Humankind Game by Amplitude

[Siptah]

So the Thracians that you befriended and assimilated in the classical era turn into the Bulgarians in medieval times and then suddenly disappear in Early Modern?
It's a great idea though!

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

The Facebook page has confirmed they're in.
Look through the official comments under the Byzantine reveal.

I saw that! They were responding to me. I'm definitely even more excited for the game now, and ready to speculate as to which minor factions will be in the game.

 

[FinalDoomsday]

So the Thracians that you befriended and assimilated in the classical era turn into the Bulgarians in medieval times and then suddenly disappear in Early Modern?
It's a great idea though!

Perhaps they could 'transcend' like player cultures do? If you've assimilated them I feel that might lock them in or perhaps they eventually become fully assimilated becoming part of your culture with a legacy trait that gets permanently added to your culture like how it works in Endless Space 2.

I do see your point though, crossing over to the next era and just deleting factions would seem rather cruel and annoying if you were in the middle of courting them. I just like the idea of new minor factions popping up throughout the game things like a city state appearing on a bordering territory as a result of migrations from your empire. Then tie them into quest system like the minor faction becomes a haven for dissidents from your state and you get to choose how to react (or not)

I'm sure you could do it so you start with lets say 12 minor factions, some get wiped out or assimilated over time and you're left with 8 that means 4 new minor factions can emerge as long as a free territory is avaliable

 

[BuchiTaton]

I would love to have minor cultures.

I wonder what the deciding factors are when it comes to designating whether a culture or group of people will be made playable or relegated to a minor faction. Will they be the equivalent of City-states in Civilization, focused around rogue or independent cities and towns? Or will they be taken from the less significant nomadic and tribal cultures of the ancient world?

This!

Have minor cultures change many things about the culture selection. For example Celts, Mayans or Greeks could have been more specific incarnations, to open place for some minor celtic, mayan and greek cultures.

"Barbarian" cultures like Huns, Goths and Mongols make sense because they took over urbanized empires, but is the same for Sioux, Maori and Zulu? Would not these later cultures make more sense as minor ones?

 

[Guandao]

I would love to have minor cultures.

This!

Have minor cultures change many things about the culture selection. For example Celts, Mayans or Greeks could have been more specific incarnations, to open place for some minor celtic, mayan and greek cultures.

"Barbarian" cultures like Huns, Goths and Mongols make sense because they took over urbanized empires, but is the same for Sioux, Maori and Zulu? Would not these later cultures make more sense as minor ones?

I still would like a Polynesian faction in the game though. (Maybe Hawaii, Samoa or Tui Tonga). I don't mind the Sioux and Zulu ending up as Minor cultures.

 

[conorbebe]

I still would like a Polynesian faction in the game though. (Maybe Hawaii, Samoa or Tui Tonga). I don't mind the Sioux and Zulu ending up as Minor cultures.

The Rapa Nui would be a fantastic candidate for a minor faction, while I think the Māori, Tonga, or Hawaiians would make the most sense as playable cultures from the Polynesian region.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I'm wondering how exactly the Avatar system will work.

1. Will we be able to create multiple Avatars, or will we be limited to one across all playthroughs? If multiple, how many can we create in total?
2. How will the A.I. opponents pick an Avatar? Will it be entirely randomized? Selected from a set of pre-made Avatars designed by Amplitude?
3. Will we be able to upload and download other players' Avatars?
4. Will we be able to assign specific Avatars (either self-made, pre-made, or community made) to A.I. opponents in the Advanced Options when setting up a game?
5. Will Avatars be limited to just their appearance, or will we be able to assign certain behaviors to them, such as a preference for specific Cultures, or a tendency towards pacifism or militarism?
6. How extensive will the options be with respect to their appearance? Will we be able to create strong resemblance to famous historical leaders? (Will there be a toothbrush 'stache?)

Ideally, I'd love to be able to create multiple Avatars. Maybe one looks exactly like Gandhi, always plays peacefully, and will pick the Harappans, Mauryans, and Indians if no other players choose those first. Another looks like Charlie Chaplain, always warmongers, and will pick the Goths and Germans if given the chance. And others look like Ariana Grande and Karen Gillan and Erin Moriarty, because why not?

@Catoninetales_Amplitude, when can we expect more information of the Avatar system?

 

[Krajzen]

"Barbarian" cultures like Huns, Goths and Mongols make sense because they took over urbanized empires, but is the same for Sioux, Maori and Zulu? Would not these later cultures make more sense as minor ones?

Honestly, every "barbarian" civ which managed to be powerful and organized enough to be a massive, existential military threat to huge empires gets a free pass from me. Such as Scythia - they didn't even break empires like cultures mentioned by you but I support them in civ by their sheer historical weight, also they had far more refined culture and art than "stepper savage" stereotype may suggest. They really had an enormous impact on Eurasia - on China, India, Middle East and Eastern Europe, by trade, culture, military, them being probably original inventors of cavalry (especially mounted archery) etc.

Precolombian urban peoples also get
the pass from me - in their case they had sheer bad luck of being isolated, but they have some unique massive stories to tell (such as ancient Pueblo and Mound Builders in US, with their massive architectural works and trade networks spanning across the continent).

US Native tribes, Mapuche, Maori or goddamn Zulu don't get this pass from me because they were, well, minor. They had no big importance for history, they were just relatively "backwards" if rich cultures which had some degree of success defending their ancestral lands before finally an industrial empire crushed them inevitably. This just doesn't make for very unique or impactful "story". Mapuche at least managed to defeat Spaniards and Incas for centuries, so they had ridiculous success. Maori are sort of representing far larger phenomenon of Oceanian peoples who were the greatest sailors in history. Lakota and Comanche were incredible cavalrymen (especially regarding how late did they get horses). But... They all still feel wonky for me, as "should have been a minor civ in some way, this is just not the same category of societies as the Ancient Egypt".
They also don't really inspire very realistic and interesting designs (like what, you'll give them all "homeland defense bonus especially in difficult terrain")? And instead they get some fantasy bonuses enabling them to conjure cultural energy from sacred terrain, or be insanely good at extracting industrial value from it (better than 20th century tech), neither of those sounding very good for me.
Civ4 "Native Americans" (what an abomination ) literally had defensive and spirital focus, civ5 iroquis had magical powers in forest, shoshone had homeland defense bonus, civ6 cree have magical powers in forest, mapuche have 3/4 of their design built around "homeland defense" trope, Maori have magical spiritual terrain powers in general, and Zulu have always had the exact same design in every strategy game ever released, the most boring faction ever. If those two traits I have described (or the third trait of vaguely powerful tribal warriors like Zulu) are everything you can think of when trying to add a culture to the game, maybe it really should be minor faction, if it can be only translated in terms of the most universally human traits which happen everywhere ever:
- humans fight bravely to defend their ancestral homeland
- people who live in that terrain are of course more experienced at exploiting it (by the way I am very skeptical of civ6 claim that Maori are very "ecological" culture but that's separate issue)

 

[mitsho]

To be fair, civ does this the other way around as well by giving the Americans a bonus that is viable in the Ancient Era as otherwise they would be vanilla until the late Renaissance Era. It's the problem of a board game that wants to depict fluid history with static players (= civs). That's why I have high hopes in Humankind, it tries a different paradigm to existing 4x historical strategy games, one of constant change. It can't be all "the terrain shapes the civ" because that would take agency from the player, but it doesn't need to be either. Now we just need changing terrain (drying up, coastlines receding) dynamic resources (did we domesticate grain or did grain domesticate us to be able to spread all over the world?), and social forces that states have no control over (i.e. Religion).

But yes, it is silly that the Iroquois just seem to spawn in forests all the time in civ games... that's why we need something different. If I start a game in civ, I want to play the perfect game. That won't be possible in Humankind, and that is a good thing.

EDIT: are they late with the culture reveal?

 

[Siptah]

There was also no screenshot on Friday, so maybe someone is sick or there is a problem of some sort.

 

[Cat-du-fromage]

OR maybe there is a big reveal coming! (a man can dream :S)

EDIT: Franks Revealed

 

[CivLuvah]

Imgur album updated to include the Franks
https://imgur.com/a/4cPjGSY

 

[Guandao]

Here's my two cents on the Iroquois. Sure their settlements left few archaeological traces behind besides imprints in the soil. But they cleared a great deal of the forests for their agriculture. And sources described fields of the three sisters surrounding all the Iroquoian settlements for many miles. Hiawatha's background in Civ5 didn't help to dispel stereotypes about Native Americans north of the Rio Grande. I mean, a small stream, some random big rock and trees was the best they could come up with? How about being inside a longhouse or in a settlement surrounded by palisades? Pocatello's background was the same deal, but the Shoshone were less settled/more nomadic than the Iroquois.

I wish a descendant of a Mississippian mound building culture (Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muskogee, Cherokee, Natchez) were added to games like Civ and Humankind more. Sure we don't have written records of the leaders of Cahokia, so why not use a leader from the post-Columbian/post-contact period?

Luckily Humankind doesn't have this problem, so the Mississippians can be added some where down the line. And the Ancestral Puebloans (no need to consult them for dialogue, so I'm sure their descendants won't be too angry).

 

[Gwydden]

Luckily Humankind doesn't have this problem, so the Mississippians can be added some where down the line. And the Ancestral Puebloans (no need to consult them for dialogue, so I'm sure their descendants won't be too angry).

I am now trying to picture what an acceptable level of anger would look like.

Jokes aside, yes, I agree the Mississippians and the Anasazi would make good DLC picks for the Medieval Era.

 

[Guandao]

I am now trying to picture what an acceptable level of anger would look like.

Jokes aside, yes, I agree the Mississippians and the Anasazi would make good DLC picks for the Medieval Era.

I guess Anasazi is more easier to remember than Hisatsinom or Ancestral Puebloan. The Puebloans (Tewa, Hopi, Zuni etc) today dislike the name because it is a Navajo word meaning something like "enemy ancestor". The Navajo and Apache were latecomers to the region, originating up north in present-day Canada (at least based on their Na-Dene languages).

 

[Krajzen]

Anasazi is one of those annoying sitiations when the name sounds really badass and really exotic and really cool for our Western ears but then it turns out its actually wrong or offensive, and the appropriate name is much less badass sounding. I know the infamous etymology of "Anasazi" but to this dsy when I think of the magnificent civilization of Mesa Verde I think "Anasazi" and when I think of "Pueblo" I see, for some reason, a random Indian 19th century man in a certain cultural clothes standing in the middle of New Mexican desert. Human brain is weird.

Maybe this is because (correct me if I'm wrong) while Anasazi is of *some* local origin, Pueblo is word of Spanish origin, so it sounds less real?

To be honest I'd half heartedly argue that it doesn't matter that much if a certain name has unpleasant origin if almost nobody remembers that and it is used to describe culture treated with respect and enthusiasm. "Eskimo" and "Anasazi are offensive while "Indians and "Aborigines" are absurd but almost always when those words our used by the world they are neutral descriptors of respected cultures. "Sudan" literally meant "land of the blacks" (often disparsging term) and yet we have proud modern "Sudanese nationalism". Or the hilarious case of Persia vs Iran, when the second name is an endonym while the first is a confusing exonym, but Iranian people themselves often like to use the former term because a) It is usually spoken with respect by Western popular culture b) It dissociates from the trainwreck of modern Iranian regimes c) It clearly distinguishes "them" from other "Iranian peoples".

*Sigh* still, usually proper terms should win and if some peoples name literally means "our enemies" that name probably shouldnt be used, even if it sounds neutral to badass for us.
Also, the cultures respected by the outside world under those "neutral" names are often discriminates in their own postcolonial countries under those "neutral" names...

 

[Guandao]

The name Iroquois also originated from an enemy people of the Iroquois, I believe it was a Siouan people who provided the name to French explorers. Its meaning has something to do with “snakes” unless I’m mistaken. I understand Haudenosaunee might be too long for many people though. Iroquois has a French sounding feel to it though...like Illinois.

 

[Zaarin]

The name Iroquois also originated from an enemy people of the Iroquois, I believe it was a Siouan people who provided the name to French explorers. Its meaning has something to do with “snakes” unless I’m mistaken.

Algonquians, and it means "people-eaters." Sioux comes from Ojibwa and means "little snakes" (specifically the massasauga, a rattlesnake native to the Midwest).

 

[Gwydden]

Algonquians, and it means "people-eaters." Sioux comes from Ojibwa and means "little snakes" (specifically the massasauga, a rattlesnake native to the Midwest).

Clearly, the creators of these exonyms were kinder than me. I would have simply gone for "those ***** who keep stealing my bison."

 

[Guandao]

Algonquians, and it means "people-eaters." Sioux comes from Ojibwa and means "little snakes" (specifically the massasauga, a rattlesnake native to the Midwest).

looks like I misremembered! But Algonquians and people eaters makes more sense than what I stated. Also Mohawk isn’t even the Mohawk name for themselves, something like Kanienkeha.