Humankind Game by Amplitude

[Shadowhal]

One crafty little thing that I noticed in the Victor Open Dev that will come as something of a shock to Civ players, is that Resources are also required to build some of the mid-late-game Infrastructure, not just Units.
There are several Production-boosting structures even in the Medieval Age (High Furnace, for instance) that require Iron or copper resources, Grain Silos for a Food boost in the Early Modern Age require as many horse resources as Knights, and a Military School to boost the production of military Units requires more different Strategic Resources than any single unit. People who search through the Tech Tree to find unit they can build without scarce Resources may discover that they needed them as much for the structures and boosts from them as they did for Units.

And I think that's a good thing, especially if strategic resources will generally be as scarce as in the Victor map. I certainly like it better than the approach in EL or ES2 where one needed to stockpile resources over time before constructing some units or later game buildings. Maybe not as nuanced but less headache and gets the point across as well that you need to secure those resource nodes, either through expansion or diplomacy.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And I think that's a good thing, especially if strategic resources will generally be as scarce as in the Victor map. I certainly like it better than the approach in EL or ES2 where one needed to stockpile resources over time before constructing some units or later game buildings. Maybe not as nuanced but less headache and gets the point across as well that you need to secure those resource nodes, either through expansion or diplomacy.

What I especially like about it is that the number of different Deposits of resources required varies and gets larger with late-game units: a single Copper deposit will build you a Spearman, but it takes 2 Iron and 2 Horse resources to build a Knight. Without all the stockpiling statistics, that neatly shows the greater expense of advanced units and 'Industrial" era construction and building.
The only thing I think they missed, and it could be argued that it would simply be an extra complication, but the extracting of resources historically got much more efficient as technologies improved: the amount of Iron a Classical Faction/Civ could get out of a shallow mine was much less than what could be dug out of a deep mine with timber shoring, horse-drawn rail cars, and steam pumps to remove ground water, and that was much less again than what a modern Open Pit mine can get, when it removes an entire mountain and makes holes big enough to be seen from orbit - but requires major advances in automotive technology and the committing of major resources to building the giant machines required. As said, it might just be a complication they didn't want to get into, but I would love to see Continuous Improvements required in a game so that plunking down a 'mine' in 2500 BCE does not suffice for the rest of History, and apparently Rheostatus the Thracian slave is still chipping away at the rock face with a bronze pick in 2010 CE.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

The limiting factor in the Modern/Contemporary Eras is not so much the basic research as it is building the Infrastructure required to actually produce new devices/weapons. Last I looked (several years ago) there were an estimated 20 or more countries in the world that had the technical knowledge to build nuclear devices or weapons, but for most of them it would take 3 - 8 years to develop and construct the facilities needed to make the parts needed to build a bomb.

Even without the 'diplomatic factor' that makes acquiring nuclear weapons problematical (Germany has had the technical knowledge for decades, but 'firestorm' doesn't begin to describe the diplomatic consequences of Germany announcing that it was going to build nuclear weapons!) this factor applies in many other areas of advanced weaponry. My two favorite historical examples are Battleships and Medium Tanks.

The Battleship was the symbol of First Class Naval Power all over the world from 1906 to the 1940s, yet out of over 50 countries in the world, only 8 - Britain, Germany, France, Austria, Russia, Japan, Italy, and the USA - ever actually built a Battleship, and those countries built all of their battleships and battlecruisers in a total of 56 shipyards (of which 24 were in Great Britain or the USA alone) - the industrial requirements to build 20 - 70,000 ton ships, big guns, and armor plate by the 1000s of tons was simply prohibitive for most of the world's economies.

The medium tank (21 tons or more with a cannon armament) became the symbol of military prowess in World War Two, but again, out of over 50 countries in the world, by 1945 only 7 - Britain, Germany, USA. Russia, France, Italy, Japan (and the last two just barely) had designed and manufactured medium tanks in any quantity at all. Again the industrial requirements for automotive, armor plate, and artillery manufacturing that went into a medium tank were beyond most of the world. Even in the 21st century. Main Battle Tanks have only been built by 11 out of 200+ nations: USA, Russia, Britain, Germany, France, Brazil, China, Japan, India, Israel and Sweden. On the other hand, and not modeled in Civ at all, main battle tanks, medium tanks, and battleships were all either built for other countries by those that could build them, or sold to them in quantity for various commercial or diplomatic reasons.

When he wrote "advanced nations" I think that included infrastructure.

Your list of battleship producers is correct to my knowledge, but the list of MBT producers is incomplete. From what I remember, Italy, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, and both Koreas have also manufactured them. Your basic point is still valid though.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

When he wrote "advanced nations" I think that included infrastructure.

Your list of battleship producers is correct to my knowledge, but the list of MBT producers is incomplete. From what I remember, Italy, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, and both Koreas have also manufactured them. Your basic point is still valid though.

You have to be careful with 'current' or contemporary weapons development: the Serbia, Croatia and Yugoslav M-84 variants are all based on the Soviet T-72 MBT, and Iran's latest MBT appears to be based on the Soviet T-95 (which was built in prototype only, but Russia denies sharing technology with Iran, which would be a violation of the international sanctions on that country). Nobody appears to be sure what North Korea based their tank on, but their earlier version of it was based on the T72 from the USSR. In fact, the massive exporting of the T-72, US M-60 series, and German Leopard series have resulted in versions of those or 'local modifications' appearing as "new" MBTs all over the world.

I did miss the recent developments in Italy and South Korea though (although the South Korean K1A1 benefited from the development work on the XM1 in the USA) - the Italian armaments industry is one of the major players in world arms exports in both artillery and naval gunnery systems, and they applied a lot of the technology to their Ariete series - although the configuration and chassis are very similar to the British Challenger and US M1 series, and the main gun is a development of Germany's Rheinmetall 120mm, so it rather makes my point from a different post that there are lots of similarities and 'cross-over' in modern weapons systems and very few "purely native"deveopments in anything as complex as a main battle tank, advanced fighter aircraft, or any other complex weapons system.

 

[DaviddesJ]

But if you're taking civ-style games as a representation of the real world then there should be plenty of copying of designs in the game, too.

 

[CivLuvah]

Imgur album updated to include the Swedes:

https://imgur.com/a/4cPjGSY

 

[Krajzen]

So, there is only one more modern culture left. Which means either we get no modern Subsaharan culture (bizarre), or no modern Japan (bizarre), or no South Korea (bizarre).

I have found their selection of modern cultures pretty cool, although honestly I'd instantly exchange Australia for one of those three, and replaced Sweden with Finland (to reuse Sweden in the early modern era).

Of those three I think I mainly hope we get Japan at this point, as its impact on the world during last 100 years has been so massive and iconic, that it'd be a real shame to miss them.

 

[Jkchart]

So, there is only one more modern culture left. Which means either we get no modern Subsaharan culture (bizarre), or no modern Japan (bizarre), or no South Korea (bizarre).

I have found their selection of modern cultures pretty cool, although honestly I'd instantly exchange Australia for one of those three, and replaced Sweden with Finland (to reuse Sweden in the early modern era).

Of those three I think I mainly hope we get Japan at this point, as its impact on the world during last 100 years has been so massive and iconic, that it'd be a real shame to miss them.

It's Japan, there's a leak/datamine or something that had all of the emblematics for each

 

[j51]

I wonder if there will be an option to have the game end after only five eras? I'm finding the contemporary cultures just meh.

I'd rather have the Americans and Japanese in the Industrial (just call it Modern) and a Late-Antique era instead.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I wonder if there will be an option to have the game end after only five eras? I'm finding the contemporary cultures just meh.

I'd rather have the Americans and Japanese in the Industrial (just call it Modern) and a Late-Antique era instead.

That brings up an interesting point:
There's been a lot of discussion of Humankind's "Single Victory Condition" (Fame), but as far as I know, no discussion of potential variations within that Victory Condition.

Like, can you set a number of Fame Points and automatically end the game at that point - no matter which Era you are in?
Can you set a Victory As Of - end or beginning of a specific Era?

Either or both options would add some flexibility to the length of game, which is always a Good Thing with games like Humankind and Civ that can eat of a week or more of playing sessions if taken to the Bitter End.

 

[mitsho]

Nah, I like the modern selection!

But sure, give me an advanced start and a preemptive end. Especially the late starts could be interesting. Finally a chance to see London as a capital.

And the race to x Fame sounds good as well.

 

[Atlas627]

Well maybe in an expansion they'll add some sort of empire-collapse mechanic when you've been ahead of the curve for too long, so that you have to time your fame gain strategically to burst onto the world stage and get as much fame as possible before corruption and decadence take down your empire.

And then you need to advance to a new Era to re-establish the empire, and the new culture renames the capital only. Boom, use for modern city names!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well maybe in an expansion they'll add some sort of empire-collapse mechanic when you've been ahead of the curve for too long, so that you have to time your fame gain strategically to burst onto the world stage and get as much fame as possible before corruption and decadence take down your empire.

And then you need to advance to a new Era to re-establish the empire, and the new culture renames the capital only. Boom, use for modern city names!

The idea of real "Rise and Fall" or Rise and Decline mechanics in a 4x game has been debated in Civ forever, and with the built-in Change of Culture in Humankind, no doubt the debate will start on how that could be tied to a system where the 'old' Culture you chose starts to fall apart on you, triggering a new selection.

Another point is that the Minor factions (City State/Barbarian/Free Cities equivalents) in Humankind already appear, rise and then decline and disappear in the game, so people are bound to look at that and wonder Why Not extend that arc to the Major Factions as well?

 

[Elhoim]

It would be amazing, but I don't think the general audience would be ready for that.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It would be amazing, but I don't think the general audience would be ready for that.

No question, the reason for the unrelenting upward mobility of all Civs and factions in Civ and Humankind is the preferences of the general gaming public.

But that doesn't mean there could not be an Option, a "Game Mode" if you will, labeled Decline And Fall or Decline And Rise that incorporates a set of 'degenerating factors' applied to Loyalty, Economy, Culture, Civics, etc. Something to remove the Mandate of Heaven or cause increasing problems until the civilization has to morph into something else, possibly even with a variable period of rebuilding - a Time of Troubles, Warring States, or "Dark Age"

I can hope . . .

 

[Atlas627]

The big issue with rise and fall in the Civ games is that they are a race to the end. Power during the game only matters if it makes you reach the end faster. As soon as you allow rubberbanding that might create an interesting gameplay situation, you've also allowed slingshotting which starts getting people to purposely fall behind so they can Bullet Bill on the last lap to be in first as everyone crosses the finish line.

Once the victory condition becomes score, aka being in the lead for the *longest* or *most effective* period, we can add rise and fall mechanics because gaining more points for fighting against the rubber band is still worthwhile, even if you do eventually fall behind.

As far as whether players want it or not: Sid has always said that part of the theme of Civ is the march of progress, the ever-increasing push towards the stars. Celebrating the accomplishments of humanity doesn't mean we can't talk about setbacks, though! The Persian conquest of the Medes is no less impressive for the Medes being corrupt and ineffective, as Cyprus usurped their empire in mere years. Alexander's conquest of that same empire is no less impressive for the Persians being overextended, as he personally won many battles against different fighting forces across the Middle East. And so on. In the other direction, the decline of the various Hellenic empires and the subsequent rise of Rome doesn't look bad for the Hellenes, as much of their culture was assimilated and propagated by it. The fall of Rome makes the Byzantine survival all the more impressive, as they were against even more capable enemies. And so on, again.

The formula of constant gains without any setbacks bores many audience members. There is no threat to feel accomplished for overcoming, only more gains that make the old ones proportionally meaningless. In fact, the casual player reaches a point at which they don't care anymore, because there are just too many things to care about, and this point happens all too quickly due to the incessant need for snowballing without setbacks. And for those that would be disappointed by a setback they don't understand, they are also likely to lose something to an AI opponent, and those kinds of setbacks are already allowed in the game!

The issue really is that most casual players are trying to play CivCity, the Civilization Building Game. And honestly, they can do that even with setbacks. They are playing for the pretty graphics and the story they can tell about their game. Yes, ownership of what they've built is important, but people already quit when the AI conquers a single city; adding actual falls of empires won't change that. In fact, if you build in setbacks, you can also build in comebacks, and that might get people to actually keep playing after they lose something for the first time! It's a win-win.

 

[FinalDoomsday]

Nah, I like the modern selection!

But sure, give me an advanced start and a preemptive end. Especially the late starts could be interesting. Finally a chance to see London as a capital.

And the race to x Fame sounds good as well.

It will probably be your only chance to see the unique city centre graphics for the later era cultures too because city centres retain their original apperance. Good luck trying to see what the USA or Turkish city centres look like!

I did start a discussion on Games2Gether to say there could be an 'update city centre' option so you can choose if you want to keep your Olmec pyramid in the capital forever or if you fancy doing a bit of redecoration.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think “Rise and Fall” mechanics (in combination with the fame victory) would be well received if they are able to be mitigated. So if you hate having your empire collapse and enjoy mostly irreversible progress, then there should be a means to do that...it would just be slow, mostly irreversible progress (where you save your “explosion” for the last one or two eras...you go Russia-Soviet or British-America if you want a massive empire that builds from a solid early modern core....or keep a strong industrial core and max out fame mostly internally.


In terms of updating city names/graphics, that could be a really interesting narrative event with era changes.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

One thing I’ve never understood about objections to mechanics which potentially create more challenging conditions is one can always play on a low difficulty.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Couple of comments that I'll address directly to avoid another page of "Quotes"
@Atlas627: Been discussed in another time and place, but am totally in agreement that one fundamental change that I think is required is a Victory mechanic that rates your progress or in-game achievements rather than simply How You Ended It All. For instance, a Civ that managed to have a higher percentage of its population in a Happy or Euphoric state for a higher percentage of the game would be a winner even if in 2023 CE others ran off to the stars and left them behind. Another possibility would be to have Selective Victories where at the beginning you pick the type of Victory or Achievement that constitutes a Victory, or a Victory System in which different Civs can each win a different type of Victory without precluding a different type of victory for someone else - if I'm aiming to have the most lucrative Trade Empire in the world with the highest average Trade Income for the longest period of time, that does not preclude someone else from spreading their religion the farthest and widest or yet another Civ from being at peace for the highest percentage of game turns.

Even Domination, if it included having other Civs in some kind of Vassal ("satellite states?") status would not necessarily preclude one of the Vassals from making more money from Trade, or even ending as the "most peaceful" Civ in that game's History.

@KrikkitTwo : All Game Changing Events, such as complete lack of Strategic Resources or a Rise and Fall mechanic, should have an Alternative - not necessarily quite as good, and probably requiring more work on the gamer's part, but some way to mitigate a one-way trip to disaster. The alternative is a lot of Rage Quits, and in my experience, 2 - 3 Rage Quits because the game paints you into a non-exitable corner and the game is deleted from the computer and never played again - frustration can be had much cheaper by watching the National or International News.

So, a Rise and Fall mechanic might as one example provide in decline the only easy way to change Civics, as people give up on "the old way of doing things" and try something new - like Feudalism arising because the State didn't have enough money any more to maintain a large standing (Roman) Army after the 5th century CE.
EVERY mechanic or system in the game - any game - should have more than one way of getting past it - the easy way, the hard way, and possibly a sideway that may get you past the roadblock but deposit you in a bog. Lack of a Strategic Resource should always be balanced by some other mechanism for getting the resource or an alternative Unit that doesn't require it but provides almost as good of an alternative. A Civ losing a city to a volcano or having cities break away into Free States/Cities or even being conquered completely should not be Out of the Game - look at China for a historical example of the latter, or Pompeii for an example of how much Tourism, culture and archeological goodies can be derived from a Lost City . . .

And finally, @FinalDoomsday : Given that Humankind already changes the appearance of general buildings and housing in each city whenever you change Factions/Ages, it is peculiar that they don't at least give us the option of changing the City Center as well. I understand that they want to keep a 'visual cue' on the map as to what the history of your Faction was, but it seems to me that an Option to completely change the City Center to Later Graphics OR change everything but the 'Emblematic Palace' in the City Center would be a nice touch. You'd still have the Emblematic Quarters showing the older factions, which in my opinion are a better indicator of the History of the Faction in any case.