Humankind - Aztecs Discussion thread

[Eagle Pursuit]

https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1277991569270943744?s=19

Emblematic unit: Jaguar Warriors
Emblematic Quarter: Sacrificial Altar

Affinity: Militarist

(Yep, no Medieval Aesthetes)

 

[Elhoim]

(Yep, no Medieval Aesthetes)

Interesting development. I wonder if it's was a deliberate design decision.

I kinda wanted the Aztecs in Early Modern so that they would clash with the Spanish, but I guess it makes sense for them to be in the medieval era. I mean, it's still possible since the eras are not universal, but less likely.

 

[zhugejingqi]

When Aztec, Khmer and British are put together in the test content, we should have noticed

 

[FinalDoomsday]

Perhaps other eras will lack certain types, I could see them not wanting to label a contempoary culture militarist.

 

[Guandao]

So this is the first era where a trait (Aesthete) isn't present at all. I wonder if there will be similar situations in the next three eras?

I would like to see the Inca, but it looks unlikely, unless they are in Early Modern....

 

[BuchiTaton]

So this is the first era where a trait (Aesthete) isn't present at all. I wonder if there will be similar situations in the next three eras?

I would like to see the Inca, but it looks unlikely, unless they are in Early Modern....

Unlike Aztecs, Incas have reasons to be on Early Modern, so it could be the case. But the most likely option is an "Andine line" on the first DLC.

 

[Guandao]

I wonder if Amplitude chose not to include an Aesthete culture for the Medieval Era, because they wanted to imply that Medieval art was less impressive than in other eras? Or maybe they just saw the Medieval period as more warlike?

 

[Elhoim]

So this is the first era where a trait (Aesthete) isn't present at all. I wonder if there will be similar situations in the next three eras?

Well, some people are screaming "bad design" in Discord, due to lack of freedom of choices. I just feel they equate symmetry to good design, kinda like an OCD thing.

 

[Revanchist]

I also was hoping Aztec would be early modern and Inca medieval. Militarist fits the Aztecs, but I could easily see them fit the Aesthetic or Agrarian labels as well. I was actually hoping to get chinampas with them and an agrarian focus, but oh well.

 

[zhugejingqi]

Well, some people are screaming "bad design" in Discord, due to lack of freedom of choices. I just feel they equate symmetry to good design, kinda like an OCD thing.

You can never say that six correspond to seven as a good design, unless there are only six types of tasks in this era

 

[Elhoim]

You can never say that six correspond to seven as a good design, unless there are only six types of tasks in this era

That's a very simplistic view (affinity being the only thing that affects the tasks) compared to how the actual game is being designed. Affinity is only a part of the civs, and the legacy trait + emblematic quarter can definitely push influence as Aesthete. For example, from the known civs:

Mauryans are Aesthete. Their trait and quarter focus completely on science and faith (no influence).
Greeks are Scientist and Romans are expansionist, they both give influence in their quarters (Romans using military units).
Goths are militarist and give influence and faith.

So it's not that the lack of Aesthete means "you can't complete the influence task", hence the game is even better designed compared to one-note civs that can only do one thing right (This is a science civ! This is a money one!). Building an "influence" focused one could be VERY interesting, since they are all interrelated.

 

[notNamed]

Well, some people are screaming "bad design" in Discord, due to lack of freedom of choices. I just feel they equate symmetry to good design, kinda like an OCD thing.

Eh, I've got no horse in this race as I'm okay either way. But I think a big point of contention for peeps is that while it could be fun to try and shape more player choices and add more flavour to eras in the game, once game expansions (unless they start adding new focuses) come, those holes are going to be filled-in, just at a price. The reason is simple, people will both want an aesthete culture where there isn't one and many, many of the cultures that figure among top picks for later inclusion would fit right into the niche. Removing them altogether from the game just to make sure medieval era doesn't get a certain focus would be really, really weird and unlikely at best.

 

[Elhoim]

Yeah, I guess the thing I'm trying to understand is the extreme importance the people are giving to affinities. They are just 1/4th of what a civ in Humankind is. I guess the marketing focused a bit too much on it, making it the look like the most important part of the Civ when it's just one tool out of the 4 the game gives. If anything, the Legacy trait is more important, IMO.

 

[zhugejingqi]

Yeah, I guess the thing I'm trying to understand is the extreme importance the people are giving to affinities. They are just 1/4th of what a civ in Humankind is. I guess the marketing focused a bit too much on it, making it the look like the most important part of the Civ when it's just one tool out of the 4 the game gives. If anything, the Legacy trait is more important, IMO.

But it's the most influential part of what you call a quarter

 

[zhugejingqi]

I don't want to be stigmatized as paranoid, but I have to remind you of the problem of this design. First, it goes against the original intention of the so-called free choice. Many people think that the focus is on whether there is an aesthete. Most importantly, however, this implies that only the Peacock Dynasty of the last era could gain more prestige in terms of medieval influence. This completely locks the player's choice. Second, regarding attributes and capabilities, regions and units can be different, focusing on different aspects. This statement completely denies the significance of dividing civilization into seven types. In my discussion group, we asked whether players can choose the type of civilization they belong to. Since it's not that important.

 

[CivLuvah]

Can we just admire this part of the artwork? It looks like something out of an Aztec codex.

 

[CivLuvah]

I wonder if Amplitude chose not to include an Aesthete culture for the Medieval Era, because they wanted to imply that Medieval art was less impressive than in other eras? Or maybe they just saw the Medieval period as more warlike?

Either they've given in to this stereotype that the Medieval Era was a "Dark Age" ...

...or it wasn't their intention, and they're probably going to have some Aesthete medieval civs in a future DLC, or create a kind of symmetry for later eras as @Elhoim suggested.

 

[Elhoim]

But it's the most influential part of what you call a quarter

Personally I find the legacy trait more influential, since it's actually shaping your civ as the game goes by. The affinity is only for the particular era you are playing. It gives a strong ability, but feels very situational.

 

[conorbebe]

No Eagle Warrior? No chinampa? No ball court? Colour me disappointed.

 

[CivLuvah]

No Eagle Warrior? No chinampa? No ball court? Colour me disappointed.

Yeah, a ball court would have been nice...