Humankind Game by Amplitude

[Boris Gudenuf]

Don't forget that the word "byzantine" also means overly complex and intricate.

As much as we gripe about "Bureaucracy" and "Red Tape" today, bureaucracy was invented in Mesopotamia at about the same time as Hammurabi's Law Code, and Ptolemaic Egypt has left us thousands of papyrus documents that are simply bureaucratic files in multiple copies - which anybody who wanted anything done by the government had to hand-carry themselves from one clerically-moribund office to the next. "Byzantine" was less a comment on the intricacies of the bureaucratic process in Byzantium than it was the result of the massive frustration brought on by the wedding of an elaborate bureaucracy to the Roman patronage system which meant that getting anything done required both filling out all the paperwork or papyrus-work properly and then also knowing which bureaucrat was 'connected' to the right people in the current regime and so could actually get anything done.
And if the regime changed, even so slightly as by appointing a new bureaucrat somewhere within it, you might have to start all over finding the right connections.

I suppose the Byzantine Bureaucrat could be an Emblematic Unit, but dealing with one, even in a game system, might be far too much like dealing with Real Life, which I, at least, play the game to Avoid!

 

[Krajzen]

I am wondering what else focus could Byzantium fit on HK, as this glorious civ seems weirdly hard to find it "obvious" focus.
There is no religious or defensive focus
Expansionist feels really wrong for a civ which is famously defensive for most of its history (it even feels wrong for Justinian era, as it wasn't conquest of foreign lands as much as REconquest of rightful Roman clay)
Scientific... Byzantium had scientists and scientific achievements and academias decent enough to cause eye-rolling screeching "first university! first university!" but it wasn't THAT innovative, especially when compares with nearby Islamic empires or high/late medieval Europe.
Builder feels weird because while they had legendarny Haghia Sophia and fortifications and architectural style, they didn't leave incredibly numerous architectural legacy (now I am wondering, was Byzantine architecture internationally demolished in Turkish lands in history?)
Agrarian Byzantium would feel like a blasphemy to me lol

So the only alternatives which could rival Merchant focus for Byzantium are maybe militarist and aestethe. Militarist still does feel strange for a civilization which was so defensive and so highly advanced in many other aspects, it just feels weird for Byz to share focus with Huns or (inevitably) Mongols.
So that would leave us with aestethe. That makes sense to me, but I still prefer devs choice to go with merchant - this focus sells the size, prosperity and glory of Second Rome better, imo.

 

[notNamed]

Builder feels weird because while they had legendarny Haghia Sophia and fortifications and architectural style, they didn't leave incredibly numerous architectural legacy (now I am wondering, was Byzantine architecture internationally demolished in Turkish lands in history?).

The Greeks demolished some Byzantine structures as a part of their nationalist movement (most famously blowing up anything left of the Byzantine acropolis in Athens), but I'm not aware of the Turkish doing anything of the sort.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Greeks demolished some Byzantine structures as a part of their nationalist movement (most famously blowing up anything left of the Byzantine acropolis in Athens), but I'm not aware of the Turkish doing anything of the sort.

In fact, a great deal of 'Islamic' architecture was in fact copied from Byzantium: the arches and domes so characteristic of mosques from Cordoba to Isfahan and beyond were all composed of 'Byzantine' architectural elements. In the respect of monumental/religious architecture, at least, Byzantium might be a 'Builder Faction' once removed!

 

[notNamed]

In fact, a great deal of 'Islamic' architecture was in fact copied from Byzantium: the arches and domes so characteristic of mosques from Cordoba to Isfahan and beyond were all composed of 'Byzantine' architectural elements. In the respect of monumental/religious architecture, at least, Byzantium might be a 'Builder Faction' once removed!

I know. I decided to omit that because a part of this was simple cultural diffusion (not every mosque with a big dome is a rebuilt orthodox church) and the Islamic states merged these with elements from Persia so when one imagines a mosque, the things that jump out at them are more than likely not the elements tracing their lineage back to Byzantium.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Does anyone know if the game will feature minor factions, a la Amplitude's Endless Legend? It seems a great way to include tons of additional civilizations beyond even the main sixty, especially tribes which wouldn't find inclusion even in expansion packs or as downloadable content.

 

[CivLuvah]

Imgur album updated to include the English

https://imgur.com/a/4cPjGSY

 

[notNamed]

Does anyone know if the game will feature minor factions, a la Amplitude's Endless Legend? It seems a great way to include tons of additional civilizations beyond even the main sixty, especially tribes which wouldn't find inclusion even in expansion packs or as downloadable content.

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

 

[Krajzen]

Endless Legend model of minor factions would be brilliant for historical setting even without significant modifications

Add to it some distinction between city states, tribes and nomads, and you may end with something truly great

 

[conorbebe]

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?

And furthermore, perhaps most curiously, will these minor factions evolve in a similar way to the player's civilisation? Will all minor factions be taken from the Ancient Era? Or will more pop up over time as the game progresses into later eras?

 

[FinalDoomsday]

I like the idea of minor factions reflecting the player cultures in changing over the eras, having minor factions dissapear and new ones pop up sounds like a pretty fun way to keep the map interesting.

 

[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?