Humankind - English discussion thread

[CivLuvah]

I mean, just a representation of the naval power and the sea dogs of the elizabethan period.

Yeah but in terms of "nationality" pirates come from all over the place, not just in England. It's not even accurate to describe Elizabethan naval power as just piracy. It's too far off.

 

[Guandao]

Can we recreate the battle of Agincourt with the English longbowmen?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Can we recreate the battle of Agincourt with the English longbowmen?

There are really two questions here:
1. Can we recreate the Battle of Agincourt?
Answer: they have English Longbowmen in the game. One assumes (since it is as close to a Standard as anything in Historical 4X gaming) they have English Knights and French Knights. Therefore, Yes.
2. Can we recreate the Historical Results of the Battle of Agincourt?
Answer: That depends on what kind of Factors they give to English Longbowmen versus French Knights, and whether they model French Tactical Silliness ("The Ministry of Silly Attacks" by Montre Python?). So, Maybe, but not likely.

 

[Guandao]

Agincourt has been engraved into my memory along with other battles featured in Age of Empires 2 ‘s expansion, along with Manzikert, Noryang Point, Lepanto, Hastings, etc

 

[Siptah]

Agincourt has been engraved into my memory along with other battles featured in Age of Empires 2 ‘s expansion, along with Manzikert, Noryang Point, Lepanto, Hastings, etc

Those were the days... played through these original campaigns quite a few times. Nowadays, there are too many of them and I can't really remember any of the missions of the last 2 expansions. More isn't always better.

 

[Krajzen]

More isn't always better.

On a sidenote, I also believe this is a problem of many civ6 factions - not that there are too many factions, but they have too. Damn. Many. Separate. Bonuses. If your game is going to have 40 or 50 playable factions, their character and abilities should be easy to remember and recognize. Civ5 did that but it had a separate problem of factional abilities being too specific and niche. So civ6 went nuts.

Let's look at England, as we are in the proper thread. You ask me what abilities does England have in civ5. Well, it has +2 water move, earlier and more spies, xbow with bonus range and stronger frigate.
The downside: too specific, military focused, and does display an extremely small cut od English history.
Upside: simple and very visible!


What bonuses total does England in civ6 have?
1) Iron, Coal mines+2 more resources per turn.
2) +100% Production towards Military Engineers. M
3) Engineers receive +2 charges.
4) Buildings that provide additional yields when Powered receive +4 of that yield.
5) +20% production towards Industrial Zone buildings.
6) Harbor buildings increase Strategic Resource Stockpiles by +10.
7) The first city founded on each continent other than their home continent grants a free melee unit in that city...
8) ...and +1 Trade Route capacity.
9) Building a Royal Navy Dockyard grants a free naval unit in that city.
10) Redcoat
11) Sea dog
12) +1 Movement for all units built in the unique version of Harbor.
13) +2 Gold when built that unique Harbor on foreign continent.


13 separate abilities for one faction! To this day I cannot remember like half of bonuses 42 factions in this game get and I dread the upcoming 8 civs, because as much as GS had cool civ designs, they were horribly bloated. I am not sure but I think Maori may win with 15 separate mechanical modifiers (real "abilities"). In a game with up to 50 playable factions. The brain melts and faction identity dissolves.
Please notice that most of English bonuses are utterly insignificant, something you raise an eyebrow, mumble 'nice' and move on (to be honest if there was a way to measure how civ unique abilities impact victories - if civ6 had any difficulty of course - I wouldn't be surprised if a ton of factions uniques would have no statistic impact at all, their impact being just human cognitive bias).

 

[FinalDoomsday]

Yes having tons of small bonuses is pretty bad design I think as its making the player remember lots of minor buffs but I think it comes about when the developer wants to make nods to lots of different facets of a civ without really commiting to them and making them a central peice of the Civ's design. Industrial revolution... expansionism... naval power... trade... Do you think England would have been better with more focus? Or is it good to have these civs with spread out bonuses? I'm not sure myself.

One thing Endless Legend did well was to avoid having any generic civs, even its beginner friendly civs had a pretty clear focus. Wild Walkers are considred a good starter but still have a strong focus on forests and all the EL factions have one big trait and then a couple of small traits and abilities to help you work with those tentpole aspects of the faction or negatives to encourage you to maximise the use of that main affinity.

Humankind could get away with having cultures with more focused bonuses as you'll be picking them in game giving you the chance to study your current situation and decide if they will be useful to you or not.

 

[conorbebe]

I definitely agree with the sentiment that complicated bonuses aren't necessarily superior. I'd much rather each faction had a very straight-forward and borderline overpowered bonus, rather than many small, situational ones.

 

[mitsho]

Civ6 has the challenge that it wants the bonuses to be spread over the whole game, even if f.e. Gran Colombia only should come around in the Industrial Era. The accumulation of bonuses with England is then also a result of trying to make it viable over 4 years of development or so.

To be fair though, a normal game of Humankind will also have more than 15 individual bonuses: 6 cultures times 3 (1 emblematic unit + 1 emblematic quarter + 1 legacy trait), as well as the generic traits. It's just that they are confined to one era and thus can theoretically repeat. It will probably just be that they are easier to remember as they can be very straightforward and don't have to be the complicated mess they are in civ6.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes having tons of small bonuses is pretty bad design I think as its making the player remember lots of minor buffs but I think it comes about when the developer wants to make nods to lots of different facets of a civ without really commiting to them and making them a central peice of the Civ's design. Industrial revolution... expansionism... naval power... trade... Do you think England would have been better with more focus? Or is it good to have these civs with spread out bonuses? I'm not sure myself.

One thing Endless Legend did well was to avoid having any generic civs, even its beginner friendly civs had a pretty clear focus. Wild Walkers are considred a good starter but still have a strong focus on forests and all the EL factions have one big trait and then a couple of small traits and abilities to help you work with those tentpole aspects of the faction or negatives to encourage you to maximise the use of that main affinity.

Humankind could get away with having cultures with more focused bonuses as you'll be picking them in game giving you the chance to study your current situation and decide if they will be useful to you or not.

The problem (in Civ) is that when you try to recreate a Civilization that has lasted any length of time you wind up trying to recreate the 'uniqueness' of that Cv in numerous different situations. In the case of Civ VI, that means that the Civs become ridiculous conglomerations of attributes only distantly related to each other: Industry, Redcoats, Sea Dogs, for instance.
Humankind side-steps that problem by making most of the Faction and its 'Emblematics' applicable to only one Era. So, if you want to try to show all of the peculiarities of 'England' from one end of the game to the other, you can Subdivide them by Era into Classical Britons, Medieval Anglo-Saxons or Norman English, Industrial Georgian Britain, Modern Great Britain, etc, and have specific attributes for each separate Faction that are far more likely to be appropriate because they can be related to a single Temporal Era.

 

[pineappledan]

Doesn't feel right having the English come in the medieval... In the broad sweep of history, the British Isles were a backwater inside of a backwater during the medieval periods. I would rather see the English show up in Renaissance or later, because it feels like were going to get 3+ permutations of the English/British/UK if they start showing up in medieval.

The Franks/French/Ancien Regime were the major European continental power, but Europe was practically a dark continent compared to what was going on in the world. The Islamic empires of the Fertile Crescent, the Chalukya golden age in southern India, The Height of Southeast Asian power with the Angkor/Khmer in Cambodia and later the Majapahit in Indonesia, and of course, the Tang in China, arguably the zenith of China's imperial power. Meanwhile, we have English, with a welsh unit and a Norman quarter. During the medieval period, England was colonized by saxons, angles, Danes, Norwegians, and finally a Norman vassal to the Frankish monarchy (who can trace their dynasty back to yet another Viking). ‘Englishness’ hardly even existed in this time period, and that’s reflected in what has been shown so far.

Throw in the obligatory Mongols for the largest contiguous empire in world history, the token African culture, and the 1 American culture (because Humankind evidently couldn't give a toss about 2 entire continents), and I don't see how England could possibly deserve its own spot ahead of bigger, more important cultures doing much more interesting things in that large period of time.

 

[Zaarin]

Doesn't feel right having the English come in the medieval... In the broad sweep of history, the British Isles were a backwater inside of a backwater during the medieval periods.

The Anglo-Saxons were pretty important in the Early Middle Ages. In particular, they transmitted Irish learning to the Continent (and, coincidentally, they made beards and long hair fashionable for men). However, what's strange here is we don't have the Anglo-Saxons; we have the post-Norman English. My guess is we should see them less as "England" and more as a stand-in for Normandy.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

On a world stage, sure, Europe was not as powerful economically, militarily, or socially as other parts of the world. But by that criteria we would have no American or African-south-of-the-Sahara Factions until the late game, because they had little or no contact and therefore no influence at all on the rest of the world or 'history'.

And be careful when you compare France and England in the 'Medieval Era': better yet, reread Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror on the 14th century, when England held the French king as a hostage for years after the Battle of Poitiers, controlled large areas of France, and English kings made claims to the French throne, while France had near-continuous peasant revolts, break-away kingdoms/nobles in Brittany and Burgundy, and a court that was virtually bankrupt for most of the century.
- And as noted by Dr Duffy in his Experience of War in the Age of Reason, three centuries later England and France were still the only two 'nations' in Europe whose people, even down to common soldiers, showed distinctive Nationalist feelings - identifying themselves as 'Englishmen' or 'Frenchmen' when in most of the continent self-identification was still much more local.

Finally, I agree that the game (in fact, ALL Historical 4X games) needs more Non-European focus for many periods: On the other hand, as long as a large portion of the game-buying public remains European and/or English speaking, that is simply not going to happen to the extent it 'should' in commercial games.
But the solution is not to remove European Factions/Civs that are locally important in and to Europe (and potential sources of revenue for the game company), it's to add space for Factions equally important in their respective regions and especially Factions/Civs that have multi-region importance (sorry to keep throwing out Reading Lists, but Valerie Hansen's new book The Year 1000 makes the case that Globalization started in that year, in the Medieval Era, and not in the Renaissance or Industrial Eras, and makes a good argument and a good summary of the 'global influences' from central America to Asia/Southeast Asia, not excluding Europe!).

Humankind with 15 Factions per Era would, IMHO, be a much better and more balanced game Historically simply because of the greater scope for real diversity. With Mods we will hopefully get to that point regardless of Amplitude's resources or intentions . . .

 

[pineappledan]

You give me a reading list composed solely of European history books about Europeans and tell me that is big 'H' History. Sorry, no.

the Teutons have been informally announced, so we're going to have German Germanics, French Germanics, Norsemen, and Plantagenet England in 4/10 medieval slots. So, that England is a third Germanic people ruled over by a dynasty of French-speaking dukes who trace their specific claim to the English throne back to more Norsemen who were functionally a French client-kingdom with legitimate claims to the French throne, but also carried other claims in Anjou, Aquitaine, and Brittany. You see that as evidence of importance; I see that as evidence of redundancy and downright incestuousness. As you say, maybe if there were 15 slots, but we know that England/Britain will show up in a big way during later eras, where they made a much larger impact. I see no need to have them here.

This is my same ax to grind against the selection of the Myceneans though. Myceneans were very minor players in the iron age, and we all know Greeks were going to get a slot in Classical anyways, so why functionally give them 2 slots (3 slots if you count Byzantium)?

 

[FinalDoomsday]

There is a case to be made for having cultures that relate to each other as people like to see historical rivalries play out, the English Longbowmen and Frankish Knight Emblematic Units suggest the developers hope that you'll be able to have your own 'Agincourt' in game just like how you'll be able to have your own Punic wars or Thermopylae.

Sure a lot of the appeal of these games is the pure fantasy fun of having scenarios like the Aztecs invade Korea but its also good to have cultures that actually did have interactions with each other because its fun when those interactions play out in game retreading history in a distorted way or subverting it entirely.

 

[pineappledan]

Sure a lot of the appeal of these games is the pure fantasy fun of having scenarios like the Aztecs invade Korea but its also good to have cultures that actually did have interactions with each other because its fun when those interactions play out in game retreading history in a distorted way or subverting it entirely.

There are tons of historical battles between substantially different cultures, speaking different languages, worshiping different gods, that you could reenact. Just with the Franks, you could have:
- The Battle of Soissons in 486 against Roman Gaul
- The siege of Paris in 845 against a Viking horde
- The Battle of Tours in 732 against the Moors
- Any of the Crusades
Pointing to Agincourt as something that NEEEDS to be replicable in game is just bizarre. As I have said, the relationships between the English and French thrones at that time makes it more like a civil war than an actual war between independent states. Now, unless you're going to make an argument that the American Confederates need to be a separate culture from America in the Industrial era, for instance, I see no reason why Agincourt is any more worthy of reenactment than the Battle of Nicaea, Gettysburg, or any other regional power struggle for succession or secession between petty kings and would-be emperors.

elevating Agincourt to some great battle of civilizations is just silly; it wasn’t even the most significant English victory in that war. The battle is only remarkable because of how badly the French lost Against a numerically and logistically inferior opponent. Agincourt was in the midst of a full English retreat, and France still won the war in the end.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You give me a reading list composed solely of European history books about Europeans and tell me that is big 'H' History. Sorry, no.

Being a native English speaker I list books accessible to me that I think are pertinent. No apologies for that. I could put together another list of books in German and Russian, but they would be much less accessible to the people on this Forum, so I won't.
And the ones I did list are not solely composed of European history: Hansen is a Chinese history expert and professor, her previous book was about the Silk Roads and Chinese Classical - Medieval Trade, and a good 3/4 of her latest book is on trade and connections outside of Europe in and between the Islamic Middle East, Central Asa, Southeast Asia, Central America and the rest of the Americas, west Africa, and the Far East, emphasizing China, which, she points out, was in 1000 CE "the most globalized place on earth" because of the extensive trade with areas as distant as the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

Quite agree on Agincourt - or any of the other 'longbow' battles between the French and English, which were all English victories but didn't win them the war. IF anyone had to choose to include any of them as 'important' it would be Poitiers, not Agincourt, since the French king was captured at Poitiers and held captive in England for some years, and his ransom, had it ever been actually paid, would have put France in hock for the rest of the century.
Trying to reenact individual battles in a game the scope of Civilization or Humankind is, IMHO, a little silly anyway: there is virtually no congruence between a game with 1 - 50 year 'turns' and a battle taking up part of a single day. And as the relevance between the battles mentioned above and the entire '100 Year's War' they were part of shows, the battles may have little or nothing to do with events at the game's timescale.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

the Teutons have been informally announced, so we're going to have German Germanics, French Germanics, Norsemen, and Plantagenet England in 4/10 medieval slots. So, that England is a third Germanic people ruled over by a dynasty of French-speaking dukes who trace their specific claim to the English throne back to more Norsemen who were functionally a French client-kingdom with legitimate claims to the French throne, but also carried other claims in Anjou, Aquitaine, and Brittany. You see that as evidence of importance; I see that as evidence of redundancy and downright incestuousness. As you say, maybe if there were 15 slots, but we know that England/Britain will show up in a big way during later eras, where they made a much larger impact. I see no need to have them here.

I agree. If it were up to me I would have put England in the Early Modern and have the three European cultures be the Byzantines, the Franks (to represent Western Europe), and the Norse, at least in the Vanilla version. That way the Anglo-Saxons could have come in a DLC too.

This is my same ax to grind against the selection of the Myceneans though. Myceneans were very minor players in the iron age, and we all know Greeks were going to get a slot in Classical anyways, so why functionally give them 2 slots (3 slots if you count Byzantium)?

I mean I would have liked to see the Minoans personally over the Myceneans though.

 

[FinalDoomsday]

Pointing to Agincourt as something that NEEEDS to be replicable in game is just bizarre. As I have said, the relationships between the English and French thrones at that time makes it more like a civil war than an actual war between independent states. Now, unless you're going to make an argument that the American Confederates need to be a separate culture from America in the Industrial era, for instance, I see no reason why Agincourt is any more worthy of reenactment than the Battle of Nicaea, Gettysburg, or any other regional power struggle for succession or secession between petty kings and would-be emperors.

elevating Agincourt to some great battle of civilizations is just silly; it wasn’t even the most significant English victory in that war. The battle is only remarkable because of how badly the French lost Against a numerically and logistically inferior opponent. Agincourt was in the midst of a full English retreat, and France still won the war in the end.

I never said Agincourt or any of those battles need to be represented did I? I was just pointing out I can see why Humankind offers you these culturally similar factions becuase they have evocative rivalries and people will enjoy playing them out in game. The English Longbow and the Frankish Knight are just historical touchstones for a lot of people so I can understand why they are in.

Quite agree on Agincourt - or any of the other 'longbow' battles between the French and English, which were all English victories but didn't win them the war. IF anyone had to choose to include any of them as 'important' it would be Poitiers, not Agincourt, since the French king was captured at Poitiers and held captive in England for some years, and his ransom, had it ever been actually paid, would have put France in hock for the rest of the century.
Trying to reenact individual battles in a game the scope of Civilization or Humankind is, IMHO, a little silly anyway: there is virtually no congruence between a game with 1 - 50 year 'turns' and a battle taking up part of a single day. And as the relevance between the battles mentioned above and the entire '100 Year's War' they were part of shows, the battles may have little or nothing to do with events at the game's timescale.

I never tried to say Agincourt was an important strategic battle I try not to get too tied up with what was the 'most important' as its the kind of discussion that encourages having the exact same leaders in every Civ title and missing out others because they are 'less important' just as an example. Agincourt is just an example of an event thats been etched into the collective cultural memory wherever or not it was actually that big a deal is going to be irrelevant to most people

As for battles, well they are going to be a big part of Humankind and unlike Civ two 'stacked' armies will meet on the world map and then have a full tactical battle within a single turn as opposed to fighting it out on the world map like Civ. So I think its more realistic than Civ at least but then I dont pay much heed to what Civ's caldender says I just shrug and assume the fighting that took hundreds of years according to the game actually happend in a far smaller space of time it just has to play out that way as the game cant slow down for everyone because two empires are having a big flashpoint moment.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Doesn't feel right having the English come in the medieval... In the broad sweep of history, the British Isles were a backwater inside of a backwater during the medieval periods. I would rather see the English show up in Renaissance or later, because it feels like were going to get 3+ permutations of the English/British/UK if they start showing up in medieval.

The Franks/French/Ancien Regime were the major European continental power, but Europe was practically a dark continent compared to what was going on in the world. The Islamic empires of the Fertile Crescent, the Chalukya golden age in southern India, The Height of Southeast Asian power with the Angkor/Khmer in Cambodia and later the Majapahit in Indonesia, and of course, the Tang in China, arguably the zenith of China's imperial power. Meanwhile, we have English, with a welsh unit and a Norman quarter. During the medieval period, England was colonized by saxons, angles, Danes, Norwegians, and finally a Norman vassal to the Frankish monarchy (who can trace their dynasty back to yet another Viking). ‘Englishness’ hardly even existed in this time period, and that’s reflected in what has been shown so far.

Throw in the obligatory Mongols for the largest contiguous empire in world history, the token African culture, and the 1 American culture (because Humankind evidently couldn't give a toss about 2 entire continents), and I don't see how England could possibly deserve its own spot ahead of bigger, more important cultures doing much more interesting things in that large period of time.

Complety agree!
Its seems obvious that medieval England is a must for their recognition in the anglo and western european market, the biggest ones.

Of course is not like England was complety irrelevant, but I feel the name England could fit better for Early Modern when their identity and power was more consolidated.
I would love to have English replaced on base game for something like Magyars.