I finally played a bit of Humankind and could compare ages / culture switch mechanics

[stealth_nsk]

As I see, while it may look similar, it's actually totally different.

In Civ7 ages and civilization switch has multiple goals:

1. Instead of early, mid and late civs, we always have civ uniques actual (and the system where unique unit replaces more than one base unit helps here)
2. Simultaneous age switch allows changing game rules to better reflect different periods of history
3. Crises and some degradation of previous age achievements limit snowballing
4. Age goals allow making shorter games (especially for MP) within one age

In contrast, Humankind achieves only the first goal. So, it's huge difference - in Civ7 I see this approach as justified, while in Humankind it's a mostly a fluff.

 

[LastSword]

Except that those are two different mechanisms (ages and civilization switch) and you kind of compared an ages.
Culture switching is kind of the same: choose civilization, obtain uniques. It would be hard to come up with something different.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Except that those are two different mechanisms (ages and civilization switch) and you kind of compared an ages.
Culture switching is kind of the same: choose civilization, obtain uniques. It would be hard to come up with something different.

Yep, strictly speaking it's age switching mechanics, for which both games came to switch civilizations as well. Strictly speaking, simultaneous age switch without civilization change would be possible and kind of solve most of the problems there. But simultaneous age switching also have some consequences:

1. The problem with civilizations affecting different ages intensifies as ages are more or less separate. Without civ switching it would look as if 1/3 of civilizations have advantage. Or you'd have to invent totally fictional bonuses for each civilization in each age
2. This piles up with the concept of playing only one age in multiplayer. If you decide to play modern only, there's no reason to pick civ with antiquity age bonuses

So those 2 mechanics are deeply interwoven and mechanics of simultaneous age switching wouldn't work for those problems without civilization switch.

 

[Krikkit1]

Except that those are two different mechanisms (ages and civilization switch) and you kind of compared an ages.
Culture switching is kind of the same: choose civilization, obtain uniques. It would be hard to come up with something different.

Actually a few differences with civ and humankind civ switching

Choosing the civ
HK: race first come first served
Civ: human first, but unlocks required

“Remembering” the civ
HK: old UQ, and UA (uu didn’t automatically go obsolete either you just couldn’t build more)
Civ: old UB/I, and Unique Policies that you have to research and choose to use or not

 

[Brutus2]

It's been awhile since I played Humankind so I apologize if I'm remembering this incorrectly but as I recall, the issue with Humankind was that everything on the map changed. Every civ suddenly had a new name, new flag and colors and I think all of the cities on the map also changed names. That made it very confusing. It looks like that is not the case here. We have seen that city names, flags, colors and leaders all remain so the map will look exactly the same after a transition. The names of the civs will change but it seems like you rarely actually see the civ names. When you enter diplomacy you will still see the same leader with the same flag and colors and all the cities on the map will still have the same names and flags.

 

[Siptah]

It's been awhile since I played Humankind so I apologize if I'm remembering this incorrectly but as I recall, the issue with Humankind was that everything on the map changed. Every civ suddenly had a new name, new flag and colors and I think all of the cities on the map also changed names. That made it very confusing. It looks like that is not the case here. We have seen that city names, flags, colors and leaders all remain so the map will look exactly the same after a transition. The names of the civs will change but it seems like you rarely actually see the civ names. When you enter diplomacy you will still see the same leader with the same flag and colors and all the cities on the map will still have the same names and flags.

You remember it wrong. Only the name changes in HK. Leader, colors, symbol, and cities remain the same. In that sense, civ VII does the same thing.

 

[Krikkit1]

You remember it wrong. Only the name changes in HK. Leader, colors, symbol, and cities remain the same. In that sense, civ VII does the same thing.

I believe in Civ the symbols (flags) will change

 

[Zaarin]

Also, Humankind lacked the "layering" they've achieved in Civ7. So often your culture choices in HK never felt meaningful because you rarely founded cities after the early ages as the price of new cities skyrocketed.

 

[anemo]

The main problem with humankind is that it has 7 eras and before you know it, you find yourself with a new culture. You don't have the time to play and learn every one of them. Also, the fact that your opponents aren't known historical personas, make it difficult to keep track who are your opponents and that kills the immersion. But the biggest problem for me is the way you win with prestige. It has only score victory and in most cases you know that you are going to win or lose from early in the game. Ofcourse the game has good aspects also, like its beautiful map and interesting battle system.

 

[Zaarin]

Ofcourse the game has good aspects also, like its beautiful map and interesting battle system.

I think the map is pretty-ish but bland (which describes most of HK aesthetically--so unlike its quirky predecessors). I hated the battle system, though. It was too much work/took too much time, and they handicapped you if you auto-resolved.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

How to spot an obvious troll: anyone referring to Civ VII as HK 2.

It all comes down to the Ages structure. I can see why it still doesn't appeal to everyone, but switching makes sense in the context of this structure; here's hoping they can pull it off.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I think the map is pretty-ish but bland (which describes most of HK aesthetically--so unlike its quirky predecessors). I hated the battle system, though. It was too much work/took too much time, and they handicapped you if you auto-resolved.

The HMK battle system has many interesting quirks (army group for easy movement, cavalry power spike, height differences, every unit in the late game is ranged, not to say very good combat AI compared to Civ 5 or 6), but everything happening on a separate map can be strange sometimes, while blocking a lot of stuff on the normal map.

The biggest offender, though, is probably the very high guaranteed minimum damage of ranged units. With enough Ancient Archers, you can murder a Contemporary Era Main Battle Tank, simply because every Archer can deal a minimum damage of 5-8 to everything, while a Tank only has 100 HP.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The HMK battle system has many interesting quirks (army group for easy movement, cavalry power spike, height differences, every unit in the late game is ranged, not to say very good combat AI compared to Civ 5 or 6), but everything happening on a separate map can be strange sometimes, while blocking a lot of stuff on the normal map.

The biggest offender, though, is probably the very high guaranteed minimum damage of ranged units. With enough Ancient Archers, you can murder a Contemporary Era Main Battle Tank, simply because every Archer can deal a minimum damage of 5-8 to everything, while a Tank only has 100 HP.

Everything happening on a separate map and decent combat AI are connected things. The bigger the map is, the harder for AI is to play decently on it.

But, of course, playing on the main map is much better due to interaction with the rest of the game.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Everything happening on a separate map and decent combat AI are connected things. The bigger the map is, the harder for AI is to play decently on it.

But, of course, playing on the main map is much better due to interaction with the rest of the game.

HMK AI is surprisingly good at maneuvering on the main map as well (probably thanks to the army group mechanic). In my experience, it is very common for AI to use a small army group on the main map to bait your attack, and hide a larger army group as reinforcement in the fog of war. Once the battle map opens, AI will dump the larger army into the battle map to overwhelm you (as you cannot retreat mid-battle, almost every battle in HMK is an annihilation battle no matter what, thanks to this separate map system), and I found an AI that can surprise me in the combat much more fun.

Hence, I found Civ 7's commander army stack really promising.

 

[stealth_nsk]

HMK AI is surprisingly good at maneuvering on the main map as well (probably thanks to the army group mechanic). In my experience, it is very common for AI to use a small army group on the main map to bait your attack, and hide a larger army group as reinforcement in the fog of war. Once the battle map opens, AI will dump the larger army into the battle map to overwhelm you (as you cannot retreat mid-battle, almost every battle in HMK is an annihilation battle no matter what, thanks to this separate map system), and I found an AI that can surprise me in the combat much more fun.

Hence, I found Civ 7's commander army stack really promising.

HMK combat is generally limited stacks of doom with some additional tactics inside. I'd say Civ4 was already pretty decent at maneuvering SoDs on the map (although HMK is surely better with all that time differences). Coordination between units on map is another thing there AI fails with numbers as complexity grows exponentially. So sync between 2 armies is much easier than between 10-20 units in civ5-7 combat. So, yep, nothing surprizing here.

Overall I see HMK combat (and all it's predecessors like Age of Wonders) as simple and clean. It's easy to handle by AI, it's easy to manage, but it doesn't interact with strategy too much. Civ7 goes all in - it tries to solve the problem of moving significant number of units without losing any strategic interactions. It's hard for AI and it's may be not super intuitive for human players, but if it works, it should be cool.

 

[Rob Airdrie]

While I can understand why some players would find HK's battle mechanisms frustrating or slow, I loved them - especially when factoring in elevation and cover etc. I particularly enjoyed laying siege to a city - I really enjoyed building up the siege engines if the enemy gave me enough time. However, repeated skirmishes between scouts could definitely get annoying!

 

[LastSword]

Yep, strictly speaking it's age switching mechanics, for which both games came to switch civilizations as well. Strictly speaking, simultaneous age switch without civilization change would be possible and kind of solve most of the problems there. But simultaneous age switching also have some consequences:

1. The problem with civilizations affecting different ages intensifies as ages are more or less separate. Without civ switching it would look as if 1/3 of civilizations have advantage. Or you'd have to invent totally fictional bonuses for each civilization in each age
2. This piles up with the concept of playing only one age in multiplayer. If you decide to play modern only, there's no reason to pick civ with antiquity age bonuses

So those 2 mechanics are deeply interwoven and mechanics of simultaneous age switching wouldn't work for those problems without civilization switch.

If I can choose Benjamin Franklin to lead Egypt then I can start in modern era as Egypt and american uniques (reason might be my favourite music or just playing as my favourite civilization). Seriously, there is no point to keep "Player -> Civilization -> Uniques" mentality, especially after what civ7 did to leaders.
There could also be an alternative ways of obtaining uniques.

Therefore I differ. It was just a design choice. Nothing interwoven or necessary.

Actually a few differences with civ and humankind civ switching

Choosing the civ
HK: race first come first served
Civ: human first, but unlocks required

“Remembering” the civ
HK: old UQ, and UA (uu didn’t automatically go obsolete either you just couldn’t build more)
Civ: old UB/I, and Unique Policies that you have to research and choose to use or not

Thanks for the write up! I was looking for something like that.

I acknowledge that those are differences, however just details.
If anything I would like civ7 to make an order of picking based on some era score or whatever. It would still be "human first" 95%+ of times yet it would not feel like player is handicapped. It would be much better for multiplayer as well.

 

[Siptah]

While I can understand why some players would find HK's battle mechanisms frustrating or slow, I loved them - especially when factoring in elevation and cover etc. I particularly enjoyed laying siege to a city - I really enjoyed building up the siege engines if the enemy gave me enough time. However, repeated skirmishes between scouts could definitely get annoying!

Seconded. I love the tactical battles (except for very late game). Yet, I think EL and AoW4 are even better (apart from sieges) because fantasy themes allow for more unit variety. I can‘t see how civ VII could be anywhere near HK for me personally when it comes to battles.

 

[anemo]

I think the map is pretty-ish but bland (which describes most of HK aesthetically--so unlike its quirky predecessors). I hated the battle system, though. It was too much work/took too much time, and they handicapped you if you auto-resolved.

You are not wrong. What I liked in the map especially was elevation and the battle was indeed too much work, but I liked big sieges. Anyway I played it, but went back to civ.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If I can choose Benjamin Franklin to lead Egypt then I can start in modern era as Egypt and american uniques (reason might be my favourite music or just playing as my favourite civilization). Seriously, there is no point to keep "Player -> Civilization -> Uniques" mentality, especially after what civ7 did to leaders.
There could also be an alternative ways of obtaining uniques.

Therefore I differ. It was just a design choice. Nothing interwoven or necessary.

How do you see it?

If you mean remove all unique properties from civilizations and make all unique properties to leaders, than yes, there's no need to switch civilizations as they are all the same. But in this case you need to switch leaders, which is more painful as leader is a core for roleplaying (not to mention removing uniques from civilizations would look really bad).

If you mean removing ALL unique properties and everyone play the same... Well, we've seen it in Civ 1 and 2. Never returned to this formula again, because it's kind of boring.