Humankind Game by Amplitude

[ehecatzin]

So, I'd assume that some other (Mauryan, Burmese, Khmer?) Factions may also have elephants, in which the 'card' will emphasize the more tactically effective 'Eastern' use of elephants to enhance missile fire - extended eventually to mounting large jezzail-type muskets on elephant-back during the Renaissance and early Industrial Eras.

At least the Maurya on classical (if they are in), there are as you mentioned a number of cultures that could get their own take on Elephant units. I think the different Elephants will follow a similar route to the unique carts in Bronze age, some seem heavier, and others more about ranged...we'll see.

Elephant unit for Carthage most likely means no base Elephant for all cultures, I'm wondering if that'd be the case for chariots as well, seeing how many unique ones we've got.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

At least the Maurya on classical (if they are in), there are as you mentioned a number of cultures that could get their own take on Elephant units. I think the different Elephants will follow a similar route to the unique carts in Bronze age, some seem heavier, and others more about ranged...we'll see.

Elephant unit for Carthage most likely means no base Elephant for all cultures, I'm wondering if that'd be the case for chariots as well, seeing how many unique ones we've got.

The difference between Chariots and Elephants is that you only get elephant units if you can get elephants, and the animals are not universally available and don't 'transplant' well out of the terrain/climate they are adapted to. Once the Mammoths were gone, it is very difficult to imagine Sweden maintaining a bunch of Elephant Units without constantly having to import more non-frozen animals!

Chariots, by contrast, can be produced by anyone with wheel technology and a draft animal of reasonable speed. Early chariots were drawn by horses, but also donkeys or mules, and until they started trying to build 'heavy' chariots with 3 men and armor, the horses didn't even have to be very big or specialized.

I would bet, then, that anybody with the technology can build Chariots, but only the Factions that historically used Elephants will have them. That's still quite a potentially long list, since they are dividing the Factions by Era:

Every Indian Faction from Classical to Renaissance Eras
Most of the southeast Asian Factions in the same Eras: Khmer, Siam, Burma
Ptolemaic Egypt (Classical Era)
Alexander's Successors: Seleucid Empire, Lysimachus' Empire, Pontus - but all had to 'import' Elephants, so there might be some kind of limitation on how many Elephants Units they can build
Carthage as seen in the latest 'reveal'

Humankind, based on already-seen and potentially available characteristics, could become known as the Elephant and Pyramid Game: They're Everywhere!

 

[Jkchart]

The difference between Chariots and Elephants is that you only get elephant units if you can get elephants, and the animals are not universally available and don't 'transplant' well out of the terrain/climate they are adapted to. Once the Mammoths were gone, it is very difficult to imagine Sweden maintaining a bunch of Elephant Units without constantly having to import more non-frozen animals!

Chariots, by contrast, can be produced by anyone with wheel technology and a draft animal of reasonable speed. Early chariots were drawn by horses, but also donkeys or mules, and until they started trying to build 'heavy' chariots with 3 men and armor, the horses didn't even have to be very big or specialized.

I would bet, then, that anybody with the technology can build Chariots, but only the Factions that historically used Elephants will have them. That's still quite a potentially long list, since they are dividing the Factions by Era:

Every Indian Faction from Classical to Renaissance Eras
Most of the southeast Asian Factions in the same Eras: Khmer, Siam, Burma
Ptolemaic Egypt (Classical Era)
Alexander's Successors: Seleucid Empire, Lysimachus' Empire, Pontus - but all had to 'import' Elephants, so there might be some kind of limitation on how many Elephants Units they can build
Carthage as seen in the latest 'reveal'

Humankind, based on already-seen and potentially available characteristics, could become known as the Elephant and Pyramid Game: They're Everywhere!

But who DOESN'T want Elephants and Pyramids

 

[CivLuvah]

Hi all, we've got Carthage confirmed:

https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1232342031873298432

Emblematic Unit: War Elephant

Emblematic Quarter: Cothon

Merchant trait

Our first successor civ! Imgur album updated:
https://imgur.com/a/4cPjGSY

 

[ehecatzin]

The difference between Chariots and Elephants is that you only get elephant units if you can get elephants, and the animals are not universally available and don't 'transplant' well out of the terrain/climate they are adapted to. Once the Mammoths were gone, it is very difficult to imagine Sweden maintaining a bunch of Elephant Units without constantly having to import more non-frozen animals!

Of course you'd need the Elephant as a resource in order to build an Elephant unit, that's what I was hoping for.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Of course you'd need the Elephant as a resource in order to build an Elephant unit, that's what I was hoping for.

The interesting thing is that historically, you don't necessarily. While the Indian and southeast Asian Factions/Civs had access to the Asian Elephant (as did states in southern China, but to my knowledge, they never used it in war) and the Ptolemaic Egyptians and Carthaginians had access to the African Forest Elephant, Alexander's Successors in Macedonia and Asia Minor had no elephants. They got all their elephants from India through trade, gift, or other means.

This is one of the main historical reasons that I'd like to see a compete rethink of the entire Resources System and a 'Mercenary' system added to a 4X Historical game: the Diadochi got both trained War Elephants (essentially, complete Elephant Units) and Elephant Resources with which to form their own Elephant Units - but the numbers were strictly limited and, what I think would be neat in a game, their Elephant Units could not be 'repaired' - when they lost an elephant to battle, disease, or, eventually, old age, rhey were Gone.

Would be a neat way to give the opportunity for 'exotic' Units to different Civs/Factions while still limiting their impact: you could 'import' Elephants so that Dmitri Donskoy of Muscovy meets the Mongols with an Elephant Corps, but trying to base the Russian Army around them just won't work unless you can also conquer India first!

 

[Uberfrog]

Hi all, we've got Carthage confirmed:

https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1232342031873298432

Emblematic Unit: War Elephant

Emblematic Quarter: Cothon

Merchant trait

I’m on two correct classical predictions for two! It’s all downhill from here...

 

[ehecatzin]

I’m on two correct classical predictions for two! It’s all downhill from here...

Celts seems like a solid choice...unless they play a switcheroo and actually go for Gauls.

 

[aguaacrobata2]

Celts seems like a solid choice...unless they play a switcheroo and actually go for Gauls

I believe Celts is more than solid, a safe choice. I remember in the twich presentation at the 2019 PAX west they introduced a quest about druids where one of the possible outcomes could only be selected if you were playing with the Celts.

 

[Uberfrog]

Celts seems like a solid choice...unless they play a switcheroo and actually go for Gauls.

Gauls are my #3 pick in any case

I hope they use a more specific name than “Celts”.

 

[Jkchart]

I believe Celts is more than solid, a safe choice. I remember in the twich presentation at the 2019 PAX west they introduced a quest about druids where one of the possible outcomes could only be selected if you were playing with the Celts.

Although I too would prefer the Gauls, I'm fine with Celts since they are doing "cultures", and Celts can be the ancestors a number of cultures that lead to cultures in the next eras. It's a nice broad catch all for now that leads historically to France, England, Scotland, etc. Not perfect, but I won't complain too much.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Although I too would prefer the Gauls, I'm fine with Celts since they are doing "cultures", and Celts can be the ancestors a number of cultures that lead to cultures in the next eras. It's a nice broad catch all for now that leads historically to France, England, Scotland, etc. Not perfect, but I won't complain too much.

While in the base game they appear to be trying to give the broadest possible choices in each Era, so you won't (probably) get more than 1 - 2 choices in any given World Region, they could easily produce a Celtic DLC/Add On to the game in which, after Celts in the Classical Era, you have a choice of Irish, Picts, or Dal Riada Scots in the Medieval Era, each with a different 'direction' from the original Celtic - whatever direction that is. Since the Celtic groups all over Europe had agriculture, advanced iron-working (invented both the pattern-welded sword and link mail armor and the earliest iron plows) and were starting to build cities connected by good roads when Caesar cut their development short, they could be Builders, Agrarians, or even Expansionist.

 

[Jkchart]

While in the base game they appear to be trying to give the broadest possible choices in each Era, so you won't (probably) get more than 1 - 2 choices in any given World Region, they could easily produce a Celtic DLC/Add On to the game in which, after Celts in the Classical Era, you have a choice of Irish, Picts, or Dal Riada Scots in the Medieval Era, each with a different 'direction' from the original Celtic - whatever direction that is. Since the Celtic groups all over Europe had agriculture, advanced iron-working (invented both the pattern-welded sword and link mail armor and the earliest iron plows) and were starting to build cities connected by good roads when Caesar cut their development short, they could be Builders, Agrarians, or even Expansionist.

I'm excited to see the direction they take the Celts in, to say the least. It'll be a bit sad if they are Militarists though.

 

[FinalDoomsday]

I'm excited to see the direction they take the Celts in, to say the least. It'll be a bit sad if they are Militarists though.

I think Agrarian is a good fit for them are there any other classical civs that would fit Agrarian just as well or better? Ptolemy's Egypt is the only one that comes to mind for me.

 

[Jkchart]

I think Agrarian is a good fit for them are there any other classical civs that would fit Agrarian just as well or better? Ptolemy's Egypt is the only one that comes to mind for me.

I think Agrarian is an excellent choice for the Celts.

If they did the Sabaean kingdom in Arabia, I'd also pull for them to be Agrarian perhaps (or merchant).

 

[conorbebe]

Just to give my two cents, I don't have a problem with Carthage having war elephants. When I think of the Punic Wars and Hannibal Barca, the image of African elephants crossing the Alps springs to mind. If that isn't emblematic, I don't know what is.

As for other cultures, I can see the classical or medieval representative for India (so Maurya/Gupta/other) getting the "Elephant Archer", and the Khmer getting their iconic "Ballista Elephant".

I don't see Persia getting elephants, and considering they got theirs from India anyway, I don't think it would be fitting either. I predict cataphracts or Immortals.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Just to give my two cents, I don't have a problem with Carthage having war elephants. When I think of the Punic Wars and Hannibal Barca, the image of African elephants crossing the Alps springs to mind. If that isn't emblematic, I don't know what is.

Just to point out, while the Punic Pachyderms spring to mind as imagery, most of Hannibal's elephants didn;t make it through the Alps alive, and the elephants failed him badly at Zama. The historically iconic Carthaginian military Unit was the Numidian, Gaulic or Spanish (Celtiberian) Mercenary: unlike everybody else, they essentially Bought their entire army under Hannibal.

As for other cultures, I can see the classical or medieval representative for India (so Maurya/Gupta/other) getting the "Elephant Archer", and the Khmer getting their iconic "Ballista Elephant".

- And, possibly, the Mughuls getting Armored Elephants, the classical Burmese getting elephants, the Siamese (Medieval-Renaissance) getting Elephants - no shortage of Potential In-Game Elephants . . .

I don't see Persia getting elephants, and considering they got theirs from India anyway, I don't think it would be fitting either. I predict cataphracts or Immortals.

Absolutely. Persian Armies were always heavy on cavalry, and elephants and horses do not mix well unless they are raised and trained together. At Gaugamela, Darius had 15 elephants, all of which were left with the baggage train, because only 1000 Indian cavalry in his front line of 36,000 other cavalry were used to elephants - putting them in the battle would have disrupted his entire army!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Remember, they're Emblematic Units, not Unique Units. They're what people think of when they think of that culture, to the extent that people may think of that culture's military achievements.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Remember, they're Emblematic Units, not Unique Units. They're what people think of when they think of that culture, to the extent that people may think of that culture's military achievements.

Which is, however, a little disingenuous. On the one hand, they are going to give us units that are 'Emblematic' of the various Factions. On the other hand, they are giving us Promachoi for the Myceneans, a word used to describe elements of the Greek military from Homer's Heroes to Alexander the Great's Pezhetairoi (phalanx) and which only a few Classicists and Greek linguists (and ancient Greek linguists, at that) are going to recognize. On the other hand, they have "Harappan Runners" which are completely made up: we don't have a clue what any Harappan military unit was or might have been called. We're pretty sure they did not have chariots or elephants, and that just about sums up our knowledge of them.

So, please, Emblematic is not entirely accurate.

Furthermore, while both Humankind and Civilization try to educate the gamer regarding some pretty obscure Leaders and Factions/Civilizations (like Civ VI's Scythians, who again are known mostly to Classicists, or the above-mentioned Harappans), both take 'the easy way out' when it comes to Units and give us Pop Culture instead of real military history - like Carthaginian elephants instead of their characteristic (and successful) Mercenaries, or Viking/Norse Berserkers instead of the well-equipped Jarls and their followers who were the real power in any Viking host.

IF they are going to do a Historical 4X Game, then get the history right, or as close to right as is consistent with a playable game. That especially includes the military history, but of course that's my personal bias because I Я A Military Historian

But I suspect some of you have already figured that out . . .

 

[Siptah]

Gauls are my #3 pick in any case

I hope they use a more specific name than “Celts”.

I hope for a different name as well. Especially since, as someone who is more into archeology than into languages, I was always disappointed that the celts in civ were so British oriented. Archeologically speaking, the Iron Age Population of the British isles were not celts, just heavily influenced by them. So here we have the chance to get a Celtic culture that is based on the Gauls, Hallstatt or La Tène cultures, which is probably the closest you can get to the Celtic heartland. We saw the name celts in apparently outdated screenshots last year. Let‘s hope it got changed since then.