Humankind Game by Amplitude

[Zaarin]

Providing my perspective on this tangent, very few, if any Civ ability or unique unit represents said civilization as a whole, not even the newer ones with shorter histories.

True, but I'd argue very few of them are consistently based solely on the reign of a single ruler from Civ3 to the present. Such has been Korea's fate. (True, they subbed Seondeok for Sejong in Civ6, but that meant nothing for the civ design.)

Not even the P-51 and film studios are representative of 300 years of American history.

I'd argue that the film studio is very iconic of America: we've pretty nearly won a cultural victory between Hollywood and the pop industry. Can you think of a type of infrastructure that would be more iconic for America? The only other thing I can think of would be white-steepled churches, but 1) we borrowed those and 2) I wouldn't consider America as a particularly religious civilization to merit a religious unique building (then again, I'd say the same about Norway, but at least stave churches are unique). Something like a jazz lounge or speakeasy could work but would be very period-specific; something like a fast food restaurant would just be tacky.

Ultimately, it's about bringing up something iconic about a notable period of the civilization, and less a representation of everything the civ meant throughout its history.

Yes, but there are other periods in Korean history than just Joseon--in fact, there are other periods in Joseon history than just Sejong. The best part is that Firaxis obviously knows this since they picked a Silla ruler for Civ6, yet Civ6 Korea is still Sejong's Joseon. Even other civilizations that have tended towards the same one or two leaders have gotten more varied representation. For instance we've seen England as a naval civ and as an industrial civ. Even France, which is consistently a culture civ, has gotten elements of its martial history represented. Civ's Korea has been a one-trick pony since 2001 based solely on a fleeting moment in its history; I'd just like to see Korea treated with the same nuance as Japan and China.

 

[Krajzen]

These are 8 of the values that are tied to the ideology system.

Borrowed from the g2g thread. Some erudite person arranged them into pairs.

I love this

Goddamn, why do I have to prefer every thing previewed so far to analogical system in civ6... I don't wanna sound obnoxious
(Of course they may all suck in practice - like Beyond Earth)

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I love this

Goddamn, why do I have to prefer every thing previewed so far to analogical system in civ6... I don't wanna sound obnoxious
(Of course they may all suck in practice - like Beyond Earth)

The first thing I thought of when I saw the icons organized like that is that how you respond to events is like a Myers Briggs test and depending on the results, you will be assigned 1 of 16 ideology variations in the Modern Age.

That's speculation of course. We don't even know if that's all the icons, but it kind of makes me want to figure out which government types go with which combinations.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Eh, the Greeks stole most of their science from the Near East, and philosophy is better represented by culture or faith (at least in Civ terms).

'Stole' is too harsh, I think. They got a start on most of their 'science' (and engineering) from the Near East, but they went on to do a lot of basic work in mathematics (Euclid, Pythagoreas, et al), invented the crane, and perfected the triremes (trireme) warship, There was also nothing in the Near East like the Hoplon shield that defined the Greek infantry, a composite of heavy wood steamed into a deeply concave shape, covered in bronze and backed by leather to make it practically impenetrable by a hand-held weapon. I'd say in the intersection of Science and Practical Engineering they at least held their own.
On the other hand, Greek Philosophy, because of its complete disregard of experimental proof, is far better represented as a Religion/Culture artifact than a Scientific one. In fact, Karen Armstrong already made this point decades ago in The Great Transformation, when she included Greek Philosophy alongside the teaching of Zoroaster, Kung Fu Tse, Lao Tse, Gautama Buddha, and Jewish monotheism as one of the great Religious Transformations taking place between 700 and 500 BCE.

I'd argue that the film studio is very iconic of America: we've pretty nearly won a cultural victory between Hollywood and the pop industry. Can you think of a type of infrastructure that would be more iconic for America? The only other thing I can think of would be white-steepled churches, but 1) we borrowed those and 2) I wouldn't consider America as a particularly religious civilization to merit a religious unique building (then again, I'd say the same about Norway, but at least stave churches are unique). Something like a jazz lounge or speakeasy could work but would be very period-specific; something like a fast food restaurant would just be tacky.

More Iconic, or at least worth considering:
The American Supermarket of the of the 1930s and later
Drive-in Movies, restaurants, etc as a symbol of the first motorized consumer society in the world
The Shopping Mall, the outgrowth of the Supermarket
The Town Hall - the American Town Hall Meeting as an artifact of near-Universal (at least among white males) suffrage from the 18th to the 20th century is almost Unique - you practically have to go back to the Athenian Assembly of 400 BCE to find a similar and equivalent 'Democratic' institution.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Eh, the Greeks stole most of their science from the Near East, and philosophy is better represented by culture or faith (at least in Civ terms).

That doesn't mean science bonuses shouldn't be ignored and can be somewhat warranted if we don't have to perpetually stereotype them into being solely building cultural tourist traps. The very fabric of the scientific boosts is derived from the saying of a Greek scientist/engineer.

I admit I have a special fondness for Korea that goes beyond your average Westerner from having lived there, but I'd love to see Goguryeo > Silla > Goryeo > Joseon > Korea.

That would be one way to get a Hwarang UU, Hwacha, and Turtle ship.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I love this

Goddamn, why do I have to prefer every thing previewed so far to analogical system in civ6... I don't wanna sound obnoxious
(Of course they may all suck in practice - like Beyond Earth)

Potentially in part because we have so few details, it's easy to read into what's been announced the game systems we'd prefer. As you say, in practice the systems may not play the way we expect, or be as enjoyable as we hope. Lots of details still to be announced before we have a better sense of what HK gameplay will be like.

On the flip side, some odd mechanisms that sound jarring may not be as bad when seen in the context of the overall game, including still unannounced details.

 

[Zenstrive]

So It seems HUMANKIND really is the amalgamations of various tidbits and elements that Amplitude Studios have on their previous games.

Looks like Great People will be like Heroes, hopefully the way to get them is to actually earn them and not by buying them in the markets ala Endless Legend or pick them after several turns have pass like in Endless Space series.

And events looks like the random events that have been there since Endless Space, granting quests, random bonuses. Looks like in this game some of them would be granted as traits to your whole civs, making them permanent parts of your civ.

I wonder what will the Law mechanics be, is it like in the Endless Legend (every 20 turns you choose laws that are redeemed with influence points. If you don't have any, you won't have laws) or like in Endless Space 2, where you can enact and abolish select laws based on your dominant Political Parties and your influence points per turn.

As for cultural mix-and-match, Endless Legend has minor races that you can absorp and their units will be part of your army, and their villages will provide citizens that can be assigned to various roles (food, industries, money, influences). Endless Space 2 has minor races that are parts of the factions from the starts, parts of a solar system (think region) that you can peacefully absorp. Their population traits are different from each other. Some can give you food in arid planet, some will give your science in arid planet. Each race also has one political party preference. So that's kinda melting pot. A system can have various races, and they can be migrated between planets and between systems. I wonder if the blend between Endless Legend and Endless Space 2 will be in HUMANKIND: you can absorp a minor race's units and their traits, and their populations can be migrated between your controlled regions.

As for the civ picks between eras, I am sure they are packages of different traits, and hopefully can be customized like you can make customized factions in their series. Or is this how you create custom factions now, by selecting packages of traits, and by granted bonus traits from quests and events.

And hopefully Humankind can be fun and not get bogged down mid-game a la Endless Legend and Endless Space 2.

 

[darko82]

You do realize that in a game which goes through 6000 years in few hundred turns this would mean that (before 19th century) you would basically get new leader every 2-5 turns, right?

I thought about it. Three are some turnarounds or solutions devs could come up with. Leaders could change based on many factors in the game, actually. This could also be introduced later in the game like other features. Complicated but possible to deal with somehow.

However, I don't think that many people care about it at all. So...

 

[Elhoim]

I thought about it. Three are some turnarounds or solutions devs could come up with. Leaders could change based on many factors in the game, actually. This could also be introduced later in the game like other features. Complicated but possible to deal with somehow.

However, I don't think that many people care about it at all. So...

I would go with families/clans/lineages/political parties, with famous leaders appearing in events or as great people you can use for a limited time.

 

[kaspergm]

I would go with families/clans/lineages/political parties, with famous leaders appearing in events or as great people you can use for a limited time.

Yes, the way we have dynasties from ancient Egypt and China seems like a good way to go around this for the early parts of the game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd argue that the film studio is very iconic of America: we've pretty nearly won a cultural victory between Hollywood and the pop industry. Can you think of a type of infrastructure that would be more iconic for America? The only other thing I can think of would be white-steepled churches, but 1) we borrowed those and 2) I wouldn't consider America as a particularly religious civilization to merit a religious unique building (then again, I'd say the same about Norway, but at least stave churches are unique). Something like a jazz lounge or speakeasy could work but would be very period-specific; something like a fast food restaurant would just be tacky.

More Iconic, or at least worth considering:
The American Supermarket of the of the 1930s and later
Drive-in Movies, restaurants, etc as a symbol of the first motorized consumer society in the world
The Shopping Mall, the outgrowth of the Supermarket
The Town Hall - the American Town Hall Meeting as an artifact of near-Universal (at least among white males) suffrage from the 18th to the 20th century is almost Unique - you practically have to go back to the Athenian Assembly of 400 BCE to find a similar and equivalent 'Democratic' institution.

Most of these infrastructure are iconic indeed. So iconic that the game models these after other buildings that can be built by everyone: Food Market is essentially a supermarket and then there is the Shopping Mall in the neighborhood district as well. Also the white steeple church is the inspiration for the meeting house worship building.
I don't think any of them would be more iconic than a Film Studio as has been pointed out.
The only other thing I could think of would be a Baseball Field, but could you imagine a baseball field replacing a Stadium for America? Alternatively it could be an improvement but between the golf course and the ice hockey rink I think we have enough sports improvements that provide amenities and culture next to entertainment complexes. Plus waiting for your unique that late at Professional Sports would be difficult unless there is another Civic it could come under.
If you wanted to go for unique and iconic they could get a saloon building, not sure what it would replace, or wild west town improvement built on desert or plains tiles, but even then I believe Canada has them in their western provinces.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I thought about it. Three are some turnarounds or solutions devs could come up with. Leaders could change based on many factors in the game, actually. This could also be introduced later in the game like other features. Complicated but possible to deal with somehow.

This mechanic is in Crusader Kings, I think. It works there, as all of the kingdoms were hereditary leaders. I'm not sure it would work for a game covering all of human history, where there are so many different types of societies.

Even where hereditary leadership was the nominal rule, there were lots of leadership changes that didn't follow the purported rules.

The idea is fun. There was an old board game that used this as a core component (always fun rolling up the stats for your presumptive heir when he comes of age, then planning for whether he's going to make it to the throne … I need a border war quick!) I'm not sure it would fit in as well with a game that covers as much time and geography of Civ.

 

[Xefjord]

So I wanted to give people an update since I made a post airing my concerns on the actual Humankind forums and one of the devs actually responded to me. For those who did not read my previous posts I will try to quickly summarize here:

I was concerned with the idea that if I wanted to play a culturally homogeneous nation (And especially one that is not apart of the initial line up) that I would be forced into diversity from having to pick a civilization in the beginning that I didn't want until I could snatch the civilization I did want. The developer Meedoc did respond to me and here is his exact response:


"Hello,

Thanks for your feedback!

The idea of mixing cultures to create your own unique Civilization is at the heart of our design and we won’t change that. But we also think that it more realistically reflects the journey of our modern nations through history (as France, for instance, we still have the influence our past Roman and Gothic cultures).

Still, there are a few things that should please you within our current design:

1. Several cultures will appear in more than one Era
   As stated, the Zhou (China) culture is in the Bronze Era, and the Ming (China) in the Medieval Era, allowing you to keep the same culture while updating to the new unique content at specific time.
   
2. Transcending is not negative
   Transcending (keeping the same culture for several eras) is going to be more challenging, as you will not have an emblematic unit related to the new Era nor a new faction trait. BUT, on the other hand, you will benefit from a Fame bonus so you’ll be more competitive regarding victory conditions.
   
3. Each culture has its own identity in term of gameplay
   Even if the individual asymmetry is not as strong for each culture (as it is in our previous games), each culture has a unique content which encourages a related playstyle.
   Most of the emblematic units will have a unique ability used in the tactical battle for instance : )
   
4. We will offer a large range of options
   I can't expand much on them yet, but as in our previous games, 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 : )

Cheers"

 

[Zaarin]

'Stole' is too harsh, I think.

Yes, I was being mildly sarcastic and showing my pro-Near Eastern and anti-Hellene biases.

On the other hand, Greek Philosophy, because of its complete disregard of experimental proof, is far better represented as a Religion/Culture artifact than a Scientific one.

Indeed, Christian and Jewish mysticism has its roots in Greek philosophy, which was itself more mystical than rational (particularly obvious in Pythagoreanism and Platonism--the latter yielding the explicitly religious Neo-Platonism).

 

[cvb]

So I wanted to give people an update since I made a post airing my concerns on the actual Humankind forums and [...] the developer Meedoc did respond:

[...] Transcending is not negative [...] a Fame bonus [...] as you will not have an emblematic unit related to the new Era nor a new faction trait. [...]
Each culture has its own identity in term of gameplay / has a unique content which encourages a related playstyle. [...]
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 [...]

Could this even mean, the player may start in the beginning / Bronze Age with _any_ of the available 60 'cultures' / 'identities'? Ie. just with the 'unique content' of the civilization, but without an 'emblematic unit' nor a 'faction trait' in case this is a later era civ.
Eg. starting in Bronze Age with identity Ming**, but immediately transcending; ie. receiving the emblematic unit and faction trait only then, when the Medieval era begins ...

** or USA or Vietnam
.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

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 would constrain your era choices to certain historical options. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to contemplate that they might consider a mode that opened up more initial civ choices.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Could this even mean, the player may start in the beginning / Bronze Age with _any_ of the available 60 'cultures' / 'identities'? Ie. just with the 'unique content' of the civilization, but without an 'emblematic unit' nor a 'faction trait' in case this is a later era civ.
Eg. starting in Bronze Age with identity Ming**, but immediately transcending; ie. receiving the emblematic unit and faction trait only then, when the Medieval era begins ...

** or USA or Vietnam
.

No, that's probably not it. Transcendence is the ability to maintain your current era's culture in the next one(s), which means you'll be able to stick with older cultures despite the emergence of new ones. Basically you can keep the past but not pull something from the future.

So for instance you'd be able to remain Egyptian throughout the entire game, because it's a Bronze Age culture, but not something like American, which is likely to crop up only in the later eras.

 

[Krajzen]

I slightly dislike how they put Ming in the Feudal era instead of putting it in Renaissance and giving Feudal to Tang or Song. On another hand, wow, so we have almost confirmed split of China (and India seeing 'Harappa') into several civs in different eras. I love this, now I am only wondering whether they will actually put different one of India/China incarnations into every era (I think not because they get only Qing and China after Ming and three eras left...)

So, my new shot at predicting playable civs in remaining eras we don't know yet:

CLASSICAL
Persia, Greece, Rome, Celts, Ethiopia, Maya, Phoenicia, Korea, Maurya, Han

FEUDAL
Khmer, Arabs, Aztec, Byzantium, Swahilli, Mongols, HRE, Vikings, Gupta, Ming

RENAISSANCE
Turks, Mughals, Inca, Ashanti, Spain, Portugal, Russia, France, England, Burma

INDUSTRIAL
Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, America, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Netherlands, Maratha, Qing

MODERN
Australia, Canada, Nigeria, Kenya, Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Poland, China, India

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Indeed, Christian and Jewish mysticism has its roots in Greek philosophy, which was itself more mystical than rational (particularly obvious in Pythagoreanism and Platonism--the latter yielding the explicitly religious Neo-Platonism).

Greek Science is summed up, for me, by Aristotle's contention that men have more teeth than women. The man was married, and it never seems to have occurred to him to have his wife open her mouth and count her teeth.

They were very good at coming up with new concepts of the world that didn't require defaulting to "God Wills It" for everything complicated, but with few exceptions (Ptolemy's measuring of the earth's circumference, for example) they rarely tried to confirm any of their concepts with rational experimentation and examination. That's a shame, because we now have ample evidence that they had some good basis for a real Scientific Revolution using their abilities in mechanical physics, hydraulics, mathematics, astronomy and geared mechanisms - some borrowed, for sure, but to quote a later Scientist, everybody "stands on the shoulders of (previous) Giants". It never quite happened, and I blame both the lack of incentives (L. Sprague DeCamp argued that a good Patent Law in 100 CE could have started a Scientific Revolution all by itself!) and the Greek disinclination to get their philosophical hands dirty with applied experimentation to confirm and build on their concepts.

Probably a better subject for a Fantasy or Alternative History Novel than a "historical' game like Civ or Humankind, but as a Modded Civ for either . . .

 

[Lord Shadow]

I slightly dislike how they put Ming in the Feudal era instead of putting it in Renaissance and giving Feudal to Tang or Song. On another hand, wow, so we have almost confirmed split of China (and India seeing 'Harappa') into several civs in different eras. I love this, now I am only wondering whether they will actually put different one of India/China incarnations into every era (I think not because they get only Qing and China after Ming and three eras left...)

So, my new shot at predicting playable civs in remaining eras we don't know yet:

CLASSICAL
Persia, Greece, Rome, Celts, Ethiopia, Maya, Phoenicia, Korea, Maurya, Han

FEUDAL
Khmer, Arabs, Aztec, Byzantium, Swahilli, Mongols, HRE, Vikings, Gupta, Ming

RENAISSANCE
Turks, Mughals, Inca, Ashanti, Spain, Portugal, Russia, France, England, Burma

INDUSTRIAL
Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, America, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Netherlands, Maratha, Qing

MODERN
Australia, Canada, Nigeria, Kenya, Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Poland, China, India

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.