Humankind Game by Amplitude

[mitsho]

Is there a tank named Elephant? Or a rocket? a Ship? Something? It would be a nice easter egg to have a "mechanical" elephant in the modern era...

(And no, no constant elephant line, Ancient is also missing. The elephant factions are Carthaginians & Mauryans (Classical), Khmer (Medieval), Mughal (Early Modern) and Siam (Industrial))

 

[8housesofelixir]

Is there a tank named Elephant?

There was a heavy tank destroyer employed by German Wehrmacht during WWII named Elefant (German for "elephant"). It's one of the most famous and successful tank destroyers.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There was a heavy tank destroyer employed by German Wehrmacht during WWII named Elefant (German for "elephant"). It's one of the most famous and successful tank destroyers.

One of the most famous, yes. One of the most successful, Not So Much. It was actually first built as the Ferdinand, named after its designer, Dr. Ferdinand Porsche, as a way to use about 100 chassis Porsche's company had built for a Tiger tank design that failed. It carried the L71 long barrelled 88mm cannon, making it one of the most heavily-armed German tanks or tank destroyers, but it also carried no machineguns or any other secondary armament. Consequently, in its combat debut at Kursk in 1943, Soviet infantry could hunt them with impunity. It also suffered, as did all the German heavy tracked vehicles, from woeful serviceabilty: at any given moment, regardless of enemy action, up to 1/3 of the Ferdinands were under repair because of mechanical problems. The vehicle was officially renamed the Elefant on 1 May 1944. Its actual military designation was Sd.Kfz. 184, or Sonderkampfwagen Number 184.
Unfortunately for In-Game Continuity, no Elefant was ever painted gray - by the time they were introduced in 1943, all German combat vehicles were painted dunkelgelb, or 'dark yellow' as a base color. If you squinted, I suppose it might look like a dust-covered elephant?

- And that was probably more than anyone anywhere on the Forum needed to know . . .

 

[mitsho]

- And that was probably more than anyone anywhere on the Forum needed to know . . .

No no, in small doses I find these things intriguing. I can't be bothered to know such details myself, but I value it.

My point is: We know that emblematic units don't need to be successful, they just need to be impressive culturally. The Praetorian Guards for Rome show that. However, I'm not sure we want that kind of culture either. There's surely other options. Though I want to note there's nothing wrong with Yellow Elephants. There's even a song in there somewhere... ;-)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

No no, in small doses I find these things intriguing. I can't be bothered to know such details myself, but I value it.

My point is: We know that emblematic units don't need to be successful, they just need to be impressive culturally. The Praetorian Guards for Rome show that. However, I'm not sure we want that kind of culture either. There's surely other options. Though I want to note there's nothing wrong with Yellow Elephants. There's even a song in there somewhere... ;-)

"We all ride on a Yellow Pachyderm, a yellow Pachyderm, a yellow Pachyderm . . ." (with apologies to the Late Great J. Lennon and)

I agree: because elephants are, relatively, so scarce compared to the number of factions/civilizations to be represented, Elephant units of any kind are going to almost automatically be Emblematic regardless of whether they were an actual combat unit or just a display.
My only quibble is that the Emblematic Units will inevitably be used on the Humankind tactical battlefields, and there historically many of them were a distinct detriment to their own side. And yes, I'm looking at You, Praetorian Non-Combat Political Palace Guards!

 

[8housesofelixir]

My only quibble is that the Emblematic Units will inevitably be used on the Humankind tactical battlefields, and there historically many of them were a distinct detriment to their own side. And yes, I'm looking at You, Praetorian Non-Combat Political Palace Guards!

I don't think Humankind have "civilian units" besides Sabotagers, so all the ceremonial ones will be put into combat - and a lot of war elephants actually enjoyed a ceremonial role instead of a military one. (In ancient/classical South Asia and medieval/early modern South East Asia, elephant generally equals to kingship, the fact that rulers owning elephants already means they are monarchs with significant power.)

 

[Sostratus]

Trying to use correct terminology here- I’ve watched some footage of the beta.
When we look at an example culture like Harappans, they get extra yields on river tiles. Their unique quarter says it boosts rivers and counts as one.
There are other, similar emblematic quarters. Do we have good information about what if any resources the canal network would exploit? Would I still need farm and makers quarters crammed in with my canals? Do canals themselves benefit from the legacy trait and their own boost?
I grasp that something like the Khmer Baray generates yields on itself so it’s not an issue of exploiting tiles.

Also: how is the Celtic and Mayan legacy of +3 yield on exploitation’s not far and away overpowered? Doesn’t that mean +3 food on all farms, for example?

 

[Atlas627]

Also: how is the Celtic and Mayan legacy of +3 yield on exploitation’s not far and away overpowered? Doesn’t that mean +3 food on all farms, for example?

An exploitation is a tile adjacent to *but not containing* an extension. And it has to have an adjacent extension of the correct type to give whichever yield you're looking at.

So early game, when I build a single farm quarter and thus add 4 new exploitations (and cover up 1, but still collect food from it due to the farmer's quarter on it), this is a lot of additional food (which is also the yield that does not scale linearly). As I fill things in...well I'll start actually getting very little additional yields from it, because I won't be able to add enough new tiles to offset the loss of the tile I'm covering up. And again, food is only so useful.

 

[8housesofelixir]

There are other, similar emblematic quarters. Do we have good information about what if any resources the canal network would exploit? Would I still need farm and makers quarters crammed in with my canals? Do canals themselves benefit from the legacy trait and their own boost?

We don't really know about Harappan Canal Network (since it is not in the OpenDev; you may want to ask some VIP about it), but for many other EQs, it can be roughly divided into 3 types:

- EQs that works like a normal Quarter and will exploit/work the nearby tiles, such as the Celtic Nemeton and Hunnic Ordu;
- EQs that generate yields via adjacency of other Quarters, such as Babylonian Astronomy House and Nubian Meroe Pyramid;
- EQs that generate yields only by itself, all the "fortress" type EQs seem to work like this.

By the looks of description, Canal Network is probably an "exploit" type EQ that works the modified (by both Canal Network and the Harappan ability) adjacent river tiles.

So early game, when I build a single farm quarter and thus add 4 new exploitations (and cover up 1, but still collect food from it due to the farmer's quarter on it), this is a lot of additional food (which is also the yield that does not scale linearly). As I fill things in...well I'll start actually getting very little additional yields from it, because I won't be able to add enough new tiles to offset the loss of the tile I'm covering up.

There are two things I'd like to point out here:

First, at least in the Stadia OpenDev, the cap of Quarters (IIRC it looks like tied to population numbers) is removed. This cap will be very likely return in the full release, and one will be not that likely to cover a territory with a carpet of Quarters in the full release.

Second, Humankind has an interesting type of yield modifier that can be called "City Adjacency Multiplier". There is an Ancient Era city infrastructure called Forge, and a Medieval city infrastructure called High Furnace - both can "+1 industry to Makers Quarter when it is next to anther Makers Quarter". If one builds a "Quarter Triangle" of Marker Quarter, the Forge and High Furnace can significantly increase the output of Markers Quarter without having more Quarters.

I suppose later Eras will also have similar "adjacency multipliers" for Quarters, and they can make every (clustered) Quarter into a high output powerhouse. I think this is Humankind's answer of the Tall playstyle - instead of more Quarters for more exploitation output, one can have better Quarters for more adjacency output.

 

[Sostratus]

First, at least in the Stadia OpenDev, the cap of Quarters (IIRC it looks like tied to population numbers) is removed. This cap will be very likely return in the full release, and one will be not that likely to cover a territory with a carpet of Quarters in the full release.

I noticed that. I was momentarily getting excited for just spamming the heck out of some emblematic quarters for infinite yields...
The constraints on some of these systems will be interesting to work around.

I'm not 100% sure that the "only one of each culture allowed" will prove to be a successful idea. I understand the motivation, but I can already see it becoming hated in practice.

Second, Humankind has an interesting type of yield modifier that can be called "City Adjacency Multiplier". There is an Ancient Era city infrastructure called Forge, and a Medieval city infrastructure called High Furnace - both can "+1 industry to Makers Quarter when it is next to anther Makers Quarter". If one builds a "Quarter Triangle" of Marker Quarter, the Forge and High Furnace can significantly increase the output of Markers Quarter without having more Quarters.

I wish there were decent wiki style resources on the info we know about this game. It's really hard to piece everything together from game footage, especially as over time they change things.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I'm not 100% sure that the "only one of each culture allowed" will prove to be a successful idea. I understand the motivation, but I can already see it becoming hated in practice.

To my knowledge you can still spam EQs - you can build multiple EQs in multiple cities (for the most of the time; certain EQs such as Hunnic Ordu is limited to one per territory, but you can still "spam" it in multiple territories) - as long as you don't reach the quarter cap and don't change to another culture.

 

[Sostratus]

To my knowledge you can still spam EQs - you can build multiple EQs in multiple cities (for the most of the time; certain EQs such as Hunnic Ordu is limited to one per territory, but you can still "spam" it in multiple territories) - as long as you don't reach the quarter cap and don't change to another culture.

Oh, sorry. I meant that once one person picks the Khmer, no one else can. Etc.

Like I get the game principle there, but I think as they add more cultures, players will get very ticked off being "denied" certain strong synergies. For example, Khmer->Mauryans offers a path to +4 Industry from Worker jobs. That's quite substantial, but much less effective if you miss out.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Oh, sorry. I meant that once one person picks the Khmer, no one else can. Etc.

Like I get the game principle there, but I think as they add more cultures, players will get very ticked off being "denied" certain strong synergies. For example, Khmer->Mauryans offers a path to +4 Industry from Worker jobs. That's quite substantial, but much less effective if you miss out.

Thank you for the explanation. I don't really know if any devs had confirmed that there will be "no duplicated culture," although I would imagine it will be a togglable setting in the full release or a future DLC. Personally I don't see a reason to not allow duplicated culture entirely.

 

[Krajzen]

I have a question, how do minor faction work regarding territorial control? I mean, do they control an entire territory, or - like in Endless Legend - are present in it in minor dwellings, and when you take that territory you decide what to do with them?

 

[8housesofelixir]

I have a question, how do minor faction work regarding territorial control? I mean, do they control an entire territory, or - like in Endless Legend - are present in it in minor dwellings, and when you take that territory you decide what to do with them?

If you mean Independent People, they will have a minor dwelling for a while, but after they established an outpost (it will turn into a city later) for themselves they basically controlled that territory.

 

[Atlas627]

There are two things I'd like to point out here:

First, at least in the Stadia OpenDev, the cap of Quarters (IIRC it looks like tied to population numbers) is removed. This cap will be very likely return in the full release, and one will be not that likely to cover a territory with a carpet of Quarters in the full release.

Second, Humankind has an interesting type of yield modifier that can be called "City Adjacency Multiplier". There is an Ancient Era city infrastructure called Forge, and a Medieval city infrastructure called High Furnace - both can "+1 industry to Makers Quarter when it is next to anther Makers Quarter". If one builds a "Quarter Triangle" of Marker Quarter, the Forge and High Furnace can significantly increase the output of Markers Quarter without having more Quarters.

I suppose later Eras will also have similar "adjacency multipliers" for Quarters, and they can make every (clustered) Quarter into a high output powerhouse. I think this is Humankind's answer of the Tall playstyle - instead of more Quarters for more exploitation output, one can have better Quarters for more adjacency output.

The first is relevant to what I was saying, but I'm not sure if we will have the same cap, or a different cap, or no cap. So I won't speculate on that. The second doesn't seem to be relevant to my point? The prior poster was talking about "how is permanent +3 food on exploitation not a busted OP ability" and I was mentioning that you will over time fill in those exploitations with extensions. It seems like you're just pointing out another reason why what I said is correct? I suppose that is relevant in its own way, but it was part of my point in the first place so I'm rather confused lol

 

[8housesofelixir]

The first is relevant to what I was saying, but I'm not sure if we will have the same cap, or a different cap, or no cap. So I won't speculate on that. The second doesn't seem to be relevant to my point? The prior poster was talking about "how is permanent +3 food on exploitation not a busted OP ability" and I was mentioning that you will over time fill in those exploitations with extensions. It seems like you're just pointing out another reason why what I said is correct? I suppose that is relevant in its own way, but it was part of my point in the first place so I'm rather confused lol

Oh yeah, I was mainly follow the "there will be more and more extensions/quarters over time" point of yours, and my second point was about why a carpet of quarters is not that likely because one can also utilize the adjacency multipliers instead of having more quarters. I should have pointed that out more clearly.

I do think we will have a cap on extensions in the full release though. I already encountered a bug related to this in the OpenDev: AI will literally try to fill the map with Commons Quarters to solve their stability problem if there is no limit on the number of extensions.

I wish there were decent wiki style resources on the info we know about this game. It's really hard to piece everything together from game footage, especially as over time they change things.

I think you will find these posts really helpful; they probably gathered most of the important information in all the OpenDevs.

 

[Atlas627]

Oh yeah, I was mainly follow the "there will be more and more extensions/quarters over time" point of yours, and my second point was about why a carpet of quarters is not that likely because one can also utilize the adjacency multipliers instead of having more quarters. I should have pointed that out more clearly.

Sure, but if you were utilizing the adjacency multipliers, shouldn't you *also* want more quarters for the adjacencies?

 

[8housesofelixir]

Sure, but if you were utilizing the adjacency multipliers, shouldn't you *also* want more quarters for the adjacencies?

We will definitely "want" more quarters, but I tend to assume that there will be a cap on the quarters - which was my 1st point. Here the second point was more of an echo of the first point.

This does make me thinking will "city specialization" work well in Humankind. Currently in OpenDev every city can build nearly everything while doesn't have a cap on the quarters, the only constrain is the terrain. With all the outputs from quarters - both from adjacency and exploitations - every city can eventually become the same "good" city, which unfortunately reminds me of the "10 pop +3 campus" cities of Civ VI.

 

[Krajzen]

I have a random question, how many resource deposits happen per territory? I do vaguely recall just one source of something in my Babylon open dev, and I am wondering if it was a general rule, that resources are rare and like 0 - 2 per territory. Unlike civ where you cannot walk five miles without stumbling upon resources.

I am asking because I have way too much time and I am currently designing huge map of Earth divided between Territories and even assigning them realistic natural resources, which is hilarious because I don't know anything about actual game balance or whether it will get map editor.

Although I am almost sure that reading about top commodities and products of every Indian state is slightly over the top at this scale of the map.

It will be even better when the game arrives and 100 territories per map is a hard upper limit, as my Earth in satisfying edition has 130 of them : p