Humankind - My Thoughts after Three Full Games

Jkchart

Emperor
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
1,246
Location
Texas
All in all, the biggest takeaway is that I really like the game, and it provides that one-more-turn feel. I do feel very invested in my empire and its character, even if it's a weird amalgamation of cultures that would make some fun head-scratchers in our "real world". Here are some thoughts and areas for improvement in my opinion (which is obviously the only one that matters!! :p jk jk)
  • Cultural Progress vs Scientific Progress still feels disjointed on some level. Granted, the pacing is much better than the previous betas, but it varies greatly from game to game. For instance, in my first game where I placed 3rd, the Persian AI had jumped from Medieval to EM, and then EM to Industrial within 20 turns. For a first full game, this was very jarring. It was one of the harder AIs too (not sure if it was an expert or not). By my third game, however, I was snowballing and able to make up a lot of ground with tech far easier. This game DOES require you to think to properly do it, I appreciate that, and you can't go on autopilot all the time to get the yields you want. But once you start snowballing against AIs, it's kinda hard to stop or for them to catch up.
  • Naval Movement feels fairly slow, unless there were some recent changes between my second and third game because transports seemed faster for that one? Railroads are amazing for land movement, and then there are airports too. But Naval movement feels lacking because of how fast those get late game.
  • Late Game City Building feels great thanks to settlers, construction teams, and the "colony plan" way of founding cities where a new city gets right on its legs with some free industry and all infrastructure from past eras once you unlock certain plans. This is exactly how it SHOULD be (why should I have to build ancient technology that is probably at a sufficiently cheap and advanced state in the contemporary era, after all) and a massive improvement over Civ VI late game cities, where they really struggle unless you have the gold to buy everything. Makes me feel like these newer, later cities matter.
  • Territories works well as a system. I still appreciate the flexibility of Civ's culture borders, but for what Humankind wants to be, cutting down on the city spam and micro is wonderful.
  • Late Game Projects and Fame Techs actually make the late game feel competitive (except in my third game where I finally was able to just blow the AI out of the water). You can really catch up and overtake other players even if you were lagging behind before, and it makes the late game feel less stale. This combined with the above makes late game more exciting than say a 30 turn slog to a diplo victory. In a close game, this helps competitiveness feel appropriately tight and tense.
  • 300 turns feels fairly right for this game (though my last game I finished the tech tree in 265 because Sweden is fantastic with science yields). The final eras do get somewhat laggy/performance heavy, but it's usually not as awful as it can be in Civ VI.
  • Curiosities feel more worth-it than the beta versions, but I got way too many Carracks. So many Carracks one game. Like "this bad boy can fit so many Carracks in it" meme worthy.
  • Possible Bug 1: Had an odd situation in my first game where on turn 300 the Persian AI declared war on me only to instantly surrender, though he had 100 War Support, letting me take a bunch of territory I had demanded from him. Kind of strange.
  • Trade and Resources: I rather like the system that we have for this, and good trade yields to good money. It makes being a mercantile and peaceful player feel viable, especially if you invest in the right infrastructure and maintain fairly good relations worldwide. Resources are INCREDIBLY important and it feels much less of a chore to get to access them with the trade relations and purchasing system. Also, the Luxury Manufactories are a wonderful nod to manufactured goods and I like that if we have a monopoly we can make them a super luxury and flood the world with our amazing ebony craftwork. They might be a bit overtuned in power, but I really like these.
  • Religion and Culture feels very it-or-miss, snowball or falter. I like the systems, but it seems very easy for 2-3 cultures or religions to be the only dominant ones in territories by the end of the game. Part of this is how passive it can be to spread these, mostly more faith/influence = more religion/cultural spread. You can KIND of be strategic about it by choosing who can access your resources, placing districts and infrastructures in territory to make an area from which to build up a huge buffer to spread those, but the hands off approach is fairly limiting with what you can do. I do think it might be interesting to have Priest specialists and a generic religious district, to help religion be a bit more hands on. Influence, I'm not quite sure. I think the systems are fairly nice and interact with other systems (such as trade) rather well, but those are definitely all-or-nothing, with the Aesthetes especially winning out.
  • Modern Warfare: still haven't been able to use Nukes or Air combat after three games, but I like stealth mechanics, the artillery bombardment, and especially machine guns.
  • Performance has been better since the August 20th patch, but sometimes the game does DRAG, music becomes distorted, and reloading will not to a great job to have all of the assets on the map.
  • City Planning is very important for National Projects since you need sufficient space for launch sites and test sites. While sometimes it is annoying, I'm pleased that this is a thing overall because it is both realistic and another layer to consider in the Contemporary era.
  • Possible Bug 2 when a culture transcends eras and a new culture is not picked, the game thinks they are still in that previous era for purposes of UI display. This should be fixed (example, instead of "Mongols have entered the Medieval era and kept their traditions" it should be "Mongols have entered the Early Modern era and kept their traditions".)
  • Cultural Balance is largely excellent, though most are OP in their own ways. Some highlights for me from my recent games include the Austro-Hungarian opernhaus, the Japanese Robotics Lab and Blossoming Innovation, the Swedish Research Institute, the entirety of the Harappan culture, the entirety of the Aksumite culture, the entirety of the Khmer culture, the Zhou Confucian school and power, the Persian ability, and Siamese Gatling Elephants. I still don't quite understand why you would pick the Hittites over the Myceneans though, I would love an explanation as to their power vs. the Mycenean one because the latter just seems so much better.
  • Population Rushing shouldn't be autoblocked with Labor Charter. That is not a good design choice IMO to just cut off the tool at that point. Rather, it should be a Civic choice like Nukes, and you get to pick to keep it (for say reduced stability), or remove it for some small bonus.
  • Nature Reserves are kinda cool, but they don't seem super useful except for some high yield anomaly tiles.
  • Cultures: it hard to tell who is playing who, so I think that popups should display player (culture) so that way the information is a bit more clear.
  • Post-Battle Round Retreat: Not the biggest fan of the only possible retreat being pre-battle. It feels forced, though I'm not sure how the AI would handle having a post-battle round retreat option, and it is fairly unrealistic and leaves a bad feeling in my mouth that it has to be all or nothing, which results in some brutal battles every now and then. I think there should be a post-battle round retreat option (you have one time to select it each round, and if you leave the battle you can't go back and say no), and maybe it costs more war support for retreating that way? (i.e. instead of -5 from pre-battle it is -10 for mid-battle). And perhaps applies a "disorganized" status on units for a turn or two to reduce CS.
  • AI Personality Difficulty and Traits: REALLY should be explained up front since they have traits and difficulty levels and i had no idea until 2 games in.
  • Wonders: Simply feels like there's too few. i fully expect this to change as DLC is added, etc., but having a lot of players makes them very hard to get sometimes.
  • Allies can't really intervene in battles and that is disappointing. I'm sure it's just an AI limitation or something but sucks to not be able to help my friends or hinder my foes.
  • The world fills up and little to no land is left unsettled by game's end, and I really like that. The world feels appropriately full and populated by the end, and that is super important to me. I think the territories system really helps with this (oh and not having city flipping for new cities being as punishing as it is in Civ VI, since there is little to no city flipping to my knowledge).
  • Large and Small Cities ranging from one territory to many both feel viable, and any combination of one to multiple territories can work based on what you need. Of course, having a lot of territories attached to one city is usually more optimal, but if you're cramped space-wise it's not bad to have a couple single territory cities either.
  • Events feel fairly repetitive and not impactful in the late game. I hope more are added and there's a bit more of a rework with these.
  • Defeat Notices on Allies is just plain nonsensical. Can these be disabled for Empires you are allied with? It makes no sense to hear I am losing a war I am not in against an Empire I have perfect relations with.
  • Unit maintenance jumps up comically large between upgrades and if your economy isn't prepared for it then you will suffer. By my third game, I had figured out the FIMS balance a lot better, but dang it feels astronomical sometimes.
  • Buyout costs are better than the Beta, but still feel fairly large unless you have a sizeable gold income. I think it works well right now, but districts do feel a bit cheap compared to units an infrastructure (which I find a tad silly, but the persistent units/relatively cheap upgrades and the free infrastructure for later cities does help balance this).
  • Bug: both my past two games had AI stuck besieging cities (especially noticed with independent people) that never ended. Even when they could assault. This just traps AI units, and is a whole hinderance to the game from an immersion standpoint AND locks down an entire portion of the map. This needs to be addressed (I have all of my save games if needs be, devs).
  • Diplomacy is in a weird state. While the AI behaves fairly sensibly and the treaties make sense, having my ally with full treaties repeatedly spam me with a single demand, have it refused, withdraw, then drop to "hate filled" and cancel our treaties is super wacky. Also, having a demand refused leads you straight to war apparently, unless you withdraw? I like it but that was jarring at first because it means things can get spicy REALLY quick between powerful allies if you're not prepped to back up your demands, unlike unbreakable allies in Civ VI.
  • Tactical Combat AI: Is fairly good at using cover, high ground, and staggering of armies for reinforcements. It also knows when to pick its battles in the overworld, so from a combat perspective it is very satisfying. Sometimes it does do suicidal things (like it feels like, most of the time, it MUST cause damage every turn), leaves its walls when defending to be clobbered, and forgets archers exist. Thankfully gunners make this less of a problem by mid game, but i can win with enough archers on hills and some melee to hold off. I do see them get used, just feels like the AI overemphasizes melee units, or its cultural unit.
  • Nomadic Tribe legacy trait: does this only fire under certain conditions? I feel like I don't get it all the time.
  • One More Turn button (i.e. continue game button after end) makes me happy to see. :)
  • Population snowballing is really what can help you run away. Food is so important because specialists are so important. Thanks to infrastructure making specialists feel valuable, having enough people is really key to playing well (which I think is very important). IMO this means playing an agrarian culture at least once a game will help you out a lot, or at least emphasizing food if you aren't given the opportunity. Your cities mean nothing without their people, which makes sense and i appreciate from a design standpoint.
  • Bug 2: Armies can sometimes just disappear under weird circumstances. In my most recent game, there were two such instances: the first was when I had to get off and I was being ransacked by an Independent People. Upon reloading, those armies were just gone. Second, was after I auto-resolved a battle vs one unit. My main army engaged a Scout Cavalry, and there was a reinforcement army in my battle zone (with Organized Warfare, mind you). This was my entire combat force, and afterword the reinforcement army simply vanished. I was furious since I was in the middle of a tense war. I loaded an autosave which fixed it and placed my armies back, but I was not happy. Wasn't even invisible, just gone.
Those are my thoughts for now. I really like the game and addicted, but mostly I hope they iron out some more balance items, fix a few bugs, and give us more cultures and wonders to expand our options.

Time for some more turns...
 

Krajzen

Deity
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
3,258
Location
Poland
Could you please report the infinite AI siege bug? I really hate it and I would do it mysf but I have no access to my PC right now.

Retreat during battle is not an option probably because it would be vey annoying, breaking the rhythm and especially prone go abuse, such as firing your units at the enemy and then retreating before it can respond lol.

Eras sometimes passing by in 20 turns on normal is madness and imho it should never happen in a balanved version of a game, around 40 should be the best time possible.

Late game city founding, territorial control and micro is so much better here than in civ, I agree. And performance of a game is incredibly good to me when compared with civ6 (probably yrt another sin of 1UPT system).

Religion and sphere of influence are really bad, not only they are utterly passive but they scale only with sheer size of an empire, religion from the largest one always just automatically covers the entire continent after few eras, which is the most boring approach I can imagine. And I still have no idea what even is the purpose of sphere of influence.

Not sure if I'd call cultures balanced as long as thode few which are OP are SO insanely OP and aestethe cultures are goddamn useless in the later eras as you have almost nothing to spend influence on :p Also some cultures like Hittites or India suck so badly (India especially breaks my heart, it is never good in 4x games)
 

Taefin

Prince
Joined
Nov 28, 2020
Messages
445
Glad to see some more support for mid-battle retreat ;) I bet it could be implemented fairly easily, just making the same calculation as the original retreat based on combined strength score, or it could look at the damage per turn dealt by both sides and do a simple prediction of whether it will be in a better or worse place than its opponent after one more turn. Different personas could have different risk tolerance.

I don’t know that this option would be any more prone to abuse if the option was given, say, every game turn (3 rounds of combat). Then you’d still have to withstand a decent amount of fire and some units wound certainly die, though probably only 10-20% of a larger army, which is far more realistic to both ancient and modern warfare. This would also better serve the AI’s strategy of building complete armies of preset units and marching them forward when filled. Sometimes this causes several armies to meet your forces at the same time, but it currently becomes too easy to pick them off 1, 2 or 3 at a time. Instead they should gather their forces until they march/exceed your force, but it is also good to probe your force and keep the pressure on. I don’t think both are possible together with the current mechanics.

Moreover, I think this would be necessary for the AI to properly defend its cities. By the time the fighting in the field ends, the AI usually only has one army and the garrison left to defend the city. If I have to fight their entire army outside a siege, with city tiles included in their battle, just to get to the city to start a siege, it renders siege weapons trivial, as they only become available after the war has been won. I’d rather eventually have 50-75% of our originally forces show down in an epic siege, let that play out over 5-10 turns to build all the weapons while smaller forces skirmish to cut off reinforcements.

When creating the battle map, I think the game should do a quick route search to see if the boundary is artificially cutting off any regions simply by excluding a few tiles. Those tiles should then be added so the player cannot abuse the boundary to create impenetrable archer hangouts. The game does a similar thing including most/all tiles of a city that are part of the battle (which I don’t really agree with).

I really fully support most/all observations in your review, hopefully some Amplitude folks see them:)
 

Jkchart

Emperor
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
1,246
Location
Texas
Could you please report the infinite AI siege bug? I really hate it and I would do it mysf but I have no access to my PC right now.

Retreat during battle is not an option probably because it would be vey annoying, breaking the rhythm and especially prone go abuse, such as firing your units at the enemy and then retreating before it can respond lol.

Eras sometimes passing by in 20 turns on normal is madness and imho it should never happen in a balanved version of a game, around 40 should be the best time possible.

Late game city founding, territorial control and micro is so much better here than in civ, I agree. And performance of a game is incredibly good to me when compared with civ6 (probably yrt another sin of 1UPT system).

Religion and sphere of influence are really bad, not only they are utterly passive but they scale only with sheer size of an empire, religion from the largest one always just automatically covers the entire continent after few eras, which is the most boring approach I can imagine. And I still have no idea what even is the purpose of sphere of influence.

Not sure if I'd call cultures balanced as long as thode few which are OP are SO insanely OP and aestethe cultures are goddamn useless in the later eras as you have almost nothing to spend influence on :p Also some cultures like Hittites or India suck so badly (India especially breaks my heart, it is never good in 4x games)
I’ll try to report the bug when I get a second tonight, it’s probably the worst bug for me. There were at least two never ending siege zones on my starting continent this go around.

i recognize that the pacing and the no mid battle retreat are just necessary for the game probably, so not too sore about either, just things I think if it is possible to take a second look at then I’d like them to. And I’m glad we see eye to eye on late game cities! It’s much better now than the state in Civ VI.

Religion and Influence aren’t BAD IMO it’s just wayyyyy too hands off and probably needs some way for the player to invest their influence in it they have accumulated (I think that would be an awesome use for the excess amount in the late game!).

So the point of sphere of influence is this: the more territories a player has in your SOI, the closer their culture is to yours. This means with the AI you generally have better relationships, and it is costlier on your war support to declare a war against an Empire that heavily influences you. Additionally, the more territories you have in another player’s SOI will give you more (and more frequent) osmosis events. The first is the science one, which gives you a science boost (this assumes the culturally dominant player has at least one tech you don’t), and second is the civics one, which forces you to either change a civic or suffer a stability hit in the city that requested the change. (Also, independent people in your SOI are cheaper to patronize) Overall, there’s a lot of good mechanics for influence/culture (unlike how Civ treats it nowadays, even though i do like the culture tech tree personally), I just think it needs to have a bit more of a hands on component and for the information to be present better.

i haven’t really come across any bad cultures, but the Hittites puzzle me. India, if you’re playing very well culturally, gets you money for every territory in your sphere of influence. That’s probably more territories than you actually own, so before any multipliers if you influence 50 territories thats 500 money. And the peacekeeper is suitably strong to give you a hefty defense in the late game. I like them. OP? No, but if you can game the culture mechanics you can make a lot out of your religion late game as well as some extra cash. I do think we should be able to invest that generated influence into things other than wonders and territories and civics though, especially late game. And it makes sense!!! With all the soft power conflicts and culture wars instead of full scale wars in the contemporary era i.e. today we should have something like that here.

Glad to see some more support for mid-battle retreat ;) I bet it could be implemented fairly easily, just making the same calculation as the original retreat based on combined strength score, or it could look at the damage per turn dealt by both sides and do a simple prediction of whether it will be in a better or worse place than its opponent after one more turn. Different personas could have different risk tolerance.

I don’t know that this option would be any more prone to abuse if the option was given, say, every game turn (3 rounds of combat). Then you’d still have to withstand a decent amount of fire and some units wound certainly die, though probably only 10-20% of a larger army, which is far more realistic to both ancient and modern warfare. This would also better serve the AI’s strategy of building complete armies of preset units and marching them forward when filled. Sometimes this causes several armies to meet your forces at the same time, but it currently becomes too easy to pick them off 1, 2 or 3 at a time. Instead they should gather their forces until they march/exceed your force, but it is also good to probe your force and keep the pressure on. I don’t think both are possible together with the current mechanics.

Moreover, I think this would be necessary for the AI to properly defend its cities. By the time the fighting in the field ends, the AI usually only has one army and the garrison left to defend the city. If I have to fight their entire army outside a siege, with city tiles included in their battle, just to get to the city to start a siege, it renders siege weapons trivial, as they only become available after the war has been won. I’d rather eventually have 50-75% of our originally forces show down in an epic siege, let that play out over 5-10 turns to build all the weapons while smaller forces skirmish to cut off reinforcements.

When creating the battle map, I think the game should do a quick route search to see if the boundary is artificially cutting off any regions simply by excluding a few tiles. Those tiles should then be added so the player cannot abuse the boundary to create impenetrable archer hangouts. The game does a similar thing including most/all tiles of a city that are part of the battle (which I don’t really agree with).

I really fully support most/all observations in your review, hopefully some Amplitude folks see them:)

all fair points! Hoping to see more content for the game soon
 

Guynemer

King
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
848
I don't know why expansionist and militarist cultures are separate things. Combine them, add two more cultures to each era, and have two of each of the six types in each era.

I like symmetry.

I assume both religion and culture will get fleshed out in future patches, preferably not DLC but I'm cynical enough to know that's unlikely.
 

Jkchart

Emperor
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
1,246
Location
Texas
I don't know why expansionist and militarist cultures are separate things. Combine them, add two more cultures to each era, and have two of each of the six types in each era.

I like symmetry.

I assume both religion and culture will get fleshed out in future patches, preferably not DLC but I'm cynical enough to know that's unlikely.
Well expansion is not necessarily about military, it’s about controlling territory, just like militarism isn’t necessarily about expansion but it often goes with it. It’s not my favorite of the affinities but it has its niche and I like that it is an option, but I also like symmetry so I say just gimme a religious affinity as an eighth and make sure every era has at least 2 of each culture type!

i won’t be surprised to see changes to religion and culture. If plenty of people think it’s too difficult to understand, shapeless, etc then I’m sure there will be some tuning
 

fortydayweekend

Warlord
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
239
Re mid-battle retreat - I was thinking it could be that you can retreat off the edge of the battlefield, but only on the last (third) round each turn. That way the attacking army gets a chance to cause some damage (even to faster troops) while the defender has a chance for some units to get away, especially on the right terrain with a narrow pass or gap that can be covered with a couple of sacrificial units.

Religion and culture are basically just Casus Belli generators right now, with a bit of science catchup. I'd like to see more... and a lot more science osmosis so that no-one is ever more than 1 era behind their neighbours.
 

Elhoim

Iron Tower Studio Dev
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Messages
2,657
Location
San Isidro, Argentina.
Well, a way to mid-battle retreat is just to give up your flag. It counts as a loss, as it should be, but you get to save your units.
 

Jkchart

Emperor
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
1,246
Location
Texas
Could you please report the infinite AI siege bug? I really hate it and I would do it mysf but I have no access to my PC right now.

FYI @Krajzen I've got a bug report up here https://www.games2gether.com/amplit...unable-to-resolve-siege-vs-independent-people if you'd like to add to it.

Re mid-battle retreat - I was thinking it could be that you can retreat off the edge of the battlefield, but only on the last (third) round each turn. That way the attacking army gets a chance to cause some damage (even to faster troops) while the defender has a chance for some units to get away, especially on the right terrain with a narrow pass or gap that can be covered with a couple of sacrificial units.

Religion and culture are basically just Casus Belli generators right now, with a bit of science catchup. I'd like to see more... and a lot more science osmosis so that no-one is ever more than 1 era behind their neighbours.

An interesting idea for sure on the retreat! And I'd also like to see more for religion and culture/influence. I'm glad the system at least works, but a bit more player agency here would be great at the very least. Not that I'm advocating the Civ V/VI way of the apostle spam...but maybe a few extra constructions and items to use/spread that influence and faith, though reading on the wiki about how it works has certainly helped me learn to create more dominance for these.

Well, a way to mid-battle retreat is just to give up your flag. It counts as a loss, as it should be, but you get to save your units.

True, but you still have to have units survive until the end of the battle since I believe that you still have to wait until the end of the third round. But I never thought of it that way!

This only triggers if you get the science star in the Neolithic Era.

Thank you!
 

Taefin

Prince
Joined
Nov 28, 2020
Messages
445
Well, a way to mid-battle retreat is just to give up your flag. It counts as a loss, as it should be, but you get to save your units.

Those are the lines I was thinking along, if it works to take/give up your flag, then it should be within the intended dynamics to basically give up your flag voluntarily. Where a mechanic is missing is a change for the attacker to retreat, say if the defender brings in heavy reinforcements. In contrast the game actually breaks a bit in its current form if the attacker keeps their units pulled back because they know they out outnumbered, the defender is forced to either attack or be occupied by the battle for 6 turns, locking down their city.

I’d actually add an additional mechanism where if an entire three round turn goes by without the attacker dealing damage, then the defender wins. Because then they aren’t apply any pressure and there is know reason why the defending army shouldn’t be able to reposition/heal and why the city shouldn’t be able to go about it’s business.
 

snakeboy

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
46
Nice list, clear presentation - thank you.

I disagree about Trade though. Trade in HK is even less interesting than in Civ 6. You literally click a button and voila: a bonus for money - that's the whole trade system. You don't even need harbors, or traders or anything. There's no cap: you can buy everything at once as long as you have the money. Extremely disappointing, especially since trade is such an enormous growth factor in the history of mankind. I wish and hope they will come up with an expanded system that really gives you trade "agency" and the possibility to create centers of trade, including real challenges to maintain them.
 

Shadowhal

Warlord
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
234
On combat retreat:

I propose an option for both combatants at the start of each battle round to retreat. That option would only be available if no units have taken any actions and it would end that players battle round. The opponent then gets one more round of retaliation free actions. That is, they can use all their units as normal but suffer no damage when attacking units, to simulate that fleeing units don't put up much resistance. Any units not killed survive the battle. The army gets the same "retreating" status as with the existing retreat option but the hit to war score is larger.

I think this option would still give the winning side an opportunity to benefit from their performance but would pose a viable option to present some of the forces for the loser, once it becomes clear that the battle was lost... But at a cost. This option would also make wars more difficult as it would be harder to gain an unbeatable advantage after just one or two decisive battles.

I dimly recall some old game using this or a similar mechanic but I can't remember which one or whether there were issues with it.
 

Victoria

Regina
Supporter
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
11,883
Religion and Influence aren’t BAD IMO it’s just wayyyyy too hands off and probably needs some way for the player to invest their influence in it they have accumulated (I think that would be an awesome use for the excess amount in the late game!).
I disagree, you can go down a religious nutter rathole, you can just take a religion which seems what everyone does, you can also not take a religion can’t you?
I mean it’s a civic and I get tired of annoying the ‘Allie s’ with blames of converting their cities. Influence is another area where there is plenty there if you want to use it. You want a late game option? Switch some civics around to give you +2 strength or science, or to make you more appealing to an IP or ‘ally’. Merge your cities but yes, late game influence should have some better mechanics in the contemporary

that's the whole trade system.
Is it? For example I want to attack A, A hates me, but is on an alliance with B and I have a tonne of trade routes to B.
I attack A, my trade routes stop, my stability plummets because they were being held up by trade and my army suck my money dry…. End of game. Have you played civ or HK level yet? It gets a lot trickier, no-one that is a civ player should be playing under empire after a couple of games unless testing something, it is truly a faceroll but I guess people get their pleasures in different ways.
 

snakeboy

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
46
Is it? For example I want to attack A, A hates me, but is on an alliance with B and I have a tonne of trade routes to B.
I attack A, my trade routes stop, my stability plummets because they were being held up by trade and my army suck my money dry…. End of game. Have you played civ or HK level yet? It gets a lot trickier, no-one that is a civ player should be playing under empire after a couple of games unless testing something, it is truly a faceroll but I guess people get their pleasures in different ways.

Trade routes getting cancelled because of alliances isn't really saying much about the trade mechanic imo. But following your logic I don't see how it adds to it. If cancelled trade routes means "end of game", the only choice is to not go to war then as long as the alliance is there - not much of complexity there.
I also fail to see your point about higher difficulty, as difficulty doesn't change mechanics but only ups the challenge artificially.
 

Victoria

Regina
Supporter
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
11,883
Trade routes getting cancelled because of alliances isn't really saying much about the trade mechanic imo. But following your logic I don't see how it adds to it. If cancelled trade routes means "end of game", the only choice is to not go to war then as long as the alliance is there - not much of complexity there.
I also fail to see your point about higher difficulty, as difficulty doesn't change mechanics but only ups the challenge artificially.
This is not civ, the higher difficulty, the more ‘personality’ the other empires have, it really is different and no cancelling your trade routes is not game over, as long as you are aware of where you are spending your money. But hey, we throw our views out there and right and wrong is just a matter of perception I guess.
This is just the first release of the game, civ was a shambles at the beginning. Give them time but the feedback I am sure is all appreciated.
 

Aristos

Lightseeker
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
3,912
Location
Deep inside...
Is it? For example I want to attack A, A hates me, but is on an alliance with B and I have a tonne of trade routes to B.
I attack A, my trade routes stop, my stability plummets because they were being held up by trade and my army suck my money dry…. End of game.

Exactly right. There is much more nuance there than meets the eye. The system and interface are streamlined compared to other competitors, but the implications seem deeper and far stretching.
 

Taefin

Prince
Joined
Nov 28, 2020
Messages
445
I hope that influence/culture take on more dynamics when it comes to stability. Perhaps just reduce stability income by 50% in cities that are unit under your influence, or (and this might be too complex for be flavor of HK) make it range form a 0-50% penalty proportional with your share of influence on the city, perhaps with a flat 50 point penalty for not being in sphere of influence. This would weaken conquest without influence. And perhaps give everyone the option to spend influence to convert a region, and led Aesthetes ability to use money for this, or give them this option over other empires’s cities (spending in one of your cities applies pressure to neighboring cities from other empires).

I think trade, religion and culture are great being mostly passive but having very real effects. There are perhaps a few too many faith boosting cultures mid-late game when often the war over religion is over or narrowed down to 2-3. Also quick question, who benefits from religious tenets? I’m games when an AI snatches my religion from me I still benefit, but does that mean that any empire who is majority that religion benefits? So that the warfare ones are only valid when fighting empires with different religions?
 

Siptah

Eternal Chieftain
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
5,509
Location
Lucerne
Everyone whose state religion it is benefits. The only benefit of being religious leader of a religion (=empire with most of their holy sites) is that they can choose the tenets (and the name and buildings).
 
Top Bottom