PCGamer: The best culture to choose in Humankind

The_J

Say No 2 Net Validations
Administrator
Supporter
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
41,441
Location
DE/NL/FR
https://www.pcgamer.com/humankind-culture-guide/

I think the "How to choose your Humankind culture" section sounds quite obvious to me, so I guess there is nothing wrong.
But:
What's the best starting culture?
In the Ancient Era, it's the Harappans. While the Myceaneans and the Egyptians are good starters for either warfare and industry, those affinities also rely on population. Every civilization is built on food, and the Harappans legacy trait of +1 food on rivers and food-producing tiles, as well as their Canal Network emblematic quarter, really help grow your population.

Since their emblematic unit, Runners, are a better form of Scout, all your Tribe members will upgrade into them as soon as you enter the Ancient Era. This unit has really good movement, meaning you can quickly fan out to explore, establish outposts, sack sanctuaries, and claim curiosities.

When you arrive in the Classical Era, you'll have a strong population infrastructure with which to do what you want, whether it's pivoting to produce science, money, industry, or to start churning out units.

So... Harappans OP as starting culture, or is PCGamer missing an alternative strategy?
 
From what little experience I have with the game so far, about three games, I would say they are correct. Early game, set city to maximize growth (balance it out when you reach the max, or it actually does that itself) and next turn yourself to victory. That seems to be the core strategy. So the more food you have the faster that will come. Even when cranking up the difficulty it still seems to be the base strategy, most food and fastest wins and in that regard Harappans are the king. That said I failed to get the Haraps in 2/3 games and it works with pretty much any of the cultures. Just crank up the food production to the max asap no matter whom you picked. The biggest difference in increasing difficulty beyond the standard one appears to be that the AI will actually attack you, with near suicidal tendencies and fervor. The core mechanics are still the same tho. Also more food = more pops = more units, burning excess pops for slave labor (it has no drawbacks from what I can tell so far, besides moral once perhaps).
 
The AI certainly "thinks" that Harappans are best because in dozens of games played in development I'd have to say that Harappans were the first or second Faction chosen by the AI in 90% of all games. And having fast population growth is certainly an Advantage, but whether it is a Game Winning advantage from the start is another question.

For one thing, you have to parlay that population into something useful, and that means building Quarters/Districts in your cities and building multiple Cities. Building multiple cities requires building Outposts in multiple Regions, which you will also need to secure resources. Building Outposts and upgrading them to Cities requires Influence, which is in almost no way related to having lots of Population. Building lots of Districts to 'use' the Population requires Industry AND Stability (because almost every new District gives you a -10 Stability hit).

So 'pure' Population Growth will only get you so far, and not far at all. You also need Influence for City sites, Industry to develop places to put the Population, and Stability to avoid your cities turning Rebel (low enough Stability spawns Rebel Armies from the affected City. One of these when you haven't built any city defenses yet can turn a game rancid in a single turn)

The Harappans are all abut Food - and have no bonus for anything else. That means you'd better have something else in/around your starting position to give you what else you need to progress, or Stability, Industry and Influence deficits will stifle any usefulness from your population growth.
In the same way, of the Ancient Age Factions, Egyptians are all about Industry, Nubians all about Money, Hittites all about Military. Assyrians are Mostly Military, but also faster moving (so, better Scouting) and their Emblematic Quarter provides more Influence. The Phoenicians (which the AI Never seems to pick, so if you are the last of 8 - 9 Factions, you can be sure it is still available) appear to be all about Money except that their Haven Emblematic Quarter also acts s a Farmers Quarter, so it provides potentially more Food as well. Likewise, the Militant Myceneans' Emblematic Quarter provides a serious Stability Boost and Industry, so they are not entirely Warmongers, or don't have to be played as such.

Finally, there are several starting Factions that are Flexible:
Olmecs are Aesthete, so all about Influence, except that their Olmec Head Emblematic provides both Influence AND Food, and acts as a Farmers Quarter with an extra Farmers Slot on the city - a solid Food Boost as well as the Influence to snatch up new regions in which to build your populous Cities.
Babylonians are Scientific, which is always useful, but their Emblematic Quarter provides both Food and Science and counts as an 'extra' Farmers Quarter as well as a Research Quarter. Not as much Food as Harappans, erhaps, but the Babylonians aren't going to starve while they are figuring out how to get Spearmen, Archers, and Horsemen before anybody else.
Finally, the Zhou are Aesthete, but all their bonuses are to Stability and Science, an their Emblematic Quarter, the Confucian School, gets a Stability bonus and a serious +5 Science bonus from each adjacent Mountain tile. On the right map, the first Zhou city can out-Science anybody in the first Era of the game, and being ahead in Science means they can also get and build Infrastructures like Granaries. Irrigation, Animals Pens to increase their Food.

In other words, it is simply not correct to say that Harappans are a Winning Pick all the time. Like the old joke about the theoretical physicist who had a perfect solution for making chickens lay more eggs, but it only worked for spherical chickens in a vacuum, the "perfect pick" depends a lot on the map and terrain you are dealing with, the Resources available close at hand, and the neighboring Factions at the start. Failure to consider the In-Game situation is a major failing in this game and makes "OP Pick" a situational statement at best.
 
I suspect if you have a tier list

A: Harappa (superb)
B: Olmecs (solid), Babylon (solid), Zhou (situationally superb)
C: Egypt, Assyria (ok)
D: Nubia, Mycaeneans, Hittites (situational)
F: Phoenicia (no real benefit)

Depends on how you want to play and how well you can play with them. But Harappans also have crazy scouts which only Assyria can rival, which is very good for an emblematic unit, as others might be more situational in requirements (what resources they need) and might only be needed in cases of warfare, whereas better scouts are always useful and that there is a real value to them.

The strength of the Harrappans is perhaps also that they're - with those scouts - often very useful. The issue with the Harappans though is that you need a good start in the neolithic era, as the AI prioritizes them too.
 
funny how these lists can diverge. For me, currently it's like this:

A: Mycenaeans, Harappans
B: Zhou, Assyria, Babylon
C: Egypt, Nubia
D: Phoenicians, Olmecs
F: Hittites
 
If I was to list mine, having only played three games now so the list is a bit of a guess work on some of them based on what I have seen or read, it would be Harappans >= Olmecs > everything else >> Phoenicians (perhaps they are good if the map is some kind of archipelago?). In some regard I might actually value the Olmecs more then the Harappans, as noted it's only food there. The Olmecs give litte * to on the big giant heads and food wise it's still good plus you get an early ranged unit instead of a scouting unit. Even tho the harappan scouting unit is apparently a free upgrade.
 
Throughout most of the last year of testing, the AI's opinion of the Ancient Age Factions remained remarkably consistent:

First pick was almost always Myceneans, Harappans, or Olmecs.
First four picks were almost aways the three above and less often, Babylonians, Hittites, Nubians or Egyptians.
Last picks by the AI were almost always Phoenicians, Assyrians, and Zhou.

A lot depends on how far ahead you are looking in your thinking. Harappans give immediate advantages in Population boost and an 'enhanced' (stronger) Scout from the beginning of the Age. Olmecs give an immediate advantage in Influence, which is one of the primary Limiting Factors in claiming Regions early with Outposts, and upgrading Outposts to Cities.
Myceneans don't give any immediate advantages in Science, Influence, or Food, the things you tend to worry about most in the beginning. But they give a Game Long 25% reduction in Industry/Production cost for ALL Units. Long before 300 turns are up, that amounts to 1000s of points of Industry saved unless you refuse to build any Units at all (but remember, to quote Machiavelli, being (militarily) Weak "causes you to be despised" - and, in the game, usually Attacked sooner or later)

And, frankly, one major reason that Phoenicians and Nubians are relatively low picks is that they are both all about Money, and Money is not usually a major limitation early in the game: you can pick up most of what you need from Curiousities, and generally it is not as useful as Influence, Production or Science in getting your Faction Jump-Started in the Ancient Age.
 
Nubians are underrated. That dosh is nice early. UU nothing to write home about, but you can work them up for some early veterancy and upgrade to xbows or longbows later, which are really good.

Egyptians can get some sick early production, and there UU is pretty nice.

Funny, playin' for months now I've never played as the Harrapans as the AI always picks them first. I usually extend Neolithic a bit for the LT. I will need to try them out soon, and I'm always very aggressive with my scouts.
 
harappans are overrated. runners are slowed down by terrain features unlike scouts

i'm in my second run, again egyptian opening @humankind dif level, this time i took 20 stars out of 21, i run out of enemies for the 3rd militaristic... only jumped eras after the last lair despwned, i only needed a bear to make it a perfect run

3 competitive deeds, 2 truly mine cities (memphis and thebes), 1 captured from the greys (hagmatana) and i took kerma from the greens that were already aztecs when they fell. idiots claimed stonehenge but didn't build it

got giza, and halicarnassus

am carthago now, going after the huns that have celts as their vassal in another landmass... my newest city, Carthage, is growing strong at the new world having taken 1800 influence to evolve from outpost
 
The Mycenaeans are not just strong because of their LT that stays relevant to some extent throughout the game. They have one of the, if not the, best quarter in the ancient era: you can place it freely on your territory while it extracts industry from 7 tiles, so having 15-20 per Cyclopean fortress is common. And on top of that, it gives 15 stability, and at the only time of the game this is really relevant. So an attached territory with a cyclopean fortress is only -5 stability. And their unit is also at least useful.

Now, the Olmecs seem to be in high demand because influence is seemingly the most limiting factor of the early game and they are indeed the best to generate it due to their emblematic district. Somehow, I never really got them off the ground though, as it didn't feel so much different - in contrast, many others give you that boosted feeling when playing to their strengths. Their LT isn't even strong in the beginning and its completely negligible after classical. Their unit is better not build. I guess if you don't find any mammoth and the like in the neolithic, they are a good pick. Otherwise... I really don't know.
 
The Mycenaeans are not just strong because of their LT that stays relevant to some extent throughout the game. They have one of the, if not the, best quarter in the ancient era: you can place it freely on your territory while it extracts industry from 7 tiles, so having 15-20 per Cyclopean fortress is common. And on top of that, it gives 15 stability, and at the only time of the game this is really relevant. So an attached territory with a cyclopean fortress is only -5 stability. And their unit is also at least useful.

Now, the Olmecs seem to be in high demand because influence is seemingly the most limiting factor of the early game and they are indeed the best to generate it due to their emblematic district. Somehow, I never really got them off the ground though, as it didn't feel so much different - in contrast, many others give you that boosted feeling when playing to their strengths. Their LT isn't even strong in the beginning and its completely negligible after classical. Their unit is better not build. I guess if you don't find any mammoth and the like in the neolithic, they are a good pick. Otherwise... I really don't know.

The few times I've been able to take Olmecs (because the AI tends to pick them early and I stopped worrying about being 'first' into the Ancient Age months ago) the best way to play them, I found, was to play Against their 'strength'. That is, don't worry about Influence because they generate it automatically, but use your energy and resources to maximize the other 'currencies' you need: Food and Industry, and Money to a lesser extent. The best Olmec starts were where I expanded as fast as anybody else with my steady Influence generation (for Outposts, Extractors, etc) but had also placed enough Farmers Quarters and riverine City locations to build some of the largest early cities and 'extract' some of the population for sufficient armies of Warriors/Spearmen/Scout Riders and Javelin-Throwers (and not many of the last) to protect my territories. I can't remember ever using Olmecs for an early 'rush' or declared War, because they just aren't designed for that at all.
 
Just as noted here there seems to be a certain picks that are more or less common in the start. I have started to notice, even tho the sample is small, that there tend to be certain picks for the last culture to. Most of the "top" AI score-wise at the end of my games tend to have gone for Brazil.
 
Just as noted here there seems to be a certain picks that are more or less common in the start. I have started to notice, even tho the sample is small, that there tend to be certain picks for the last culture to. Most of the "top" AI score-wise at the end of my games tend to have gone for Brazil.

In general I see the food focused cultures go very fast once the AIs reach the next era.
 
What about which Classical culture? There's more chance of getting to pick, and I think it could be even more important than Ancient. You'll have a couple of cities up, and enough production and a few territories to actually build the district in. Also the units will most likely do lot more fighting, Classical/Medieval seems to be the era when unique units matter the most.

Obviously it's situational - what resource is currently a bottleneck? What complements the previous era? What units are a counter to my nearest aggressive neighbour?

Persians - Immortals are maybe necessary as a counter if any neighbours pick Huns. 1-on-1 they're still weaker but in enough numbers and the right battlefield they can prevail. Satrap palace is nice, make sure it will end up being surrounded by other districts and it's an influence boost through the whole game. +2 City Cap is very powerful if you're invading your neighbour and/or have a couple of Indy cities next door (capturing those extra cities is probably necessary as they're took expensive to build with influence) and extra stability is nice on higher levels.

Celts - I assume they're super powerful because the AI always picks them first. Massive food boosts, the Celt AI seem to start snowballing pretty hard. I haven't fought with or against Gaesati but melee troops with 6 moves + fervor would be handy if you're facing archers or spears.

Huns - again I haven't been able to play them as the AI takes them, having faced them I can imagine they would be very powerful in human hands if you want some early wars. The hit and run tactics are very powerful in certain terrain and when attacking, just avoid being outnumbered by spears in the open.

Greeks - early research district and bonuses will let you keep up with tech without having to get Philosophy and Research districts, which frees you up for teching and building other things. Hoplites would also be good against Huns. If you've had a slow research pace in Ancient and ignored cheap stuff you can backfill a lot of early techs for easy stars too.

Mauryans - district gives influence and science which are both early game bottlenecks if you prioritised growth/production in Ancient. Sort of like a balance between Greeks and Persians. Unit is an elephant archer, an actually useful archer unit that can shoot over allies. It's a 2-pop unit that upgrades from 1-pop Markabatas so Egypt->Maurya could be a good play with complementary districts and free pop from unit upgrades. (Markabatas are also useful archers because they can hit and run). Good if you're facing an opponent with melee troops.

Maya - the district is great, +3I per attached territory and adjacency means 20+I tiles very early in the game, which is a very good ROI compared to most other buildings at this stage. I find Builder stars pretty easy to get too which means more fame and catching up to the AI on era changes. Javelins can be decent support troops on the right battlefield - attacking from cliffs or across lakes, but are pretty squishy and can be hard to line up a shot, so often end up just helping to clean up damaged troops at the end. They can upgrade to crossbows/longbows which are more useful.

Rome - seems a bit underwhelming. You can just bring reinforcements instead of the extra unit per stack, and money isn't a bottleneck so 30% unit costs isn't a big deal. +3 Inf / +3 Stab Arch, the influence would be useful for a while but it's much less than Persia's +2 Inf per adjacent district. Praetorians look solid but they're late in the tech tree so it will be a while before you can field them.

Carthage - I haven't played a money-focused game yet but it's often undervalued in these games. Although with most things being built in 1-2 turns, rush-building isn't as powerful as it would be if production meant they took 10 turns to come online. 25% reduction in rush buy costs on everything for the rest of the game could be a huge deal though, especially with the % boosters to money that come available later on. Cothon looks nice, +3 Ind in every coastal tile within 2 could be getting close to the Maya district in the right places, and it's the right time to be building harbors. Elephants are strong and fast, but 2 pop and need 2 copper.. so probably worth pre-building chariots to upgrade if you want to go Carthage.

Aksumites - +2 M per Money tile, and the district - +3 adjacency to Money Quarters, and +1 for each territory in religion influence, which could be 15-20 territories by the end of the era.. that could mean some amazing yields. Shotelai are nothing special but available early. Could be excellent if you're at peace and able to focus on building heaps of obelisks and money quarters.

Goths - district is a boost to influence and faith. Religion doesn't seem to be that important, there's some minor tenet boosts, but it mainly seems to be a way to generate grievances which give you diplomatic options. Gothic cavalry look good but only if you have 2 iron and aren't going to fight the Persians or Greeks. Military stars are easy to get if you're fighting a war.

Tier list - open to suggestions
A - Celts, Huns
B - everyone else?
C - Goths, Rome
 
The Mycenaeans are not just strong because of their LT that stays relevant to some extent throughout the game. They have one of the, if not the, best quarter in the ancient era: you can place it freely on your territory while it extracts industry from 7 tiles, so having 15-20 per Cyclopean fortress is common. And on top of that, it gives 15 stability, and at the only time of the game this is really relevant. So an attached territory with a cyclopean fortress is only -5 stability. And their unit is also at least useful.

Now, the Olmecs seem to be in high demand because influence is seemingly the most limiting factor of the early game and they are indeed the best to generate it due to their emblematic district. Somehow, I never really got them off the ground though, as it didn't feel so much different - in contrast, many others give you that boosted feeling when playing to their strengths. Their LT isn't even strong in the beginning and its completely negligible after classical. Their unit is better not build. I guess if you don't find any mammoth and the like in the neolithic, they are a good pick. Otherwise... I really don't know.

I was finally able to play with the Mycenaeans for the first time (the AI picks them a lot) and I have to agree that their unique quarter is ridiculously strong.
 
For the classical era pick, I think that your situation (previous pick, neighbors, map, civic choices, current strengths and weaknesses) usually outweights any objective assessment of culture quality.

That said, there is a pattern: I‘ve certainly played the Persians the most, as the influence, money, stability, unit, and city cap just forms a very good package in almost any of my games (not necessarily the best though), and I usually need all of that in the classical era.

On the other side, there are the romans and the goths, which I perceive to be rather bad choices.

I nonetheless pick the Goths every now and then, because they are fun. But they need a buff imho, while staying as thematically strong as they are now - maybe add the Aztec‘s mobility bonus on top or push the ransacking narrative to 11 by giving them yields for every killed unit that relate either to unit cost (better long term) or # of Goth EQs (better in classical).

I have less experience with the Romans, I think I just played them twice. Their unit is very good, and can still punch in medieval, but comes late, which also is thematically correct. The reduced upkeep is only really important way later, and the extra unit per army is also just so-so. The EQ can be quite good, but is too situational imho, as it isn‘t really good when not fighting a lot. Thinking of a good an thematic buff is on my to do list for a while though…

The rest of the pack works fine for me, although some are useful more often (Celts, Maya) than others (Maurya, Carthage), but that’s all within a good range imho.
 
Just played the romans again: sadly, the tooltip for the EQ is still bugged and shows yields that you only get when a city is victorious. Shame. Those yields would have been juicy.
 
Harappans are probably the best overall pick unless you’re doing some kind of specific strategy. The food bonus is massive if you settle rivers, and the best way to get all the other yields including influence is population. If the food bonus nets you just one more pop than the other cultures, it’s already a +2 culture +6 industry advantage if you assign that pop to industry, and you have essentially replicated the early effect of the Egyptian industry trait (give or take) AND the Olmec trait, While still having excess food over those cultures. On top of that comes the super scouts that can be used for curiosity hunting, defense, offense or whatever you need them to do.

they are just the best “generalist” and flexible pick for most situations. Egypt for example also needs population, but getting the growth through farmers quarters by hard-building them is a much more cumbersome and much slower process. Meanwhile, one canal network as Harappians provides yet more early, easy food.

Harrapians can also transition into industry focus later on without being significantly behind Egypt in that regard. Harrapians - Celts(or Maya) - Khmer - Mughal is a very powerful development path.
 
Harappans are probably the best overall pick unless you’re doing some kind of specific strategy. The food bonus is massive if you settle rivers, and the best way to get all the other yields including influence is population. If the food bonus nets you just one more pop than the other cultures, it’s already a +2 culture +6 industry advantage if you assign that pop to industry, and you have essentially replicated the early effect of the Egyptian industry trait (give or take) AND the Olmec trait, While still having excess food over those cultures. On top of that comes the super scouts that can be used for curiosity hunting, defense, offense or whatever you need them to do.

they are just the best “generalist” and flexible pick for most situations. Egypt for example also needs population, but getting the growth through farmers quarters by hard-building them is a much more cumbersome and much slower process. Meanwhile, one canal network as Harappians provides yet more early, easy food.

Harrapians can also transition into industry focus later on without being significantly behind Egypt in that regard. Harrapians - Celts(or Maya) - Khmer - Mughal is a very powerful development path.

I've never been able to pick Harrapans - spending too much time in Neolithic! However, if you do that, and have 15-20 scouts in Ancient, food is much less important because you don't need to work any farmers or slow-build growth. You just settle as many scouts to work industry and research as your base food can handle, and beeline irrigation. The other scouts are out chopping trees, collecting money from hoards, popping a free warrior army, and replacing population when you build units.

Agreed if you go early into Ancient then Harrapans are very good. I think if you miss out on Harrapans though, the best bet is to then delay, and get all your food on-board in Neolithic.

Ideally you can then go Celts in Classical, but the scouts can carry you through that too if you don't lose too many or have to build a huge army. Then you can go English in Medieval, with a food bonus, strong early unit, and a freely-placeable garrison that collects food from adjacent tiles.
 
Top Bottom