Humankind Game by Amplitude

[Zaarin]

It's not like in our timeline the year 2021 is a battle of dominance between Sumer, Elam and Harappa

I believe there are some nationalist revisionist historians who would disagree. Well, maybe not about Elam. Iranian nationalists seem to get a lot more excited about the Achaemenids and Sassanids than the Elamites...Hungary collects orphaned speakers of agglutinative languages; maybe they can claim to be Elamite next.

 

[Krajzen]

I believe there are some nationalist revisionist historians who would disagree. Well, maybe not about Elam. Iranian nationalists seem to get a lot more excited about the Achaemenids and Sassanids than the Elamites...Hungary collects orphaned speakers of agglutinative languages; maybe they can claim to be Elamite next.

Nationalists in general often turn towards the absurd idea that cultures (especially THEIR cultures) are unchanging blocks of purity that have been present on Ancestral Lands since Pretty Much Forever. I am recently reading about India, and of course in response to the scientific consensus regarding Indo - Aryan migrations, Indian nationalists claim that Indo Aryans are complely indigenous to the Indian subcontinent and were presemt there since like 8000 BC. Typical 4X model of "the same set of factions that begin the game - end the game, with no change of their Obvious Eternal Essence in between" weirdly aligns with such ahistorical views.

Humankind's model utterly demolishing such views of history in favour of ever - changing multicultural fluid mix is one more benefit of it. Although I don't deny that Civ's model of playing one unchanging faction has its upsides, I'm just eager to see something new.

 

[Zaarin]

Humankind's model utterly demolishing such views of history in favour of ever - changing multicultural fluid mix is one more benefit of it. Although I don't deny that Civ's model of playing one unchanging faction has its upsides, I'm just eager to see something new.

Same. I don't want Civ to change its model, but I do look forward to trying something different.

 

[Siptah]

For me, the changing cultures actually give the game a lot of the paradox games feeling, which I personally like a lot since those are some of my favorite games. And I'm sometimes surprised that, due to obvious general similarities, HK is mostly compared to civ, while in many important aspects, at least to me subjectively, it actually resembles the feel of playing other games much more.
You build a civilization over time: you choose what the society is supposed to be, where the strengths are, and what kind of units you field. This customization happens not only in the selection screen of the cultures, but also with events, civics, religion, etc. All these little changes make the civ play a bit different from others each time. And it's of course much less static and really allows to "play the map" or rather "play the situation." I mean, we all know how much the choice of the civ selection at the beginning of the game can railroad what happens for the next few hours. To me, building a civilization is far more interesting and engaging compared to choosing it at the beginning of the game. Of course, the civ games also allow to customize with religion, cards (vi) or culture trees (v) - but it also feels like that: a civ with modifiers on top, and not like an organic civ grown over time. HK and the paradox games (especially Imperator in that regard, as it is basically civ builder as well) are simply on a different level there. Also, choosing a culture for an era and playing to its strength and just try out what you can do with it is in many ways comparable to playing a ruler in CK. And, really, how great is it to have a EQ and EU all the time and not just in one era?

 

[Victoria]

I have not played it yet but will give it a go next week.
I always struggled in Civ where after seeing my surroundings I wished I was another race, this seems to tackle that. A bit worried about the length of combat in later Era's but time will tell.
I was wondering how well Aesthete's play? It certainly seems like they can vassal people easier and get a peace deal faster, apart from against militarists?

 

[NombreyApellido]

the AI seems to play a simplified version ruleset. for instance, it doesn't look like it triggers Curiosities when it gets left behind in neolithic

during combat, it seems to be able to see the whole battle area while the player has to deal with obscured zones, like those up above a level or more... this can be exploited in some cases, for example forcing a cavalry unit through palisades

it doesn't seem to be able to do the "place all units first then attack" thing to take benefit of added strength through maneuvering every round. what seems to be its only tactics consist of sending the strongest of its units after the weakest from the player. it relies on buffs to deal disproportionate damage and on its "reaction time" to grab the attacker role from the player in closely matched engagements

it can be exploited in several ways, in particular while in siege mode since it will go out of walls or in mixed land-naval skirmishes when it insist on staying embarked
it feels like a strong rubber banding element was built into it: the harder you push, the earliest some events are triggered. wildlife and aggressive greys are dispatched to slow the player down

CPU use does get rather intensive during large battles, a typical scenario could be a siege on a large city that can grow very large area wise and in unit involvement... this heavy load on resources can trigger very strange behaviors

regarding avatar personalities, treats and buffs do make them feel quite different IMO. religion and diplomacy don't seem that evident though up until the moment a holy site is stolen or a treaty is broken. their clothing and wearables seem like a lost opportunity to give unlocking era stars a more tangible effect since the "see how much fame you can score" is lost to many players

i've never took the option to use streamers avatars so i might be missing something, and if that's the case i'm glad. hate the whole idea.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I have not played it yet but will give it a go next week.
I always struggled in Civ where after seeing my surroundings I wished I was another race, this seems to tackle that. A bit worried about the length of combat in later Era's but time will tell.
I was wondering how well Aesthete's play? It certainly seems like they can vassal people easier and get a peace deal faster, apart from against militarists?

Aesthetes get extra Influence, and early in the game 'Influence' (Civ's 'Culture', sort of) is a very important and relatively rare Resource. It is the currency you use to place Outposts, upgrade them into Cities, and (with Money) 'bribe' Minor Factions into liking you enough that you can assimilate them or at least keep them from attacking you. This last can be very important, because, like the Barbarians in Civ, the Minor Factions play by very different rules - they don't need any Resources to build units, and they spawn units at a vastly faster rate than any Major Faction, which means while you are struggling to build your first Rider or Warriors, they are pumping out Heavy Chariots, Spearmen and Archers and (if they are 'violent' types) gleefully Ransacking your Outposts and playing Run Over the Speed Bump with your Scouts and Archers.

Vassaling Major Factions is less important until later in the game, because going to war is usually not a good early option for Aesthetes compared to rapid early expansion by peaceful means, at which they excel. In my (limited, admittedly) experience, keeping a reasonable army will deter the AI Major Factions from attacking you, at least early in the game, which leaves an adroit Aesthete player free to maximize the expansion possibilities - and if you manage to assimilate a Minor Faction early, you not only get another already-established City, but also a number of military units to augment your forces. The only problem with that (and brake on the temptation to use the new armies to conquer your Major Faction neighbors) is that if you don't have the Resources for the new units, you cannot 'repair' or recover them - any combat losses they take are permanent, so it is nearly impossible to sustain any offensive with them.

We are going to have a lot of fun in the next few months discovering all the possibilities of the different types of Factions in the game, and the possibilities of the combination of them: if you start the game as an Aesthete (Zhou and Olmecs are the Aesthete Factions available in Ancient Age, Mauryans in Classical) their Legacy Traits carry over into your later choices. That means, you can get the additional Influence (or, from the Zhou additional Stability, which is very important to keep cities expanding and productive) even while later playing a Merchant, Expansionist, Agrarian, Scientific or Militarist Factions. The combinations, I foresee, will spawn a host of "Playing X, then D, then Z, then Q is OP!" posts both here and over in the G2G forums . . .

 

[Kwami]

No, that just makes the game asymmetrical. Almost all computer games are asymmetrical, the AI players play differently than the humans. Most people playing these games don't actually want the computer opponents to play exactly the same as the human players, although you are not wrong that there are a few who grouse vociferously when they don't. But those people can just be unhappy with the game; that's fine with me. There is no point in trying to please everyone.

No, you're missing the point. Cooperative quests are nearly impossible to complete if the AI doesn't contribute. Competitive quests are nearly impossible to lose if the AI doesn't participate. It's not about the AI winning differently than the human player. That's already bad enough, in my opinion. This is worse because a core part of the game just doesn't work.

 

[Victoria]

I foresee, will spawn a host of "Playing X, then D, then Z, then Q is OP!" posts both here and over in the G2G forums . . .

Cheers, the above is not my style although perhaps it will be natural to pop into a new era, think, hey I am short on pop and go Agrarian which I quite like the idea of and hope it becomes so.
I got the basics reading the wiki, but I’ll get my hands on the real deal and see how it pans out. I just like baiting Empires into attacking me, and that seems to be my modus operandi in civ now and was wondering if aesthetic was a fair option in HK, especially as I like diplomacy. But yeah, get some science advance first may be safer before baiting.
I am not in it to win it, to me that’s just a macguffin.

 

[Elhoim]

One of the uses of having high influence is converting their territories to your culture, and then demand them. They can give the territory, or you can heavily increase your war support and make a justified war. Then if you demanded them, you can get them for cheap when demanding war reparations.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: I have moved Krajzen's post and replies to its own thread, see here https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...scientist-culture-besides-babylonians.672260/.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Just want to say that glad to see both HMK and Old World get their own subforums now. I think this is the first time CivFanatics has ever done this, hats off to moderators and the devs of both games.

 

[lymond]

.... I think this is the first time CivFanatics has ever done this.....

It is...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It is...

So, any thoughts about changing the title of the Forum to "4xFanatics"?

 

[lymond]

So, any thoughts about changing the title of the Forum to "4xFanatics"?

Yeah…um…No.

 

[Elhoim]

the AI seems to play a simplified version ruleset. for instance, it doesn't look like it triggers Curiosities when it gets left behind in neolithic

That's because they don't exist for players in the neolithic, not because of the AI.

during combat, it seems to be able to see the whole battle area while the player has to deal with obscured zones, like those up above a level or more... this can be exploited in some cases, for example forcing a cavalry unit through palisades

Not sure, I had situation in which the AI didn't see mortars or even archers.

 

[NombreyApellido]

That's because they don't exist for players in the neolithic, not because of the AI.

if you mean they don't exist for AI players at all, i could agree but i wanted to leave some leeway because i can only surmise

Not sure, I had situation in which the AI didn't see mortars or even archers.

several times i had a badly damaged unit moved to the edge of a battle zone to try to save it and heal it later... well, the AI player was able to locate it at their first try and dispose of them

never got to build mortars, but it does seem to prioritize siege weapons, yes. it also seems to stay inside of walls if the player has only cavalry units during sieges, that's the only exception to its suicidal sorties i can remember now

 

[Victoria]

Played my first game yesterday with a new build, (so far up to early modern), The price to pay for the access is a review at the end of the week which is not too bad.
Limited a bit in what I can say but I am allowed to post. I must say that there are some fundamental differences that make this thing rock and flop, but mostly rock.
I had a city rebel as the dutch, The max army of rebel was as strong as one of my max armies meaning it feels right but the thing that got me was A picture of a rabid Netherlander with a meat cleaver, just great humour.
So much to take in on a first game but having 0 clue what I was doing on average speed is still a walk in the park. I am just a bit concerned about the sheer level of detail thrown at you in big fat screens that you have to keep closing. It is sort of wierd, in Civ you are spammed by highly annoying diplomarc popups with little value, now you get very little in the way of dip popups but everything else feels in your face.
It's gonna be full of bugs and and non-optimal issues, thats just normal, but some of the fundamental things that are deep in the design will not be so malleable.
Religion they have buffed a bit but it stiff feel periphreal, I took Olmecs which are no longer free jav upgrades (lord knows why that was there) and the whole influence thing is pretty cool and their effect on war support is great, aesthetics seem so subtle in their play. Just not sure if I should play that path more till I know it or take another but it does seem with the legacy traits that the wiser path is often along the same lines to snowball. (I swapped around but can see the stacking of Aesthetics because I took the Franks as well, it is strong.
Because the early game turns are longer, the game is longer but that also makes it feel like your early units are in play longer. Also my Carthaginian elephants felt distinct and awesome, UU in this game feel great and you can really build up the bonuses in your troops. It feels a bit dirty getting a +2 combat strength from a tenet noone else get, but thats my belief

 

[Victoria]

Oh crap....And there seems to be no way to give cities back!
EDIT, ah just liberate them, set them free!

 

[Siptah]

Negative influence looks scarier than it actually is. In the late game on larger maps, you can easily find yourself with -1000s per turn if you conquer a lot. After some point of the game, it doesn't matter that much - just be prepared that you can't enact any civics and are forced to change some by your neighbors. It's much less punishing than negative gold income or very low stability. And going over the cap by 1 or 2 cities is pretty ok even in earlier stages.

And by the way, you can merge cities instead of going over the cap.