Humankind Game by Amplitude

[ehecatzin]

• There are almost always things which could hurt you, even if you are the strongest of the normal players. While Stellaris has the benefit of its sci-fi setting, it would not be impossible to introduce elements which would keep you more on your toes even if you are the front runner.

Yeah on my first playthroughs of Stellaris it came as a shock that there are a lot of events and creatures in space that will one shot you if you are not paying attention, or events that can snowball out of control. It's more chaotic but man is it fun. Civ could benefit from, for example a Khan uniting barbarians and going on a rampage (or pirate fleets as a threat) giving you options on how to handle it...and yes submitting to the Khan and help him on his rampage and wait for him to die and his empire to fracture is a choice.

 

[Lord Xavius]

Another screenshot of a city.

https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1202664018802094080?s=19

I didn't see anyone mention it (apologies if I just missed it), but the building to the right of the big ziggurat seems to be modeled after the Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut near the Valley of the Kings. It could be a wonder or just used as a generic temple model, but I thought I'd make note of it.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I love these ideas. This way the cultures thing becomes similar to a promotion tree...which is not entirely different from Social Policies/Virtues/Traditions/National Ideas in various other games, but in a much more advanced form, where you get to develop your civilization based on what you are actively doing in the game.

Sorry, been a busy week. This is effectively my criticism of HK in a nutshell and how I would have preferred progression be outlined. Instead of choosing a thoroughly unrelated civ to evolve into at each era, it would make far more sense to have a sort of cultural "tree" stemming from prototypical cultures as @seasnake observed. Kind of like how EU evolves polities based on territorial acquisition, except here the tree would be defined by cultural progression (and could, if taking a page out of EU's book, similarly allow "cultural acquisition" to occur in some way to form more complicated civs in the later era). This would be the sort of historical idea or message I would find compelling about a new 4K game: illustrating the branching diversion of civilizations from their cultural roots. Instead, we're just mashing together "empires" while ignoring that they all came from vastly different circumstances and peoples.

Again, to reiterate, I support more 4X games and I don't think the existence of Humankind is a bad thing for evolving the genre, even if it turns out to be a failure. I just don't think I find the direction it's taking promising, certain major creative decisions rub me the wrong way. Hopefully it doesn't bomb too hard to the point of killing off the genre again, and then another studio can take a second stab with more hindsight. But barring something amazing they haven't revealed yet, I think I may end up passing on HK after having so much appreciation for VI. It just feels too much like someone trying to sell me on some arbitrary world fusion music like Nefertiti's Fjord after I had already bought and appreciated Christopher Tin's Song Cycles.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I didn't see anyone mention it (apologies if I just missed it), but the building to the right of the big ziggurat seems to be modeled after the Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut near the Valley of the Kings. It could be a wonder or just used as a generic temple model, but I thought I'd make note of it.

Good Catch!
Since the building appears to be in the same 'style' as the other 'central buildings' in at least two other 'Districts', though, my suspicion would be that it is being used to delineate a certain type of District/Quarter (Religious?) rather than representing a separate'Wonder or Emblematic Building, which I would expect to be more differentiated and stand out more from the rest of a District/Quarter.
There's also the possibility that the artwork is not finalized given that release of the game is still X months out., in which case it could represent anything from a 'regular' Quarter to a Special Quarter to an Emblematic Building to a Wonder.

Sorry, been a busy week. This is effectively my criticism of HK in a nutshell and how I would have preferred progression be outlined. Instead of choosing a thoroughly unrelated civ to evolve into at each era, it would make far more sense to have a sort of cultural "tree" stemming from prototypical cultures as @seasnake observed. Kind of like how EU evolves polities based on territorial acquisition, except here the tree would be defined by cultural progression (and could, if taking a page out of EU's book, similarly allow "cultural acquisition" to occur in some way to form more complicated civs in the later era). This would be the sort of historical idea or message I would find compelling about a new 4K game: illustrating the branching diversion of civilizations from their cultural roots. Instead, we're just mashing together "empires" while ignoring that they all came from vastly different circumstances and peoples.

Again, to reiterate, I support more 4K games and I don't think the existence of Humankind is a bad thing for evolving the genre, even if it turns out to be a failure. I just don't think I find the direction it's taking promising, certain major creative decisions rub me the wrong way. Hopefully it doesn't bomb too hard to the point of killing off the genre again, and then another studio can take a second stab with more hindsight. But barring something amazing they haven't revealed yet, I think I may end up passing on HK after having so much appreciation for VI. It just feels too much like someone trying to sell me on some arbitrary world fusion music like Nefertiti's Fjord after I had already bought and appreciated Christopher Tin's Song Cycles.

I also have misgivings about the Humankind "Semi-Random Cultural Progression" since it bothers me from both a Gamer's and a Historian's viewpoint. From a game standpoint, it appears that no matter how much you Fog Up an Era, you can start over in the next Era with a Cultural Clean Slate, which reduces the importance of every Era you play relative to the game outcome. As a historian, the idea that any Culture is independent of preceding cultures is simply Silly.

On the other hand, given that Civ Players have shown that they can Embrace Immortal Leaders, tiny snapshots of a Civ representing the same Civ over 6000 years - including Civs that have only existed for a few hundred years masquerading as 6000 - year-old Civs (and, by the way, No Civ in Civ games has existed from 4000 BCE to the present: even Sumer did not emerge as a recognizable cultural or political entity until 2000 or more years after the nominal Start of Game in 4000 BCE), and Climate Change tacked on to the end of the game as if that's the only time something like that ever happened, then I have no doubt Humankind can be a very successful Historical 4X game regardless of how it portrays 'history'.

I had started putting together a file of ideas for The Perfect Civilization VII as a starting point for a discussion on these Forums. I've already relabeled it "The Perfect 4X Historical Game" because it is becoming increasingly obvious that neither Firaxis nor Amplitude is going to develop the game I would really, really like to see and play without guidance - or help, - or sheer persistent Harassment.

 

[Elhoim]

They said they are planning on including some kind of "historial limits" on civ selection as an option, so you won't be jumping from olmecs, to romans, to china, to USA.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

On the other hand, given that Civ Players have shown that they can Embrace Immortal Leaders, tiny snapshots of a Civ representing the same Civ over 6000 years - including Civs that have only existed for a few hundred years masquerading as 6000 - year-old Civs (and, by the way, No Civ in Civ games has existed from 4000 BCE to the present: even Sumer did not emerge as a recognizable cultural or political entity until 2000 or more years after the nominal Start of Game in 4000 BCE), and Climate Change tacked on to the end of the game as if that's the only time something like that ever happened, then I have no doubt Humankind can be a very successful Historical 4X game regardless of how it portrays 'history'.

Well, again, I don't mind immortal leaders as a sort of "talking head" for the civ, merely a face given to the people for the player to interact with. Which is why I find the use of "culture heroes" to be somewhat brilliant. I think the leader itself can be reasonably dissociated from any particular era if it is intended to "personify" the people of the civ and give them a spokesperson. That the leaders are from one era or another doesn't bother me; by necessity, a single figurehead, unless completely made up by Firaxis (which drastically reduces the resonance and marketability of a game, see Beyond Earth), would have to come from a distinct point in time. The leaders are not, from my perspective, the core problem for why the civs feel static.

However, I am wholly in agreement that the "snapshot" style civ design is, although iconic, perhaps a bit too self-limiting (and some civs I think make an interesting compromise by trying to pull from many parts of the civs history like Germany or Russia or India). Granted, if the design limitations were "only one UB, UU, UI per civ," then I think the devs have overall maximized resonance with what they have selected. But given more resources and grander aspirations, I definitely agree that actually showing cultural evolution is perhaps the best change Firaxis could make in a Civ VII. It seems like such a natural step forward from V and VI's shift away from imperialism into multiculturalism.

They said they are planning on including some kind of "historial limits" on civ selection as an option, so you won't be jumping from olmecs, to romans, to china, to USA.

First of all, this is clearly inconsistent with their promise of precisely 1 million different permutations (10*10*10*10*10*10). Second, even if this were true it seems both highly ambitious as far as sale and balancing go and highly limiting and unfun at the same time when you are adding additional restrictions to a selection of only ten civs in each era. Based on the marketing material and the actual professed design on the game, even if they are attempting to set "historical limits" I don't see them succeeding particularly well.

 

[mitsho]

First of all, this is clearly inconsistent with their promise of precisely 1 million different permutations (10*10*10*10*10*10). Second, even if this were true it seems both highly ambitious as far as sale and balancing go and highly limiting and unfun at the same time when you are adding additional restrictions to a selection of only ten civs in each era. Based on the marketing material and the actual professed design on the game, even if they are attempting to set "historical limits" I don't see them succeeding particularly well.

The important word there was "option". There's no contradiction when offering a option to satisfy those types of players who just wouldn't want Olmecs -> Romans. How strict they make them (I'm guessing Mycaneans -> Romans would be ok) is up to them.

@Boris Gudenuf It would certainly be an interesting read to see how your "perfect 4 historical strategy game" would look, but I'm certain it would be different from mine. I'm not going to write it down tough There are quite a few suggestions already in the Ideas & Suggestions forum.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The important word there was "option". There's no contradiction when offering a option to satisfy those types of players who just wouldn't want Olmecs -> Romans. How strict they make them (I'm guessing Mycaneans -> Romans would be ok) is up to them.

My observation about the impracticality and generally dissatisfying result holds regardless of whether it is an option or a default feature. It would just make for a disappointing option to a still awkward game structure.

Within HK's paradigm, you'd likely need hundreds of civs to pull off any sort of limited progression tree that doesn't feel like overgeneralized historical fiction that falls somewhere on the "racist" spectrum. I do not think 60 era-specific "civs" is nearly enough for what you are imagining and what others in this thread wish the Civ franchise would pull off.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

@Boris Gudenuf It would certainly be an interesting read to see how your "perfect 4 historical strategy game" would look, but I'm certain it would be different from mine. I'm not going to write it down tough There are quite a few suggestions already in the Ideas & Suggestions forum.

The first words at the top of the design document are:
"This is MY Perfect Game, not Yours. I don't expect anybody to agree with everything here. Shucks, a year from now I probably won't agree with everything here, but this where I would like to start from."

My observation about the impracticality and generally dissatisfying result holds regardless of whether it is an option or a default feature. It would just make for a disappointing option to a still awkward game structure.

Within HK's paradigm, you'd likely need hundreds of civs to pull off any sort of limited progression tree that doesn't feel like overgeneralized historical fiction that falls somewhere on the "racist" spectrum. I do not think 60 era-specific "civs" is nearly enough for what you are imagining and what others in this thread wish the Civ franchise would pull off.

My conclusion, based on her half a century of historical reading, is that every culture is composed of numerous individual traits - some borrowed, some borrowed and warped, a very, very few completely original. To have even a faint hope of representing any significant percentage of the possibilities, I'd think you would have to drop down from the entire Culture/Civilization to the Traits that make it what it is/was, and have your Progression based on the traits, not the entire Civ.

I tried making up an Outline to do that with the Civ V Civilizations, and discovered that even with that rather limited set of Civs to model (compared to the Possible Number of Civs) it couldn't be done without modifying your choices - there are simply some characteristics - some very Defining characteristics - of Cultures that are the result of such a peculiar combination of inherited Ideas and warping them according to another set of developed or inherited ideas that no system can handle it.

So, my (tentative) conclusion is that there would have to be a set of Defining Characteristics that are simply Standard to make a given Civ 'recognizable' to the Gamer. Most of them would be Cultural (Civic) rather than Technical.

For an instance, right now I would make the 'English' Defining Characteristic something like Rule of Law. As in, even their Divine Right Monarchs were required to Obey the common law of the realm, and that eventually included the laws being made by the Law-Makers Who were not the monarchs, but Parliament. That colors everything about the Britons/English government types, internal politics, culture. Being a great sea power is neither peculiarly English/Britons/British nor even true of themselves for the first 5000 years of the game: the English under Alfred didn't start building anything recognizable as a navy until the early Middle Ages.

Using a combination of Defining Characteristics, 'Inherited' Characteristics, and Traits defined by the Terrain/Map/Climate would provide a huge range of possibilities, and in most cases you would start as one recognizable Civ and wind up as another Civ entirely, but not because you chose from a Blank Slate of candidates: because developments in the game and influences from the game narrowed your Choices down as you played.

Doing it that way, though, would be one Big Mother of a project, requiring some serious research to accurately identify hundreds or thousands of Inherited and Defining Characteristics and their possible In-Game effects and interactions. Starting this week it might be done in time for Civ VIII . . .

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

What I think people who are writing off HK because they can't envision Olmecs -> Romans may be missing is that "Romans" in HK may play differently if they evolve out of Olmecs culture than out of an early Mediterranean culture. We don't have enough details to know for sure, but I believe that the choices you make each era "layer up" and affect each future stage of your culture.

So to take a simple example, people see "America" and they think, okay, so that culture will be like modern USA. But what if choosing "America" only adds one or two things to your culture? So that if you evolve into America from a prior English culture then, yeah, it may look and play like modern USA. But what if instead it evolves out of an earlier Chinese culture? Or an earlier Aztec culture? Then in theory you could be running a civilization that plays quite differently.

Still historically plausible, because "America" in that situation does not mean that your prior culture dropped it's previous characteristics and magically morphed into existing America. Instead, it added a couple of things that we associate with stereotypical American culture, but added those to a different base culture, and so ended up with a different civilization altogether.

 

[FinalDoomsday]

Well, again, I don't mind immortal leaders as a sort of "talking head" for the civ, merely a face given to the people for the player to interact with. Which is why I find the use of "culture heroes" to be somewhat brilliant. I think the leader itself can be reasonably dissociated from any particular era if it is intended to "personify" the people of the civ and give them a spokesperson. That the leaders are from one era or another doesn't bother me; by necessity, a single figurehead, unless completely made up by Firaxis (which drastically reduces the resonance and marketability of a game, see Beyond Earth), would have to come from a distinct point in time. The leaders are not, from my perspective, the core problem for why the civs feel static..

The problem with immortal leaders is they don't feel consistent and make diplomacy strange. Other civs will hold onto grudges from hundreds of years ago so bitterly that it prevents cooperation so the constantly shifting alliances to deal with present day threats cannot exist in Civ because the leaders are still too hung up on something that happened a long time ago.

If you try to imagine Civ as a game night with leaders across history it makes a little more sense. Of course Cleopatra is going to still be mad at me at that city I took at the start of the game she will probably still be mad about it tomorrow when we talk at lunch. But then why does Peter find rampant warmongering more palatable in the classical age than in the industrial? Does he not have a consistent view on the morality of war?

It feels like the game needs to decide if its a board game against historical leaders or more of a simulation of history and try to simulate the many changing alliances and enemies that occurred.

So I'm quite happy to see immortal leaders being left out. It does make me wonder how diplomacy will be conducted now, I imagine they will still want to give a 'face' to each civ perhaps through a diplomat or emissary type character perhaps using that 2.5D visuals they use for Endless Legend and Endless Space 2.

 

[aguaacrobata2]

I am a bit late for the party but getting really excited about this project... It took me some time but I read the whole thread, and would like to contribute with my two main concerns as of today...

1. Despite prefering the cities placement in Civ VI to the idea of only one city per region, I am totaly open minded to the latter. My main question to EL and ES players is what is the role of unsettled regions? Are they "workable"? To what extent? Can they be part of my empire? And related to this last question, how do the borders of my empire grow?
2. Probably a totaly secundary concern, I wonder how cities are named and if the name of the cities evolve as my civilization get new traits age after age... If not, and if they are just named after the culture I have adopted in the age they are founded, I believe the name of the cities in my empire will be strongly biased to the earlier cultures, as in Civ VI I tend to settle my cities in the beginning and at the later eras I am more into "growing" them...

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I am a bit late for the party but getting really excited about this project... It took me some time but I read the whole thread, and would like to contribute with my two main concerns as of today...

1. Despite prefering the cities placement in Civ VI to the idea of only one city per region, I am totaly open minded to the latter. My main question to EL and ES players is what is the role of unsettled regions? Are they "workable"? To what extent? Can they be part of my empire? And related to this last question, how do the borders of my empire grow?
2. Probably a totaly secundary concern, I wonder how cities are named and if the name of the cities evolve as my civilization get new traits age after age... If not, and if they are just named after the culture I have adopted in the age they are founded, I believe the name of the cities in my empire will be strongly biased to the earlier cultures, as in Civ VI I tend to settle my cities in the beginning and at the later eras I am more into "growing" them...

Based on one of the early screenshots, your cities use a name from the current civ at the time of founding and keeps that name through whatever civs you pick later.

 

[pokiehl]

Question for those who have played Endless Legend - what is a ballpark range for how many cities you would found in a game?

 

[Elhoim]

What I think people who are writing off HK because they can't envision Olmecs -> Romans may be missing is that "Romans" in HK may play differently if they evolve out of Olmecs culture than out of an early Mediterranean culture. We don't have enough details to know for sure, but I believe that the choices you make each era "layer up" and affect each future stage of your culture.

So to take a simple example, people see "America" and they think, okay, so that culture will be like modern USA. But what if choosing "America" only adds one or two things to your culture? So that if you evolve into America from a prior English culture then, yeah, it may look and play like modern USA. But what if instead it evolves out of an earlier Chinese culture? Or an earlier Aztec culture? Then in theory you could be running a civilization that plays quite differently.

Still historically plausible, because "America" in that situation does not mean that your prior culture dropped it's previous characteristics and magically morphed into existing America. Instead, it added a couple of things that we associate with stereotypical American culture, but added those to a different base culture, and so ended up with a different civilization altogether.

From what I understood, you get to keep the bonuses from the civ type (builder, scientist, expansionist, etc), and the emblematic unit and quarter. Not sure how they will handle upgrading the roman legions to modern times, though

Question for those who have played Endless Legend - what is a ballpark range for how many cities you would found in a game?

Depends on region size setting. Here's a continent in a huge map with I believe small region size, and it's almost 40 cities in a single continent:

Spoiler :

I usually go with big regions as I don't like to end up with too many cities, but their games as quite customizable.

 

[pokiehl]

Thanks Elhoim!

 

[snakeboy]

Did anyone here play Endless Space 2? I bought it for its looks alone, but found it was rather lacking in gameplay and I barely touched 10 hours… Also, the factions seemed a bit generic in distinguishing gameplay, with mainly slight bonuses for food, production or science… Having said that, I'm am def looking forward to a fresh take on the genre and the aesthetic is simply gorgeous...

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

Please allow me to chime in here with some clarifications and additional information.


While it may not have been clear yet, as much of the information was spread across different articles or sometimes described in vague terms, but Trav'ling_Canuck's and Elhoim's description grasps the core idea: You are not changing your culture by replacing everything you were, you are developing your culture by adding a culture of the era you are entering while keeping traits of all your previous cultures (including some architectural landmarks in your cities).

And yes, we are keenly aware that the current era names and even the division reflect a European/Western view of history. This has been a frequent point of discussion internally (just as the names of cultures and their Emblematics have been).
I'm not sure the question of how to name the eras has been settled yet, but we are unlikely to use different names for the eras depending on the culture you play, for the sake of gameplay clarity.

Regarding the cultures themselves, Boris is right to point out that representing all of them and their various developments and exchanges is a monumental task. A task too big for a studio the size of Amplitude to tackle. Possibly a task to big for even much larger studios to tackle.
Consequently, rather than offering the granularity of Boris' system of defining and inherited characteristics, we also rely on what others here have aptly referred to as "snapshot civilizations," a fixed set of qualities that represents the culture at a particular point in time. These "snapshots" are also a big reason for the ability to change your culture as eras change: Because no snapshot culture would be appropriate across the entirety of human history.
As far as I know, offering choices based on historical context was considered early on (but this was before I joined Amplitude, so I am not entirely certain), but discarded as we did not want to restrict player choice, as we can admittedly only deliver a limited number of cultures for the release version. Even between this roster of cultures, we have trouble modelling how they influenced one another, as any given culture may not be present in a particular game. Finally there's the fact that the map is procedurally generated, so may not have much in common with earth geography, meaning that those factors might be different (to stick with Boris' example: What if you played as ancestors of the British throughout the game in some form, and then you are suddenly only given the option to take naval bonuses when you become the British Empire, even though you are landlocked?)
Ultimately, we decided to embrace the "what if" aspect of 4X games and open the choices up completely, but the message is not supposed to be "The Romans could have turned into the Aztecs on a whim!" but rather "in different circumstances (represented in the abstract through the game systems) the Romans might have developed into a culture similar to the Aztecs." They will not be perfect representations of real history Aztecs, even if we try to stay authentic with our representation of the individual "building blocks" of these cultures, but rather your particular Aztecs from that particular world you played in.
Now, whether or not that scratches your particular itch for a historical game is up to you to decide.


Finally, as far as Diplomacy is concerned: You'll learn a little more about that Soon™.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Please allow me to chime in here with some clarifications and additional information.


While it may not have been clear yet, as much of the information was spread across different articles or sometimes described in vague terms, but Trav'ling_Canuck's and Elhoim's description grasps the core idea: You are not changing your culture by replacing everything you were, you are developing your culture by adding a culture of the era you are entering while keeping traits of all your previous cultures (including some architectural landmarks in your cities).

And yes, we are keenly aware that the current era names and even the division reflect a European/Western view of history. This has been a frequent point of discussion internally (just as the names of cultures and their Emblematics have been).
I'm not sure the question of how to name the eras has been settled yet, but we are unlikely to use different names for the eras depending on the culture you play, for the sake of gameplay clarity.

Regarding the cultures themselves, Boris is right to point out that representing all of them and their various developments and exchanges is a monumental task. A task too big for a studio the size of Amplitude to tackle. Possibly a task to big for even much larger studios to tackle.
Consequently, rather than offering the granularity of Boris' system of defining and inherited characteristics, we also rely on what others here have aptly referred to as "snapshot civilizations," a fixed set of qualities that represents the culture at a particular point in time. These "snapshots" are also a big reason for the ability to change your culture as eras change: Because no snapshot culture would be appropriate across the entirety of human history.
As far as I know, offering choices based on historical context was considered early on (but this was before I joined Amplitude, so I am not entirely certain), but discarded as we did not want to restrict player choice, as we can admittedly only deliver a limited number of cultures for the release version. Even between this roster of cultures, we have trouble modelling how they influenced one another, as any given culture may not be present in a particular game. Finally there's the fact that the map is procedurally generated, so may not have much in common with earth geography, meaning that those factors might be different (to stick with Boris' example: What if you played as ancestors of the British throughout the game in some form, and then you are suddenly only given the option to take naval bonuses when you become the British Empire, even though you are landlocked?)
Ultimately, we decided to embrace the "what if" aspect of 4X games and open the choices up completely, but the message is not supposed to be "The Romans could have turned into the Aztecs on a whim!" but rather "in different circumstances (represented in the abstract through the game systems) the Romans might have developed into a culture similar to the Aztecs." They will not be perfect representations of real history Aztecs, even if we try to stay authentic with our representation of the individual "building blocks" of these cultures, but rather your particular Aztecs from that particular world you played in.
Now, whether or not that scratches your particular itch for a historical game is up to you to decide.


Finally, as far as Diplomacy is concerned: You'll learn a little more about that Soon™.

*mashes 'like' button repeatedly*

 

[Jkchart]

Please allow me to chime in here with some clarifications and additional information.


While it may not have been clear yet, as much of the information was spread across different articles or sometimes described in vague terms, but Trav'ling_Canuck's and Elhoim's description grasps the core idea: You are not changing your culture by replacing everything you were, you are developing your culture by adding a culture of the era you are entering while keeping traits of all your previous cultures (including some architectural landmarks in your cities).

And yes, we are keenly aware that the current era names and even the division reflect a European/Western view of history. This has been a frequent point of discussion internally (just as the names of cultures and their Emblematics have been).
I'm not sure the question of how to name the eras has been settled yet, but we are unlikely to use different names for the eras depending on the culture you play, for the sake of gameplay clarity.

Regarding the cultures themselves, Boris is right to point out that representing all of them and their various developments and exchanges is a monumental task. A task too big for a studio the size of Amplitude to tackle. Possibly a task to big for even much larger studios to tackle.
Consequently, rather than offering the granularity of Boris' system of defining and inherited characteristics, we also rely on what others here have aptly referred to as "snapshot civilizations," a fixed set of qualities that represents the culture at a particular point in time. These "snapshots" are also a big reason for the ability to change your culture as eras change: Because no snapshot culture would be appropriate across the entirety of human history.
As far as I know, offering choices based on historical context was considered early on (but this was before I joined Amplitude, so I am not entirely certain), but discarded as we did not want to restrict player choice, as we can admittedly only deliver a limited number of cultures for the release version. Even between this roster of cultures, we have trouble modelling how they influenced one another, as any given culture may not be present in a particular game. Finally there's the fact that the map is procedurally generated, so may not have much in common with earth geography, meaning that those factors might be different (to stick with Boris' example: What if you played as ancestors of the British throughout the game in some form, and then you are suddenly only given the option to take naval bonuses when you become the British Empire, even though you are landlocked?)
Ultimately, we decided to embrace the "what if" aspect of 4X games and open the choices up completely, but the message is not supposed to be "The Romans could have turned into the Aztecs on a whim!" but rather "in different circumstances (represented in the abstract through the game systems) the Romans might have developed into a culture similar to the Aztecs." They will not be perfect representations of real history Aztecs, even if we try to stay authentic with our representation of the individual "building blocks" of these cultures, but rather your particular Aztecs from that particular world you played in.
Now, whether or not that scratches your particular itch for a historical game is up to you to decide.


Finally, as far as Diplomacy is concerned: You'll learn a little more about that Soon™.

I'm just excited to see all the different cultures you will represent both at launch and over time. Color me continually excited!