Returning from Civ V to Humankind

[Saxo Grammaticus]

Having mostly played Civ V during the holidays, and awaiting Amplitude's next patch, I was curious what others thought Humankind might learn from Civ V, or where it has already.

One of my favorite aspects that has become more pervasive was the introduction of an abstract unit of faith in GK. This seems to have blown open the idea of religion in strategy games and hence the potentialities of modding. Humankind has run with this development, but has also done away with the units in favor of a more passive mechanism.

Tall vs. wide is still very much up for debate in Civ V, but both are ultimately viable in my opinion. The game put numerous restrictions on rapid expansion in the form of happiness and tech/culture cost inflation, but people moved on from four-city tradition. In Humankind, if you're not near/at/above your city cap, it seems to me you're playing at a significant disadvantage.

The big issue for me is the absolute majesty of late-game diplomacy introduced by BNW in the form of ideology. The division into major ideological blocs, the interplay with happiness/culture/tourism in terms of ideological pressure, the flavor of each ideology--has anyone found a game that models this fascinating mechanism? For Humankind, whether you have trading partners, allies, or rivals, the late game lacks diplomatic stakes unless you are conquering or defending against conquest.

Now, Civ V and Humankind are clearly different games, and there's no point in chasing some chimeric has-it-all strategy game. That said, I'm curious what others have thought about how Humankind might learn from the strong points of Civ V.

 

[Siptah]

I personally like the more abstract faith mechanic. I would wish for a bit more agency in the hands of the player though, such as laying focus on specific territories or empires (by paying gold/influence).

As to the late game block building/reshuffling that has meaning, I think and hope a future expansion will have a look into that. There is a lot of potential here that has barely been used (e.g. influence of the ideology axes and civic choices), or at least doesn‘t have as much influence on diplomacy as it should imho.

 

[pholkhero]

Having mostly played Civ V during the holidays, and awaiting Amplitude's next patch, I was curious what others thought Humankind might learn from Civ V, or where it has already.

One of my favorite aspects that has become more pervasive was the introduction of an abstract unit of faith in GK. This seems to have blown open the idea of religion in strategy games and hence the potentialities of modding. Humankind has run with this development, but has also done away with the units in favor of a more passive mechanism.

Tall vs. wide is still very much up for debate in Civ V, but both are ultimately viable in my opinion. The game put numerous restrictions on rapid expansion in the form of happiness and tech/culture cost inflation, but people moved on from four-city tradition. In Humankind, if you're not near/at/above your city cap, it seems to me you're playing at a significant disadvantage.

The big issue for me is the absolute majesty of late-game diplomacy introduced by BNW in the form of ideology. The division into major ideological blocs, the interplay with happiness/culture/tourism in terms of ideological pressure, the flavor of each ideology--has anyone found a game that models this fascinating mechanism? For Humankind, whether you have trading partners, allies, or rivals, the late game lacks diplomatic stakes unless you are conquering or defending against conquest.

Now, Civ V and Humankind are clearly different games, and there's no point in chasing some chimeric has-it-all strategy game. That said, I'm curious what others have thought about how Humankind might learn from the strong points of Civ V.

what i dislike most about humankind is that by claiming territories, they map "feels" small. i like the moving cultural borders that fill up the map.

there needs to be a middle ground btwn civ's very simplistic missionary model and humankind's passive one.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

It's certainly interesting to see Humankind and Old World (disclaimer: have only observed) pivot toward more formal settling patterns as opposed to Civilization's free-for-all. I would certainly agree the territory mechanism makes the map feel smaller, especially compared to Civ V's huge maps or CIV VI's YnAMP. It also creates a little awkwardness when I would just prefer for territories to be drawn around features differently, but hey, not all borders are drawn along rivers and thank goodness that's not the case in Humankind!

I would wish for a bit more agency in the hands of the player though, such as laying focus on specific territories or empires (by paying gold/influence).

How do you envision investment? Part of me thinks it could just end up a money pit, given the strength of passive spread. In one particularly bitter game as the Aksumites, I watched my religion erode under trade with the Teutons. It wasn't until the industrial era that I reestablished it by conquering a rival and disrupting global trade.

Still, I miss some of the granularity and flavor from Civ V and Civ VI--holy sites, unique districts, worship buildings, Tomatekh! As it stands, it's almost like you have to go all-in with religion (with few contributions to fame) just to appreciate all the religious architecture.

As to the late game block building/reshuffling that has meaning, I think and hope a future expansion will have a look into that. There is a lot of potential here that has barely been used (e.g. influence of the ideology axes and civic choices), or at least doesn‘t have as much influence on diplomacy as it should imho.

Maybe a late-game influence sink, to start! The elements are there, and I certainly hope Amplitude can develop a diplomatic system to rival BNW.

 

[Siptah]

How do you envision investment?

As it stands, the formula for religious pressure is very static (while not necessarily always simple). Some more player actions to interfere could be fun. My loose thoughts are the following: When in the religion screen, you can choose a territory on which you want to focus your faith pressure (either offensive or defensive). For each territory you choose, you have to give up some of your influence/gold per turn until it is converted or your stop the action. Of course, the concentrated faith pressure is not faith neutral and you lose a tiny bit of pressure everywhere else.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

So, that focus could be like sending missionaries to convert one's own territory or that of another. Perhaps another passive mechanism could be a civic like Religious vs. State Education in which one chooses to convert a percentage of local science into faith or influence.

The static formula can lead to very one-sided religious maps rather quickly, in my experience. My concern about any kind of burst of religious pressure (much like Civ VI's mechanism) is that it would be quickly eroded.

Moving from faith to influence, I do see some active mechanism needed to represent such cultural conformity campaigns as Magyarization or Russification.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

in Civ 5 I really enjoyed how religion was actually more important in the early game BUT less important (although still vital to the very entertaining Culture Victory) in the later game. In the early game it was more ''active'', as you were able to send out missionaries, but in the late game, it was more ''passive'' and much easier to spread religion by trade routes, since religious units themselves became so exorbitantly expensive and you could buy the more valuable Great People with those faith points instead.

Personally I welcome any new game mechanic that mixes things up towards the end of the game.

Ideology in Civ 5 did that, too, and boy...some of those World Congress resolutions could really throw a wrench in your machinery if you were winning a game, like trade bans.

 

[SuperFly47]

They should have religious buildings that can add provide faith. There isn't much that can be done currently to increase faith production. They should have more religious tenant tiers. Some of those tenants need to provide bonuses for spreading the religion.

 

[Nico_D]

I think my biggest problem with Humankind is that it feels so abstract. All the districts and infrastructure just give better and bigger production/science/stability numbers instead of opening something new like building Garrison in Old World for idle units (trains and airports do that in Humankind). For me Humankind kinda fails putting it together thematically like Civ and Old World do.

There's a lot to like in Humankind but compared to these two it honestly feels unfinished. Like religion which stops having any kind of meaning after you have reached tier 4.

But I much prefer both the Humankind's and Old World's way of expansion to Civ's. I was surprised how well OW's city sites work. And the freedom in Humankind.

 

[KayAU]

I also came back for a bit. The game isn't radically changed, but it does seem to be headed in a positive direction. The AI seems a bit more apt, there is some more content, as well as some balance changes. This is all positive. The little interludes when inventing certain technologies are a nice touch, expanding on the narrative focus which was already a strength of the game. Mechanically, there are some things which I feel confident that will be improved, such as religion, and others which I feel confident that I will never be happy with, such as the region system. A map full of predefined regions still makes zero sense to me, and for me it makes the game map feel small. I would have much preferred either Civ's approach (free placement with a minimum distance, which might benefit from being increased significantly), or the one used in Fallen Enchantress (limited city sites based on fertility, in addition to a minimum distance).

Still, I remain optimistic overall. The game is interesting and fun to play, and while it will probably not replace Vox Populi as my favorite turn-based 4x anytime soon, it is different enough and has enough going for it to be worth playing. It also seems like Amplitude are dedicated to listening to feedback and keep improving the game, so I am eager to see what the future holds for Humankind.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

I think my biggest problem with Humankind is that it feels so abstract. All the districts and infrastructure just give better and bigger production/science/stability numbers instead of opening something new like building Garrison in Old World for idle units (trains and airports do that in Humankind). For me Humankind kinda fails putting it together thematically like Civ and Old World do.

Civ V is still probably the most abstract game I've played in this regard. The fact that one can essentially two/three/four-city tradition one's way to victory again and again with little to no regard for terrain, competitors, or much else really undermined a lot of goodwill on my part when I first played.

I would be more inclined to say that Humankind can fall flat. The biggest draws for me have been (surprisingly) the highs of combat and unsurprisingly city-building (aided by generic cultural styles and crowned by emblematic districts). The tedium of low-stakes conflict threatens the former, and the limits of stability as well as district cost and placement, the latter. The most interesting diplomatic scenario I have found myself in is the early 20th C.-American intervention style of contesting imperialism in so far as it threatens allies/trade partners. On a side note, Paradox has probably done the best at allowing me to experience shifting alliances, coalitions, and intervention. As for abstract, however, at least in Humankind you can't settle in place on Turn 1.

I'm more inclined to embrace the regions as they stand, due to their interaction with expansion. It seems silly to waste influence on REX'ing because of the city cap and strains on one's military. That said, one can make a deliberate effort to secure certain resources and found cities to integrate them. In this way, as the game progresses and city cap expands, I feel pressure to adopt imperialist attitudes toward my neighbors. Where the region-mechanism irks me is how it can break up any number of otherwise tantalizing sub-regions, almost compelling me to go out of my way to attach territories just to capitalize on an out-of-place river system. In real life, the general rule is for communities and markets to transcend borders rather than be divided by them.

On a general note, I also appreciate Amplitude's commitment to feedback and development.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Now, Civ V and Humankind are clearly different games, and there's no point in chasing some chimeric has-it-all strategy game. That said, I'm curious what others have thought about how Humankind might learn from the strong points of Civ V.

HK is too buggy. It feels like still in Beta, but it releases DLC. It has not learnt much from CIV V in my opinion... roads also are just there... it doesn't have a tactical map mode...
It has better graphic. It took realism from Civ V.

in HK AI can get you within your playing turn, killing your unit... without end turn... I can't understand this kind of mechanics really, aside Armies, or the biggest deal of HK, it took from CIV III, not civ V.
HK has the upper hand about 1UPT.... CIV V has unit Perks....