Humankind Game by Amplitude

[Boris Gudenuf]

True but in Humankind it doesn't have to sit in the hanger i think the F-15 would have been a better choice but it's nice to see them at least try to be different

EDIT: It's apparently projected to be in operation until 2070 or later based on a quick search, so maybe they wanted something future-adjacent on purpose?

Well, if you believe van Crefeld in his book Age of Airpower, the 'era' of manned combat aircraft is almost over, and before 2070 everything flying combat missions will be either autonomous AI or remote controlled. Knowing something about unwillingness of the military to give up anything that allows them to Have Fun flying hot aircraft (or commanding big, imposing Battleships and Super Carriers) I suspect they will find all sorts of (specious) reasons to keep people flying and to keep building multi-billion dollar targets (oops, meant Carriers)

I will say though that no Future speculative Unit in Civ in any iteration has been believable if you follow the actual trends in military hardware at all, so there is still a big hole in 4X games regarding Near-Future Combat that waits to be filled.

 

[KnightModern]

Possibly being able to place outposts in other civ's territories without claiming them. (but still extracting some benefit) [if the civ doesn't like it can declare war on you and trash the outpost]
That would fit since England, Germany, Japan, Canada, Arabia, etc. host plenty of US military bases without being the 51st-101st states.

being a militarist culture would be more suited, no?
makes military bases EQ as modern replacement for outpost with influence or fame bonuses

 

[DaviddesJ]

Autonomous fighters will still need carriers to operate from, no? Even if they have a different configuration from today's.

 

[Jkchart]

Well, if you believe van Crefeld in his book Age of Airpower, the 'era' of manned combat aircraft is almost over, and before 2070 everything flying combat missions will be either autonomous AI or remote controlled. Knowing something about unwillingness of the military to give up anything that allows them to Have Fun flying hot aircraft (or commanding big, imposing Battleships and Super Carriers) I suspect they will find all sorts of (specious) reasons to keep people flying and to keep building multi-billion dollar targets (oops, meant Carriers)

I will say though that no Future speculative Unit in Civ in any iteration has been believable if you follow the actual trends in military hardware at all, so there is still a big hole in 4X games regarding Near-Future Combat that waits to be filled.

Then it must be accurate of the joke on twitter that nothing is more emblematic of America than spending billions on a plane that will never see combat

thanks for the explanation!

 

[CivLuvah]

Found a way to do it!

Imgur album updated to include the Americans:
https://imgur.com/a/4cPjGSY

Also updated the Franks's description to reflect new info that they will be Aesthete in the game

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

being a militarist culture would be more suited, no?
makes military bases EQ as modern replacement for outpost with influence or fame bonuses

Militarist clearly mean military solution in humankind while expansionist affinity do not nessicarly require the use of military and much of US influence seems to only be partially tied to the military.

 

[Krajzen]

Found a way to do it!

Imgur album updated to include the Americans:
https://imgur.com/a/4cPjGSY

Also updated the Franks's description to reflect new info that they will be Aesthete in the game

I'm happy that medieval era will have an Aestethe, but I still think Byzantium was perfect for this affinity. Haghia Sophia, architecture, monasteries, icons, great impact on Eastern European cultures, rich and influential literature, liturgy, rhetoric, preservation of Greek culture... I don't know why devs decided to make them merchant in the era with so many more obvious merchant cultures - already present Ghana, or Swahili, or Zimbabwe, Kievan Rus, Italy, Chola, Javanese, Misssipi...

On another hand, Franks aren't bad Aestethe choice with their Carolingian Renaissance, architecture, miniscule, literature and being a general cultural foundation of medieval Western Europe. And they definitely would be much worse Merchant choice than Byzantium.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Aesthete affinity is however strange right now, the way you get influence is basically about how many territories you control, there is no influence quarter the same way there is merchant or production quarters, commons quarter do produce some influence but not much as their main purpose seems to be stability.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Aesthete affinity is however strange right now, the way you get influence is basically about how many territories you control, there is no influence quarter the same way there is merchant or production quarters, commons quarter do produce some influence but not much as their main purpose seems to be stability.

Don't know what the game effects will be now, but in previous Open Devs there were a couple of Infrastructure buildings that provided Influence on the center of the city, which means number of cities would be directly related to your Influence. I suspect they might change that so that all the Fame from Influence isn't entirely based on total number of cities. There was also one Civic Choice that provided Influence in various amounts and I believe that was a flat rate regardless of the number of territories or cities.

Among the Emblematic Districts/Quarters/Constructions and Legacy Traits I seem to remember several that gave Influence, even among non-Asthete Factions. Specifically, I believe the Greek Amphitheater and Gothic Tumulus both provided some Influence and those were Scientific and Militaristic Factions, not Asthete. Somebody keeping closer track of all the stuff revealed so far could probably elaborate on that, but I suspect that a lot of those effects, not requiring any graphics work and just being 'fiddling with the numbers' might change in the next Open Dev.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Autonomous fighters will still need carriers to operate from, no? Even if they have a different configuration from today's.

There are over 60 "Carriers" in the world today, but the great majority (all but the US dozen or so and I believe 1 - 2 each in France and United Kingdom) are smaller STOL (Short Take-Off and Landing) or helicopter carriers. Those are very likely going to be all that is required for autonomous aerial vehicles - at least, that's hat I seen speculation about in military journals. The assumption among military professionals who are not Supercarrier Admirals (ie: US Navy Admirals and Captains) is that the 60,000 ton plus Carriers are just too big a target to protect, whereas smaller ships that can be built in larger quantities can 'swarm' any target with more expendable, unmanned aerial munitions-delivery craft.

Frankly, the whole debate reminds me of the debate in the late 19th century, when naval theoreticians and writers couldn't decide whether small, 'Quick-Firing' (QF) guns in quantity were more effective than a few large caliber (10" and larger) against the first steel-hulled post-Ironclad ships. The Big Guns won out in the end, once target acquisition and gun direction became good enough to actually use their much greater effective range, but there were gallons of ink spilled arguing the point for nearly 40 years!

 

[Jkchart]

Found a way to do it!

Imgur album updated to include the Americans:
https://imgur.com/a/4cPjGSY

Also updated the Franks's description to reflect new info that they will be Aesthete in the game

I didn’t realize they changed the Franks to be Aesthete!

I wonder if they’ll change one of the Industrial era factions to Merchant then

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Hello,

This is a bit of a strange post, because I’m not familiar enough with the game to know if what I’m asking for is already in it or will be. Therefore, it is a question and perhaps also a suggestion depending on what the answer is.

First of all, let me say that the game both looks and seems great from what I have seen of it, and I will almost certainly buy it. That said, there are two things (aside from good AI) that I’m looking for in a next-level 4x, and I’m really eager to know whether Humankind will provide them.

The first is internal “rise and fall” dynamism. Historically, the longest-lasting country that I know of is Venice, a city-state. It lasted a thousand years. The largest empires so far have had a maximum lifespan of about 250 (I refer to individual empires such as the Roman Principate or the Tokugawa Shogunate as opposed to cultures, which obviously can last for much longer). After that they always, without exception, collapse into civil war and/or are overrun by invasion. Yet in Civ an empire can sit and do nothing for literally thousands of years and stay in the same sociopolitical condition effortlessly except for advancing technologically.

Now, one might reasonably respond by saying that historical empires have never been ruled by immortal, semi-omniscient demigods, which is what players are within the context of the game. I agree, which is why I think it is possible that a single empire led by such a figure could last through the entirety of the game intact. Nevertheless, I think this aspect of history should appear in these games. It should be possible to hold one’s domain intact without splintering, but not effortless, with the difficulty of doing so depending on the difficulty level.

The second is supply lines for armed forces. The absence of these in most 4x games isn’t a simplification, it introduces a gaping hole that fundamentally distorts warfare. For example, the Wehrmacht’s Case Yellow in WWII, the greatest battlefield victory of all time, rested on a massive, unexpected armored drive through the Ardennes forest, which punched through a weak spot in the French lines and slashed across the Allied rear to the English Channel, severing the supply lines of the best Allied forces which had been lured to the northeast and enabling their wholesale annihilation, with the exception of the British Army, which was allowed the time to evacuate back to the UK when Hitler lost his nerve and ordered the attack temporary halted (incidentally at least partially due to fears for his own supply lines). Two years later, Operation Uranus, the Soviet counteroffensive during the Battle of Stalingrad which turned the tide of both the battle and the war, was a double envelopment which severed the supply lines of the German Sixth Army and allowed its destruction, which the Red Army would have been incapable of achieving any other way.

Both operations would be completely pointless in a game which doesn’t feature some kind of supply mechanic. So, if one isn’t in the game already, I ask the developers to please take a look at introducing one between now and the new release date. I’m not asking for anything complex like in Shadow Empire or the Hearts of Iron series. It could be something like every city has a certain number of units it is capable of supplying and if units above that limit can’t trace a path of hexes free of enemy units or zones of control* along a transportation route to another friendly city they can’t heal except by pillaging.

*Of course friendly units guarding the route would negate this.

 

[DaviddesJ]

There are over 60 "Carriers" in the world today, but the great majority (all but the US dozen or so and I believe 1 - 2 each in France and United Kingdom) are smaller STOL (Short Take-Off and Landing) or helicopter carriers. Those are very likely going to be all that is required for autonomous aerial vehicles - at least, that's hat I seen speculation about in military journals. The assumption among military professionals who are not Supercarrier Admirals (ie: US Navy Admirals and Captains) is that the 60,000 ton plus Carriers are just too big a target to protect, whereas smaller ships that can be built in larger quantities can 'swarm' any target with more expendable, unmanned aerial munitions-delivery craft.

Sure, but how does that even affect the game? It's still going to be very expensive to build and operate those carriers, still only a few very powerful and wealthy nations will be able to do it. Exactly what shape they are or whether a carrier group has one big carrier or several small carriers doesn't seem to be much of a difference at the level of a game like this.

 

[DaviddesJ]

The second is supply lines for armed forces. The absence of these in most 4x games isn’t a simplification, it introduces a gaping hole that fundamentally distorts warfare.

I don't think this is true, in a game where a turn is a year or more. These operations you describe are too small to be represented at the scale of combat in this game.

BTW, I'm playing "Unity of Command II", and it's got a very nice, simple, effective supply system. But (1) it only works when the player is on offense and the computer plays defense; the supply mechanic is too complex for a typical game AI to utilize well on the offense; and (2) turns in this game represent a few days, not a few years, so it makes much more sense at that scale.

 

[KnightModern]

Militarist clearly mean military solution in humankind while expansionist affinity do not nessicarly require the use of military and much of US influence seems to only be partially tied to the military.

if amplitude wanna reflect current american culture, might as well go all in
especially since expansionist in huhmankind is all about getting territory instead of projection of power, don't think getting more territory is suited in end game period

 

[Jkchart]

I don't think this is true, in a game where a turn is a year or more. These operations you describe are too small to be represented at the scale of combat in this game.

BTW, I'm playing "Unity of Command II", and it's got a very nice, simple, effective supply system. But (1) it only works when the player is on offense and the computer plays defense; the supply mechanic is too complex for a typical game AI to utilize well on the offense; and (2) turns in this game represent a few days, not a few years, so it makes much more sense at that scale.

Agreed. And also they sort of are represented (at least in Civ) by making it harder to heal etc, there are some abstractions that already work well enough for a game of this scale

 

[Ferris Bueller]

I don't think this is true, in a game where a turn is a year or more. These operations you describe are too small to be represented at the scale of combat in this game.

BTW, I'm playing "Unity of Command II", and it's got a very nice, simple, effective supply system. But (1) it only works when the player is on offense and the computer plays defense; the supply mechanic is too complex for a typical game AI to utilize well on the offense; and (2) turns in this game represent a few days, not a few years, so it makes much more sense at that scale.

The distortion I’m referring to, at the level of the entire game, is that the lack of supply constraints makes conquest much easier than it should be. If you watch let’s plays, Domination is almost a kind of default that players fall back on if their preferred victory isn’t attainable. “Unfortunately, it seems we can’t make it to Alpha Centauri first, so we’re just going to have to conquer the world again.” Personally, I think this is backwards and that Domination should be the hardest victory instead of the easiest. Conquering the world ought to be harder than attracting great painters or being the first to construct a certain kind of rocket.

With the timescale, I see that as referring to technological progression. A lot of the specific decisions are more tactical, particularly in this game, which has individual battles lasting up to several rounds in which players assign units to specific pieces of terrain and give each one its orders.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

Regarding the American affinity, after talking to our historian, here's what I can tell you:
We decided to give the Americans in Humankind the Expansionist affinity to represent their status as a major power and their global influence, especially during the Cold War with their rivalry with the Soviet Union. While many have made solid arguments that Aesthete and Merchant would be excellent candidates to represent their cultural and economic influence, we settled on the Expansionist affinity for gameplay considerations in the context of the full roster of Contemporary Era cultures.

I'm happy that medieval era will have an Aestethe, but I still think Byzantium was perfect for this affinity. Haghia Sophia, architecture, monasteries, icons, great impact on Eastern European cultures, rich and influential literature, liturgy, rhetoric, preservation of Greek culture... I don't know why devs decided to make them merchant in the era with so many more obvious merchant cultures - already present Ghana, or Swahili, or Zimbabwe, Kievan Rus, Italy, Chola, Javanese, Misssipi...

On another hand, Franks aren't bad Aestethe choice with their Carolingian Renaissance, architecture, miniscule, literature and being a general cultural foundation of medieval Western Europe. And they definitely would be much worse Merchant choice than Byzantium.

From what I heard, the extremely brief summary of why Byzantines are Merchants in Humankind is: Because their preferred way to solve their problems by throwing money at them.
Meanwhile, while the discussions on the lack of aesthetes certainly played their part, the primary reason for the change to the Franks was the feedback that many players found them too similar to the Teutons (Expansionist, Heavy Cavalry Unit, religiously-themed quarter).

The second is supply lines for armed forces. The absence of these in most 4x games isn’t a simplification, it introduces a gaping hole that fundamentally distorts warfare. . .

Both operations would be completely pointless in a game which doesn’t feature some kind of supply mechanic. So, if one isn’t in the game already, I ask the developers to please take a look at introducing one between now and the new release date. I’m not asking for anything complex like in Shadow Empire or the Hearts of Iron series. It could be something like every city has a certain number of units it is capable of supplying and if units above that limit can’t trace a path of hexes free of enemy units or zones of control* along a transportation route to another friendly city they can’t heal except by pillaging.

*Of course friendly units guarding the route would negate this.

No, there will not be a detailed supply line model in Humankind. Units will be unable to heal outside friendly territory, but that's as far as it goes. Other posters here have already outlined most of the thematic reasons, and for gameplay we feel that a supply system adds a cognitive load that does not fit into our vision for the game.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

@Catoninetales_Amplitude Have you changed the affinities in some way since Lucy open dev? I managed to get all affinity stars and expansionist stars was by the far the most demanding, require me to conquer the whole world in early modern era, so I'm not sure how I would even get expanionist stars by contemporary.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

The types of actions required haven't changed, but as far as I recall we did some balancing on the goals. I'm hard-pressed to recall the specifics, though.