So I played Humankind during the Open Dev process they had, and I know many here are interested in what that game is/may be so I thought I would give some perspectives about it and how it directly relates to Civ VI. To stay on topic, I want this to be focused on how each of these areas relate to Civ directly, not just about Humankind as a game itself. First to get it out of the way right off the bat. I think Humankind is a good game, but I don't see reaching the appeal to the mass (or myself) as Civ does. So the any thoughts that this may be a "Civ killer", I don't think anywhere close. I think this game is going to hit on things that a lot of people here really like, but I think at the end of the day most will still prefer Civ. Additionally, this is all based on PRE ALPHA stuff, so any and all things can change, but I think the core is pretty well set in stone for them. To start the look of the game. It is pretty, like really really pretty to look at. The maps are gorgeous and terrain look beautiful. My favorite thing, the art of the units. Wow, in game, when you click on a unit the art that jumps up on your screen is this hand drawn thing that is totally at odds with the 3D renders and yet still fits. I love that so much. The models of units themselves could use some love, and I expect them to get some, but right now are just kinda "meh". That said (here comes the turn), for as nice as it looks it reads horribly. Telling terrain apart is difficult if you are zooming around the map quickly. The terrain melts into one another nicely and in a screenshot is great, but during the game when you are moving and planning and thinking it just makes it all harder. Bringing up city tiles and trying to tell what is happening all becomes super busy and the entire time I was longing for those crisp clean tiles Civ has. I know there is some debate on the simplicity of the tiles in Civ, but this may end that. I can see a Civ map and know everything I need right away, in HK there is so much detail that the gameplay really suffers. Additionally, POI (point of interest) on the map and resources all have unique symbols but size, shape and color are all the same, so they just look like the same thing. While I would expect some changes to these as dev continues there are enough design elements here that I wouldn't expect this to be massively different by launch. So end of the day, while the game looks great, I think it will end up being a much busier visual field that you will have to move slowly on and really study to understand properly. Not like the instant information that a Civ map can provide. UI. Hands down the UI is far superior in HK than Civ. Civ has always had a bit of a UI issue, but this game points it out far more. Controls are swift and simple, and menus feel clean. I didn't have time to engage with the UI a ton during the Open Dev period, but everything I saw was much better than Civ's (and I mostly don't mind the UI in Civ) and felt great. One little thing on note that I loved, zooming all the way out just jumps you into the strategic map mode, and zoom back in just as easily. Transitions were quick and clean and felt great. Gameplay, probably what most of you would be most interested in. If you want to experience what the game plays like best, get your hands on a copy of Endless Legend, it is so clearly built on top of the mechanics in that game (which makes sense since that is the same studio). However, I will give you my take on some of this stuff. Combat. Combat is a mixed bag, on the one hand it is FAR more strategic and engaging than the combat in Civ. There are a ton of cool things from how battles start and move to a different tactical map so where you attack from may literally change the battlefield, there are multiple win conditions in a fight like you can eliminate them or rout them, you can pull in other units if the battlefield would include their tile, and battles can last multiple turns so the game carries on while your units are engaged. There is a lot to love here, and there are many here that would love a lot of this stuff. The downside, however, this can really bog the game down and requires a ton more micromanagement. Yes it is great to have a massive siege where you set up the perfect flank and your knights arrive over the hill at the exact right time, but you need all this planning for everything. So you get bogged down into a tactical map and units get dragged into fights when you are clearing out a moose encampment or just dealing with a random straggler. If you love the idea of way more tactical combat you should be very excited for this, but if you are more of a builder than a fighter, this can add a new level of slog you will hate more than love, and even for warmongers, this adds a lot of micro to rapid conquests. Building. Building was not an enjoyable experience for me. The cities are these sprawling beasts, which is very cool. It feels like the district system on steroids, these cities really interact with the map. But outside of working directly with the city I had trouble really understanding what the city was. Again the game has put beauty before functionality, so while the cities can look cool I couldn't know what was going on at a glance, I had to dive into it. Then there was what you built. A lot of the building was basically improving the yield on a district. So basically add a food to a tile, add a sprocket, etc. Then you had the multiplier ones, so like add 2 science for each adjacent sprocket improvement. What this amounted to, in the end, was a lot more micromanagement. Every interaction with a city seems more tedious than in Civ, but also the improvements were always so normal that I never felt the added micro was worth it. They really didn't deal with the era changes during this time so I never got to interact with them, but they do sound cooler than what Civ has done with those regards. I felt that HK was closer to playing EU IV than playing Civ. Ultimately I enjoyed my experience with HK, but it adds so much micromanagement to the game. I never really felt like any one turn was all that fun, much like how I feel playing EU, the penultimate experience is fun but its a long slow burn. With Civ I think the focus has been on a "fast" playing game that is far more fun in the moment. That "one more turn" feeling is because of the small achievable goals set out in the game and more instant feedback. With HK the goals and rewards are obscured by extreme planning and reading the game state is so so so more important. For a huge part of the Civ audience and for many of the more causal fanatics I don't expect HK to be a game that they really enjoy or want to take the time to learn the intricacies. Hopefully, this gives any Civ fan some perspectives on the next historical 4x to hit the market, and (while I encourage anyone who may be interested to try it out when they can) maybe adjust your hype up or down. More competition in this genre is always a great thing as they can learn from each other and it keeps a genre that we all love alive and thriving.