Hello all!
(I'm cross-posting this here from the G2G forums VIP required sorry!) as I know a lot of civfanatics regulars browse this subforum but not the Amplitude one.)
It's me, Gazebo! Some of you may know me from my work on Civ with Vox Populi, if not, no worries. I've been involved in civ modding for the better part of a decade, and strategy games for far longer than that. I became a VIP a few months back, and, while I put quite a few Humankind games under my belt on the beta, I wanted to wait until Gold to put my thoughts on paper here in the forums. I tend to read other's comments far more than I post, however with the sheer quantity of excellent commentary around here my thoughts may not be as original as I hope. In any case, I want to preface my critiques with praise for what the devs have done with Humankind: it would have been far easier to clone civ and repaint it, however you've created a very original and unique take on the historical 4x genre. So congrats, have a beer, you deserve it!
Now, on to my thoughts. I do hope some of these can spur conversation and potentially help make Humankind an even better experience. Again, I'm not claiming originality here, simply noting the things that have consistently stuck out to me as rough edges on the overall experience.
Gameplay
Overall game pace is too fast relative to number of things to construct/do
- Especially problematic in the early game (first 100 turns) - a 20% increase for star requirements for first 3 eras would not be amiss.
The stars you earn during an era should affect bonuses/penalties received when you advance era. I'll explain:
- The example that keeps coming to mind is the game Spore - in that game, the choices you made in an evolutionary era affected the attributes of your evolved creature in the next era. Humankind attempts a similar 'build your own civ' model, but the actual 'building' process feels a bit too arbitrary. If my people have known nothing but war for 3 eras, what would compel my people to suddenly drop their swords and become bookworms? There needs to be a traceable lineage of 'DNA' in your people, otherwise cultures feel, well, arbitrary.
- In this game, if you primarily earn stars through expansion and conquest, that should give you a benefit to choosing a warlike/expansionist culture in the next era, and a penalty if you choose an isolationist/diplomatic culture, and so on - forces players to 'role-play' a bit more overtly with their choice of culture
- Also, if you choose a warlike culture but fail to earn warlike stars during an era, that should disappoint your people/harm your fame.
- Ultimately, choice of culture should be a promise to your people, not a guarantee with no investment
Era advancement bonuses (especially construction options) should not be instant - in fact, they should unlock gradually as a result of your actions during the era
- Perhaps 'advancement' to a new culture should trigger at specific actions during an era, i.e. the military unit only unlocks after gaining a military star during that era, or a science district when you gain a science star?
- This would make the era shift feel a bit more earned and thematic.
Benefit of cultural 'conversion' of foreign provinces not clear nor obviously beneficial/damaging
Also not immediately obvious how to get more faith to upgrade religion beyond just 'more people' - needs to be more interactive and less passive
Impact of society choices, beyond the choice itself, not exactly clear (the sliding scales in the policy screen)
- The role of ideology seemed to have little/no impact on the game - it would be more interesting if there were drawbacks to going to the 'extremes' of the sliding scales and/or it unlocked special stars you could gain in an era
- Ideological axis is too easily swayed - less points per choice, perhaps?
- Cultural benefits/detriments could be tied to this scale, and/or the costs of stars. Something to connect this system to the rest of the game feels necessary, right now it feels tacked on.
Resources are problematic
- Option 1) Should tick up to a supply amount, not be a fixed value - too map RNG dependent
- The fact that I can be shut out of a construction because I've not expanded wide enough or the rest of the world is behind me feels unfair to tall advanced empires
- Option 2) Perhaps we should be able to 'double down' on improving a resource node? So I build one artisan quarter (which really should have unique names for luxuruy resources), then I can 'improve' it to gain additional resources from that node?
- Luxury resources are also fairly 'samey' - Civ has this problem too, not an easy solution. Perhaps resources should have fewer, but much bigger bonuses that change every era? Right now they're a bit underwhelming power-wise.
- Sources of non-resource stability are so plentiful that resource trading doesn't feel terribly necessary by the mid-game.
- Resource trading should be a bigger part of per-turn gold income than it currently is.
The map
Endless Legend's map is a cornucopia of interesting anomalies and features. Humankind's map, while beautiful, is extremely generic as it lacks these anomalies and benefits. Natural wonders are too infrequent a replacement - more 'minor tile bonuses' would really help liven up the map.
Game 'Feel'
Region names should not be set in stone before you settle them - the names should adapt to your current culture when you claim an outpost/settlement in the province. This would help empires feel more coherent.
Since most cities are settled in early game, should city names update too? Perhaps an event should fire each era where city names can either be retained for a fame bump, or changed for an influence bump?
Religions retain antiquated names as the game progresses - Shamanism in the industrial era? Each time you add a tenet to your religion the religion's title should automatically become less archaic.
Other civilizations should not be referred to as their civilization, but rather their leader's name - it is too hard to keep up with 5+ civs and their new cultures every era, and it disassociates players from their opponents
- Leader names should be more randomized
Cities don't really look like 'cities' - it is hard to tell administrative centers apart from their districts, and city size doesn't really translate onto the map very well. City centers should really grow/expand/modify based on population to help create the illusion of metropolises.
Empire development/change via culture a bit schizophrenic, especially during the quick early eras - would be more interesting to see cultures as a fusion, instead of a wholesale change
- i.e. not all buildings should transform into new buildings - should retain a mix of all era aesthetics in cities/districts
- Same with unit skin colors and aesthetics
UI
Infrastructure selection - predicted yield outcome after construction would be extremely helpful for figuring out which to build first
- It would be very helpful to sort infrastructure projects into categories based on yield (i.e. a 'military infrastructure' category, 'trade' category, etc.)
- Ideally there would also be more distinct upgrade trees - i.e. the interface would more clearly show 'upgrade tree' infrastructure versus one-off 'local' bonuses/penalties
Infrastructure selection/management is the one part of the game where my eyes simply glaze over - interactions are far too complicated for many, or far too underwhelming towards the mid/late game. In every game, I find myself simply toggling a 6+ long queue of infrastructure items just so cities will leave me alone.
Allowing for a separate queue of military units would alleviate this as well - if we could purchase/build units from within armies and have that be the 'queue' it would really breathe life into the early eras in terms of war. There's simply so much to build early on.
The 'fame' events (like a mars colony) are underwhelming visually - the rest of the game is a visual treat, but not these - not even any special artwork!
(I'm cross-posting this here from the G2G forums VIP required sorry!) as I know a lot of civfanatics regulars browse this subforum but not the Amplitude one.)
It's me, Gazebo! Some of you may know me from my work on Civ with Vox Populi, if not, no worries. I've been involved in civ modding for the better part of a decade, and strategy games for far longer than that. I became a VIP a few months back, and, while I put quite a few Humankind games under my belt on the beta, I wanted to wait until Gold to put my thoughts on paper here in the forums. I tend to read other's comments far more than I post, however with the sheer quantity of excellent commentary around here my thoughts may not be as original as I hope. In any case, I want to preface my critiques with praise for what the devs have done with Humankind: it would have been far easier to clone civ and repaint it, however you've created a very original and unique take on the historical 4x genre. So congrats, have a beer, you deserve it!
Now, on to my thoughts. I do hope some of these can spur conversation and potentially help make Humankind an even better experience. Again, I'm not claiming originality here, simply noting the things that have consistently stuck out to me as rough edges on the overall experience.
Gameplay
Overall game pace is too fast relative to number of things to construct/do
- Especially problematic in the early game (first 100 turns) - a 20% increase for star requirements for first 3 eras would not be amiss.
The stars you earn during an era should affect bonuses/penalties received when you advance era. I'll explain:
- The example that keeps coming to mind is the game Spore - in that game, the choices you made in an evolutionary era affected the attributes of your evolved creature in the next era. Humankind attempts a similar 'build your own civ' model, but the actual 'building' process feels a bit too arbitrary. If my people have known nothing but war for 3 eras, what would compel my people to suddenly drop their swords and become bookworms? There needs to be a traceable lineage of 'DNA' in your people, otherwise cultures feel, well, arbitrary.
- In this game, if you primarily earn stars through expansion and conquest, that should give you a benefit to choosing a warlike/expansionist culture in the next era, and a penalty if you choose an isolationist/diplomatic culture, and so on - forces players to 'role-play' a bit more overtly with their choice of culture
- Also, if you choose a warlike culture but fail to earn warlike stars during an era, that should disappoint your people/harm your fame.
- Ultimately, choice of culture should be a promise to your people, not a guarantee with no investment
Era advancement bonuses (especially construction options) should not be instant - in fact, they should unlock gradually as a result of your actions during the era
- Perhaps 'advancement' to a new culture should trigger at specific actions during an era, i.e. the military unit only unlocks after gaining a military star during that era, or a science district when you gain a science star?
- This would make the era shift feel a bit more earned and thematic.
Benefit of cultural 'conversion' of foreign provinces not clear nor obviously beneficial/damaging
Also not immediately obvious how to get more faith to upgrade religion beyond just 'more people' - needs to be more interactive and less passive
Impact of society choices, beyond the choice itself, not exactly clear (the sliding scales in the policy screen)
- The role of ideology seemed to have little/no impact on the game - it would be more interesting if there were drawbacks to going to the 'extremes' of the sliding scales and/or it unlocked special stars you could gain in an era
- Ideological axis is too easily swayed - less points per choice, perhaps?
- Cultural benefits/detriments could be tied to this scale, and/or the costs of stars. Something to connect this system to the rest of the game feels necessary, right now it feels tacked on.
Resources are problematic
- Option 1) Should tick up to a supply amount, not be a fixed value - too map RNG dependent
- The fact that I can be shut out of a construction because I've not expanded wide enough or the rest of the world is behind me feels unfair to tall advanced empires
- Option 2) Perhaps we should be able to 'double down' on improving a resource node? So I build one artisan quarter (which really should have unique names for luxuruy resources), then I can 'improve' it to gain additional resources from that node?
- Luxury resources are also fairly 'samey' - Civ has this problem too, not an easy solution. Perhaps resources should have fewer, but much bigger bonuses that change every era? Right now they're a bit underwhelming power-wise.
- Sources of non-resource stability are so plentiful that resource trading doesn't feel terribly necessary by the mid-game.
- Resource trading should be a bigger part of per-turn gold income than it currently is.
The map
Endless Legend's map is a cornucopia of interesting anomalies and features. Humankind's map, while beautiful, is extremely generic as it lacks these anomalies and benefits. Natural wonders are too infrequent a replacement - more 'minor tile bonuses' would really help liven up the map.
Game 'Feel'
Region names should not be set in stone before you settle them - the names should adapt to your current culture when you claim an outpost/settlement in the province. This would help empires feel more coherent.
Since most cities are settled in early game, should city names update too? Perhaps an event should fire each era where city names can either be retained for a fame bump, or changed for an influence bump?
Religions retain antiquated names as the game progresses - Shamanism in the industrial era? Each time you add a tenet to your religion the religion's title should automatically become less archaic.
Other civilizations should not be referred to as their civilization, but rather their leader's name - it is too hard to keep up with 5+ civs and their new cultures every era, and it disassociates players from their opponents
- Leader names should be more randomized
Cities don't really look like 'cities' - it is hard to tell administrative centers apart from their districts, and city size doesn't really translate onto the map very well. City centers should really grow/expand/modify based on population to help create the illusion of metropolises.
Empire development/change via culture a bit schizophrenic, especially during the quick early eras - would be more interesting to see cultures as a fusion, instead of a wholesale change
- i.e. not all buildings should transform into new buildings - should retain a mix of all era aesthetics in cities/districts
- Same with unit skin colors and aesthetics
UI
Infrastructure selection - predicted yield outcome after construction would be extremely helpful for figuring out which to build first
- It would be very helpful to sort infrastructure projects into categories based on yield (i.e. a 'military infrastructure' category, 'trade' category, etc.)
- Ideally there would also be more distinct upgrade trees - i.e. the interface would more clearly show 'upgrade tree' infrastructure versus one-off 'local' bonuses/penalties
Infrastructure selection/management is the one part of the game where my eyes simply glaze over - interactions are far too complicated for many, or far too underwhelming towards the mid/late game. In every game, I find myself simply toggling a 6+ long queue of infrastructure items just so cities will leave me alone.
Allowing for a separate queue of military units would alleviate this as well - if we could purchase/build units from within armies and have that be the 'queue' it would really breathe life into the early eras in terms of war. There's simply so much to build early on.
The 'fame' events (like a mars colony) are underwhelming visually - the rest of the game is a visual treat, but not these - not even any special artwork!
Last edited:
