Humankind - Huns discussion thread

[conorbebe]

The problem is that the composite bow and mounted archery doesn't really get confirmed until about 800 - 750 BCE, which is roughly the start of the Classical Era. For instance, the earliest 'pastoral' horse-riding archers identified were the Cimmerians, but while archeologically they have been dated to 1000 BCE, historically they are first mentioned by the Assyrians in about 750 - 715 BCE. That makes them early and obscurely Classical (obscure except for readers of Robert Howard's original Conan stories, of course).

Earlier, in the 'true' Ancient Era, there are some candidates in Archeologically-identified cultures, but in most cases we don't even know what they called themselves, so turning them into a good in-game Faction is not easy. These would/could include:
Yamnaya Culture - first Kurgan builders known, Maybe first Indo-European speakers
Afanasievo Culture - first mobile pastoralists east of the Urals with domesticated horses
Sintashta Cuture - had short bows, first spoke-wheel chariots found anywhere

It's pretty thin stuff for a valid Ancient pastoral Faction.

I'm aware it wouldn't be the most historically accurate, but if I wanted to include an Ancient Era nomadic culture, I'd choose the Scythians as a more elegant solution. Although they are technically more of a Classical Era culture, the term "Scythians" is also used to refer to similar cultures of the Eurasian Steppe that existed during the Iron Age (including the Cimmerians), and so could potentially be squeezed into the first era. Not sure what the Emblematic Unit would be, but Kurgans would work again here for the EQ.

 

[Siptah]

Does BMAC count as a pastoral culture? It‘s during the heyday of Bronze Age. There are impressive city remains, but I guess most of the population would be nomadic.

 

[SagarRathore]

You mean the Hephthalites right? Really don't know much about them or how similar they are to the Huns but I don't think they are the first that come to mind in Central Asian powers right?

Yes Hepthalites nd their cousins Kidarites.It is not clear of their connection with Huns in Europe but they had similar reputation in this part of world.Their war with Sassanid led to death of King Peroz and kind of vassal state for Iran..their raid in India weakened Gupta Empire..I think they had significant impact and may be sowed seeds for modern day Afghanistan independent from India or Iran in long terms.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm aware it wouldn't be the most historically accurate, but if I wanted to include an Ancient Era nomadic culture, I'd choose the Scythians as a more elegant solution. Although they are technically more of a Classical Era culture, the term "Scythians" is also used to refer to similar cultures of the Eurasian Steppe that existed during the Iron Age (including the Cimmerians), and so could potentially be squeezed into the first era. Not sure what the Emblematic Unit would be, but Kurgans would work again here for the EQ.

What we run into here, I think, is the fact that the "Classical" Era covers almost 1500 years (roughly, 1000 BCE to 500 CE) and so we've got succeeding Pastoral Groups:
Early Classical:
Cimmerians
Scythians - which term covers a bunch of slightly differing groups from the Ukraine to the borders of Mongolia
Xiong-Nu - which early on may have meant "anybody on a horse near China"
Late Classical:
Huns
Sarmatians
Sogdians

What makes for continuity is that once they rode horses, carried composite bows and herded, all of them shared a bunch of traits: felt tents by various names, Kurgans, Tumuli, or other large burial 'mounds', and an emphasis on Trade which made the entire steppe from China to the Danube one big Free Trade Zone, more or less.

And, I think we would be safe and saying that a lot of that probably could be 'backdated' to the late Ancient Era: kurgans certainly date back to before 3000 BCE, as do the light chariot predecessors of the horsemen in the same Central Asian steppes. I think we could safely label them Cimmerians while knowing that chronologically, we're really talking about their predecessors among the 'true' Ancient groups like the Yamnaya, Andronovo, or Afanasievo cultures.

Does BMAC count as a pastoral culture? It‘s during the heyday of Bronze Age. There are impressive city remains, but I guess most of the population would be nomadic.

The Oxus Civilization, or BMAC, is characterized by irrigated grain farming, wheeled carts drawn by oxen or camels, a number of 'city sites', but not, as far as I know, any domestication of the horse. Towards the end of the civ, after 2000 BCE, they started getting influence from their northern neighbors, the Andronovo Culture, which definitely was pastoral with horse-drawn vehicles and herds, but that resulted in a late 'integrated' culture with nomadic/pastoral elements that was not entirely BMAC any more.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

Now that the Huns have been revealed as a playable culture, let me say a few (vague) things about them in game, to give some context to your hopes and speculation.

Firstly, I can already tell you that in spite of how much we've seen that speculated about, the Huns still have cities like any other Culture. I know many of you were hoping for a completely nomadic playstyle, but transitioning from having cities to not having hem opens up a whole slew of design questions and potential implementation issues, so we would rather not rush this kind of feature.
Secondly the Ordu and the Horde both have unique special rules unlike anything available to other cultures, which will should make them play differently than other Cultures in the game. I can't really dive into the details yet, though.

 

[conorbebe]

Now that the Huns have been revealed as a playable culture, let me say a few (vague) things about them in game, to give some context to your hopes and speculation.

Firstly, I can already tell you that in spite of how much we've seen that speculated about, the Huns still have cities like any other Culture. I know many of you were hoping for a completely nomadic playstyle, but transitioning from having cities to not having hem opens up a whole slew of design questions and potential implementation issues, so we would rather not rush this kind of feature.
Secondly the Ordu and the Horde both have unique special rules unlike anything available to other cultures, which will should make them play differently than other Cultures in the game. I can't really dive into the details yet, though.

I think it's completely understandable that you wouldn't want to rework a significant portion of the game just to implement a couple of nomadic cultures, but I do think you deserve praise for making an effort to differentiate them. I look forward to finding out more!

Are you able to confirm or deconfirm if Endless Legends' "Nomadic Cities" will be making a return in some form in Humankind?

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

No, you won't be able to just pack up and move about your Cities as the Huns, sorry.

 

[conorbebe]

No, you won't be able to just pack up and move about your Cities as the Huns, sorry.

Appreciate the answer!

 

[FinalDoomsday]

Now that the Huns have been revealed as a playable culture, let me say a few (vague) things about them in game, to give some context to your hopes and speculation.

Firstly, I can already tell you that in spite of how much we've seen that speculated about, the Huns still have cities like any other Culture. I know many of you were hoping for a completely nomadic playstyle, but transitioning from having cities to not having hem opens up a whole slew of design questions and potential implementation issues, so we would rather not rush this kind of feature.
Secondly the Ordu and the Horde both have unique special rules unlike anything available to other cultures, which will should make them play differently than other Cultures in the game. I can't really dive into the details yet, though.

Thats fine gotta get that core gameplay right before anything else. Was pretty suprised you din't save the Huns for some nomadic expansion later though. Happy to see them in the game though more than anything!

 

[ehecatzin]

Now that the Huns have been revealed as a playable culture, let me say a few (vague) things about them in game, to give some context to your hopes and speculation.

Firstly, I can already tell you that in spite of how much we've seen that speculated about, the Huns still have cities like any other Culture. I know many of you were hoping for a completely nomadic playstyle, but transitioning from having cities to not having hem opens up a whole slew of design questions and potential implementation issues, so we would rather not rush this kind of feature.
Secondly the Ordu and the Horde both have unique special rules unlike anything available to other cultures, which will should make them play differently than other Cultures in the game. I can't really dive into the details yet, though.

Thanks for sheding some light into the Huns, I think It's completely understandable to first make sure the core gameplay is working as intended before opening a whole different branch of playstyles, that's honestly why I believed nomads would be saved for a later DLC/expansion. I imagine that should you want to go deeper into a nomad rework the Huns might get a bit of a facelift then.

That said, I'm very curious as to how the Ordu might relate to horde mechanics, and honestly curious about horde mechanics in general.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

No, you won't be able to just pack up and move about your Cities as the Huns, sorry.

Last year I would have been moaning about this, but I've been doing a lot of reading on the pastoral groups of both Central Asia and western North America (new books on the Xiong-Nu, Lakota and Commanche, among others) and all of them had some kind of 'fixed' locations even when the bulk of the population was mobile. The Chinese government is even pushing for a city to be declared a Cultural Heritage Site because it was originally a Xiong-Nu population center.
Therefore, having 'nomadic cities' does not have to mean Cities That Move, but cities that are surrounded by a population that moves - maybe more mobile Outposts or some kind of Special Attribute for pastoral faction Outposts or whatever non-city mechanism is available to 'control' territories. That would actually come closer to the Historical Reality as it's now understood (and as anybody on these Forums can tell you, I'm always in favor of the Historical Reality whenever it can be crammed into a game in a playable form!)

Of course, that gives you the remaining and not-inconsiderable problem of finding names for the 'nomadic/pastoral' Cities: witness Civilization V's problem with Hun City Names, which they had to work around by, essentially, not having any.

 

[Elhoim]

New picture on twitter, Roman city taken by the Huns.

 

[j51]

Of course, that gives you the remaining and not-inconsiderable problem of finding names for the 'nomadic/pastoral' Cities: witness Civilization V's problem with Hun City Names, which they had to work around by, essentially, not having any.

In Humankind it would make at least a little sense if Hun cities just used names from their in-game predecessor culture. It's not ideal, but it's better than Civ 5. That said I do hope they manage to research an accurate Hun city list.

 

[Siptah]

So the triumphal arch is all but confirmed to be the Roman EQ.

great city graphics for the Huns!

 

[conorbebe]

Our first look at the Hunnic City Centre!

So the triumphal arch is all but confirmed to be the Roman EQ.

great city graphics for the Huns!

One would assume so, unless it's a wonder.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

View attachment 549440

Our first look at the Hunnic City Centre!



One would assume so, unless it's a wonder.

City Center, Shmity Center - look at the population districts spread out between the high hill and the sea! Tents, Yurts, the open spread-out appearance typical of the historical pastoral centers like Sarai Batu or Gelonus!
Hot D**n, but they've done their graphical Homework!

Now my question is, were all those built Post-Conquest by the Huns, or did the original 'Roman' Quarters slowly change, along with their population, into Hun Quarters.
What a neat graphical way to show assimilation/loyalty mechanics right on the Game Map . . .

 

[Siptah]

View attachment 549440

Our first look at the Hunnic City Centre!



One would assume so, unless it's a wonder.

The CC looks a bit like the Mongol's Wonder in AoE2 (Genghis' Tent).
I don't believe the Arch is a wonder, it would be larger and fill more of the tile in that case I think.

Another pleasant surprise in this screenshot:
the hunnic city walls

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The CC looks a bit like the Mongol's Wonder in AoE2 (Genghis' Tent).
I don't believe the Arch is a wonder, it would be larger and fill more of the tile in that case I think.

Another pleasant surprise in this screenshot:
the hunnic city walls

So far, there seems to be a fairly uniform 'palette' of colors for ordinary Quarters - tan, brown, dull red, a uniform thatch, brick, adobe, unpainted wood sort of look. Special Quarters and Wonders, on the other hand, are more colorful - a neat way to make them stand out on the game map. That would make this 'Arch of Triumph' probably a left-over Roman Emblematic of some kind, since I don't know of any such structure associated with any pastoral group.

And we've already seen 'unique' city walls, - for the Chinese and others - so a unique Hun Wall doesn't surprise. It is really neat to see the way they are graphically differentiating amongst the various Factions, though.

Makes me wonder what they could do with, say, a Byzantine Faction and an Emblematic triple Walls of Constantinople!

 

[Siptah]

@Boris Gudenuf we‘ve seen unique wall graphics, but not fence graphics maybe the Huns cannot fortify

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

@Boris Gudenuf we‘ve seen unique wall graphics, but not fence graphics maybe the Huns cannot fortify

That's a very interesting possibility . . .

Now I wonder if that's a Hun-only or a 'Horde' Faction thing that applies to the Mongols also?

Assuming it exists as a separate attribute at all: we've seen 'walls' ranging from simple pasture-like fences (Huns), simple wooden stockades, stone walls, stone walls with towers, and separate 'European Medieval castle' constructions away from the city which, if I read @CatoninetalesAmplitude right, would be a Defensive Quarter (read: Fort in Civ terms, I think). We've also seen Quarters in the city with their own defensive walls - much more substantial than the Hun Fence.

All of which leads me to believe that we still don't know enough about how City Defense progresses and what level it starts at. The Hun Fence seems to indicate virtually no intrinsic defensive capability for a city - but, as you point out, maybe only for Hun Cities. On the other hand, some early-looking cities in the screenshots had only simple wooden stockades, which do not spell City Defense to me, just City Boundary - but, obviously, I can't say that is how Amplitude views them!