Humankind Game by Amplitude

[Trav'ling Canuck]

And then if I'm reading correctly, you've assigned perhaps too many slots to single "civs" like China and India. With only 10 per era, a number of pseudo-continuous major civs through several periods may dilute the concept of culture melding and leave out others.

I actually think this is the way the dev team is going. It allows for other areas of the globe to be represented in DLCs. And since a lot of the feedback they've received since the reveal has been along the lines of "I want to play civ X the whole game", if the 60 civs aren't already set in stone, it would encourage them to move more in this direction, so that people can play the precursors to modern India, for example, without ever straying from the subcontinent.

 

[Xefjord]

I definitely voiced my hopes that their DLC/Expansions feature things such as 1-2 new civilization choices per era that cover a wide geographical area. The more of these we get the easier it may be to role play continuity. Most of my concerns revolve around the possible lack of cultures in vanilla when factoring in many cultures are repeated, but this can easily be fixed with DLC's.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You can have England as Feudal, and Britain as Renaissance. France and Spain are trickier, since they more or less kept their culture, nominally speaking, since the Middle Ages. I suppose you could go with Franks in the Feudal Era, as a France ancestor?

Japan definitely needs a Renaissance incarnation to represent the whole Edo period, iconic and prior to post-Meiji Japan.

I'm not sure Inca should go beyond Feudal. Their technological level was medieval at best when they faced the Spanish.

And then if I'm reading correctly, you've assigned perhaps too many slots to single "civs" like China and India. With only 10 per era, a number of pseudo-continuous major civs through several periods may dilute the concept of culture melding and leave out others.

Just some thoughts.

England makes sense as appearing properly in the Renaissance as that is when they take the reign of the top European power after defeating the Spanish Armanda. I agree with you on Japan and Inca and I would put the Aztecs in there as well.

I agree with you on there being too many "China" and possibly "India" civs but we know that Zhou, Qin and Ming are confirmed to be Bronze, Classical and Feudal or Renaissance? I'm expecting they want to continue with China all the way to modern.
I'm pretty sure they have multiple eras with France and Germany as well starting in the Feudal era.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

India and China are two of the few candidates for civs having an iteration each Age. It appears French and Germans have mid-late game sequences. England and Russia likely do as well.

Renaissance is in danger of not having enough space for all the "essential" candidates.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

India and China are two of the few candidates for civs having an iteration each Age. It appears French and Germans have mid-late game sequences. England and Russia likely do as well.

Renaissance is in danger of not having enough space for all the "essential" candidates.

France can be represented by Celts -> Romans -> Franks/Merovingians -> France -> ??? -> European Union (speculative).

The challenge is going to be that a lot of modern European nations are going to go through the Romans, but only one player per game can take the Romans. No problem in single player, I suppose, although I can see someone who wants to play an historical chain being peeved if an AI selects one of the links in their chain.

You're right, though, that the European nations that arose during era 4 (called different things in different articles, including Renaissance and Enlightenment and Early Modern) aren't all going to fit in a 10 civ slot. We might see French-, German-, and English-chains, with the rest of Europe left for DLCs.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

France can be represented by Celts -> Romans -> Franks/Merovingians -> France -> ??? -> European Union (speculative).

The challenge is going to be that a lot of modern European nations are going to go through the Romans, but only one player per game can take the Romans. No problem in single player, I suppose, although I can see someone who wants to play an historical chain being peeved if an AI selects one of the links in their chain.

You're right, though, that the European nations that arose during era 4 (called different things in different articles, including Renaissance and Enlightenment and Early Modern) aren't all going to fit in a 10 civ slot. We might see French-, German-, and English-chains, with the rest of Europe left for DLCs.

The problem is that Renaissance is a period of European dominance. So every token nonEuropean civ there means another powerful European civ relegated to DLC.

 

[Xefjord]

The problem is that Renaissance is a period of European dominance. So every token nonEuropean civ there means another powerful European civ relegated to DLC.

This is where some of my initial concern came from regarding continuity for people who want to make historical cultural progression. Hopefully DLC provide a very wide range of new options that can make this issue easier to deal with.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . The challenge is going to be that a lot of modern European nations are going to go through the Romans, but only one player per game can take the Romans. No problem in single player, I suppose, although I can see someone who wants to play an historical chain being peeved if an AI selects one of the links in their chain.

You're right, though, that the European nations that arose during era 4 (called different things in different articles, including Renaissance and Enlightenment and Early Modern) aren't all going to fit in a 10 civ slot. We might see French-, German-, and English-chains, with the rest of Europe left for DLCs.

I do not see how they can even begin to satisfy everybody with only 10 Civilization/Culture Groups per Era when there are 'Bottleneck' Eras such as the 4th/Renaissance/Enlightenment. Especially since there are also Civs that although they have existed since Medieval/Renaissance Eras had their 'Peak' in those Eras, so they place even more pressure on the Bottleneck.

I suspect, in fact, that it is going to be very difficult to arrange a 'historical' progression through the Eras. If France, in your example, could be Celts - Romans - Franks - France for a 'historical' progression, then Romans could also be in the progression for Italy, Romania, Byzantium, and England/Britain, at least.

There is also the 'problem' of Civs that are amalgamations of several earlier Same-Era 'Civs', like Byzantium (Greece/Rome, both Classical) and France (Celts/Rome, also both Classical). Given their current Model (or at least, what we know of it) they might wind up with some 'floating' attributes that can be selected in an Era to 'customize' your progression, so that a progression that should include 'Rome' can instead get by with a Roman-Like attribute or 'Unique' instead.

In the Far East, the Chinese influence could also cause problems for other Civs as different as Japan, Korea and Vietnam, all of which were heavily influenced by various Dynasties/versions of China. IF the influence is limited to one Previous Era Civ per Civ, I can't see how to avoid some major disconnects.

That may, in fact, be one reason why 'staying the course' and not changing from one Civ to another through the Eras is being made an Attractive Option: for some Civs, it may almost be a requirement to come even close to an 'historic' progression, for those interested in playing that way.

On the other hand, someone correct me if I missed any mention of it, but such 'variations' in progression open up a wide highway for Alternate History: a France that never had a Roman (or Celtic) Influence, for instance, or a Korea with no Chinese Influence, an Egypt without any input from a Greek/Macedonian Dynasty or Nubian Dynasty or a China whose Dynasties have no 'northern Barbarian' influences - which was most of them!

 

[Krajzen]

Gee, I knew there will be a moment where civ fanatics will start applying our obsessive - compulsive "balanced regional representation" disorder personally I grew tired od this (after few years...) and whatever, just give me obligatory civs in obligatory eras and go creative. This game is not going to be anywhere close to geographically balanced anyway with its rules.

Also I'd like to remind you all that when you take a civ you don't need to change it next era, so it's unnecessary to reinvent major civs every era - if you unlock France in renaissance era then you can simply keep it until the end of game and not swap anymore, there is no need to take slot every era to reintroduce France as... Something weird.

Personally I am perfectly fine with all European civs appearing just once, unless we are talking about really drastic differences requiring use of another slot (such as HRE being separate entity from Germany and France, or Rome from Italy )
and Byzantium etc).

The only civs I support 'reappearing' are China and India because of their extreme size, diversity and importance. China and Indian subcontinent together consistently had around half of global population for most of civilized history. And in India it was anything but unified all the way until 1947 (hell, until now) with its internal political and cultural diversity being comparable to European continent. China is more unified concept but its dynasties were enough massive and culturally different to warrant separate 'Chinese civs', maybe not every era but I honestly think Zhou, Han and Song are way more justified than Anglo-Saxons, England and Great Britain.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I figure outside China and India there won't be many "every age" sequences. You will have a few early game sequences and a few mid game sequences and a few late game sequences, with a few that also overlap.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I do not see how they can even begin to satisfy everybody with only 10 Civilization/Culture Groups per Era when there are 'Bottleneck' Eras such as the 4th/Renaissance/Enlightenment. Especially since there are also Civs that although they have existed since Medieval/Renaissance Eras had their 'Peak' in those Eras, so they place even more pressure on the Bottleneck.

Agreed. I don't think was a consideration in the initial game design. Our speculation is trying to retro-fit a different vision on a game design not necessarily well suited to it.

On the other hand, someone correct me if I missed any mention of it, but such 'variations' in progression open up a wide highway for Alternate History: a France that never had a Roman (or Celtic) Influence, for instance, or a Korea with no Chinese Influence, an Egypt without any input from a Greek/Macedonian Dynasty or Nubian Dynasty or a China whose Dynasties have no 'northern Barbarian' influences - which was most of them!

Yup, I think this was the game designers' vision, and the key decision making early was likely "use historical names for civs or simply apply traits/units/buildings inspired by historical civs?"

As a game, I think the "pick a civ per era" should work fine. I'm not fussed about calling myself the Khmer this era and the English next era (although I'd probably find it less odd if the Engish traits didn't come with the historical name). As a mechanic for a game that wants to reach as wide an audience as possible, though, I'm not sure if it will prove to have been a wise choice. I think a lot of casual players are going to find it weird and not spend the time civfanatics will getting our heads around it. Of course, there's also likely a large cadre of casual gamers who won't think about it at all: I can get war elephants and English longbowmen? Cool!!​

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

As a game, I think the "pick a civ per era" should work fine. I'm not fussed about calling myself the Khmer this era and the English next era (although I'd probably find it less odd if the Engish traits didn't come with the historical name). As a mechanic for a game that wants to reach as wide an audience as possible, though, I'm not sure if it will prove to have been a wise choice. I think a lot of casual players are going to find it weird and not spend the time civfanatics will getting our heads around it. Of course, there's also likely a large cadre of casual gamers who won't think about it at all: I can get war elephants and English longbowmen? Cool!!

One thing that would make the game more Universally Enjoyable would be to allow you to rename the Faction/Civ/Culture you are playing each Era to Whatever You Want. So, if I wind up playing France in the Renaissance with prior influences from Harappa, Han, and HRE I can call myself the Ferenghian Monarchy or the Grace L. Ferguson Airline and Stormdoor Company and play happily with whatever strange conglomeration of traits and units I collect along the way through the game . . .

Oh, and FYI, the Classical Indian States of Alexander's time had elephants and unarmored infantry with 6 foot bamboo bows - didn't speak any form of English, but there are your War Elephants and Longbowmen!

 

[cvb]

Could this even mean, the player may start in the beginning / Bronze Age with _any_ of the available 60 'cultures' / 'identities'?

That doesn't appear to be in the current design, but the devs have suggested a willingness to consider implementing an optional mode [...] that opened up more initial civ choices.

Yeah, not right 'out of the box' ... with "Could this even mean ..." I meant by all means also some tweaking on our side. You know, some people here are quite comfortable to make (or enjoy using) a tiny, but necessary modification to a game now and then.

So I suppose, some of my question was also, how much "We want to be generous with customization of the game settings and some of them will help you to live the experience you’re looking for" has to do with moddability in general.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

So I suppose, some of my question was also, how much "We want to be generous with customization of the game settings and some of them will help you to live the experience you’re looking for" has to do with moddability in general.

My sense from the game2gether site is there is an active modding community for the Endless series, though perhaps not quite as ambitious as Vox Populi or Rhyse & Fall. Most of the mods seem to be just graphical updates to apply skins to existing units, but there are also multiple AI improvement mods, game balance mods, etc.

I'm out of depth here, but I think it might be as simple as Amplitude in the past has not released their DLL, which limits the extent of the modifications that are possible.

As Gedemon pointed out, people can play multiple games, but modders are likely to only spend their time making significant modifications to one. Presumably whichever of Civ 6 or HK releases their DLL first gets a foot up with that group, but it's also possible neither studio views that as a big enough source of new sales to warrant the release of their core code.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Confirmation that HK intends to offer more than 60 civs eventually

From a dev post on their site: "it's inevitable, no matter how we choose the 60 we ship with, that some people are going to be disappointed that their cultural heritage is not being included. The plan is to gradually fill out these missing cultures post-release. "

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Confirmation that HK intends to offer more than 60 civs eventually

From a dev post on their site: "it's inevitable, no matter how we choose the 60 we ship with, that some people are going to be disappointed that their cultural heritage is not being included. The plan is to gradually fill out these missing cultures post-release. "

From a long-term Civ fan perspective, the level of dev communication on g2g is astonishing. I'm utterly jealous.

 

[Elhoim]

From a long-term Civ fan perspective, the level of dev communication on g2g is astonishing. I'm utterly jealous.

Yeah, here they can't even talk about the contents of a patch without marketing giving the green light.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The devs at Amplitude own the studio. At least, the most senior ones do. Changes the dynamic. There are things they will have contractually agreed to defer to Sega on, but otherwise they run their shop. They've hired at least one PR person, the woman who moderated the Pax West panel, but things work differently when PR reports to you and therefore acts as an advisor.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Dev update on their approach to diplomacy:

"It's great to see some constructive discussions about AI and diplomatic relations. This is a very touchy and difficult subject as, I hope you can understand, there are no obvious answers about where an AI should stand regarding a human player.

Do we want the AI to play2win exclussively ?

Do we want it to give a believable experience to the player ?

How much of its thoughts must we expose to the human player ?

etc etc

While I cannot talk about the many diplomatic features the AI and the players will use to forge their relations, I can say that we are making a great deal of efforts to make an AI's attitude and actions towards the player understandable, both as in "feedbacked" and as in "human like though process, with feelings, personnalities and stuff".

 

[Lord Shadow]

England makes sense as appearing properly in the Renaissance as that is when they take the reign of the top European power after defeating the Spanish Armanda. I agree with you on Japan and Inca and I would put the Aztecs in there as well.

I agree with you on there being too many "China" and possibly "India" civs but we know that Zhou, Qin and Ming are confirmed to be Bronze, Classical and Feudal or Renaissance? I'm expecting they want to continue with China all the way to modern.
I'm pretty sure they have multiple eras with France and Germany as well starting in the Feudal era.

In that sense, perhaps England could be Renaissance and leave Britain for the Industrial era, which could be transcended to the Modern era with little issue. But the thing is England does have a significant presence in the Middle Ages, and has iconic stuff like longbowmen. Redcoats and Royal Navy-related things could be subject of either the Renaissance or Industrial eras, as British more than English.

Germany could have a Teutons (as HRE) and Germans duality in Renaissance and Industrial. Perhaps even keep Teutons in Feudal, leave Renaissance blank as far as Germany's concerned (leaving the opportunity for transcendence), and have proper Germans as an Industrial culture. Technically Prussia could be a thing, but it might be one too many instances.

On the China and India fronts, it's ultimately a very valid point that these encompass huge geographical areas (larger than Europe) with long histories. So it may well be justified to have several instances corresponding to different cultural stages. As Krajzen said, however, we don't have to forget about transcendence, though, which means you don't really need a unique culture for a macro-civ for each period.

Russia I totally see beginning in Renaissance, transcending in Industrial and becoming Soviet in Modern (really depends on when Industrial kicks in). Yeah, that leaves no room for post-USSR Russia, but it doesn't feel all that justified to make such an allowance for a state that's only 28 years old.

Dev update on their approach to diplomacy:

"It's great to see some constructive discussions about AI and diplomatic relations. This is a very touchy and difficult subject as, I hope you can understand, there are no obvious answers about where an AI should stand regarding a human player.

Do we want the AI to play2win exclussively ?

Do we want it to give a believable experience to the player ?

How much of its thoughts must we expose to the human player ?

etc etc

While I cannot talk about the many diplomatic features the AI and the players will use to forge their relations, I can say that we are making a great deal of efforts to make an AI's attitude and actions towards the player understandable, both as in "feedbacked" and as in "human like though process, with feelings, personnalities and stuff".

Yes, it's not an easy matter.

From my point of view, you can't have a play2win AI across the board. It's understandable and perhaps expected on the highest difficulty settings, but on the more common ones the opponents should be believable but fallible as well. And I agree that there should be enough feedback to make AI reactions seem reasonable to the player.

There's also the problem that the mere notion of "play2win AI" seems unreachable, given even Deity-level opponents in Civ games can be outsmarted/gamed despite their massive mechanical bonuses. With relative ease, according to a subset of Civ enthusiasts*.

*Not that I'd know: from my perspective immersion breaks down and the game grows crazier the greater the advantages the AI receives. So I stick to Prince or King.