally I agree with you.)

 

[Abaxial]

There was a rather nice cafe on Princess St, Kingston, ON, Called "The Sleepless Goat" for just this reason. Alas, no more.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Back to topic please.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This is probably apocryphal, much like the notion of the 9th Century cattle farmer who noticed his animals were invigorated by chewing coffee beans - or, if based on a true story, is substituting modern coffee for whatever would have been used in Turkey at the time. There appears to be no clear recorded evidence of coffee being consumed even in Ethiopia or Yemen prior to about the 15th Century, suggesting its introduction to Europe (including Turkey) came fairly soon after it was first cultivated on a significant scale and long after the Crusades.

Last coffee comment:
I thoroughly agree the story makes a better story than it does history.
On the other hand, 'coffee' needs to be defined. It is first mentioned about 1000 BCE, but then it was as a medicinal stimulant, and had nothing to do with a drink: the beans/berries were chewed by members of the Dromos tribe in Ethiopia. You are absolutely correct that the first mention of it as a drink is much later, about 1450 CE in Yemen, and of course, the first Coffee House, the Kiva Han in Constantinople in 1475 CE - which I still think could have been an Ottoman UB or National Wonder even though I'm not much of a coffee addict . . .

 

[8housesofelixir]

The title of this post is clearly an exaggeration, so please let me try another (more reasonable? and manageable) approach here: What are the things in the Civ VI that people are greatly upset about (by people I mean active folks on this forum), and if Humankind can satisfy these people.


As far as I can tell, people are upset with Civ, especially VI, because:
1. Historicity ("I don't want Vampires in my historical Civ game")
2. Boring late game ("AI will not stop me from wining after Classical or shake other things up")
3. Bad AI - Game too easy (Highly related to the above, as well as "AI cannot properly siege my cities" and "New gamemodes let me win more and let AI struggle more")


And, judging from the OpenDevs of Humankind, as well as the history of Amplitude Studio, what can we get about these 3 points?

1. Humankind clearly doesn't have Vampires or Hercules or El Dorado, and making culture based on time era/affinity is a nice way to expand more historical themes. On the other hand, it still has "Confucian School", "Floating Markets" that cannot be built on rivers (although this is because of art style constrains, which I can understand), as well as a Scientific Korea. There are also complaints about "why one culture can suddenly transform into another unrelated culture".
One can always nitpick here and there, as there isn't a universal criteria of "historical game".

2. Humankind gains a point here, for some of the affinities, by design, can be very aggressive and will create a Casus belli (called Morale in HK) even in the late game. One can steal other's population, territory, as well as cultural influence, till Industrial Era (we don't know about Contemporary yet, there is a chance that certain affinities will be excluded from Contemporary). The competitive Fame system and cultural transitions will also shake things up in the late game.
However, will the Humankind AI actually do these things and shake the game up?

3. The AI question is the one I am not able to answer, for I haven't played Endless series and know nothing about their AI. Anyone who had experiences in Amplitude's past titles are welcome to add information here.


I would say even without comparing the AI, I cannot really see a zero-sum situation between two games or a big player base shift. People will more likely to play both games and praise/complaint about individual aspects.

 

[CivLuvah]

Humankind clearly doesn't have Vampires or Hercules or El Dorado, and making culture based on time era/affinity is a nice way to expand more historical themes. On the other hand, it still has "Confucian School", "Floating Markets" that cannot be built on rivers (although this is because of art style constrains, which I can understand), as well as a Scientific Korea. There are also complaints about "why one culture can suddenly transform into another unrelated culture".

Based on your comparison, I'd rather have vague, albeit inaccurate, historical generalities than Cthulu-worshipping vampires. At least the latter part's optional in Civ6.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Based on your comparison, I'd rather have vague, albeit inaccurate, historical generalities than Cthulu-worshipping vampires. At least the latter part's optional in Civ6.

As I said, it's down to personal preferences.

I'm more strict about Humankind's historically accuracy and don't mind Vampires because Humankind marketed and positioned itself as a "Historical Strategy game" - this first letter capitalization is directly on the Steam page - while the Civ series, at least from V onwards, only positioning itself as a "turn-based strategy game" with "historical leaders and civilizations".

If you don't brand yourself as a "Historical Strategy game", then elements of fantasy will be fine; but if you do, you would better live up to that branding.

 

[Mesix]

I have really enjoyed other titles from Amplitude Studios. There is a lot of influence from Endless Legend in Civ 6 (i.e. the district mechanics). I hope flybyno does the sound track for Humankind.

 

[Elhoim]

1. Humankind clearly doesn't have Vampires or Hercules or El Dorado, and making culture based on time era/affinity is a nice way to expand more historical themes. On the other hand, it still has "Confucian School", "Floating Markets" that cannot be built on rivers (although this is because of art style constrains, which I can understand), as well as a Scientific Korea. There are also complaints about "why one culture can suddenly transform into another unrelated culture".
One can always nitpick here and there, as there isn't a universal criteria of "historical game".

I'd guess here I would add a bit of a spin, which is more about simulating history. What bothers me about Civ VI is that it strays further and further away from the historical abstractions is trying to simulate. For example, the yields. In the earlier games, it had 3 yields: Food, Production and Commerce. They were abstractions that represented using the terrain to feed your people, using resources to create things and commerce which you could tax and invest in science, happiness or money. They came from exactly you could see on the map, using some of course very simplified rules but that had a link to a more solid idea of reality and history. Jump 30 years forward, and these yields just popping out nowhere, resources that get duplicated because a city or "governor" has a secret formula or something, natural wonders that create especial abilities for some reason, or man made wonders that make barren wastelands into an explosion of yields. BTW, not saying it might not be a more fun or even better game if you have all those rules. But at some point, for some of us, it breaks the illusion that you are taking a civ through history when you get all those powerful, game changing arbitrary bonuses.

Humankind takes a bit more down to earth approach to yields and resource gathering, moving closer to an idea of building a civilization in a more "historical" way. Natural wonders give all the same bonus, which is extra money, influence and stability, which is a representation of how natural wonders are: You get known (influence), your people are happy of having it (stability) and people flock to it to visit it (money). Same for terrain and resources, in general it's mostly food and production. There are some especial tiles that give a bit of science, and yield generation is more tied to your infrastructure and quarters.

To make some things clear, I'm not saying that HK is super historical or an amazing simulation of history, or that earlier Civs were. It's a bit more subtle. They are both very "simulation lite" games. Earlier civs tried to represent history a bit more, and they always had a gameboard feel. With Civ VI it moved a bit towards fun, powerful abilities that need an extra of effort of mental gymnastics to justify where those yields are coming from.