Humankind Game by Amplitude

[Abaxial]

Personally, I think Civ 7 will be played on a sphere. It's the logical way to go! Therefore the answer to the original question is no.

 

[Prester John 2]

I don't get why they have to make it so adversarial when comparing Civ with Humankind. After all, many civ lovers will buy Humankind and enjoy both for different reasons. There's no zero sum competition on the market.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I don't get why they have to make it so adversarial when comparing Civ with Humankind. After all, many civ lovers will buy Humankind and enjoy both for different reasons. There's no zero sum competition on the market.

I completely agree. It's not like they are mutually exclusive. A person can like both for their individual merits. It's as if the game media is attempting to fabricate a fandom rivalry.

 

[pokiehl]

I completely agree. It's not like they are mutually exclusive. A person can like both for their individual merits. It's as if the game media is attempting to fabricate a fandom rivalry.

There are no other major historical 4x games. Comparison is absolutely inevitable and warranted, and undoubtedly Amplitude wants a bite of Civ's audience. That said, it's not zero sum and I want both to succeed so we have more options.

 

[mitsho]

This concerns me a bit. Fame sort of sounds like the era score in Civ 6. But I don't know about 'hiding' it. So you don't know how the ways to get fame? Or it might change every game? I get it if they were just doing a 'play as a sandbox' approach, but if that's the win condition, I think people are going to want to know the different ways of getting it.

I read it that they just don't show you an exact number in a way to make you not be able to calculate how much more you need. The ways will probably stay the same, but f.e. you can double it by staying one more Era in a civ. Also, such a counter would run against the idea that it's not a cumulative Victory, but one where your might in a past era is enough for you to win later on. You kinda need to calculate a victor for every turn of the game and then add it up or take the average. In that way, Fame is different from Score Points in Civ. And I'm quite curious how they'll do it. Their intention is good in any case, let's see how they implement it.

Second, the demo showed some examples of single cities in provinces merging with other provinces to create super-cities. I didn’t see how this worked in practice, but the potential for reducing micromanagement is present.

Yes, yes, yes, YES!! Again, I applaud their intention here, let's see how they implement it. But filler tasks or micromanagement is my main personal complaint with the civ series.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I completely agree. It's not like they are mutually exclusive. A person can like both for their individual merits. It's as if the game media is attempting to fabricate a fandom rivalry.

Controversy Sells. That's true in print, electronic, or stone tablet media. When members of the Civ/Firaxis or Humankind/Amplitude developer groups come out and say they are 'gunning for' the other game, then I'll believe they are specifically competitive. In the meantime, I plan to enjoy both, just as in the past I've played Civ IV and Civ V, and Anno 1404, Patrician II, Port Royale, Settlers 6, Europas III and IV, and every historical City Builder from Caesar III on. I doubt that I'm unique in liking historically-based games, regardless of who develops them or what their specific focus is.

I read it that they just don't show you an exact number in a way to make you not be able to calculate how much more you need. The ways will probably stay the same, but f.e. you can double it by staying one more Era in a civ. Also, such a counter would run against the idea that it's not a cumulative Victory, but one where your might in a past era is enough for you to win later on. You kinda need to calculate a victor for every turn of the game and then add it up or take the average. In that way, Fame is different from Score Points in Civ. And I'm quite curious how they'll do it. Their intention is good in any case, let's see how they implement it.

Following up on above, all historically based games suffer from the Real Historical Knowledge problem: even the most ignorant of us knows some history, and therefore we have more knowledge about Consequences than the 'real' leaders did or than we should have if we are trying to 're-enact' the situation of those real leaders.
We know that building a Maginot Line when the other Civ/Faction is building Panzer Divisions is Not A Good Idea. We know that having Alexander II of Macedon as a neighbor is Not Safe. We know that those hoofed equines running around in 4000 BCE are not only good eating, they can be ridden, driven, raced and have all sorts of other Uses. The game cannot erase that knowledge unless it is marketed only to cultural and historical Illiterates, so knowledge has to be systematically Withheld in the game.

I'm fine with that in the interests of Game Play. I'd rather games were more open-ended, but that (apparently) is just Me. The idea that England/Britain in 4000 BCE will inevitably develop into a great industrial/trading/naval power regardless of other events in the in-game history bugs the *&#$% out of me. On the other hand, to build a game in which all the influences that made Britain into an Industrial/Trading/Naval power and their near-infinite interactions are present would be insanely complex (especially when multiplied by 50+ different Civilizations!) and your chance of getting exactly the right combination to build the Britain of your (historical) dreams would be tiny - and therefore, very frustrating. In this specific case, the idea that Doing X Always Gives You Z Fame Score means that the Human Gamer will always be 'cheating' after the first few plays of the game. Far better to keep the exact Results of an action variable to some degree - it will keep us all a bit more honest, and Us Historians especially so!

A last point: Negative Fame. Hasn't been mentioned, as far as I know, but there have been really Famous Events in history that were Famous Disasters. Varro, the schmuck who got himself and 3 legions massacred in Teutoburger Wald, is almost as famous as any other Roman general. Custer is one of the best-known US Army officers of the post-Civil War. Thermopolye is one of the most famous battles in Greek history, but none of the Greeks involved to the end survived it. Makes me wonder how these sorts of 'Fame' will be handled - will Fame be, like so much in Civ games, only a steadily increasing quantity, or can you Lose It. That would make a far more dynamic game but might also make a game that leads to Rage Quits en masse after you finish your in-game equivalent of the Maginot Line . . .

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The devs have reiterated several times on g2g that Fame isn't lost. You can build and lose an empire and you still keep the Fame you earned for building it without a penalty for the loss.

 

[Patine]

Personally, I think Civ 7 will be played on a sphere. It's the logical way to go! Therefore the answer to the original question is no.

Ugh! What a wretched sounding interface!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Personally, I think Civ 7 will be played on a sphere. It's the logical way to go! Therefore the answer to the original question is no.

They'll never do that; it would lose the entire Flat Earth market . . .

 

[Wyvern_Parade]

Another point of concern to me is the screenshot of the initial civ selection, with the little symbols on them indicating the strengths. I hope the civs 'uniques' aren't just Egypt +10% production, Babylon +10% science and are a little more unique/bespoke. I'd assume so, as that's been Amplitude's strengths in Endless Legend at least.

I noticed this as well, but I think they are early enough in the development stage that the abilities and balance of each civ still have a lot of room for change. Furthermore, the abilities in Humankind will almost certainly have to be less unique than in previous Amplitude games for 2 reasons: limits of a historical setting and balance of mix-matching civs.

With fantasy and sci-fi your design space is much more flexible when it comes to unique abilities. You can't really introduce a race of clones who can absorb other species' DNA, or shadow people who reproduce themselves with money into a simulation of world history.

And I think any legacy traits will either have to be fairly tame or powerful with a severe drawback (I prefer the latter). Once players start mixing 3, 4 ,5 different civ's bonuses together it will be really tough to balance those correctly. However, I think this will add another layer of strategy to the game. They have mentioned that there is some kind of "draft" when it comes to choosing new civs for each era, so players can try to deny others particularly powerful combinations if they see them as a threat.

On another note, the devs confirmed yesterday on the Amplitude Discord that new screenshots will be coming very soon! Looking forward to that.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . the abilities in Humankind will almost certainly have to be less unique than in previous Amplitude games for 2 reasons: limits of a historical setting and balance of mix-matching civs.

With fantasy and sci-fi your design space is much more flexible when it comes to unique abilities. You can't really introduce a race of clones who can absorb other species' DNA, or shadow people who reproduce themselves with money into a simulation of world history.

I've been reading Science Fiction since a Moon Landing was science fiction and not history, and I started reading Fantasy about 6 years before Tolkien's LOTR trilogy was published in the USA and introduced the rest of the country to fantasy, and I can safely say there is nothing in either Science Fiction or Fantasy half as Weird as History.

For instance -"absorb other species' DNA" - most of the Native American groups regularly married captives from raids and warfare into the tribe, so they "absorbed (Alien) DNA" on a regular basis - including Europeans. "Reproduce themselves with money" - what else wold you call Mercenaries? Or Bride Price/Dowries? Money was the deciding factor in whether a lot of people reproduced throughout history.

- And we haven't even mentioned Slave Soldiers, or armies that win Victories when all their own troops die in battle: like the iconic Battles of Thermopolye or Cameron to the Greeks and the French Foreign Legion.
My favorite "Non-Fantasy - Fantasy" character is the classic Fantasy Trope of the Great Lord of Evil, who attacks all his neighbors, enslaves their armies and makes them fight for him, burns down palaces and cities, lays waste to provinces - and plays the flute, writes operatic music, and corresponds with most of the intellectuals of Europe: I just described Friedrich II (the Great) of Prussia. And no fantasy writer would dare make up historical characters like Hannibal Petrovich or Alcibiades: they are simply too unbelievable - except that they actually existed.

And I think any legacy traits will either have to be fairly tame or powerful with a severe drawback (I prefer the latter). Once players start mixing 3, 4 ,5 different civ's bonuses together it will be really tough to balance those correctly. However, I think this will add another layer of strategy to the game. They have mentioned that there is some kind of "draft" when it comes to choosing new civs for each era, so players can try to deny others particularly powerful combinations if they see them as a threat.

This alone, though, is worth keeping an eye on. Civ has straightjacketed us into a single set of traits for a Civ that supposedly are going to be applicable for 6000 years. Now That's Fantasy! It sounds like Humankind will allow us to change those traits every Era to try to match the traits needed by the in-game situation, albeit imperfectly (apparently each Faction can only be chosen once in a given Era, so if you need the traits of a China or England, you'd better get to chose before another player/AI snaps them up). I've wanted that since Civ V: Bring It On!

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

interesting approach not to balance civs with standart set of bonuses but allow multiple combinations , either the bonuses will be on the weak side and not allow a complete steamroll by human vs AI or multiplayer will be a nightmare to balance. i think map will play a lot more into what you can and should get in humankind.
also agree that i dont believe humankind and civ vi players will be exclusive or steall from each other . I personally enjoy multiple games at the moment with fallen enchantress , civ vi and xcom2 for the turn based genre , titan quest for ARPG genre and crusader king2 for the grand strategy genre. variety helps keep games fresh and me from burning out by doing same stuff over and over .

 

[Fluphen Azine]

Most of us have been playing Civ for many years and or decades.
Civ is just so darn comfortable and nobody can compete with the way Civ games make you feel at home.
Even with the many flaws of the base Civ games it doesn't matter.
I have tried to play other games but always come back to Civ 3, 4, 5 or 6.
I don't think Humankind can put any dents into the Civ Franchise.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Give it your best shot—which #HumankindGame culture are we looking at here?

Winners get a high five! https://t.co/pf4yEz1VLP

I believe this tweet has a new screenshot.

 

[conorbebe]

Most of us have been playing Civ for many years and or decades.
Civ is just so darn comfortable and nobody can compete with the way Civ games make you feel at home.
Even with the many flaws of the base Civ games it doesn't matter.
I have tried to play other games but always come back to Civ 3, 4, 5 or 6.
I don't think Humankind can put any dents into the Civ Franchise.

I wouldn't be so certain - Humankind takes a lot of inspiration from Civilization to a degree that I don't recall any other game having done, at least in recent years. And furthermore, being free of the shackles of the IP, Humankind is making significant changes to the formula which might just be what many fans have been looking for. I for one can see myself preferring the setup of Humankind over Civilization, and the stronger focus on historical accuracy is also a big factor in why I may end up jumping ship if the inevitable Civilization VII doesn't advance the franchise in any meaningful way.

Of course, this won't be the death of Civilization. There's enough room for both titles to flourish, and competition should produce even better games.

Give it your best shot—which #HumankindGame culture are we looking at here?

Winners get a high five! https://t.co/pf4yEz1VLP

I believe this tweet has a new screenshot.

Babylon I would assume. I can see the Ishtar Gate and the Great Ziggurat of Ur.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Babylon I would assume. I can see the Ishtar Gate and the Great Ziggurat of Ur.

Agree with Babylon, but it brings up another question: Etemenanki and the Ishtar Gate are both Ancient Wonders (or, more likely, 'National' Babylonian Wonders). IF they are both associated with Babylon, does that mean the game will have 2 or more "Wonders" per Faction? Or, 120 Wonders/National Wonders in the game?

Holy Brick and Mortar, Batperson!

 

[kaspergm]

Most of us have been playing Civ for many years and or decades.
Civ is just so darn comfortable and nobody can compete with the way Civ games make you feel at home.
Even with the many flaws of the base Civ games it doesn't matter.
I have tried to play other games but always come back to Civ 3, 4, 5 or 6.
I don't think Humankind can put any dents into the Civ Franchise.

I also don't agree with this. If humankind manages to live up to the hype, this might well be the end of Civ6 for me. This doesn't mean I won't get back to Civ7, and I still hope there'll be a third expansion for Civ6 that will somehow manage to salvage the game for me - or perhaps more likely, a late mod cycle - but for all the hours I've put into Civ6, the game hasn't managed to capture the magic of Civ5 for me personally. I love the game up to industrial era, but from there on it just feels like a chore to finish the game, and not a quickly finished one at that.

 

[Elhoim]

The map looks so amazing... The different elevation, the city tiles that actually look like cities, people walking around...

 

[ehecatzin]

The map looks so amazing... The different elevation, the city tiles that actually look like cities, people walking around...

Yeah I've been wanting stuff like that in civ since forever.

I love the game up to industrial era, but from there on it just feels like a chore to finish the game, and not a quickly finished one at that.

Same here, I really dislike how after a certain point you aim for a victory type, and just ignore everything else.

 

[conorbebe]

Gotta say I'm loving how the city is protected by a perimetre wall, and the farmlands are located outside.

Although I do find it amusing that there's a hex in the centre of the territory that is walled-off for seemingly no reason. In my head I'm imagining that's where a grumpy old man lives who won't allow anyone to build on his land XD