Nomadic cultures on Vanilla

[ehecatzin]

So, about this screenshot:

Spoiler :

Amplitude has made clear about how the game starts you as a hunter gatherer, exploring and finding a suitable place to go sedentary and choose a Bronze age culture, also given the massive importance cities have on the map (they are huge) It would be odd to go say: Egypt, Huns, Byzantium, Golden Horde....

Even if the goal of the game is to mix and match cultures, nomad doesn't seem to have a place at the moment in game beyond the first Era, the screen shows Huns and Mongols for what we could especulate are the equivalent of the "barbarian faction", but they will probably be minor factions that are event based, if that's the case, maybe other distruptive forces like the Sea Peoples or even Pirates could be a thing.

Now here's the thing, I don't think we'll get playable nomads on vanilla, given the focus on city building they will probably need their own set of mechanics to go around, and maybe that's for the better, DLC or Expansion material, maybe Nomads could get their own set of cultures to choose from so we could end up with a richer list of nomads we would get otherwise, Scythians, Gokturks, Mongols, Golden Horde, Xiongnu, Alans, Magyar, Pechengs, Khazars, Sioux, Comanche, Sami, etc.

My ideal would be to either choose sedentary or nomad at bronze age, follow each tree, and maybe after enough eras or conquering enough cities you get an option to go sedentary, heck you could even make some cultures only unlockable if you transitioned from a nomadic culture (Hungary, Yuan, etc)

I think we'll know for sure when the classical list is done about those Huns on the screenshot, I'm prepared to not have Mongols on vanilla if that means an fleshed out nomad mechanics later on.

so..do you think Nomas will be playable on vanilla?

 

[Siptah]

I don't think so. I suspect Huns and Mongols come as kind of barbarian factions in vanilla. Hopefully with a lot of punch to really bring something like a fresh start in the regions concerned. You accumulate fame and build up a mighty empire, then get a set back by the huns/mongols etc. Afterwards you might want to try to get fame in a different area or specialize differently (by choosing the appropriate culture for the tasks ahead).

Providing the choice to stay nomadic in bronze age and afterwards seems a good expansion seller imo.

And as you say, it's quite tricky what would happen if you settle down, build a lot, develop your cities and then switch into a nomadic pirate republic (yes, I know they were not strictly nomads) in the industrial age.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Sigh. I've argued for Nomadic/Pastoral Cultures/Civs in Civ for ages (since Civ V, anyway) but it ain't happening. I was ecstatic when I heard about Humankind's Neolithic/Nomadic Start, because I thought For Sure they would give at least one NOmadic/Pastoral Option to advance into the Bronze Era (Cimmerians, Xong-Nu or Scythians spring to mind).

Now it doesn't look like it.
The best I can hope for now is that the Huns and Mongols shown are going to be regular Factions with some kind of Light Cavalry or Horse Archer 'bonus' - perhaps they are the only Factions that can have Horse Archers, or, like Civ VI's Scythians, they can build twice as many as anybody else. Unfortunately, I'm now afraid they will get that in the context of a 'normal' city-building Faction.

Which is a shame, because, from other screenshots, they have some kind of Outpost, a non-city Something that is separate from regular cities (among other things, it's Un-named in the screenshot: a Proto-City or City Substitute to claim territory?). That would seem to me to be a perfect mechanism to adopt for a Pastoral Faction - no cities, but Outposts or Settlements that can claim territory, 'research' technology, and be moved to new territories/Regions at will.

Missed Opportunity, Amplitude!

 

[Jkchart]

Sigh. I've argued for Nomadic/Pastoral Cultures/Civs in Civ for ages (since Civ V, anyway) but it ain't happening. I was ecstatic when I heard about Humankind's Neolithic/Nomadic Start, because I thought For Sure they would give at least one NOmadic/Pastoral Option to advance into the Bronze Era (Cimmerians, Xong-Nu or Scythians spring to mind).

Now it doesn't look like it.
The best I can hope for now is that the Huns and Mongols shown are going to be regular Factions with some kind of Light Cavalry or Horse Archer 'bonus' - perhaps they are the only Factions that can have Horse Archers, or, like Civ VI's Scythians, they can build twice as many as anybody else. Unfortunately, I'm now afraid they will get that in the context of a 'normal' city-building Faction.

Which is a shame, because, from other screenshots, they have some kind of Outpost, a non-city Something that is separate from regular cities (among other things, it's Un-named in the screenshot: a Proto-City or City Substitute to claim territory?). That would seem to me to be a perfect mechanism to adopt for a Pastoral Faction - no cities, but Outposts or Settlements that can claim territory, 'research' technology, and be moved to new territories/Regions at will.

Missed Opportunity, Amplitude!

The good news being, though, that they at least have the tools already for nomadic factions to exist at all, and they could expand on it with a juicy DLC.

 

[mitsho]

Yeah, i don’t see it happening. But it would be a good theme for an expansion pack ;-)

 

[Elhoim]

Yeah, I have some kind of hope due to the Endless Legends faction that was "nomadic" and could move cities around.

 

[conorbebe]

Of course having the Scythians/Huns/Mongols and North American cultures represented as nomadic would be ideal, but I don't expect it from the game at launch. I'm not sure how such a thing would even be implemented without having the rework entire game mechanics just to fit them in.

I am however even more concerned that they will be reduced to AI factions operating as mindless "barbarians". They may have been nomadic, but that does not mean these cultures did not have a significant impact on human history. Everyone has heard of Atilla the Hun and Genghis Khan. To not include these peoples as playable entities would contradict the very essence of the game.

They are famous for their conquests, and fame is what is used in Humankind to achieve victory. To have these cultures exist outside of that, excluded from this system, would be an even more egregious crime.

I want to play as the Mongols, even if their implementation isn't perfect or completely historically accurate, because such a big part of the appeal of Civ and soon Humankind for me is the role-playing aspect. I'm prepared to look over flaws in design to live out my historical fantasies. Please don't deny me this, Amplitude.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Of course having the Scythians/Huns/Mongols and North American cultures represented as nomadic would be ideal, but I don't expect it from the game at launch. I'm not sure how such a thing would even be implemented without having the rework entire game mechanics just to fit them in.

I am however even more concerned that they will be reduced to AI factions operating as mindless "barbarians". They may have been nomadic, but that does not mean these cultures did not have a significant impact on human history. Everyone has heard of Atilla the Hun and Genghis Khan. To not include these peoples as playable entities would contradict the very essence of the game.

They are famous for their conquests, and fame is what is used in Humankind to achieve victory. To have these cultures exist outside of that, excluded from this system, would be an even more egregious crime.

I want to play as the Mongols, even if their implementation isn't perfect or completely historically accurate, because such a big part of the appeal of Civ and soon Humankind for me is the role-playing aspect. I'm prepared to look over flaws in design to live out my historical fantasies. Please don't deny me this, Amplitude.

Even more important than the military aspect of the pastoral cultures (although that was significant, from the Scythians to the Mongols) was their impact as Middlemen. They all emphasized trade, because they needed some of the goodies that the foreign cities could produce (it's really hard to lug an iron-making blast furnace around on a wagon or cart!), so they had a huge impact on the spread of technology, religions, cultures, and trade goods. Look up the history of the spread of Buddhism and Islam both across cental Asia, for examples. The Mongols established and enhanced trade routes (built caravanseries, improved tracks,) so that trade and communication was vastly improved from Hungary to the Pacific Ocean. It was only after their Empire fell apart that Eiropeans started looking for new routes to China (by sea), so indirectly, Mongol pastoralists were responsible for the discovery of America (which will make the Mongols no friends among the Aztecs or Algonquin people!)

Armies echoing the thunder of hooves is kind of neat, but I've been waiting to play a game with a decent mechanism for modeling pastoral/nomadic Civs for years because of the differences in emphasis and development from the 'standard' Civ model of a City-Building Civilization.

Still waiting.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

I am afraid the only answer I can give you is: Yes and no.

Now, I shall sit back and watch as you try to puzzle out which parts of this problem are answered with "yes" and which with "no."

 

[Siptah]

I am afraid the only answer I can give you is: Yes and no.

Now, I shall sit back and watch as you try to puzzle out which parts of this problem are answered with "yes" and which with "no."

So cultures that could be seen as nomadic are included but not with nomadic mechanics?

 

[conorbebe]

So cultures that could be seen as nomadic are included but not with nomadic mechanics?

Or cultures that could be seen as nomadic are not playable, but do have nomadic mechanics...

I have my fingers crossed for them being playable, but I have a feeling I might be wrong :/

This comment by Catoninetales seems to hint that you will not be able to go from a sedentary culture to a nomadic one:

Played the Olmec in the Ancient Era before turning nomadic?

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

Nah, just was purely me joking about Boris's Atlatl the Hun (and me enjoying the fact that we have the Olmec in the Ancient Era).

 

[mitsho]

See how we are used to put so much weight on every word around here. It's so refreshing to be able to do jokes like Atl-atl the Hun throws his... well... atl-atl from his horse.

 

[ehecatzin]

I am afraid the only answer I can give you is: Yes and no.

Now, I shall sit back and watch as you try to puzzle out which parts of this problem are answered with "yes" and which with "no."

Man I just imagined you in front of your computer with a cup of coffee and the eviliest smirk.

Let's see...we know that nomadic cultures are in the game as either a minor faction, event mechanic, civ like barbarians (or a mix of all), perhaps nomads all start the game as minor faction but every era they have a chance of becoming a horde, you can either face them, pay tribute, or...maybe even try to assimilate them, that would open interesting oportunities in that maybe for an era you forgo taking a new culture (or found new cities) and take the chance to go Mongol for an era and go wreck your rivals for that sweet sweet score.

Maybe playing tall with you main culture and going horde for score might be a viable strategy.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

Man I just imagined you in front of your computer with a cup of coffee and the eviliest smirk.

I used to be a maths and English teacher in high school. If I believed my students, evil just comes with the territory. (And so does the constant consumption of cofee.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I used to be a maths and English teacher in high school. If I believed my students, evil just comes with the territory. (And so does the constant consumption of cofee.)

Fictional characters can be pure Evil. Real people don't set out to be evil, they're just doing the best they can and the occasional accidental genocidal massacres are byproducts.
And if you asked them "Are you Evil?" Their answer in most cases would be: "Who, me?"

And, of course, too many modern people are too willing to judge historical individuals by modern standards of behavior, which is both inappropriate and silly. By that standard you end up judging everyone born before you as deficient morally, ethically, or in some other way, which must make people feel smugly superior but too often just makes them look ignorant of history.

Ending Rant now . . .

 

[jddods]

And, of course, too many modern people are too willing to judge historical individuals by modern standards of behavior, which is both inappropriate and silly. By that standard you end up judging everyone born before you as deficient morally, ethically, or in some other way, which must make people feel smugly superior but too often just makes them look ignorant of history

I also note the obverse would be true. Historical figures judging us by their standards.

 

[Krajzen]

By definition nomadic culture is not civilization. There were few controversial outliers and I'd accept Scythians and Mongols as civs due to their sheer massive importance for global history (and Scythians had very high level of development in some areas) but that would be it. You could also handwave Scythian city names as they have actually created so called Greek-Scythian and Indo-Scythian Kingdoms in Afganistan and India and they were quite great for several centuries.

The idea of "moving cities" is also quite contrary to the idea of nomadism lol. Nomads don't have mobile cities (what does that even mean, they pack buildings on horses backs and leave?), they just don't live in anything considered urban areas.

Generally I hope this series won't have civ stupidity of some peoples being capable of producing Nile worth of food output from some barren lands just because they build a magical hut on them.

 

[ehecatzin]

By definition nomadic culture is not civilization. There were few controversial outliers and I'd accept Scythians and Mongols as civs due to their sheer massive importance for global history (and Scythians had very high level of development in some areas) but that would be it. You could also handwave Scythian city names as they have actually created so called Greek-Scythian and Indo-Scythian Kingdoms in Afganistan and India and they were quite great for several centuries.

The idea of "moving cities" is also quite contrary to the idea of nomadism lol. Nomads don't have mobile cities (what does that even mean, they pack buildings on horses backs and leave?), they just don't live in anything considered urban areas.

Generally I hope this series won't have civ stupidity of some peoples being capable of producing Nile worth of food output from some barren lands just because they build a magical hut on them.

You've got a point, however the name of the game is Humankind, not Civilization, now don't get me wrong I don't want to see Huns and Sioux as city builders either, but I think it would be interesting if later down the road they implemented unique mechanics to allow you to keep on developing as a Nomad culture, until you decide to settle down and develop into a civilization.

About packing up and leaving...It's a game and It's something Amplitude as done before, so I wouldn't rule it out, of course it could be improved.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

By definition nomadic culture is not civilization. There were few controversial outliers and I'd accept Scythians and Mongols as civs due to their sheer massive importance for global history (and Scythians had very high level of development in some areas) but that would be it. You could also handwave Scythian city names as they have actually created so called Greek-Scythian and Indo-Scythian Kingdoms in Afganistan and India and they were quite great for several centuries.

By the traditional definition Civilization meant Cities. Absolutely correct, but also utterly obsolete historically and culturally - and even in the history of technology. To define the game narrowly as only those who build cities means leaving large parts of the earth Vacant until half-way through the game. It also means leaving out the technologies associated with wheels, horse-riding, composite archery, and (probably) the social structures that led to representative government, democracy, and feudalism, just to list a few.

And if the Scythians and Mongols are the only 'non-city' groups that are historically important, what about the Huns that cracked the Roman Empire, the Sogdians that managed the Silk Road, or the Magyars that (along with the Vikings - who also did not have a population density describable as 'urban') decisively influenced the development of fuedalism and the entire medieval social and civic structure in Europe?

Sorry, it's just too much to leave out, and it's why the Civilization games have been sadly lacking and limited from the beginning. Humankind can and should cut loose from the limitations and early 20th century historiological thinking.

The idea of "moving cities" is also quite contrary to the idea of nomadism lol. Nomads don't have mobile cities (what does that even mean, they pack buildings on horses backs and leave?), they just don't live in anything considered urban areas.

Generally I hope this series won't have civ stupidity of some peoples being capable of producing Nile worth of food output from some barren lands just because they build a magical hut on them.

Now I agree completely. The entire mechanism of the Pastoral Cultures has to be understood as not Constantly Moving, but following a pattern of control over large areas of land required for the basis of their economies - which were herds rather than crops. AND their constant attention to Trade, which was required to provide the goods from Cities that they required - you can carry a lot in a cart-mounted Yurt or Ger, but you cannot effectively 'cart mount' an iron smelter: for that somebody has to settle down somewhere. Within the 'nomadic' cultures this could be either Tributaries, like the villages of the Caucasus that supplied Gold to the Scythians which they traded to the Greek cities of the Black Sea coast for 'civilized' goods, or the 'nomads' themselves - one Scythian archeological site is a permanent village near Kaluga in Russia, in the forest belt almost a hundred kilometers from the nearest open steppe/pastureland. It shows all the cultural/artistic evidence of being Scythian, but they were obviously not raising horses or herding anything through the swampy forests southwest of Moscow - they were, probably, Scythians set up to supply 'settled' goods and services to the pastorals out on the steppes with the herds.
Trade, as much as 'non-city' should be the Defining Factor of the 'pastoral' Factions.

How to include a 'Nomad Mechanism' in the game is another question entirely. 'Mobile Cities' as were used in Amplitude's Endless Legend game, might work in that game's Fantasy background, but have no historical basis: the pastorals did build cities - as stated, there are both Scythian and Scythian/Greek hybrid sites that are 'city sized' by the standards of the early Classical, and later the Great/Golden Horde had a 'capital' at Sarai Batu on the Volga, but the majority of the population would always be spread out in smaller groups and tied to much larger expanses of land than any Ancient/Classical/Medieval/Renaissance City was.

Right now, apparently Humankind is using a form of the EL system in which every tile adjacent to a City tile is automatically (or maybe 'semi-automatically' - the details haven't been released) 'worked' by the city. How Resources in the rest of the city's Region are worked has also not been released, but we've seen screenshots showing some kind of Constructions separate from the cities, so we may be building some form of EL's "Extractors" (read: Plantations, Mines, Fishing Boats) out in the countryside or coast.

So, Speculating Completely Here, the 'Nomad' (Pastoral) Faction could still build a city as usual, but it could also Control a region with a Camp which can move around the region at will or could be 'notional' - it simply indicates a bunch of smaller groups following their various herds around the region. With that Camp, though, ALL resources in the Region would automatically be 'exploited' by the Faction and in case of conflict each Camp would automatically spawn one or more Military Units - since virtually every able-bodied adult is a mounted archer or lancer throughout the period of the Pastoral Factions' existance.

Since, presumably, resources would also be potential Trade Goods, that would emphasize the Trade and Mobile Warfare aspects of the Pastoral Factions, but their control of territory would be less secure than that of the 'civilized' Factions - another Faction comes in and plants a city in a Region, and the 'nomads' are nearly automatically forced out or forced to contest the area where the enemy has a permanent base.
Another point is that by 'converting' a percentage of the Camps into military units at will, the Pastoral Faction could 'migrate' into the settled lands - as did the Goths and Huns to the Romans, the Xiong-Nu to the Chinese, or, earlier, the Persians into the Iranian Plateau or the Pre-City Celts into Roman and Greek territory.

Sorry to have prattled on so long, but have been thinking about the potential inclusion of Pastoral Factions ever since I first started getting details about the Humankind game, and before that I've argued for a Nomad Start for Civ for years: historically, ALL Civilizations were pastoral/hunter-gatherer all or in part in 4000 BCE: the number of places in the world people were already settling down and successfully making a go of Cities at that time could be counted on the fingers of one hand.