Humankind Game by Amplitude

[Imaus]

Libyans are such a bizarre idea for a civ. I have read Libya's history Wikipedia page just to be sure and yep, Libya has kind of miserable "native" history. It has always been desert wasteland barring few coastal cities settled by faraway colonizers. Sure, sometimes they were very important (Cyrene) but still, Libya is one of last countries I would expect translated to a civ. Unless it is Gaddafi's modern Libya, as it was quite 'influential'... Jesus Christ that would be such a terrible modern representation of Arab state. Goddamn, Libya sucks in every age! Thus, to this day I am in denial, hoping it was some stupid journalist confusing it with Nubia or whatever.

Please don't bring me any proofs ruining this denial, I love it.

No but seriously, Libya? There are so many unusual civs from Middle East and North Africa you could introduce and which were never major empires and I'd be fine - Algeria (Tlemcen sułtanate?), "Berbers", Tunisia (Ifriqiya?), Saba, Himyar, Nabateans, Oman, Numidians - but Libya?

Libya's main claims to fame are the Libu (who we barely know anything about, so I hope there's something more shown about them) prodding the Egyptians and Garama, which was big and influential, though squashed by the Romans. It wasn't just Cyrene. Then afterwards, Tripoli as part of the Barbary States. It's not that depressing.

Libya or just 'Sahara' or 'Berberia' works to keep Egypt on its toes; it has Greeks to the North, Nubians to the South, Libyans to the East, Arabs/Canaanites to the West, Hittites and Mesopotamians to the North West.

 

[agonistes]

Do we know map sizes yet?

 

[ehecatzin]

I'm not going to dig so much into the Olmecs, because really, there's way too much we don't know. However I do find it curious that they are getting the javelin throwers (Atlatl's) I would have imagined they would have been better suited for the Toltecs.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm not going to dig so much into the Olmecs, because really, there's way too much we don't know. However I do find it curious that they are getting the javelin throwers (Atlatl's) I would have imagined they would have been better suited for the Toltecs.

'atlatl' the word is nahautl, so it derives from the Aztecs, but archeologically, 'throwing sticks' to extend the range of javelins date back to the Neolithic, so could be used by everybody in Meso-America. Who used them the most is, however, Unknown: we have a few pictorals of what are apparently Mayan battles, but not even that for the Olmec or Toltec as far as I know. I suspect they picked it to distinguish from the Aztecs, who almost always get Eagle or Jaguar warriors with melee weapons.

Unfortunately, if anybody in Meso-America wrote their version of Tactics and Techniques of the Infantry (my old ROTC manual circa 1964), it hasn't come to light, so for most of their military units and tactics we're SWAGing it.

 

[Krajzen]

I'm not going to dig so much into the Olmecs, because really, there's way too much we don't know. However I do find it curious that they are getting the javelin throwers (Atlatl's) I would have imagined they would have been better suited for the Toltecs.

Idk, I just thought atl atls were regionally popular weapon typical for Mesoamerica. But I don't know.

Fun fact, Olmecs are one of very few peoples with completely undeciphered writing system. Other such writing systems belong to Indus Valley civilization, Minoans and IIRC at least some forms of Elamite language. Oh, and Andean Quipu (although we are not even sure if it is writing system or more accounting mechanism). Imagine how much knowledge could we get...

I have already said that and I will repeat that: I am more and more fan of HK's 'no preset historical leaders' approach, despite it initially sounding underwhelming when compared with enormous emphasis civ puts on its leaders. At this point I'd even accept that without customizable 3d avatars based on culture, but that last bit makes me already love this system more than iconic civ leaders.
Humankind's approach to leaderes solves SO MANY problems inherent to civ approach 'immortal historical leaders for civs' - so many!
1) My favourite. It enables us to freely explore a lot of amazing civilizations which didn't have enough written accounts or simply lost accounts of leader biographies. In civ if you want to add ancient, old, archeology-based civilization with no or barely known leaders you need to do crazy maneuvers such as desperation of adding mythological characters (Dido, Kupe, Gilgamesh etc) or just resign completely. Modders did desperate token noname leaders for certain civs but it wouldn't be acceptable by devs.
Let's count some awesome civs for whom HK leader system is fine while Civ systems leads to a ton of pain: Harappans, Precolonial Philippines, Olmecs, Toltecs, Zapotecs, Mixtec, Ancient Pueblo, Mound Builders, Chimu, Tiwanaku, Nazca, Caral, Swahilli, Zimbabwe, Yoruba, Etruscans, Nabateans, Elam, Canaan, (to lesser degree) Phoenicia, Sumer, Khazars, a ton of nomadic empires...
2) It avoids the eternal problem of unachievable female leader parity and conflict between equally miserable options of a) very few female leaders b) horrible token female leaders such as Gorgo, Maria the Mad, mythical Dido or - with all respect for her power but - Catherine di Medici c) constantly having the same few leaders reappear due to sheer desperation (good like seeing many diverse monarchs of Russia, Spain and England when we have to constantly roll between Catherine the Great, Isabel, Elizabeth and Victoria because they have to compensate for horrible lack of strong independent great female leaders in patriarchal history)
3) It avoids the ridiculous problem which sounds like nonsense but it actually and famously made devs unable to add Pueblo civ for civ5 BNW - legal shenanigans with some indigenous peoples who not allow to use their language, leader etc to be displayed in a game due to fears of desacration
4) It avoids the trap of investing enormous amount of resources and time in leader animation and voice acting... With bad AI and diplomacy anyway, frequent issues with voicing extremely obscure languages (hello Huns) or controversies with art style (to this day I dislike extremely cartoonish nature of civ6 leaders, over some of them I'd honestly prefer standstill historical portrait)
5) It avoids unavoidable clash between game UI and historical immersion (immortal king in democracy, merchant republic, or my favourite - communism; George Washington with the globe in the bronze age; immortal unchanging leaders in general, really)

mind you, those were just flavour problems, there also huge gameplay problems with civ system of leaders.
6) Civ system of eternal leaders, in 90% of cases one per civ, makes any system of civil wars utterly impossible. Because most of civil war factions would either need to have clone of a leader or no leader at all - and that's not something Firaxis would agree on. So goodbye split states, secessionists and proper revolutions and uprisings.
7) Civ system of eternal leaders with well established characters necessitizes to some degree diplomatic AI representing their psyche, as it could be another hit to the immersion if they didn't. But that generates countless problems with diplomacy (I am to this day big enemy of civ6 agenda system).
8) It also has another bad result, when personality of a leader completely derails gameplay focus of an entire civilization. Worst cases are probably India forever doomed to being doormat pacifist as a whole due to its leader, Greece birthplace of philosophy usually being forced to be insane warmonger due to Alexander (thank God for that Macedon split), or my eternal disappointment with Sumer (the first civilization! so much potential!) being reduced to... Epic of Gilgamesh the Warmonger: the Civ.
Civ6 is particularly extreme in this regard with the terrible idea of assigning each entire civ very irrational super extreme 'agenda' system which makes leader hate you for most idiotic aspects not making sense in-universe or in real politics really. My personal favourite is hatred for not having fleet as a power without acces to the sea.
9) Civ system of a singular immortal leader being unchanging real life figure utterly cripples some potentially interesting mechanics such as dynasties of early eras or elections of later eras.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I would imagine having dozens of different animations with different voice actors would eat up any budget.

Still, I like role-playing as historic figures. If only you got to see them besides the loading screen...

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

It appears that the rivers are following the change in elevation realistically, i.e. flowing down hill or sideways, but not uphill.

I wonder if rivers and lakes are placed purely randomly, or if the terrain system goes so far as to model the precipitation per tile and where it will flow to, creating river and lake systems out of that?

Yes, rivers follow elevation changes and always move downhill, though they may stay at the same elevation even if there is a lower tile nearby, so it is "never flow up" rather than "always flow down."
We'll talk more about terrain and map generation some other time.

I think it's intentional design decisions on both parties. Firaxis has designed for more monochrome terrain so it can be read instantly strategically (i.e. I can judge a spot to settle place districts, from the map). Amplitude has designed for more interesting terrain graphically at the cost of having to be more reliant on overlays.

On being able to read the terrain strategically: We're not revealing the details yet, but being able to read the map is important to us, so you won't ahve to deal with as many different tile types as in Endless Legend.

It also looks like there is multiple levels of elevation. That could really lead to some interesting geography and gameplay possibilities. Imagine what we will be able to make if the map generator/script is moddable.

@Catoninetales_Amplitude are you able to tell us if the map scripts will be moddable? Any other map information you might accidentely drop in this thread? Im very intrigued!

Yes, there are multiple leels of elevation, just as there were in Endless Legend. I can't tell yet whether or not map scripts would be moddable, though.

Just picked up Amplitude's Aggressors: Ancient Rome and have played Endless Legend as well. Both are solid games with decent AI. The AI in Civ VI is still a joke so I'm looking forward to Humankind and my have fingers crossed about the AI. Firaxis has been all downhill since the Take-Two/2K acquisition in 2005 and the departure of Soren Johnson and Jon Shafer soon thereafter.

I'm afraid we can't take credit for Aggressores: Ancient Rome (That one was developed by Kubat Software and published by Slitherine), but thank you for the praise on EL's AI.

Libyans are such a bizarre idea for a civ. I have read Libya's history Wikipedia page just to be sure and yep, Libya has kind of miserable "native" history. It has always been desert wasteland barring few coastal cities settled by faraway colonizers. Sure, sometimes they were very important (Cyrene) but still, Libya is one of last countries I would expect translated to a civ. Unless it is Gaddafi's modern Libya, as it was quite 'influential'... Jesus Christ that would be such a terrible modern representation of Arab state. Goddamn, Libya sucks in every age! Thus, to this day I am in denial, hoping it was some stupid journalist confusing it with Nubia or whatever.

Please don't bring me any proofs ruining this denial, I love it.

No but seriously, Libya? There are so many unusual civs from Middle East and North Africa you could introduce and which were never major empires and I'd be fine - Algeria (Tlemcen sułtanate?), "Berbers", Tunisia (Ifriqiya?), Saba, Himyar, Nabateans, Oman, Numidians - but Libya?

Honestly, we don't know why the Libyans keep being mentioned in articles, but we suspect its a misnomer for one of the other cultures we showed.

Categorising a colossal head as a "quarter" just seems odd to me. I highly doubt the Olmecs built entire districts centered around these statues.

I'm going to miss the variety of having unique improvements and buildings, which fit some civilisations much better than districts.

As Alexander's Hetaroi and Trav'ling Canuck have suspected, "Quarter" is the name we use for pretty much everything placed on the map when building your cities, and the cultures all receive an Emblematic Quarter as we want them to be visible when looking at your city, but this doesn't necessarily mean that this "Quarter" is densely populated (E.g. the Egyptian Pyramids take up most of the tile they are placed on, so they are a Quarter only in gameplay terms).

I'm definitely curious about HK but too much focus on dazzling screenshots and poor information on overall game mechanics makes me very skeptic about the quality of the game. It's starting to feel more like a marketing stunt to catch everyone's attention.

Moment of honesty: Guilty as charged. As the Pre-Alpha watermark should tell you, we are not quite ready yet to dive deep into the game mechanics (That's still a "Soon™"), but of course we want as many eyes on Humankind as possible when we do take that plunge and reveal that juicy gameplay information.

I‘m not following this very closely, was this the first time that two civs were revealed within a single week? For a 2020 release date, they surely need to speed up with this teasers.

This was an exception due to His Perfection hijacking our culture teasers during the Endless Day event. We will return to just one teaser a week... for now.

immortal unchanging leaders in general, really

The Avatars themselves don't change during a single game, only their outfit does. However, there's a reason we call them Avatar rather than Leader: They are a representation of the player, but also their civilization. They are not monarch or minister, they are a personification of your people's "national spirit," if you will. Personally, I like to say that these Avatars are less Bismark or Katarina the Great, and more Germania or "Mother Russia", or maybe even an Uncle Sam rather than a George Washington.
Luckily, that should not conflict with any of the things you brought up, since such representations are mutable.

 

[aguaacrobata2]

Idk, I just thought atl atls were regionally popular weapon typical for Mesoamerica. But I don't know.

I have already said that and I will repeat that: I am more and more fan of HK's 'no preset historical leaders' approach, despite it initially sounding underwhelming when compared with enormous emphasis civ puts on its leaders. At this point I'd even accept that without customizable 3d avatars based on culture, but that last bit makes me already love this system more than iconic civ leaders.
Humankind's approach to leaderes solves SO MANY problems inherent to civ approach 'immortal historical leaders for civs' - so many!

I would add that it would allow civilizations to split, a feature I would love to see in any 4X historical game

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Idk, I just thought atl atls were regionally popular weapon typical for Mesoamerica. But I don't know.

Right now, the earliest (bone) spearthrower dates back to about 17,000 BCE and cave art shows them back to at least 21,000 BCE, so basically, the 'atlatl' (or Australian woomera) pre-dates just about every Human Technology in the game except Thrusting Spears, Language and Fire. Of course, bows are shown in use against other people going back to 7 - 9000 BCE, so if you had decent bow wood or slings, those were preferred to a 'throwing stick'.

I have already said that and I will repeat that: I am more and more fan of HK's 'no preset historical leaders' approach, despite it initially sounding underwhelming when compared with enormous emphasis civ puts on its leaders. At this point I'd even accept that without customizable 3d avatars based on culture, but that last bit makes me already love this system more than iconic civ leaders.
Humankind's approach to leaderes solves SO MANY problems inherent to civ approach 'immortal historical leaders for civs' - so many!
1) My favourite. It enables us to freely explore a lot of amazing civilizations which didn't have enough written accounts or simply lost accounts of leader biographies. In civ if you want to add ancient, old, archeology-based civilization with no or barely known leaders you need to do crazy maneuvers such as desperation of adding mythological characters (Dido, Kupe, Gilgamesh etc) or just resign completely. Modders did desperate token noname leaders for certain civs but it wouldn't be acceptable by devs.
Let's count some awesome civs for whom HK leader system is fine while Civ systems leads to a ton of pain: Harappans, Precolonial Philippines, Olmecs, Toltecs, Zapotecs, Mixtec, Ancient Pueblo, Mound Builders, Chimu, Tiwanaku, Nazca, Caral, Swahilli, Zimbabwe, Yoruba, Etruscans, Nabateans, Elam, Canaan, (to lesser degree) Phoenicia, Sumer, Khazars, a ton of nomadic empires...
2) It avoids the eternal problem of unachievable female leader parity and conflict between equally miserable options of a) very few female leaders b) horrible token female leaders such as Gorgo, Maria the Mad, mythical Dido or - with all respect for her power but - Catherine di Medici c) constantly having the same few leaders reappear due to sheer desperation (good like seeing many diverse monarchs of Russia, Spain and England when we have to constantly roll between Catherine the Great, Isabel, Elizabeth and Victoria because they have to compensate for horrible lack of strong independent great female leaders in patriarchal history)
3) It avoids the ridiculous problem which sounds like nonsense but it actually and famously made devs unable to add Pueblo civ for civ5 BNW - legal shenanigans with some indigenous peoples who not allow to use their language, leader etc to be displayed in a game due to fears of desacration
4) It avoids the trap of investing enormous amount of resources and time in leader animation and voice acting... With bad AI and diplomacy anyway, frequent issues with voicing extremely obscure languages (hello Huns) or controversies with art style (to this day I dislike extremely cartoonish nature of civ6 leaders, over some of them I'd honestly prefer standstill historical portrait)
5) It avoids unavoidable clash between game UI and historical immersion (immortal king in democracy, merchant republic, or my favourite - communism; George Washington with the globe in the bronze age; immortal unchanging leaders in general, really)

mind you, those were just flavour problems, there also huge gameplay problems with civ system of leaders.
6) Civ system of eternal leaders, in 90% of cases one per civ, makes any system of civil wars utterly impossible. Because most of civil war factions would either need to have clone of a leader or no leader at all - and that's not something Firaxis would agree on. So goodbye split states, secessionists and proper revolutions and uprisings.
7) Civ system of eternal leaders with well established characters necessitizes to some degree diplomatic AI representing their psyche, as it could be another hit to the immersion if they didn't. But that generates countless problems with diplomacy (I am to this day big enemy of civ6 agenda system).
8) It also has another bad result, when personality of a leader completely derails gameplay focus of an entire civilization. Worst cases are probably India forever doomed to being doormat pacifist as a whole due to its leader, Greece birthplace of philosophy usually being forced to be insane warmonger due to Alexander (thank God for that Macedon split), or my eternal disappointment with Sumer (the first civilization! so much potential!) being reduced to... Epic of Gilgamesh the Warmonger: the Civ.
Civ6 is particularly extreme in this regard with the terrible idea of assigning each entire civ very irrational super extreme 'agenda' system which makes leader hate you for most idiotic aspects not making sense in-universe or in real politics really. My personal favourite is hatred for not having fleet as a power without acces to the sea.
9) Civ system of a singular immortal leader being unchanging real life figure utterly cripples some potentially interesting mechanics such as dynasties of early eras or elections of later eras.

IF anybody was absolutely determined to have animated Leaders in a game, I've posted before what would be my preferred solution: Animated Diplomats or Emissaries. Very, very seldom in history did the leaders of states talk directly to one another. Take advantage of that. You talk to an animated Emissary, wearing toga, robe, frock coat, military uniform or whatever else is appropriate, who speaks for the Exalted Grand Panjandrum, President, Chancellor, Son Of Ra, Wodin's Nephew On Earth or whatever, maybe showing a still presentation portrait of Exalted Leader in the background. Exalted Leader, being a name and set of bonuses, attributes, 'Uniques' only, could change At Will (or at Civil War, Plague, Jousting Accident, Next Election, or any of the other possible 'random events')
That way, you get around all the Defects of the animated and personalized Immortal Leader while keeping the animated, personalized Figurehead on the screen.

And the artists and designers could have a Field Day playing with the Emissaries and their attitudes and costumes to give the gamer clues as to the attitude of the other side, and even allow (for Multi-Players) the gamer to set that attitude and the attendant changes to the depiction. You could even add Great Ministers/Diplomats, so your Civ was represented on screen by Tallyrand, Benjamin Franklin or George Marshall - with extra diplomatic/negotiation Bonuses to match.

 

[cvb]

I would add that it would allow civilizations to split, a feature I would love to see in any 4X historical game

civ1 had schisms.

You talk to an animated Emissary, wearing toga, robe, frock coat, military uniform or whatever else is appropriate, who speaks for the Exalted Grand Panjandrum, President, Chancellor, Son Of Ra, Wodin's Nephew On Earth or whatever

civ2 had this - apart from animation ...

The '1/3 untouched, 1/3 modified, 1/3 new' approach sweeps many things away, whether we like or not ...

.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . civ2 had this - apart from animation ...

The '1/3 untouched, 1/3 modified, 1/3 new' approach sweeps many things away, whether we like or not ...

.

Thank you for reminding me of the Civ2 mechanic!

I confess, I still love the memory of Elvis giving me advise on how to manage Culture in Civ2. Now imagine an oily Tallyrand telling you about the latest offer of 'friendship' from the Huns . . .

 

[cvb]

Elvis giving me advise on how to manage Culture in Civ2. Now imagine an oily Tallyrand telling you about the latest offer of 'friendship' from the Huns . . .

Yeah, with emissaries they would have much more freedom than with leaders.

Elvis ... thrown away chance, they could simply have recycled half the civ2 advisor voices from the clips now when clicking on the civ6 governor icons in the cities:
Victor: "We need barracks, noble leader, or would you have our soldiers sleeping on your palace steps?"
Amani: "Excellency, let us sharpen our diplomacy first and our swords later ..."
Pingala: "Most blessed leader, the torch of enlightenment sputters in your hand!"
Reyna: "Excellency, let us make currency instead of swords, for it is wealth that moves the world and profit that rules it."
...

 

[Nerevatar]

This was an exception due to His Perfection hijacking our culture teasers during the Endless Day event. We will return to just one teaser a week... for now.

You got this the wrong way! His Perfection didnt 'hijack' a week. He has given us all the other weeks in His Eternal Wisdom. But Horatio found the teasers lacking and in need of urgent Beautification, if only for just one week, wheteher you agree or not.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Phoenicians

Emblematic Unit: Bireme
Emblematic Quarter: Haven

Classification: Merchant

https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1224754659165966337?s=19

 

[Jkchart]

8) It also has another bad result, when personality of a leader completely derails gameplay focus of an entire civilization. Worst cases are probably India forever doomed to being doormat pacifist as a whole due to its leader, Greece birthplace of philosophy usually being forced to be insane warmonger due to Alexander (thank God for that Macedon split), or my eternal disappointment with Sumer (the first civilization! so much potential!) being reduced to... Epic of Gilgamesh the Warmonger: the Civ.
Civ6 is particularly extreme in this regard with the terrible idea of assigning each entire civ very irrational super extreme 'agenda' system which makes leader hate you for most idiotic aspects not making sense in-universe or in real politics really. My personal favourite is hatred for not having fleet as a power without acces to the sea..

I don't hate agendas as a general rule or idea. I hate the INFLEXIBILITY.

Really, each agenda should have more triggers than just "has/has not" and we hate or like you for it.

For example: with regard to the large fleet one, it should be "Has a city on the coast, or has a harbor for those inland cities that build a harbor, and does not have a navy". For Gandhi's stupid joke agenda on nuclear weapons you should have uranium and the appropriate tech, or airpower agenda for that matter, you should have to have discovered flight and actually built an airport, but are not using it. Things of those regard.

And Allies should be more flexible too. If there was more flexibility to the system, it would work far better. Some leaders will irrationally hate you forever. Wilhelmina, if I'm in trade range, I'll send her a route and we are BFFs forever. But if we are not in trade range, she will deride me for not sending her a route even when it is PHYSICALLY impossible. Things like that need to be ironed out.

 

[Jkchart]

Phoenicians

Emblematic Unit: Bireme
Emblematic Quarter: Haven

Classification: Merchant

https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1224754659165966337?s=19

A naval civ/quarter finally!

EDIT:
So right now, the Bronze era is almost all revealed culture-wise
-Assyrians (expansionist, Assyrian Raiders, Dunnu)
-Babylonians (scientist, Sabu Sha Qashti, Astronomy House)
-Egyptians (builder, Markabata, Egyptian Pyramid)
-Harappans (agrarian, Runners, Canal Network)
-Hittites (warmonger, Sigir, Awari)
-Mycenaeans (warmonger, Promachoi, Cyclopean Fortress)
-Nubians (merchant, Ta-Seti Archers, Meroe Pyramids)
-Olmecs (aesthete, Javelin Throwers, Olmec Head)
-Phoenicians (merchant, Bireme, Haven)

I guess that means we have the Zhou as our last Bronze culture? EDIT 2: also to hazard a guess at it, I think they get a Chariot emblematic unit because the Zhou military pioneered their use in East Asia and structured their units around the chariots.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

A naval civ/quarter finally!

EDIT:
So right now, the Bronze era is almost all revealed culture-wise
-Assyrians (expansionist, Assyrian Raiders, Dunnu)
-Babylonians (scientist, Sabu Sha Qashti, Astronomy House)
-Egyptians (builder, Markabata, Egyptian Pyramid)
-Harappans (agrarian, Runners, Canal Network)
-Hittites (warmonger, Sigir, Awari)
-Mycenaeans (warmonger, Promachoi, Cyclopean Fortress)
-Nubians (merchant, Ta-Seti Archers, Meroe Pyramids)
-Olmecs (aesthete, Javelin Throwers, Olmec Head)
-Phoenicians (merchant, Bireme, Haven)

I guess that means we have the Zhou as our last Bronze culture? EDIT 2: also to hazard a guess at it, I think they get a Chariot emblematic unit because the Zhou military pioneered their use in East Asia and structured their units around the chariots.

Chariot is a good bet, because the Chinese chariot was so distinctive as a graphic compared to the Egyptian or Mesopotamian model, but the Eastern Zhou also include the first evidence for the crossbow with a bronze trigger mechanism (about 550 BCE) as the 'basic infantry weapon' among the Zhou armies, so the 'early crossbow' could be another option.

 

[Jkchart]

Chariot is a good bet, because the Chinese chariot was so distinctive as a graphic compared to the Egyptian or Mesopotamian model, but the Eastern Zhou also include the first evidence for the crossbow with a bronze trigger mechanism (about 550 BCE) as the 'basic infantry weapon' among the Zhou armies, so the 'early crossbow' could be another option.

I'm fine with either.

Both are great options and would have been better options than a certain invention that was poorly implemented in a different 4x and recent game that we all know and love

 

[Krajzen]

I'm fine with either.

Both are great options and would have been better options than a certain invention that was poorly implemented in a different 4x and recent game that we all know and love

Huh, I think trebuchets in Three Kingdoms Total War are awesome. Different people different opinions I guess.

 

[AntSou]

A request:

In future culture reveals for new eras, please keep releasing them in alphabetical order. It makes the speculation more interesting imo since the range of reasonable guesses is narrower.