Humankind Game by Amplitude

[AntSou]

I just met the AI in first place...

33 luxuries...

Is this normal even for a Merchant culture?

 

[Taefin]

I had that many luxuries when I pulled ahead in my last game on Civilization, Carthage > Nubia. Early on being a trader you get access to most of the AI empires first due to trade route visibility, and you have the money to buy everything from everyone. Then people start buying the stuff secondhand from you, and pretty soon that Nubian EQ (gold per trade route) is dropping 50+ gold each.

This is the exact state of my current game with Nubia leading, having conquered cities off their neighbors and with so many luxuries. Do I have any choice but to buy them all?! I’m guessing Nubia is a popular AI pick whoever goes medieval first.

Oh I guess I might have mixed up the medieval trade cultures, pardon I’d that is an error

 

[Zaarin]

I had that many luxuries when I pulled ahead in my last game on Civilization, Carthage > Nubia. Early on being a trader you get access to most of the AI empires first due to trade route visibility, and you have the money to buy everything from everyone. Then people start buying the stuff secondhand from you, and pretty soon that Nubian EQ (gold per trade route) is dropping 50+ gold each.

This is the exact state of my current game with Nubia leading, having conquered cities off their neighbors and with so many luxuries. Do I have any choice but to buy them all?! I’m guessing Nubia is a popular AI pick whoever goes medieval first.

Interesting. In my two games, no one chose Nubia. Can confirm early Merchant is a powerful path, though. In the game I just finished, I chose Phoenicia > Carthage. Unfortunately, by the late game I was struggling for Influence; kinda makes me wish I'd chosen another Aesthete somewhere along the line (in addition to the Franks)--or an Expansionist to offset all the cities I founded.

 

[Taefin]

Interesting. In my two games, no one chose Nubia. Can confirm early Merchant is a powerful path, though. In the game I just finished, I chose Phoenicia > Carthage. Unfortunately, by the late game I was struggling for Influence; kinda makes me wish I'd chosen another Aesthete somewhere along the line (in addition to the Franks)--or an Expansionist to offset all the cities I founded.

Starting Egypt really helped, the small extra influence for early expansion went a long way and it was a breeze to build the EQ. And once I had high production and money it ran away. I got bored and quit and tried again at higher difficulty. Even though I lost the faith game this time, the aksumites were still pretty good (only economy focused choice left when I got there) with 2 gold on tiles and their EU is a cheap 80 production swordsman that lets you just empty your cities onto the battlefield. With enough economy they also upgrade to great swords for a very fast medieval push. Skirmishing with an Early Modern English > Haudenosaunee now and their first group of muskets and swords fell quickly enough

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

ho... but do some five minute browsing over at reddit and you start wishing for the earth rendered unhabitable outcome

Ted Sturgeon, one of the writers of Science Fiction's "Golden Age" back when I was just starting to read the stuff, famously said that "99% of Everything is Crap".
In regards to Reddit, I think he was being optimistic. Went there once, never went back, don't ever intend to: life's too short . . .

 

[Zaarin]

English > Haudenosaunee

Another popular AI choice, I've noticed, specifically Celts > English > Haudenosaunee > Mexico. AI likes Food, apparently.

 

[Siptah]

Well, food is always good. But chaining four agrarians is just useless overkill. You can't grow more than 1 pop/turn anyway.

 

[Taefin]

Yeah, sounds like they should introduce a wildcard factor in AI culture choice. The AI doesn’t really utilize the professions that well anyway, so may as well ensure each play is different. Also, why twice the leader AI takes Zulu! Great culture but not really intended for the tech leader.

 

[Elhoim]

I think there's an AI that focuses on that.

 

[Brianstorm]

I think building your own avatar was a mistake, they should double down on historical avatars and make you choose one and even give them their own bonuses. Playing as Napoleonic Babylon/Rome/etc vs Elizabethan Egypt/Greece/etc would give the game more consistency and flair and also give them
easy DLC without having to add cultures in groups of 6.

 

[NombreyApellido]

i was indiferent to the personas idea back when i first played. now i find myself wishing those open dev avatars were included because i kind of miss them after cussing at them for such a long time

for real though, i'd love to have the ability to zoom on avatars when checking their info.... some garments loose a lot of detail in the diplomacy screen compared to the big, rotating preview of the builder utility

 

[Krajzen]

I think building your own avatar was a mistake, they should double down on historical avatars and make you choose one and even give them their own bonuses. Playing as Napoleonic Babylon/Rome/etc vs Elizabethan Egypt/Greece/etc would give the game more consistency and flair and also give them
easy DLC without having to add cultures in groups of 6.

I agree, the idea of some fictional or random avatars is not very immersive to many people.
What would be cool - some historical great leaders (not even necessarily heads of state) with clear and strong personalities and their own set of diplomatic quotes. And with strong chance to choose cultures closest to them. Bonus points for leaders not from the most recent civ games. For example: Richard Lionheart, Themistocles, Justinian, Charlemagne, Ashoka, Lorenzo di Medici, Tamerlane, Olga of Kiev, Nzinga, Garibaldi etc.

Richard really likes to take English/British, Themistocles Mycanae/Greek/Byz, Charlemagne Franks/Teutons/French/Germans, Tamerlane Persians/Mongols/Mughals, you get the idea.

The only issue I see with this is "being to similar to Civ" but personally I wouldn't have a problem with this.

It definitely would be more immersive than seeing 'Lucy' avatar with the 'Hipster' bias (iirc likes to take ideology stances unpopular among other leaders). Honestly can we petition to remove this trait, in the same way civ6 removed those stupid "seducer, likes male/female leaders more" traits?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Regards 'real' historical Avatars, I'd love it, but then Humankind would be going down Civilization's road, and that's not a good idea. There are no named Anybodies in Humankind, and no individual depictions of anybody historical. That's by design (because that kind of 100% completeness doesn't happen by accident) - which means they are not likely to suddenly turn their back on their own design philosophy.

Civ VII, on the other hand . . .

In addition to what I suspect by now is the Required animated historical Leaders for Civ, how about an option for choosing some or all of the Leader's attributes from a selection of both utterly random or historically-related Uniques instead of a constant, predictable standard set for each.
- Or in addition to the 'standard' Leader(s) for each Civ, include a set of Unhistorical, 'generic' Leaders (European, African, Southeast Asian, Amerindian?) whose specific Unique attributes depend on what Civ you attach them to - with, again, some randomness or choice involved, so that each is never quite the same in each game.

 

[Onii-chan]

The avatars do feel a bit uninspiring but it also feels like a necessity with this game design. While you could probably have made people start with an ancient historical leader and then transcend to a set pool of options based on cultures with some sort of historical ties to the predecessor, that would’ve also greatly reduced the number of possible culture combinations and in turn the strategic depth of the game as a whole. It would’ve been more immersive but also more shallow. I’m not sure a perfect solution really exists where you could get the best of both worlds here

At the very least though I would’ve liked to see a lot more personas if we’re doing it this way to give a bit more variety in diplomatic interaction. Can’t be that resource demanding to do since you can just generate traits and looks with the game’s systems already, it’d only really require more voice actors

 

[Vilvatiktan]

Honestly, after two games I played, it gets boring easily.

It’s like your civ and the other civs in your game are just this same frankenstein civilisations which gets old very fast. The initial premise is awesome though, not gonna lie, trying a different civilisation in each different eras is refreshing.

But yeah, remember how bad it was with the Huns in Civ5 and their cities names taken from other civilisations? Well, Humankind have this for each players in all of their games making each and every games feel bland and full of frankenstein civilisations.

 

[AntSou]

I think building your own avatar was a mistake, they should double down on historical avatars and make you choose one and even give them their own bonuses. Playing as Napoleonic Babylon/Rome/etc vs Elizabethan Egypt/Greece/etc would give the game more consistency and flair and also give them
easy DLC without having to add cultures in groups of 6.

I think there's a lot of room for expansion on the Persona system and eventually to even allow players to create leaders with personalities akin to Civilization 4, for those who might want it. It doesn't seem a stretch to have a Persona with something close to the following traits (though in the context of Humankind):

I don't see the point of them creating leaders at this point when they can clearly just give the player the tools to build it themselves and share them online.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Honestly, after two games I played, it gets boring easily.

It’s like your civ and the other civs in your game are just this same frankenstein civilisations which gets old very fast. The initial premise is awesome though, not gonna lie, trying a different civilisation in each different eras is refreshing.

But yeah, remember how bad it was with the Huns in Civ5 and their cities names taken from other civilisations? Well, Humankind have this for each players in all of their games making each and every games feel bland and full of frankenstein civilisations.

Interesting perspective, but I don't share it. All historical civilizations from the classical period on were "frankenstein" civilizations, as they all built on the traditions of civilizations that preceded them and that they evolved from / absorbed / conquered as they took over that same geographic area. I personally find the civilizations of HK far more realistic than any prior depiction, because they capture this gradual evolution of cultures over time.

I also don't feel like I'm trying a different civilization each era - I'm still the civilization I was before, with it's prior bonuses, unique units, unique districts, and territorial reach. All that happens when I change era is I add a new a set of bonuses, a unit and a district to my culture (or I could transcend for fame, but I don't like seeing my culture ossifying like that, personally).

I personally love the variation this creates in my empire and my neighbours. Combined with the subtle but noticeable difference in how my neighbours behave based on a combination of what's going on around them and their own traits, and the game doesn't feel bland to me.

 

[Gedemon]

I think building your own avatar was a mistake, they should double down on historical avatars and make you choose one and even give them their own bonuses. Playing as Napoleonic Babylon/Rome/etc vs Elizabethan Egypt/Greece/etc would give the game more consistency and flair and also give them
easy DLC without having to add cultures in groups of 6.

I really hope not, leave historical leaders to Civ, they would not fit in Humankind with cultures corresponding to eras.

On the other hand, I'd prefer leaders changing per Era in Civ.

 

[AntSou]

We might still see leaders as military commanders and governors on the map, no? These existed in Endless Legend and were attached to armies or cities, respectively. You could translate that into Humankind by removing most of the RPG elements (retaining some of the XP system), and putting the leaders on a timer, like Independent People in Humankind or Heroes in Civ 6. That would make them last through the current era and partially into the next one. Upon death you could gain the ability to construct a National Monument of that Leader (basically a statue) in a single city, like a wonder.

Let's say, playing as the French, you'd be able to acquire Napoleon, probably with influence. You could then attach him to an army, giving it unique bonuses. Combat and victories would grant the leader XP, opening new traits. The available promotions could also be unique, making different playthroughs with the French result in a slightly different Napoleon. Alternatively you could place him in a city.

Edit: Better yet, why not give each culture two acquirable leaders, but locking the player to having to decide between one or the other?

 

[Siptah]

I think for Humankind, historical persons are best included via narrative events and not as units. Units just feel a bit off to me, but maybe there is a good implementation some day. Now for events, there is already precedent, e. g. the „Columbus“ Event.

having a few unique events per culture and wonder wouldn‘t hurt anyway. I think only Notre Dame has some right now. There are three and they don‘t pop up every game, so they also don‘t grow too old too quickly.