Humankind Game by Amplitude

My question was less about expansionist versus warmonger, but more that having 2 martial traits to 8 peaceful ones seem off. Especially for a 4x game that naturally devolves a lot into war. :) So yeah, there might be a few more war or expansion oriented traits with the ones we haven't seen yet (for example naval-war or exploration or ...), but what would be a good ratio between peaceful and warlike traits?

I suspect we're missing too much information to be sure how Humankind is using all this. Does the ratio of 2 militant to 8 'peaceful' traits mean war is only 1/5 as important in their game? Does it mean that only the Factions with 'militant' traits are going to be good at war? Does it mean the Factions with the other 8 traits will have to work extra hard to wage war successfully?

Historically (and it does pretend to be a "Historical 4X" game, after all) you can argue any way you like: Germany in the first 45 years of the 20th century (Civ VI's Modern/Atomic Eras) was one of the most Warmongering/Expansion By Conquest -oriented states in the world at that time, and it got its head handed to it in both World Wars. Britain and the USA were primarily 'trading/commercial' nations for most of their history, yet they not only won both of those World Wars, in successive centuries both of them expanded their influence to encompass most of the world and (also in separate centuries) they completely dominated the world's oceans: Britain by building more dreadnought battleships than any other two nations, and then the USA by building more fleet aircraft carriers than everybody else in the world put together.

So, I don't think at this point we can say that the designers at Amplitude intend that in their game everybody who is not Expansionist or Warmonger will be non-combative and non-expansionist - historically, that's not at all the way to bet.
 
I suspect we're missing too much information to be sure how Humankind is using all this. Does the ratio of 2 militant to 8 'peaceful' traits mean war is only 1/5 as important in their game? Does it mean that only the Factions with 'militant' traits are going to be good at war? Does it mean the Factions with the other 8 traits will have to work extra hard to wage war successfully?

Do we even have a complete list of civ traits?
 
Is somewhere on the internet an overview of all uncovered civilizations?

So I made an Imgur album for the uncovered civilizations on Twitter so far (I requested someone do it but no one heeded, so I made my own). I will update this as the civilizations get announced.

https://imgur.com/a/4cPjGSY
 
Do we even have a complete list of civ traits?

No, and as we know now we will only know them by the last Civ revealed. I was more going through the scraps and trying to extrapolate from them. It seemed an interesting question since we can't speculate on the actual stats of the emblematic units and quarters.

Thank you a lot for the imgur album!

Historically (and it does pretend to be a "Historical 4X" game, after all) you can argue any way you like: Germany in the first 45 years of the 20th century (Civ VI's Modern/Atomic Eras) was one of the most Warmongering/Expansion By Conquest -oriented states in the world at that time, and it got its head handed to it in both World Wars. Britain and the USA were primarily 'trading/commercial' nations for most of their history, yet they not only won both of those World Wars, in successive centuries both of them expanded their influence to encompass most of the world and (also in separate centuries) they completely dominated the world's oceans: Britain by building more dreadnought battleships than any other two nations, and then the USA by building more fleet aircraft carriers than everybody else in the world put together.

So, I don't think at this point we can say that the designers at Amplitude intend that in their game everybody who is not Expansionist or Warmonger will be non-combative and non-expansionist - historically, that's not at all the way to bet.

I'd argue the US is a prime candidate for a warmongering Civ, with a look at all the wars they started as world police, from Grenada to now apparently Iran. Also their defense budget is as large as the next how many nations combined?

Moderator Action: Please leave current events/politics out of game threads. Thanks. leif

It can be commercial, cultural or so many other things as well.

My question on the ratio of peaceful to martial traits is less about realism and more about game play. Doing war is fun, which is why Civ always has a lot of warmongers available, at least more than the few scientist civs. (Of course there are also warmongering scientist civs, you are right there.) I was just wondering how they will handle that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Except that "Awari" means Border Fort or Fortification as reconstructed in both of the Hittite dictionaries that I consulted. Doesn't mean they couldn't use the word to mean something entirely different in the game, like an in-city District/Quarter, but it would be a mis-use of the original word's meaning, which specifically includes the concept of 'border'..

Going by the description they gave it, it sounds like something you'll be able to erect on the map to get a strategic or tactical advantage. Doesn't sound like a barracks.
 
My question on the ratio of peaceful to martial traits is less about realism and more about game play. Doing war is fun, which is why Civ always has a lot of warmongers available, at least more than the few scientist civs. (Of course there are also warmongering scientist civs, you are right there.) I was just wondering how they will handle that.

I won't speak to whether warfare or peaceful gameplay is more fun, as your mileage may vary depending on your tastes, but one of our goals is to make sure that conquest is not a dominant strategy. In fact, this goal is one of the main drives of the Fame system: Everything you achieve should count towards the mark you leave on history, even if somebody else takes it from you later.
 
I won't speak to whether warfare or peaceful gameplay is more fun, as your mileage may vary depending on your tastes, but one of our goals is to make sure that conquest is not a dominant strategy. In fact, this goal is one of the main drives of the Fame system: Everything you achieve should count towards the mark you leave on history, even if somebody else takes it from you later.

That sounds great!
 
I won't speak to whether warfare or peaceful gameplay is more fun, as your mileage may vary depending on your tastes, but one of our goals is to make sure that conquest is not a dominant strategy. In fact, this goal is one of the main drives of the Fame system: Everything you achieve should count towards the mark you leave on history, even if somebody else takes it from you later.
This is great! Makes me very excited because I'm not a conquest focused player.

Not sure you can answer this, but are you guys eventually going to reveal more cultures per week? Or are you still sticking with 1 a week?
 
This is great! Makes me very excited because I'm not a conquest focused player.

Not sure you can answer this, but are you guys eventually going to reveal more cultures per week? Or are you still sticking with 1 a week?

They kind of have to at some point. At this rate, they would finish revealing them all in 2021. And the release is supposed to happen sometime in 2020 if I recall correctly.
 
I would dearly LOVE it if they kept this system in Humankind!
Imagine: start being able to make weapons out of wood, bone, stone and horn, 'armor' out of leather or bone, 'shields' out of wood tor leather, get Copper or Bronze and start making Head (Helmet) and torso (cuirass) armor out of Bronze, shields faced with bronze, weapons now including short swords and axes, move on to Iron or Wrought Iron, Steel, Steel Armor Alloys, right up to modern 'Kevlar'.

i have loved this idea in principle but i abhor the micromanagement nightmare that comes with this. its one of the reasons i stopped playing endless legend. same with endless space 2 (though that had the separate issue of having the most complicated battle system in the world where i had zero clue what the pluses and minuses were.

i also understand that autoupdate is not great bc u have to make the strategic choice of what minerals a unit uses and what type of attack ir should emphasize. if they retain this system they need to have an autoupdate system where you can make broad overall choices in what u want to enphasize (offense, defense, some special ability, whatever) and what minerals you prefer using. if i have a ton of mineral X, i want everything to auto update withX and not force me to individually update each kind of unit. or if i want shift to mineral Y i can just do that in one click. and then u have the option of changing the template but i never want to into that screen. id be ok with forcing the player to pick specific upgrades ONE TIME and then all upgrades will be patterned after this
 
I'd argue the US is a prime candidate for a warmongering Civ, with a look at all the wars they started as world police, from Grenada to now apparently Iran. Also their defense budget is as large as the next how many nations combined?

It can be commercial, cultural or so many other things as well.

Not to comment on Current Events, but based on @Catoninetales_Amplitude's comments, there might or might not even be any "Warmonger' Factions in the Modern Era, or whatever the last era of the game is called.

Also, it sounds like Warmongering will not be anywhere near as easy and common as it has been in Civ-Franchise games. This brings up something I've been thinking about:
Famous Battles.

Battles tend to stand out in conventional history, and they generate all kinds of Fame, which is apparently going to be one of the Basic Currencies of Humankind. But winning battles doesn't always generate the most fame, even for the winner. So there is potentially a great disconnect between Success in War and Winning the Game. (or, if you will, Warmongering and Victorymongering)

As examples, in Russian military history, there are three great 'field battles': Kulikovo Field in 1380 CE, Borodino Field in 1812, and Prokhorovka Field in 1943. But the Russian/Soviet military didn't win any of them on the battlefield: Kulikovo and Borodino were, at best, Draws, and Prokhorovka was a tactical Disaster. Yet Kulikovo and Borodino made Dmitrii Donskoi and Marshal Kutuzov famous, respectively, and Prokhorovka made the 5th Guards Tank Army legendary (at least in Russia/USSR).
Likewise, not one person in a thousand would recognize Plataea in Greek history, but there are very few literate people anywhere in the world that don't know the Hot Gates: Thermopolye - yet the Greeks lost at Thermopolye, and destroyed the Persian Army in Greece at Plataea. Finally, Cameron, Mexico (1862 CE) was a complete defeat for the French: all of them in the battle were wiped out. But it is THE defining battle and Legend of the French Foreign Legion.

Defeat, in other words, is often a better source of Fame than Victory.

What a Concept for a competitive game! Go Into Battle Outnumbered and Win Undying Fame. It also, for as far as I know the only time in any game, makes Sun Tse's famous axiom workable: never corner your enemy, leave him a 'golden bridge' over which to retreat - because otherwise he may get more out of the battle in Victory Points than you do . . .
 
They kind of have to at some point. At this rate, they would finish revealing them all in 2021. And the release is supposed to happen sometime in 2020 if I recall correctly.

Are they purposely doing this so that once the game is released they're going to make us find the others out on our own?
 
i have loved this idea in principle but i abhor the micromanagement nightmare that comes with this. its one of the reasons i stopped playing endless legend. same with endless space 2 (though that had the separate issue of having the most complicated battle system in the world where i had zero clue what the pluses and minuses were.

i also understand that autoupdate is not great bc u have to make the strategic choice of what minerals a unit uses and what type of attack ir should emphasize. if they retain this system they need to have an autoupdate system where you can make broad overall choices in what u want to enphasize (offense, defense, some special ability, whatever) and what minerals you prefer using. if i have a ton of mineral X, i want everything to auto update withX and not force me to individually update each kind of unit. or if i want shift to mineral Y i can just do that in one click. and then u have the option of changing the template but i never want to into that screen. id be ok with forcing the player to pick specific upgrades ONE TIME and then all upgrades will be patterned after this

ANY Unit Workshop of Individual Update system in a Historical Game would have to have a lot of 'Automated' units included, because one of the bonuses of playing a historically-based game is playing with (famous) Historical Units. What's the point of playing Greece without Hoplites? Or Rome without Legions? In many ways, these 'emblematic units' define the Civilizations for many people.
And what's the point of having a Hoplite who doesn't carry a Hoplon: large round bronze-faced wooden shield or a build a 'Legion' unit that doesn't include Swordsmen?
So IF anybody took the time to include such a system in a historical game, they would also have to include a bunch (possibly all the Unique or Emblematic Units) as Presets with only minor modifications to them allowed (like the Roman Legion changing from mail armor to lorica segmenta thin plate armor and then back to link mail in the late Empire - they'd still all be Armored Infantry with big shields, swords and heavy javelins).

That, combined with some 'standard presets' by Era or Tech, would 'speed up' and (hopefully) vastly reduce the drudgery of 'designing and equipping' each unit individually.
Standard presets could be, for instance:
Peltast in Classical Era: an infantryman with no body armor, but various types of individual (not Hoplon) shields, javelins and, for more Gold, a sword or spear. The Romans used them by the thousands as Auxiliaries, and almost all Greek Mercenaries were of this type - they were everywhere in the Classical World.
Fusilier in the late Renaissance/Early Industrial Era: the man carrying a flintlock smoothbore musket with bayonet, dressed in a coat and trousers and some kind of felt hat - that describes just about every infantryman in Europe from 1700 CE to 1840 CE with only the 'fashion' in coats, trousers and hats changing. Give us the ability to change the coat and trouser colors and the color of the 'turn backs' - the lapels, lining and cuffs on the coat - and without having to deal with weapons and armor, we can quickly represent basic infantry for an entire Era's worth of units. The black-powder Rifleman of the early-mid 19th century is the same again, with a slight change in weaponry.

Something like these can be set up for almost every Era, sometimes several in a given Era (like, in the Ancient Era, Bronze-equipped Spearmen and Bowmen, Medieval Spearmen/Levy and Knights (who were all so similar they had to deck themselves in heraldric tabards, cloaks and banners so they could tell who was on who's side!), Late-Medieval/Renaissance Pikemen and Crossbowmen (weapon, helmet, leather armor unless you want to Pay Extra)

You should be able to use all 'standard' units and your Unique Unit(s) without being too terribly penalized in a historical game, and not have to open the doors to the Workshop for your units much at all unless you wanted to.
 
I
m sorry ive looked everywhere - where is this 2 military 8 peaceful thing coming from? have they releases ten different traits? cant find it anywhere

It was an example - and I thought I was quite clear on that being my interpretation - based on the fact that "warmonger" is quite a general term. We know one other such trait - expansionist - that makes 2. Now my question was: "what could other such traits be or will we have a ratio of 2 warlike to 8 peaceful ones". I'm sorry I made you search, I like to debate with clear examples.

As for the "workshop" idea. Micromanagement and the "emblematic units would need to be preset" are the two arguments why I can't see it. I could see it on a higher level. Having a basic infantry unit that may get a siege bonus (shown by small catapults) or a line of sight bonus (shown by a group of scouts) or an attrition bonus (skirmishers!) or an heal bonus (small tents with a red cross on it). After all, there's not enough time in an era for a Legion unit to change really. And then the medieval era is already rolling around... Ah, we'll see.

As for the "defeats give fame": Yes, catastrophes get deeper into our consciousness because there's often a lesson learnt attached or it's the beginning of something else. But I'm not sure they are the reason for historical fame. Sure, most people will only know Waterloo as a battle for Napoleon, but he gained his reputation as a solid commander elsewhere (the Italian Campaign, Austerlitz). In the end it's gameplay, as I think it be bad for a player to want to purposely lose a game :).

Again, I'm coming back to the term "warmongering" and really have to conclude that we may need to wait for more information on gameplay. Just how long? :)
 
It was an example - and I thought I was quite clear on that being my interpretation - based on the fact that "warmonger" is quite a general term. We know one other such trait - expansionist - that makes 2. Now my question was: "what could other such traits be or will we have a ratio of 2 warlike to 8 peaceful ones". I'm sorry I made you search, I like to debate with clear examples.

Back towards the beginning of this 57 page Thread there was an analysis of some of the early 'incidental' illustrations of Factions in Humankind, and there appear to be, in addition to the Expansionist and Warmonger, traits related to Agriculture (Growth? Food Production?), Building (Production? Wonders?) and Science. So we have some clues on 5 out of 10 of the 'Traits' for the Factions/Civs in the game.

What we don't have is a lot of information on what all that means. Is it easier for a Warmonger to go to war? Does a Builder Faction have a boost to building Wonders? We just don't know yet.

However, based on the pattern of 'traits' so far, I'd bet money on a Trait related to Gold (Trade?) being another. After all, based on their Endless Legend Game, the currencies in the game will be Production, Food, Science, and Gold at least. In a Historically based game like Humankind, I would not be surprised to see also some kind of Religion and Diplomacy - enhanced Factions, and therefore (possibly!) Faction Traits related to Religion and Diplomacy.
Adding all those up, we get:
Warmonger
Expansionist
Scientific
Agricultural (Food)
Builder (Production)
Diplomatic
Religious

So we still have 3 'mystery' Traits, assuming I'm guessing somewhat right - which I don't have a great record of doing . . .
 
There will be more traits as there will not be the same amount and types of traits across the era. See the statement a bit above by Amplitudes employee :)

I expect to see (at least) two naval traits (the Phoenicians for sure in the Bronze Era, but also the "Vikings") and maybe a "horde" one (land raiders like the Mongols). I can see also more specific ones like traits adept at certain geography (forest, hills/mountains, lowlands) and in later eras some more aimed at meta elements like "organised" (better at government), "revolutionary" (like Napoleonic France, huge benefits, but low stability), "espionage" (any Cold War country). The beauty of the era system is that they can let go of "agricultural" in the modern era after all and thus adapt to the needs of that particular era.
 
Top Bottom