HUMANKIND a Civ VI killer?

[Zaarin]

I hope flybyno does the sound track for Humankind.

He is, albeit under his real name, Arnaud Roy.

 

[8housesofelixir]

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.

I agree with your points here. Humankind is leaning more towards historical abstractions than Civ VI, and Civ VI is leaning more towards creativity of game mechanisms. For example, Civ VI has more sources of yields (Luxuries, Natural Wonders, UIs, etc) instead of more multipliers of yields; Humankind, on the other hand, has limited sources, but put a strong emphasis on yield multiplying buildings.

 

[PhilBowles]

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.

The whole conceit of Wonders since Civ I has amounted to magic resource generation - Civ VI has an overabundance of them, but many of them have relatively reasonable effects given what they represent: they boost culture and tourism, can be focal points of faith, can help to promote research, or can bring in cash. I don't think it's especially improbable for Oxford University to generate science and it wasn't back when it was Newton's College in Civ II either.

Natural Wonders are similar, but exist mainly for gameplay reasons - they give an incentive to fight over specific territory rather than just to either conquer the map or play passively. They mostly have abilities that aren't quire worth that investment at the point when you could capture them, but I like the idea. Again, many do sensible things: the Matterhorn is somewhere to do alpine training, the Galapagos can spur scientific research, Uluru is a site of religious importance. It's still abstracted and makes every bit as much sense as Darwin's Voyage spurring you to develop Space Flight or the Hanging Gardens - famously associated with one city - somehow magically making citizens in 20 cities spread across the planet happy.

 

[8housesofelixir]

It's still abstracted and makes every bit as much sense as Darwin's Voyage spurring you to develop Space Flight or the Hanging Gardens - famously associated with one city - somehow magically making citizens in 20 cities spread across the planet happy.

To this day I never understand why Mausoleum at Halicarnassus (Civ VI version) can magically create Science, Culture, and Faith in the nearby costal waters, although I built it in every one of my games.

 

[mitsho]

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")

I love how systematically you are approaching this. I'd add one more big point though:

4. Bad UI or lots of micromanaging needed in late game (just clicking stuff)

This will be really though for Humankind aince people need to learn new terms (extensions), but with f.e. combining cities and armieas instead of units, they seem to want to tackle the problem of having to do so many clicks for a small effect (i.e. moving an invasion force to another continent)

---

Besides the affinities, i think already the change of cultures will help towards your second point. Change such as this if it comes with a change of strategy in the AI will create ripples, and that can be good. I had games of civ where I managed to make everyone like everyone else, what a boring peacefest that was.

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.

I actually believe the next civ will push down on the yields heavily. Who needs science if you can do heurekas? The new Babylon shows that that can be fun and it makes sense when what you do results in what you know. This couldn't have been done in 1993, but now, computers can handle probabilities to make that exciting and not predictable.

Why do we need production AND gold? Can't we just do governance and give us some leeway and flexibility?

And so on.

 

[Elhoim]

The whole conceit of Wonders since Civ I has amounted to magic resource generation

Sure, never disputed that (hence my comment that it's subtle and that Civ was never heavy on simulation), and Humankind also does the same with man made wonders. Some make a bit more sense than others, and as I said, you can justify anything with enough effort since they are made with some kind of inspiration. But sometimes the justification is really stretched, and sometime it creates some inconsistencies.

Again, my point was not to nitpick examples or to "prove" that everything in Civ is magical yields, but to show a slight general direction in which each game goes to. Civ I had those effects only on Wonders, and Civ VI has those on Wonders, Natural Wonders, City States and Governors. Hence my point of the Civ franchise going more into that direction, while HK has them only on Man Made Wonders, a bit of throwback to the style of earlier Civs. Plus having less wonders in general.

I actually believe the next civ will push down on the yields heavily.

Most probably. What I'm fairly certain is that they will go more into the "improvements" direction, instead of building stuff through cities, kinda like Old World does. You can see that trend in each expansion. And it's certainly more fun to plop down an improvement than selecting it from a list. Plus they'd probably make the city range bigger, or just unlimited like in OW.

 

[Stringer1313]

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.
. . .

I disagree. This just sounds like city states or civs. I think this is a classic realism versus gameplay. I find barbs to be fun for target practice and as a diversion and a small obstacle to overcome.

 

[mitsho]

Most probably. What I'm fairly certain is that they will go more into the "improvements" direction, instead of building stuff through cities, kinda like Old World does. You can see that trend in each expansion. And it's certainly more fun to plop down an improvement than selecting it from a list. Plus they'd probably make the city range bigger, or just unlimited like in OW.

Putting everything on the map though requires the map to be way bigger. Think every hex split into 9 hexes. I run out of place already in civ6. When Paris in the real world built an airport, there was no shortage of free land, I regularly run into that problem in civ6. I have nothing against putting everything on the map, as long as at the same time one can solve the problem of early-vs-late-game (enough flexibility in...). Addressing these fears though means moving civ from a classic 4X (always growing) to an RPG (reacting to a changing environment) - and I think that could be the niche for Humankind.

I disagree. This just sounds like city states or civs. I think this is a classic realism versus gameplay. I find barbs to be fun for target practice and as a diversion and a small obstacle to overcome.

Give every barb camp a name of a tribe (Burgundians, Huns, Visigoths, Sioux, etc.), vary the shade of red they have and create a few different kinds (horse raiders, pirates, defensive mountain tribe) and you already have developed a great level of immersion.

If you want to go further, one can do what Boris proposes: City states could just be another category for the "barbarians". There can be passive and aggressive cultures among them. Maybe some don't do diplomacy at all, those are your classic barbs. Some other may offer you trade, some can be hired. It's the mix that make it. And while I totally want that, I can understand your scepticism, but I believe you too would like the flavour as I outlined it above, no?

 

[Stringer1313]

I love how systematically you are approaching this. I'd add one more big point though:

4. Bad UI or lots of micromanaging needed in late game (just clicking stuff)

This will be really though for Humankind aince people need to learn new terms (extensions), but with f.e. combining cities and armieas instead of units, they seem to want to tackle the problem of having to do so many clicks for a small effect (i.e. moving an invasion force to another continent)

-.

I agree. I am excited about Humankind but in my opinion Amplitude games are horrendous when it comes to micromanagement. Look, all 4X games have micromanagement problems and it's rare to find a game that doesn't have it (can anyone think of one?). But I feel that Amplitude games are a lot worse in this respect.

 

[ehecatzin]

I agree. I am excited about Humankind but in my opinion Amplitude games are horrendous when it comes to micromanagement. Look, all 4X games have micromanagement problems and it's rare to find a game that doesn't have it (can anyone think of one?). But I feel that Amplitude games are a lot worse in this respect.

I really liked Endless legend but what killed the replayability for me was all the microing of updates on individual units of each army, it got really annoying really fast. At least from what we've seen from the game so far, they've toned that aspect quite a lot to focus on the battle tactics itself.

Also, maybe the fact that you can merge cities into larger metropolis could help alleviate microing too many cities late game?, no idea.

 

[PhilBowles]

Sure, never disputed that (hence my comment that it's subtle and that Civ was never heavy on simulation), and Humankind also does the same with man made wonders. Some make a bit more sense than others, and as I said, you can justify anything with enough effort since they are made with some kind of inspiration. But sometimes the justification is really stretched, and sometime it creates some inconsistencies.

Again, my point was not to nitpick examples or to "prove" that everything in Civ is magical yields, but to show a slight general direction in which each game goes to. Civ I had those effects only on Wonders, and Civ VI has those on Wonders, Natural Wonders, City States and Governors. Hence my point of the Civ franchise going more into that direction, while HK has them only on Man Made Wonders, a bit of throwback to the style of earlier Civs. Plus having less wonders in general.

Do we know yet if Endless Humans will have the equivalent of Endless Legend's villages? Those had exactly the same sort of magic resource boosts as city states.

Civ VI just has many more mechanics than Civ 1 (you could add policy choices to that list as well, and religion), and because of the game structure resource bonuses are the main form rewards can take. All I get from what you're saying is that Humankind has fewer mechanics. That could well be an asset as Civ VI in particular is feature-bloated and fairly blatantly breaks 'Sid's Rule' that Civ games should retain about the same level of complexity over time (not that that's ever been very strongly adhered to), but I don't see any philosophical difference or greater push towards realism. If Humankind does well enough to spawn a franchise, Humankind 2 will undoubtedly start going down the same route.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I disagree. This just sounds like city states or civs. I think this is a classic realism versus gameplay. I find barbs to be fun for target practice and as a diversion and a small obstacle to overcome.

If there is a single thing that Civ needs to make it better, it is more dynamism, more changes and variations during the game. Right now, Barbarians are and have been forever in the franchise, One Note Creatures. They attack you. Period. Furthermore, I would submit that they attack you in numbers from the start of the game because they are a substitute for a decent AI Civ in Civ VI: in too many games, they amount to your primary opposition early in the game because the AI simply doesn't provide any.
Making it possible to do more - like hire, trade, or assimilate - 'barbarians' does two things that I think would be good for the game. First, it makes Barbarians much more of an interactive game mechanism: you have some input as to whether they will be an asset or an enemy, and how much of either. Second, it makes the in-game 'barbarians' much closer to the Historical 'barbarians' in their interactions. This is second because it is a relatively minor point from a gameplay perspective, but a game that bills itself as a 4X Historical cannot ignore the History or it becomes simply another mediocre fantasy game. Also, history is much more interesting than fantasy - no author ever dared to make up characters as fantastic as Alcibiades, Friedrich II of Prussia, or Mad Max of Bavaria.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Most probably. What I'm fairly certain is that they will go more into the "improvements" direction, instead of building stuff through cities, kinda like Old World does. You can see that trend in each expansion. And it's certainly more fun to plop down an improvement than selecting it from a list. Plus they'd probably make the city range bigger, or just unlimited like in OW.

Personally, I think Improvements are there to imply that every "City" in the Civ games is also a "Region" or "Province" (although the workable tiles are still oriented from City Center). For example, many UIs in Civ VI are originally "rural" institutions.

Civ IV makes this point really clear: the Commerce generating improvement, Cottage, will eventually develop into "Town(s)", despite the fact that they belong to a "City" - but if we view every "City" as a "Region", then "Towns" and "(Central) City" can co-exist. V's Trading Posts and Great Tile Improvements (Custom House, Manufactory, etc.) seem to indicate similar ideas. It is mainly VI's Districts that make every "City" a "City", although the Districts will usually far away from the City Center.

If Civ continues this "Improvement" road, I would love to see Cities turns into Provinces and spam the Improvements in my territory - for the game will be at a larger scale in terms of abstraction, be more "Empire" like.

Edit: The "Improvement" road would also lean more into the specialization of cities - for improvements are more tied to terrain features than districts - which is something I firmly support.

 

[Anno]

I play Civ primarily as a peaceful empire builder because it’s relaxing and creates really pretty maps. HK appears to be leaning into that even more, so while I don’t think it’s going to do any harm to Civilization as a franchise, I am quite looking forward to it more than I am more Civ VI. Hopefully Amplitude find a lot of success and Firaxis can at least use it as another source of influence in Civ VII.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Maybe they should add the Tower of Babel as a wonder you can build. You could get free Settlers.

You get 4 free Settlers of random nationalities

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

You get 4 free Settlers of random nationalities

Haha. That would be interesting, although that wouldn't really help the Civilization building it. I still stand that the Tower of Babel gives 2 free Settlers and +25% Production towards Settlers.

 

[Zaarin]

Haha. That would be interesting, although that wouldn't really help the Civilization building it. I still stand that the Tower of Babel gives 2 free Settlers and +25% Production towards Settlers.

If you finish building it, you win a Science Victory; if someone else beats you to it, -100% loyalty in all cities except your capital.

 

[God of Kings]

If you finish building it, you win a Science Victory; if someone else beats you to it, -100% loyalty in all cities except your capital.

That -100% loyalty in all cities except your capital is rubbing salt as you have already lost at that point (as that civ that successfully built the Tower of Babel won Science Victory).

 

[Zaarin]

That -100% loyalty in all cities except your capital is rubbing salt as you have already lost at that point (as that civ that successfully built the Tower of Babel won Science Victory).

Yeah, I didn't think about that until after I posted.

 

[PhilBowles]

Tower of Babel: Instantly gain a delegation with every other civ.

If you ever lose access to the Tower or it is destroyed, you lose the ability to communicate with other civs for the rest of the game.