Thoughts on the Huns and the "Nomadic" Culture

[8housesofelixir]

I have played several rounds of Huns in the Stadia OpenDev version of the Humankind.

The Huns work like this:

• When you choose to play as the Huns, all your outposts will be considered the Huns EQ, the Ordu. Ordu cannot be turned into a city - so you cannot create any new cities as Huns - but when an Ordu has more than one population, it can build the UU of the Huns, the Hunnic Horde. Basically, every Hunnic territory not attached to a city can immediately spawn the Hunnic UUs (if you placed them right for population growth).

• Hunnic Horde has 22 Combat Strenɡth, 6 Movements, and 3 Ranɡe. They also have Nomad and Free Raider traits, making them able to move/attack twice and multiply their numbers through fighting and ransacking.

• So you can just build Hordes from Ordu, ransack everything in sight to multiply them, and engage the enemy's major force in large numbers. In the battle, the move/attack twice ability can lead to a devastating hit-and-run or flanking attack, not to say that 3 range literally made your Hordes a moving artillery piece.* With some help from the regular troops (you do need some meatshields to deny your enemy's mobility), one can sweep the whole continent as the real scourge of God.

• On the other hand, the Huns don't have any non-military abilities to help them proceed in Science, building up Stability in the conquered cities, or gather non-military Fames. Most importantly, they cannot create new cities by themselves. If the Hordes' waves are being stopped, then the zenith of the Huns will be stopped as well. It would be better to choose another Culture for the Medieval Era and beyond (unless you decide to play as Mongols as a follow-up, which seems like an upgraded version of the Huns).

* Please Note: No, real nomadic/steppe cavalry don't work like this. Shooting from the horseback will undoubtedly result in inaccuracy and a short effective range; therefore, the real mounted archery is all about shooting at a close range - and when in a close range, arrows can pierce through armors and even shields. That's what made the steppe-style tactics lethal: effective close-range fires, not distance.
However, most of the strategy games/war games/4x games always give their mounted archers the range of a field cannon instead, make these horse riders literally self-propelled artilleries - Humankind, with its 3 range Huns, is no exception.
Civ VI, interestingly, does get the mounted archers right - the Saka Horse Archers of the Scythians only have 1 range.


Overall, I like the Huns design here.

Many strategy and 4x games have a hard time presenting the nomadic people within their game mechanics, struggling between a pastoralism flavor and a fun-to-play faction. The nomadic people in these games are allowed to build settlements and cities in order to compete with other factions, with a lot of weird "steppe" flavors such as city-razing or building-burning, horse-spamming or duplicating, as well as Atheism-spreading (yes, that's what the Huns can do in AOE2) abilities.

But here, the Humankind Huns looks mostly (and surprisingly) fine. They cannot build cities but can grab a vast territory (as what happened IRL), and every inch of that territory can pump out horses to fight. The horses have some elegantly simple abilities, no more city-razing, just using high mobility and double movement to dominate the open fields while not eliminating the necessity of other units. Even the horse-duplicating ability has its requirements and limits. Most importantly, the Huns themselves cannot simply develop the conquered cities and run away from the game, and it would be better to choose another Culture in the following Era.

The Humankind Huns are not perfect, but to my knowledge, they are probably the most carefully designed nomadic peoples in the strategy/4x games. The devs at Amplitude had done a great job, and I hope this is something other 4x games can learn from as well.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There are some other 'subtle' points about the Huns (and Mongols, their Humankind Medieval Era equivalent) in Humankind. Because you have the choice of keeping them ('transcending') in future Eras, you get to do the fine balancing act of figuring out just how long you can stay on horseback before you have to settle down into a 'regular' Faction/Civilization.
I don't think anybody has had a chance to play the Mongols (Medieval Era) yet, but it looks like they have similar characteristics to the Huns (which would make a great deal of sense historically, anyway) so the 'transition' from horse-pastoral to settled would be Early Modern (Renaissance) or possibly as late as the Industrial. I wonder if one can get Fame Stars for Pushing Your Luck by remaining a horse archer Faction when everybody around you is fielding cannon and muskets?

What is really exciting is that if the Hun/Mongol factions work to more accurately simulate the pastoral 'civs' in Humankind, it will pressure other games (Civ X, XII, XIV) to make a better effort to do the same.

 

[FinalDoomsday]

Thanks for this, I cant play the Stadia demo so I appriciate all these details, feels like I'm way out of the loop with all the info going around.

Huns sound very interesting, going into a nomad faction sounds like a dramatic gear shift which I really like seeing a neighbour become the Huns or Mongols should really set off alarm bells even if they have been peaceful or weak because their ability to wage war is going to skyrocket.

I like how militarist cultures in general seem to offer a chance to turn the tables if a player is starting to lag behind in the bucket race. Also after an era of conquering it seems sensible to pick a faction that will help you consolidate and develop your new land with a more peaceful era.

My favourite 4X campaigns are when I've had a mix of war and peace but a lot of games push you to go 'all in' either warring until no one is left or sitting in a corner filling buckets. I'm very much looking forward to the paradigm shift of a new culture up to six times in every game and I won't be penalised for being unfocused!

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

We're quite happy to hear that you're enjoying the "nomadic" gameplay of the Huns.

Regarding @Boris Gudenuf 's idea regarding era stars for sticking with mounted archery as others advance to gunpowder: There are no Era Stars for that, but transcending does give you the bonus on all Fame you earn from that point on, so playing the Mongols in the Early Modern era would indeed get you additional fame.

@FinalDoomsday I think that due to the Grievance/Demand and Morale system, a mix of war and peace should be quite common in Humankind.

A quick remark on 8housofelixir's post:

not to say that 3 range literally made your Hordes a moving artillery piece.

I know it can feel that way in the classical era, since Range 3 is common for ranged units in that era, but actual artillery will by outrange them, both the "built on site" wooden siege equipment as well as the later gunpowder-based weapons. Gunpowder infantry as a whole outranges the horse archers, I believe. We will of course keep an eye on balance and make adjustments if needed.

 

[ehecatzin]

Thank you for the review, I was wondering how did the horde mechanic work, pleased to see It actually shakes gameplay, I'm wondering if that tradeoff style gameplay could translate to ther nomadic tribes that weren't so overly militaristic.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

A quick remark on 8housofelixir's post:


I know it can feel that way in the classical era, since Range 3 is common for ranged units in that era, but actual artillery will by outrange them, both the "built on site" wooden siege equipment as well as the later gunpowder-based weapons. Gunpowder infantry as a whole outranges the horse archers, I believe. We will of course keep an eye on balance and make adjustments if needed.

A lot of 'amateur' historians, of which the gaming community has more than its share, grossly overestimate the range and effectiveness of archery in ancient/classical/medieval combat. Yes, composite horse-archer-type bows fired arrows to over 300 meters' range - on a target range under optimal conditions, and NOT from horseback. But in fact, since the short composite bows fired relatively light arrows, the impact of the arrow dropped dramatically with range since for the same cross-section the arrow's velocity dropped faster than a heavier crossbow bolt or longbow 'clothyard shaft'. There is a historical record of a Crusading knight coming out of a battle with 15 'Saracen' horse-archer arrows hanging out of his armor and his horse's barding, but no injuries to either. Note: there is no record from any historical period of anybody coming out of a battle under his own power with 15 bullets embedded in him!
So, Humankind is at least on the right track: the horse archer is extremely dangerous at short range firing directly at any target, but is outranged by almost every other ranged weapon - even lead-pellet-firing slings outranged the light arrows for effectiveness, and Alexander's men knocked Scythian horsemen over with catapult bolts at ranges where the cavalry thought they were completely safe (Since the heavy bolts also pinned the horsemen to the ground like collected butterflies, they also thought that the entire process was Very Unfair and not at all sporting, especially since the catapults were on the far side of a wide river and the horsemen could not get close enough to fire back!)

 

[Narcisse]

well, I discussed a lot about Huns on Discord, a bit on G2G, I really loved their gameplay, but I have really mixed feelings about their design.

The tooltips are in work in progress, but they definitly need some warnings about their inability to build cities and attach outposts.

Their nomadic passive ( : not being able to build city and attach outposts) is almost a whole affinity. IMO, they really need a Nomad emblem under their Militarist emblem on the cultures screen.

Someone on G2G suggested their nomadic passive not only being negative, but having a reduced cost of time on Ordu/Outpost deplacement in the territory.

And I really don't like the fact than our nomal outposts (the ones builded by Nubians in openDev) are automatically considered as Ordu. I mean, it's not happening with emblematic harbours.
It's inconsistant for me.

Finally, I'm worried about their trenscendence viability.

But it's a really a great design from Amplitude.

 

[Krajzen]

I like that, I have never liked Civ's series total failure to depict steppe empires of Eurasia in an interesting manner, it has always been just regular factions with horse - based military traits.

Huns were a force felt by the Central Asia, barbarian Europe, Roman empire, Sassanian empire, northern India and m a y b e China, so it makes sense that one of ten classical cultures will be a nomadic warmongering menace.

I would really love if some update later introduced classical era Scythians - also nomadic but somehow more peaceful. You can also make the same thing in the medieval era, with some "nicer" nomadic counterpart to Mongols - Khazars for example, or Tatars, or Cumans.

Meanwhile early modern era may always get warmongering nomadic Manchu and "nicer" Tatars.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I like that, I have never liked Civ's series total failure to depict steppe empires of Eurasia in an interesting manner, it has always been just regular factions with horse - based military traits.

Huns were a force felt by the Central Asia, barbarian Europe, Roman empire, Sassanian empire, northern India and m a y b e China, so it makes sense that one of ten classical cultures will be a nomadic warmongering menace.

I would really love if some update later introduced classical era Scythians - also nomadic but somehow more peaceful. You can also make the same thing in the medieval era, with some "nicer" nomadic counterpart to Mongols - Khazars for example, or Tatars, or Cumans.

Meanwhile early modern era may always get warmongering nomadic Manchu and "nicer" Tatars.

Historically, the 'other' attribute of the pastoral groups was Trade, so you could quite effectively give them some kind of 'peaceful' trade Bonus instead of or in addition to the 'nomad' horse archer attributes. They were particularly consistent as Middlemen, providing trade links between widely-separate settled cultures - like the Persian. Roman and Chinese from Classical to Medieval Eras.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Historically, the 'other' attribute of the pastoral groups was Trade, so you could quite effectively give them some kind of 'peaceful' trade Bonus instead of or in addition to the 'nomad' horse archer attributes. They were particularly consistent as Middlemen, providing trade links between widely-separate settled cultures - like the Persian. Roman and Chinese from Classical to Medieval Eras.

This. I also hope that Humankind can have a Merchant affinity nomadic Culture as well (Uyghur Khaganate, Khazar Khaganate, Golden Horde, Timurid Empire, etc.). Currently it seems all the bonuses of the Mongols are military-centered.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

The tooltips are in work in progress, but they definitly need some warnings about their inability to build cities and attach outposts.

Their nomadic passive ( : not being able to build city and attach outposts) is almost a whole affinity. IMO, they really need a Nomad emblem under their Militarist emblem on the cultures screen.

The tooltip of the Ordu is supposed to describe both its ability to recruit the Hunnic Horde, and its inability to be transformed into a city or attached. However, as you noticed this tooltip is currently missing.

This. I also hope that Humankind can have a Merchant affinity nomadic Culture as well (Uyghur Khaganate, Khazar Khaganate, Golden Horde, Timurid Empire, etc.). Currently it seems all the bonuses of the Mongols are military-centered.

I don't know what our designers would have to say about it, but at least the implementation should be possible, as there are generally no direct connections between the four different components of a culture. (Exceptions exist, obviously. For example, the ordu's ability to recruit Hunnic Hordes wouldn't exactly work well without a Hunnic Horde unit.)

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I like that, I have never liked Civ's series total failure to depict steppe empires of Eurasia in an interesting manner, it has always been just regular factions with horse - based military traits.

Huns were a force felt by the Central Asia, barbarian Europe, Roman empire, Sassanian empire, northern India and m a y b e China, so it makes sense that one of ten classical cultures will be a nomadic warmongering menace.

I would really love if some update later introduced classical era Scythians - also nomadic but somehow more peaceful. You can also make the same thing in the medieval era, with some "nicer" nomadic counterpart to Mongols - Khazars for example, or Tatars, or Cumans.

Meanwhile early modern era may always get warmongering nomadic Manchu and "nicer" Tatars.

I think the issue with Civ series and nomadic peoples is that nomadic just does not work for a "whole game" trait. The Humankind Huns/Mongols are possible because picking them only makes you nomadic for 1 era... and then you can take your winnings and build an Empire (Mongols->Ming for a real life type example)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think the issue with Civ series and nomadic peoples is that nomadic just does not work for a "whole game" trait. The Humankind Huns/Mongols are possible because picking them only makes you nomadic for 1 era... and then you can take your winnings and build an Empire (Mongols->Ming for a real life type example)

Correct as far as it goes, but the 'pastoral nomad' Civs/Factions were immensely important to the development of Central Asia and the more settled Civs surrounding it for over 2500 years, which is a hefty chunk of either game to Leave Out.
Also, and this is a change from what I originally thought a few years ago, there is now a great deal of evidence, some of it archeological and much of it from the historical records of their settled neighbors in Rome or China, that the 'nomads' weren't entirely nomadic. They had permanent settlements and cities, manufacturing of metal, textile, and luxury goods, and made Technological advances every bit as important as those of the 'civilized' states. For example, there is evidence (admittedly not universally accepted) that the spoke-wheel chariot, firm saddle, composite bow (one of several types) were all discovered/developed on the steppes by the pastoral people. Analysis of the composition of metal objects has also determined that a great deal of the tin and copper that went into bronze objects, as well as the bronze objects themselves, came from the steppe area. Mining is not usually something you can do from horseback, so this is more evidence hat some of them horsemen got off their horses and stayed in place long enough to dig, refine, smelt, and work metals - including lost-wax casting, an advanced metalworking technique which seems to have appeared among the 'nomads' as fast as or earlier than among the settled states.

And there is considerable historical evidence that the 'barbarian nomads' were in fact mostly attacked by rather than attacking their settled neighbors. The Huns attacked Rome, for example, only after the Romans refused to trade with them, supported their enemies the Goths, and reneged on their treaty agreements. The Scythians did not march into Persepolis to kill Cyrus, he invaded Them. The Chinese Long Wall was not built to keep the nomads out, it was built to keep Chinese peasants from taking off to join the nomads, where life was much better than as a poverty-stricken farmer under the Zhou, Han, Tang, etc. (Which parallels the Real situation on the American colonial frontier, where many 'captives' of the natives refused to return to 'civilization' even when they got the chance: life was better in the Longhouses than round Boston Commons for everyone except a church elder!)

All of which gives a Trade Oriented pastoral civ/faction set of mechanics a much firmer historical basis than the traditional raiding/invading horsemen view.

 

[8housesofelixir]

The Chinese Long Wall was not built to keep the nomads out, it was built to keep Chinese peasants from taking off to join the nomads, where life was much better than as a poverty-stricken farmer under the Zhou, Han, Tang, etc.

There is also a view that the Great Wall was built to control the flow of merchants, to limit their access to Steppe People's or China's market by limiting the ports of entry to several passes on the Wall. Therefore the Wall also had an economical/trade control function (cf. the Custom Wall of Berlin and Paris in 18th century).

I strongly suspect that the Zhao Great Wall largely contributed to the outcome of the Zhao-Zhongshan War because of this particular economical function. Zhongshan was a kingdom of steppe nomads origin and a strong commercial powerhouse (fun fact: the in game Zhou city center was based on the Offering Hall of Zhongshan King Tombs), it pushed back Zhao invasion numerous times, but after Zhao built a Great Wall between Zhongshan and Eurasia Steppes (Zhao also tricked Qi, another commercial powerhouse, to cut ties with Zhongshan), Zhongshan became weaker and weaker, eventually being conquered by Zhao. I think this is another story about a Trade Oriented pastoral civ/faction.

 

[mitsho]

Looking back, there really seems to be missing a ancient era nomadic culture, no? It would make sense to me to have a culture at the start who can quickly fill a big area. That one would also make sense to be more peaceful, no?

Reading that, I'm already looking forward to having more than one nomadic culture in an era (say the Turks in the medieval era to go into the established Ottomans) as well as maritime "nomadic" cultures (such as the Taino, Malay, any of the Polynesians).

Ah, so many options.

 

[Atlas627]

Well everyone starts the nomadic age as nomadic, so wouldn't it seem weird to switch to the Ancient Age by adopting a nomadic culture? Besides, once we enter the Ancient Age we start representing a government that controls territory, but technology wasn't advanced enough for a nomadic group to really "control" that territory in a centralized manner. They basically were just several tribes of similar people in a similar area.

 

[ost]

maritime "nomadic" cultures

That is an awesome idea! Nomadic Polynesians would be incredibly cool

 

[mitsho]

Well everyone starts the nomadic age as nomadic, so wouldn't it seem weird to switch to the Ancient Age by adopting a nomadic culture? Besides, once we enter the Ancient Age we start representing a government that controls territory, but technology wasn't advanced enough for a nomadic group to really "control" that territory in a centralized manner. They basically were just several tribes of similar people in a similar area.

Well, I was more coming from gameplay here, but doesn't that description also not fit the Huns?

The first candidate coming to my mind would definitely come from the tail end of the ancient era: the Scythians or Cimmerians. But that isn't a problem really. Looking a bit for other candidates, it came to my mind that we probably just have way less proof of them since well, they were nomadic in a time when scripture and monuments were just being invented. But even just doing Mesopotamia, one could defend such a mechanic for the Canaanites, the Akkadians, the Kassites. I know I am straddling the line here really hard, but again, I was coming from gameplay.

Perhaps nomadic is the wrong term here, "pastoral" would suit it better, as even the Hunnic and Mongolian play styles don't give up on cities or make them move around the map - rather the playstyle resembles more of a "wide approach" to all the other cultures tall one. And that fits the empires I listed above as well. By the way, even the maritime nomadic cultures wouldn't be nomadic per se, just simply similarly "wide" in an archipelago world.

 

[Atlas627]

It might fit the Huns, but I think all we know about them is the Romans writing about Attila so they seemed a lot more centralized than they probably were. So that's why they get to be a later-era nomadic culture. I think we know that the Scythians were not one group because we have archaeological sites, not just Greek writings (which also made them sound like 1 group).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well, I was more coming from gameplay here, but doesn't that description also not fit the Huns?

The first candidate coming to my mind would definitely come from the tail end of the ancient era: the Scythians or Cimmerians. But that isn't a problem really. Looking a bit for other candidates, it came to my mind that we probably just have way less proof of them since well, they were nomadic in a time when scripture and monuments were just being invented. But even just doing Mesopotamia, one could defend such a mechanic for the Canaanites, the Akkadians, the Kassites. I know I am straddling the line here really hard, but again, I was coming from gameplay.

Perhaps nomadic is the wrong term here, "pastoral" would suit it better, as even the Hunnic and Mongolian play styles don't give up on cities or make them move around the map - rather the playstyle resembles more of a "wide approach" to all the other cultures tall one. And that fits the empires I listed above as well. By the way, even the maritime nomadic cultures wouldn't be nomadic per se, just simply similarly "wide" in an archipelago world.

The problem with an Ancient pastoral Faction is that it would not have many of the attributes people connect to such.
First, pastoral nomadism developed After agriculture: the first settlements/population on the steppes were hunters/farmers/herders on foot working the river bottoms only. The central steppe itself, as far as the archeology shows so far, was uninhabited. The 'pastorals' only moved onto the steppe when they began riding horses, which allowed them to take care of much larger herds much further from their 'base' along the river, and got wheeled vehicles that allowed them to build mobile 'homes' - solid-wheeled covered wagons. That didn't take place until around 3300 - 2800 BCE, or about 1000 years after the Ancient Era is usually considered to have started in the games.
Also, the mounted horse archer of the steppes didn't exist until the Cimmerians and Scythians of 1000 BCE and after - the very early Classical Era, in fact. That's because the earliest riders had only self bows 4 feet long or more, which were too unwieldy to use from horseback. You simply could not fire to the rear or front without whacking your horse in the head or the butt with the bow. It wasn't until the shorter composite bow was developed that the potent horse archer, the 'emblematic' steppe warrior, appeared, and that does not appear to have happened until around 1000 - 800 BCE.

There are candidates for a 'pastoral/steppe' Faction in the Ancient Era: Yamnaya, Andronovo or Shintashta cultures all had riders or chariots (apparently using javelins or throwing spears and polished stone-headed maces as their primary weapons), pastoral/agricultural economies, and put pressure on their neighbors to the west in Europe along the Danube and in the Hungarian plains, and the Yamnaya are now considered prime candidates for the "Indo-European' speakers who provided the linguistic basis for most of the modern European languages.