Humankind Game by Amplitude

[ehecatzin]

fingers crossed for Mayans!

 

[Siptah]

fingers crossed for Mayans!

They are revealed alphabetically...

 

[WillowBrook]

They are revealed alphabetically...

So Celts? Or is there a possible earlier one?

 

[pokiehl]

So Celts? Or is there a possible earlier one?

I think some are expecting "Achaemenids" but I'm pretty sure based on posting from Cat O' Nine Tails that they're called "Persians."

IMO Persian is the better choice anyway.

 

[jddods]

The problem with using Persia is that it can apply to other Iranian dynasties.

 

[Matthias Corvinus]

So Celts? Or is there a possible earlier one?

Georgians! As in, Tamar from Georgia!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The problem with using Persia is that it can apply to other Iranian dynasties.

Since Humankind is using a One Faction/Era mechanism, though, in the Classical Era a "Persian" Dynasty could be Achaemenid or Sassanian, or even Parthian, which technically wasn't a Persian ruling house but covered virtually the same territory.

- And I confess I'm getting a little tired of the Civ-Standard Achaemenids, who have been the only In-Game Persians for too many games. I'm really hoping for some Persian goodness from the Sassanids, who after all fought Rome to a standstill, and/or maybe the later Safavids or Afshars.
They could have an interesting 'progression' of:
Classical: Sassanids:
Renaissance: Safavids:
Industrial: Afsharis:
Modern: Pahlevis or Islamic Republic

That's probably "too many Persians" for the Base Game, given that similar progressions could be put together for too many more popular Factions like Germany, England, France, Russia, China, India, Meso-America - even with 60 Factions, once you start making up Progressive versions of the best known historical Factions, you run through most of the 60 'slots' very quickly . . .

 

[ehecatzin]

That's probably "too many Persians" for the Base Game, given that similar progressions could be put together for too many more popular Factions like Germany, England, France, Russia, China, India, Meso-America - even with 60 Factions, once you start making up Progressive versions of the best known historical Factions, you run through most of the 60 'slots' very quickly . . .

I find myself looking at the same problem with mesoamericans, the framework opens itself so easily to wanting every iteration of a culture for every Era. But I would love to see more interations of Persian, Indian and Chinese culture, they always get reduced on civ.

 

[Matthias Corvinus]

I find myself looking at the same problem with mesoamericans, the framework opens itself so easily to wanting every iteration of a culture for every Era. But I would love to see more interations of Persian, Indian and Chinese culture, they always get reduced on civ.

The Olmec, Maya, and Aztec weren’t direct descendants of eachother like the Zoroastrian Persian dynasties, so i don’t think there would be too much of a problem with overlap

 

[ehecatzin]

The Olmec, Maya, and Aztec weren’t direct descendants of eachother like the Zoroastrian Persian dynasties, so i don’t think there would be too much of a problem with overlap

oh but you see...there's a part of me that would love to split the Mayans into at least 2, a classical Mayan and a medieval one with the Mayapan league.

 

[Siptah]

So Celts? Or is there a possible earlier one?

There are also Aksum and Armenia, both at least possible candidates, that would come before the Celts. And in case the Greek culture is called Athens...

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

Differentiation of city graphics by Civ instead of Era is Stunning all by itself.

Now, let's not get carried away: It's regional and temporal variation, not unique to each culture. Our artists would like to add more variation, but other things have priority, so you'll have to make do with the variation we have (which is already over a dozen different styles, if I recall correctly.)

Tomorrow, video dev diary #2 or first classical culture?

Yes, Tuesdays are for Culture Cards.

 

[mitsho]

So Celts? Or is there a possible earlier one?

Carthage! And Achaemenids as mentioned, if they don‘t just do „Persia“ and „Iran“. Also, if they go for „Gauls“ instead of Celts, ... there‘s actually not that many more options that come to my mind...

As for guessing the Celts. Trait: something like „federalistic“ (bonuses to „wide play“)? emblematic quarter: „Druid Grove“, emblematic unit: I don‘t know, maybe a painted warrior? Another chariot? Warbands that are faster in forest?

 

[Siptah]

Carthage! And Achaemenids as mentioned, if they don‘t just do „Persia“ and „Iran“. Also, if they go for „Gauls“ instead of Celts, ... there‘s actually not that many more options that come to my mind...

As for guessing the Celts. Trait: something like „federalistic“ (bonuses to „wide play“)? emblematic quarter: „Druid Hain“, emblematic unit: I don‘t know, maybe a painted warrior? Another chariot? Warbands that are faster in forest?

On another forum someone said that Celts have a Doldrem as EQ, whatever that is (a Dolmen?).

 

[mitsho]

Makes sense, they are iconic stuff to put in a emblematic quarter. And thus we need no Stonehenge.

And by the way, did I get that right that in Humankind there are no specialized quarters like in civ6. So the quarters represent a visual view back to your history more so than a better version of a „district“ like in civ. I need to know more gameplay information soon!

(Also I corrected the German to the English word in my post above...)

 

[Uberfrog]

On another forum someone said that Celts have a Doldrem as EQ, whatever that is (a Dolmen?).

Assuming this person has got anything right at all, I would assume a Gallic or Gaulish (please don't call the culture "Celts", Amplitude!) EQ to be a dūnon, meaning hill fort. This is cognate with the Irish word dún meaning the same thing, and is what the Romans called an oppidum.

A dolmen would be completely inappropriate, as they are Neolithic and thus firmly pre-Celtic structures.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

And by the way, did I get that right that in Humankind there are no specialized quarters like in civ6. So the quarters represent a visual view back to your history more so than a better version of a „district“ like in civ. I need to know more gameplay information soon!

We have different kinds of common quarters that will evolve with your culture, but some Quarters (like City Centers and Emblematic Quarters) will retain their central structures throughout the game. Yet again, I have to refer you to an unspecified "later" for more detailed information.

 

[Siptah]

A dolmen would be completely inappropriate, as they are Neolithic and thus firmly pre-Celtic structures.

Don‘t underestimate the influence of Astérix on the perception of the Gauls by the French

 

[pokiehl]

Sassanids are well and good but Achaemenid Persia is a "must have" on the same scale as ancient Rome or Egypt. It's just too important to not have.

Anyway, Persia in common parlance refers to Achaemenid Persia. Humankind and Civ have majority casual audiences who aren't nearly as pedantic as the superfans here. Persia is what people know and expect. No need to reinvent the wheel or use different terms just for the sake of being different. Honestly, Humankind already has enough of that - it feels like the devs had a thesaurus on hand when naming certain things like "emblematic" and "aesthete" for example. I get they're trying to ensure they differ from Civ though, the explanation Cat gave for using emblematic makes good sense.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

Yes, we have to balance our desire for historically authentic building blocks of the cultures with the need to effectively communicate to a wide audience, so we will sometimes opt for broader and less specific terms for the sake of clarity to the majority of players.