What Can Civ VII Learn From Humankind and other games?

[Aurelesk]

Humankind made me realize the importance of arbitrary victory conditions: I am glad that Capitals' Monopolies (Domination), Space Colonialism (Science), Cultural Alienation (Tourism) and World Bribery (Diplomatic) exist. Religious victory was a mistake. Clunky, but here they are here. Having only the Score victory is quite "meh" in fact. I understand the reason behind it: the value of a Civilization is not be cultural dominant just before a guy land a Spaceship somewhere.

For the Domination victory, Humankind has great ideas. If I try to translate it into Civilization VI's mechanics, it is like War Weariness / Grievance were the main ones instead of actual War effort and conquest. Basically, you want your enemy's War Weariness to be so high that it can no longer fight, so you force them into Peace Treaty. Peace Treaty is unilateral: you can take as much you can and your enemy cannot oppose anything. Meanwhile, you have to manage to get high Grievance toward them so you can claim a lot from them: a lot of Gold (even more than they have, to the point of Bankrupt them into negative Gold), Cities, or... become their Lord. Which is great! They have a Liege / Vassal system that is incredible, and Civilization VI should update their Domination victory to that system. Instead of having all Capitals in the world in your Empire, you should have all Civilizations as Vassals instead.

For Science, I believe they went too far: you cannot research Technologies from eras later than you current era. You either rush the Eras so you can research everything. If not, all that Science are wasted if they are nothing left to research. I like the way of Civilization VI better, even if perfectible: Technology / Civic split, Eurêka / Spies as catch-up mechanic. But it is perfectible: more mechanics should be added to prevent further runaway or discount to technologies already discovered. Maybe Peter's ability should be universal.

For the Cultural spreading, the system is weird and I didn't really understand. They have Influence (→ Culture) which allows to settle cities or territory to their Influence. Some civilizations has tools to spread their Influence through Culture Bomb, which is a way to put a city/territory under your influence. Religion is also a powerful tool to that. But I do not understand what was going on. I was the dominant Influencer of the world while doing nothing except have high Influence output. I believe I have some Gold out of this too?


I do not really like the "pick a Culture at each era". Because, well you cannot play more than 10 players since they are only 10 Cultures per era (already picked Culture are unavailable), and it is a "rich gets richer" mechanic. If a player focus on one side, it would pick the best / better suited each time and snowball harder. The remaining will have the leftovers.
Furthermore, it doesn't have any sense. If I was successful with the Celts, therefore the Celts would not be replaced by the Franks or the English in that scenario since they are the dominant force, not the other way around. Or Aztecs will not become Mexicans if they are no Spaniard in the game. And so on.
I like the "Pick a Civilization for the whole game" from Civilization's franchise betterr, even it is silly too. They could still be able to mimic a "Pick a trait" at each era, like something like Secret Societies in Civilization VI (but more choice) or Civics in Civilization V. Each civilizations could have different choices or even unique trees or advantages.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

A bunch of good points, that deserve separate answers:

Humankind made me realize the importance of arbitrary victory conditions: I am glad that Capitals' Monopolies (Domination), Space Colonialism (Science), Cultural Alienation (Tourism) and World Bribery (Diplomatic) exist. Religious victory was a mistake. Clunky, but here they are here. Having only the Score victory is quite "meh" in fact. I understand the reason behind it: the value of a Civilization is not be cultural dominant just before a guy land a Spaceship somewhere.

The best thing about Humankind's "Fame" Victory, is that it is impossible to progress, let alone win, by completely specializing. You need 7 Fame 'stars' to progress from Era to Era, and can get no more than 3 stars in any one category: being the consummate Warmonger, or Scientist, or Artist/Cultural Guru, to the exclusion of all else, will lose the game every time. The Fame Victory system forces you to pay attention to several aspects of the game at once, unlike Civ VI where you can focus (in fact, Have to focus) n a single thing (religion, military, culture, etc) on one thing only to win.

The second best thing is that the best thing can be added to the multiple Victory Types of Civ without having to also embrace a single Victory. See my response to @Hellenism Salesman's post earlier in this Thread, in fact: trhe requirements for each type of Victory in Civ VII could also require you to manage other things and thus, like Humankind's system, force you to broaden the scope of your game in order to win.

For the Domination victory, Humankind has great ideas. If I try to translate it into Civilization VI's mechanics, it is like War Weariness / Grievance were the main ones instead of actual War effort and conquest. Basically, you want your enemy's War Weariness to be so high that it can no longer fight, so you force them into Peace Treaty. Peace Treaty is unilateral: you can take as much you can and your enemy cannot oppose anything. Meanwhile, you have to manage to get high Grievance toward them so you can claim a lot from them: a lot of Gold (even more than they have, to the point of Bankrupt them into negative Gold), Cities, or... become their Lord. Which is great! They have a Liege / Vassal system that is incredible, and Civilization VI should update their Domination victory to that system. Instead of having all Capitals in the world in your Empire, you should have all Civilizations as Vassals instead.

The War Resolution mechanic in Humankind is brilliant - needs some tweaking here and there, but it as a concept it makes war a much more 'nuanced' endeavor than in any Civ game. Vassalization also has some tweaking required, but people have been asking for such a system in Civ 6 for a wile now so it cannot be ignored. They also have some nice limits to war: you simply cannot start a war if your own War Weariness is too high, so you have to pay attention to 'preparing' your little digital pixelated followers before you invade someone.

For Science, I believe they went too far: you cannot research Technologies from eras later than you current era. You either rush the Eras so you can research everything. If not, all that Science are wasted if they are nothing left to research. I like the way of Civilization VI better, even if perfectible: Technology / Civic split, Eurêka / Spies as catch-up mechanic. But it is perfectible: more mechanics should be added to prevent further runaway or discount to technologies already discovered. Maybe Peter's ability should be universal.

The two games right now have opposite problems: Civ 6 reduced the number of Technologies in the game and then added a Eureka system to speed up research. Result is that you can rip through the entire Tech Tree in about half the game's allotted time (250 out of 500 turns). In the last Open Dev (Victor) of Humankind, on the other hand, you had to bend every available effort towards Science just to keep up with the Era progression, and if you did that you were 'discovering' a new Tech every 4 - 5 turns and each Tech had 1 - 4 new things to Build, so you were never able to catch up with all the new Units, Buildings, Quarters, etc. The current size of Tech Tree in Humankind (I estimate, not having seen the last Era of the game's portion of the Tech Tree, that they have about 50% more Technologies than Cv VI) with a Eureka-type system from Civ VI, I think would be just about right: that, or something close to it, should be our goal for Civ VII, IMHO.

For the Cultural spreading, the system is weird and I didn't really understand. They have Influence (→ Culture) which allows to settle cities or territory to their Influence. Some civilizations has tools to spread their Influence through Culture Bomb, which is a way to put a city/territory under your influence. Religion is also a powerful tool to that. But I do not understand what was going on. I was the dominant Influencer of the world while doing nothing except have high Influence output. I believe I have some Gold out of this too?

The Influence system is not intuitive, but it is trying to do the same thing that 'culture' does in Civ VI: show the dominance of one group over the rest in non-military, non-Force terms. Religion might be part of it, or might not. In both games, and for certain in Civ VII, I want to see more interaction between systems. Culture/Influence should themselves include Civic and Social Policy choices, Religious effects (tenets, beliefs) and Government types (a subject Humankind doesn't really model at all) and, for one thing Humankind has that Civ VI doesn't, specific instances where Influence/Culture forces the nearest opponent city or cities to change their Civic choices to match yours - a more subtle effect by far than Civ VI's simple Loyal City to Free City, nothing in between.

I do not really like the "pick a Culture at each era". Because, well you cannot play more than 10 players since they are only 10 Cultures per era (already picked Culture are unavailable), and it is a "rich gets richer" mechanic. If a player focus on one side, it would pick the best / better suited each time and snowball harder. The remaining will have the leftovers.
Furthermore, it doesn't have any sense. If I was successful with the Celts, therefore the Celts would not be replaced by the Franks or the English in that scenario since they are the dominant force, not the other way around. Or Aztecs will not become Mexicans if they are no Spaniard in the game. And so on.
I like the "Pick a Civilization for the whole game" from Civilization's franchise betterr, even it is silly too. They could still be able to mimic a "Pick a trait" at each era, like something like Secret Societies in Civilization VI (but more choice) or Civics in Civilization V. Each civilizations could have different choices or even unique trees or advantages.

I've played Humankind Open Devs, and really enjoyed the game, but, yeah, as a historian this Unfettered Choice of Future Cultures just makes me cringe.
Since Civ is pretty much wedded to the Immortal Leader concept from start to end of game we aren't likely to see any 'pick a new culture entirely' ever introduced to Civ. On the other hand, it is ridiculous to think that a single set of Unique attributes can cover a Civ or culture 1000s of years old: that's why there are so many Modded Civs and Leaders in the Civ VI Workshop: one set doesn't begin to cover everything.

I think (at the moment, might change my mind next week) that the way to go is Progressive Change in a single Civ. You might start in 4000 BCE (or 10,000 BCE, if we go with Humankind's "Neolithic Start", which I really, really like) with Ivan the Terrifying as your leader of Russia and a set of Uniques related to his religious fervor and military aggressiveness, but at a certain Trigger Point (which should be some combination of In-Game Events, not an arbitrary 'Era Change') he picks up (or chooses) a different set of Unique attributes - hopefully, more useful in the changing circumstances. We could have both Uniques specific to the given Leader and more 'generic' Uniques (1 to a customer?) related to potential Needs given specific In-Game situations.

That way, we could approach the flexibility of being able to play a changing, adaptive Civilization through the ages instead of being trapped in a historical or semi-historical Strait Jacket for 6000 years, while keeping the Civ continuity of Civ and Leader.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And now, for something Different . . .

Units

Specifically, having gotten a glimpse of the Humankind Tech Tree and Unit List through the Industrial Age (in other words, all but one of their 6 'ages') in the latest Victor Open Dev AND having then sat down and combined the Civ VI and Humankind units lists (generic, not Unique or Emblematic) AND then having sat down and added the historical date of Known First Use or development to each of them, here's a little list that I think is Food For Thought And Discussion. Especially for Discussion before anybody starts deciding on what units they want to put into Civ VII.

I have left out any Ages or Eras, since the individual dates are, I think, more important in this context. The comments under the units, in most cases, are my definitions of what the 'unit title' actually means:

Land Units:
Scout (6000 BCE)
Warrior (6000 BCE)
Slinger (6000 BCE)
Archer (5200 BCE)
Riders (3700 BCE)
Earliest horseman without effective mounted weapons
Spearmen (2600 BCE)
Men with long spears and tight formations against mounted men or chariots
Heavy Chariot (2000 BCE)
Earliest fast vehicles with spoked wheels
Battering Ram (1900 BCE)
Earliest indication of protected wheeled ram against stone or brick walls
Light Chariot (1700 BCE)
Earliest fast vehicle with composite or regular bowmen on board
Horse Archer (1100 BCE)
Earliest combination of horseman and composite bow
Swordsmen (800 BCE)
First iron ‘long swords’ over 20 - 24 inches long
Horsemen (1000 BCE)
Riders with weapons to charge the enemy and fight effectively from horseback
Siege Tower (850 BCE)
Towers to carry rams or put archers above defensive walls
Catapult (400 BCE)
Knights (1100 CE)
Armored horsemen with couched lance
Trebuchet (1100 CE)
Pikemen (1300 CE)
Halberdiers (1275 - 1350 CE)
First blade and point combinations to spear-length two-handed weaponry
Bombard (1362 CE)
First mention of a wall breaker
Crossbowmen (1370 CE)
Metal steel-spring arbalests
Man-at-Arms (1250 CE)
First mention of 2-handed “great swords” used by men on foot
Field Cannon (1460 CE)
Smoothbore cannon with trunnions and trailed carriage
Arquebusiers (1470 CE)
Shoulder stock and matchlock firing mechanism
Cuirassier (1625 - 1675 CE)
Cavalry with helmet, breastplate, sword and pistols
Dragoons (1640 CE)
Unarmored Cavalry able to dismount and fight with muskets
Howitzer (1690 CE)
Can lob explosive shells into cities - siege weapon originally
Fusiliers (1700 CE) ("Line Infantry")
With smoothbore flintlock musket and socket bayonet
Ranger (1757 CE)
Light infantry skirmishers with muskets or rifles
Cavalry (1835 CE)
Unarmored horsemen with breechloading carbines and multi-shot pistols
Rifleman (1850 CE)
Black powder rifled muskets or breechloaders
Heavy Machine Gun (1883 CE)
H. Maxim’s recoil-operated water cooled weapon
Infantry (1883 - 1918 CE)
First magazine rifles to light machineguns in small units
Balloon (1898 CE)
‘sausage’ tethered reconnaissance balloon
Artillery (1899 CE)
Ability to use Indirect Fire effectively
Antitank Gun (1920 - 1933 CE)
Converted infantry support guns to first purpose-built' AT weapons
Antiaircraft Gun (1917 - 1935 CE)
Converted artillery and heavy caliber machineguns to 76 - 88mm types
Medium Tank (1935 CE)
Tanks over 20 tons weight with cannon
Special Forces (1941)
British Commandos, Soviet Spetsnaz, and German Brandenburgers
Mechanized Infantry (1941 - 1967 CE)
1941 armored halftracks,1967 first Infantry Fighting Vehicle, the BMP-1
SAM (1954 - 1981 CE)
Earliest stationary Surface-to-Air missiles to man-carried Stingers
Antitank Missiles (1955 CE)
First: SS-10, Malkara types
Main Battle Tank (1960 CE)
First dedicated MBTs: US M60 or Soviet T-64
Rocket Artillery (1963 - 1983 CE)
Multiple rocket systems from post-WWII Soviet to US M270 MLRS
Helicopter Gunship (1966 CE)
Cobra, first purpose-built attack helicopter

Naval Units:
Galley (2330 BCE)
Egyptian rowed coastal ships
Transport Galley (2330 BCE)
Egyptian rowed ships transporting troops along the coast
Pentekonter (700 BCE)
Last development of single-banked galleys
Trireme (550 CE)
Quinquereme (400 BCE)
Most common of the Polyreme warships
Cog (948 CE)
Used as transport and warship
Carrack (1420 CE)
First ship-type to carry large cannon in numbers
Caravel (1450 CE)
Carried only small guns
Galleon (1530 CE)
Both transport and warship, hull type developed into the:
Ship-of-the-Line (1660 CE)
Most complex human machine built to this time
Frigate (1740 CE)
Name used earlier, but this date: Medee, fist single-decked fast warship with cannon
Steam Frigate (1840 CE)
Many converted from existing Frigates
Ironclad (1854 CE)
Torpedo Boat (1885 CE)
First ship built to use self-propelled torpedoes
Destroyer (1894 CE)
First built to destroy Torpedo Boats
Submarine (1900 CE)
First mobile underwater warship with self-propelled torpedoes
Battleship (1906 CE)
Dreadnaught all-big-gun type: fist coal, but oil-fired by 1913 CE
Aircraft Carrier (1921 CE)
First purpose-built with torpedo-carrying aircraft
Supercarrier (1955 CE)
USS Forrestal, angled deck, steam catapults, can carry heavy jets
Guided Missile Ship (1962 CE)
Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser - terms seem to be used interchangeably
Nuclear Missile Submarine (1959 CE)
carrying Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles - or Cruise Missiles

Air Units:
Biplane (1908 CE)
Very little direct effect on ground units
Zeppelin Rigid Dirigible (1908 CE)
Long range bombing and reconnaissance airship
Tactical Fighter (1935 CE)
Low wing monoplanes, usually single engine
Strategic Bomber (1941 CE)
2 or 4 engine types, like B-17 or Lancaster
Cruise Missile (1956 - 2001 CE)
from Matador to Tomahawk
Attack Jet (1961 CE)
“Multirole” fighters, first were the Phantom II and Tornado

Several things Jumped Out at me after I compiled the list, and especially after I compiled the dates:
1. After the catapult of 400 BCE there is a 1000 year GAP in which, in units, there is virtually Nothing New. There are Improvements: better iron in the swords and armor, Horsemen with armor on armored horses (Cataphracts, Clibanarii), but no really game-changing new Units.
2. The first Gunpowder weapons, the Bombards, are Medieval, not Renaissance/Early Modern weapons - and they are utterly useless on a battlefield, taking hours to reload. They are strictly Siege Weapons, but have to be built elsewhere and hauled to the target, and then kept supplied with stone or iron shot and gunpowder. For the first time, they impose a huge burden on any army marching off to attack a walled city without providing any increase at all in that army's ability to do anything else. Their weight and the weight of all their supplies also impose a great drag on the army mobility over any terrain: the Siege Train becomes a reality, virtually a new Unit' all by itself.
3. Almost all units are subject to development or Upgrading after the initial dates shown. Case in point: the original 'feudal knight' actually dates back to around 850 CE, as an armored horseman wearing link mail, a helmet, with shield, long sword and thrusting spear. By 1100 CE he is using a couched lance for much greater impact in the charge - the 'classic' Medieval Knight. In the next century he starts adding Great Helms and other plate armor on torso and limbs, and by about 1400 CE is wearing articulated steel plate armor and riding an armored horse. All this represents, potentially, at least 3 different Upgrades for a basic Knight Unit.
4. At sea, the Carrack and Caravel developed at virtually the same time, but trhe Carrack was the gun-mounting warship (which Humankind does represent) compared to the Caravel, which was more of a Scout and 'contact' ship. The great Chinese 'Junks' could be considered their version of the Carracks, only bigger and with less in the way of cannon development.
5. Also at sea, there are probably more redundant types in all the games than anywhere else: in the Renaissance/Early Modern Era alone there are Caravel, Carrack, and Galleon following one after the other only a few turns apart, and then the Ship-of-the-Line and Frigate in the early 'Industrial' Era becoming Steam Frigates and Ironclads before the end of that Era: too many types too fast for any fun game.
6. There are a couple of In-Game Units tat don't fit into this scheme:
Military Engineer - There is evidence of the first men undermining city walls with tunneling or moving earth to divert water supplies away from cities - military engineering - as far back as 850 BCE, but there is also a massive increase in 'military engineering in the Renaissance, especially after about 1500 CE, when they are designing new types of fortifications, mines, earthworks, and other military engineer tasks, and later still when they are tapped to design and build canals, dams, railroads, ports, and other Industrial Engineering as well. They should probably remain a relatively late game unit, but in addition perhaps one of the early 'siege' units (Siege Tower, Catapult, or Battering Ram) should also get a 'boost' to represent the presence of these 'specialists' almost from the beginning of Siege Warfare.
7. Drones - the first 'reconnaissance drones' appear in 1962 CE, but by 1999 CE there are also anti-electronic, decoy, communications relay, and attack types carrying weaponry. BUT no one fields a separate game-sized Drone Unit. These, IMHO, should be represented by a Tech hat increases a bunch of factors and capabilities on other units, since Drones are used by land, sea, and air units in reality.

 

[aieeegrunt]

What the hell is the “Line Infantry” supposed to be. It can’t be “smoothbore musket” because we have musketeers.

My assumption was that Line Infantry would be your bolt action rifle troops from WW1 and WW2, with Infantry representing modern assault rifle armed troops.

America would have Infantry during WW2 representing how it’s copious resources allowed it to equip it’s entire infantry force with Garands and trucks and supporting tanks; to the point where a typical WW2 US infantry division often had more tanks than a German Panzer division.

Except that France’s unique unit is clearly supposed to be Napoleon’s Guard, but that is a smoothbore musket unit.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What the hell is the “Line Infantry” supposed to be. It can’t be “smoothbore musket” because we have musketeers.

My assumption was that Line Infantry would be your bolt action rifle troops from WW1 and WW2, with Infantry representing modern assault rifle armed troops.

America would have Infantry during WW2 representing how it’s copious resources allowed it to equip it’s entire infantry force with Garands and trucks and supporting tanks; to the point where a typical WW2 US infantry division often had more tanks than a German Panzer division.

Except that France’s unique unit is clearly supposed to be Napoleon’s Guard, but that is a smoothbore musket unit.

No line infantry are clearly supposed to represent the regiments that had flintlock muskets that were used throughout the 1700s and early 1800s, until rifles became more popular.

Honestly the musketeer unit in the Renaissance Era to me resembles more of an arquebusier. Plus the word arquebus and musket were sometimes interchangeable.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

No line infantry are clearly supposed to represent the regiments that had flintlock muskets that were used throughout the 1700s and early 1800s, until rifles became more popular.

Honestly the musketeer unit in the Renaissance Era to me resembles more of an arquebusier. Plus the word arquebus and musket were sometimes interchangeable.

The "Line Infantry" graphics in both Civ VI and Humankind are both from the Napoleonic Wars at the end of the 18th century. The term 'line infantry' first became 'official' with the French revolutionary armies, who divided all infantry into 'Line' (Infanterie de Ligne) and 'light' (Infanterie legere) - and the term "line infantry" was still officially in use as late as 1914 in European armies.
BUT the term is so broad as to be meaningless. Line Infantry tactics were pioneered in the 1650s by commanders like Turenne (France) and Montecuccoli (Austria) and earlier by the developments of Maurice of Nassau in the Netherlands and Gustaphus of Sweden. After 1650 ALL infantry, both pike and 'shot' were forming up in lines 4 - 6 ranks deep, which 'thinned' to 4 - 2 ranks by the beginning of the 18th century.

Any infantry from 1650 on could be called Line Infantry, then, but the meaningful distinction is between the matchlock muskets/arquebus used from 1475 to 1699 and the flintlock musket used after that. The flintlock could be loaded and fired twice as fast, allowed formations to be twice as dense (the burning match in a matchlock required troops to be far enough apart that they wouldn't accidentally set each other on fire - in practice, about a meter per man. The flintlock allowed that distance to be reduced by a third. In the average firing line, for every 100 meters you could double the number of muskets firing (only the first two ranks could effectively fire at once - the 3rd and other ranks were 'reserves')

Since the introduction of the flintlock to the ordinary infantry coincided with the invention and adoption of the socket bayonet, the flintlock added an anti-cavalry capability to the infantry, made the pike & shot combination unnecessary and obsolete, and made the "bayonet charge" the goal of every heroic nutter in command of an infantry unit.

So, the Line Infantry in both Humankind and Civ VI are misplaced. Humankind even has a Flintlock tech, but it comes 'way before the Line Infantry, and in fact enables the "Musketeer" unit, which, since they already have an Aquebussier unit, is redundant: the arquebus, from the time the older Hackbus got a shoulder stock, also had a matchlock firing mechanism and so there was no real change in effectiveness of the 'infantry' firearm from 1475 to 1699 CE.

Very briefly, the terms 'arquebus' and 'musket' had distinct meanings: the original Hackbus ("hook gun') was a massive weapon designed to be braced against a wall in a fortification. When they added a shoulder stock and made it a one-man carried weapon, they also reduced the weight and the bore (in fact, when they were introduced by Europeans to Southeast Asian armies, those folks nicknamed them "pea guns") to the point where they couldn't always penetrate a good steel breastplate. The 'musket', then, was a large bore arquebus introduced around 1520 CE and described as "a large bore arquebus capable of penetrating heavy armor". Since the small bore arquebus quickly became obsolete and disappeared except as a hunting weapon, the terms arquebus and musket were applied to the same weapons after that: the large bore (.6 to .7 inches) matchlocks, frequently with a separate bracing forked stick to support the heavy barrel.

 

[8housesofelixir]

The Territory-Region system of HMK, although feels artificial from time to time, offers a good opportunity to rethink the whole City-Based system of Civ series.

With the territory system, it is possible to control a strategical important place, or grab a luxury, without developing a full-fledged city right next to it. You can put the city at the other end of the territory, or attach the territory to a nearby city.

On the other hand, you cannot do that in Civ series, as everything on the map - whether a resource or a strategic place - needs a City Center within 3 tiles of it to develop. You are going to need a lot of full-fledged cities, and this meta in turn highly favors Wide Play, settler spamming, and chopping (District costs increase means a late game new city cannot build any districts quickly without chopping), limited the viable playstyles.

A way to address this issue might be none-city settlements. You are settling outposts, forts, trading posts, plantations, colonies, concessions, etc., but not another fully fledged city which requires far more attention.

Civ III had this system, called "Colony" - an improvement to develop a resource outside your territory - and I do wish future Civ series can pick up this idea again.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Territory-Region system of HMK, although feels artificial from time to time, offers a good opportunity to rethink the whole City-Based system of Civ series.

With the territory system, it is possible to control a strategical important place, or grab a luxury, without developing a full-fledged city right next to it. You can put the city at the other end of the territory, or attach the territory to a nearby city.

On the other hand, you cannot do that in Civ series, as everything on the map - whether a resource or a strategic place - needs a City Center within 3 tiles of it to develop. You are going to need a lot of full-fledged cities, and this meta in turn highly favors Wide Play, settler spamming, and chopping (District costs increase means a late game new city cannot build any districts quickly without chopping), limited the viable playstyles.

A way to address this issue might be none-city settlements. You are settling outposts, forts, trading posts, plantations, colonies, concessions, etc., but not another fully fledged city which requires far more attention.

Civ III had this system, called "Colony" - an improvement to develop a resource outside your territory - and I do wish future Civ series can pick up this idea again.

After playing a lot of hours in two Humankind Open Devs with the 'region' system, and then going back and playing some hours of Civ VI in the 'traditional' City = Everything, I'm convinced the optimum lies between the two.

As you say, Civ Vl requires you to develop a multi-city group, and results in very unlikely patterns of 'state' borders and strange gaps in the middle of your civilization's boundaried territry. The Humankind regions give you a very historical-looking set of coherent Faction/Civ boundaries, but in many ways the regional boundaries are much too rigid: a single city can control the same size region from the wheelless Ancient Age to the Global Communications of the Modern Age, as if control and exploitation of territory was completely independent of communication and transportation technology: John Macadam, James Watt, and Otto Daimler would all be spinning in their graves!

I think part of the answer lies in, as posted, more non-City settlements/entities on the map: Humankind controls (loosely) regions with sub-city Outposts, I suggest that Civ VI's 'Barbarian' Camps, permanent Tribal Huts, and placed Settlements representing everything from a strategic Border Fort to a plantation colony to a distant mining camp (examples date back to ancient Uruk for copper deposits, by the way) could 'expand' influence beyond simple city boundaries while, if well-designed, avoiding the rigidity of the current Region system from Humankind. If Settlements by the major Civs each control varying amounts of territory (ranging, perhaps, from the tile they are on plus 1 tile exploited to a complete 1-tile radius of 7 total tiles including the placement tile), then without spamming cities you can still control desired territory/resources and, eventually, incorporate them with expanding coherent State Borders.

Part of this would/might be a system where you can 'modify' city boundaries by 1 or more tiles using a currency like Loyalty or Culture, 'rectifying' the current splat pattern of city boundaries into something resembling historical State Borders - and allowing 'cultural/political contests' in which the boundary sways back and forth, as did the boundary between French and German settlement west of the Rhine for over 400 years.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I don't really understand why every 4X games dealed with Gunpowder military evolutions quite wrong? Handgunners are usually (if not always) appears first, then followed with big guns (Bombards and cannons) while in truth the gunpowder weaponizations timeline are other way around.
Trebuchets are also another symbols of Medieval Eurocentrism while in truth this siege engine did somehow 'coexisted' with bombards only to be replaced within one or two centuries.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don't really understand why every 4X games dealed with Gunpowder military evolutions quite wrong? Handgunners are usually (if not always) appears first, then followed with big guns (Bombards and cannons) while in truth the gunpowder weaponizations timeline are other way around.
Trebuchets are also another symbols of Medieval Eurocentrism while in truth this siege engine did somehow 'coexisted' with bombards only to be replaced within one or two centuries.

The first known 'bombard' - a 1 ton weapon - appears in 1362 CE, and one is used to put a whole through a city's stone curtain (Medieval) wall in 1375 CE.
1475 CE, the Siege of Burgos in Spain, is the last known use of any catapult/trebuchet 'artillery' in Europe, so 100 years after the Bombard appears, all earlier siege artillery is obsolete, which is not many turns in game time.

Simultaneously with the disappearance of the Trebuchet, a shoulder stock is added to the Hackbus (1470 CE) to produce the arquebus: the first one-man handgun that can be aimed and fired from the shoulder, and by 1475 CE there is the first illustration of a classic matchlock-fired arquebus with shoulder stock and trigger mechanism, the first really effective individual soldier's bullet-throwing gunpowder weapon. Enter 'Musketmen' in game terms.

Almost exactly 100 years after the Bombard, but Civ games have never gotten this right, and the new Humankind game makes the same mistake: their Arquebusier unit appears a full tier of Techs before the "Mortar" which is their mis-named Bombard unit.

THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE, GAME DESIGNERS.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ Very few computer games did these right.
- Forge of Empires: Browser-based games, through era settings and unit attributes are more or less rediculous. this game got one thing right. Big gun (Cannon, represented in game as a kind of bombard with two-wheeled cart, or in other word, culverin) came first (Late Medieval Era), then shortly followed with handgunners (Musketeers)
https://forgeofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Military_Unit#Late_Middle_Ages
- Settlers 5 (or 4 I think). Big gun came in base versions first, later with handgunners (Sharpshooters) in expansions.
- Medieval Total War.

Personally. If Civ7 is to use the same combat system as Humankind. Land Unit lists of the Medieval Era should be
1. Heavy Infantry. Spearmen with Shield and medieval maile armor, Anticavalry with Phalanx charge ability (Deals more damage when attacking)
2. Man At Arms. Shock Melee. Good against Anticavalry, may have shield as wargear
3. Knights. Heavycavalry, can dismount to fight as MAA (Think of Total War series)
4. Marksman. LOS Ranged, (can be either crossbowman or longbowman, but crossbows came to exists not because it shoots a projectile with more initial velocity but because it is easier to train and use particularly with anyone running a big empire and prefers large number of peasant levy over a handful of highborne professionals.... Various Chinese Emperors prefer such kind of grand army so that's why China invented crossbows first). Personally I like this name over either longbowman or crossbowman.
5. (A kind of lightweight shooty cavalry)
6. Bombard (Tech gunpowder, can destroy walls and fortifications. only deploy in siege).

Renaissance Era/ Early Modern Era land units
1. Pikeman.
2. Handgunners. (Basically Arquebusiers and Musketeers,)
3. Harquebusier. Ranged cavalry, can shoot when mounted, also can dismount to shoot, later can charge enemy only when mounted.
4. Cuirassier. Also can either shoot or charge, but with limited shots per battle.
5. Cannon. can raze walls and buildings like bombard but can also deploy in open field battles, vulnerable when charged.
6. Mortar. Non LOS attack, can shoot over the walls, deploys in siege only.

 

[Phrozen]

English knights in the late medieval age mostly fought dismounted as elite heavily armored infantry. They kept the articulated steel plate but dropping the couched lance for a halberd or similar pole arm. With fully enclosed articulated steel plate a shield wasn't needed anymore.

 

[The googles do nothing]

I do not really like the "pick a Culture at each era". Because, well you cannot play more than 10 players since they are only 10 Cultures per era (already picked Culture are unavailable), and it is a "rich gets richer" mechanic. If a player focus on one side, it would pick the best / better suited each time and snowball harder. The remaining will have the leftovers.

Does Humankind have any negatives to these choices? I'm curious because Civ didn't balance the game way.

I don't really understand why every 4X games dealed with Gunpowder military evolutions quite wrong?

4X is the only genre that has multiple era of weapon, or any technology for that matter. I would like to see civ7 come to market with the final era ending at gun powder and have later eras be an expansion.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Does Humankind have any negatives to these choices? I'm curious because Civ didn't balance the game way..

Like Civ VI before the latest Civilizations with some built in 'maluses', the Humankind factions are only balanced in the sense that picking one makes you miss out on the bonuses another might provide. The other interesting 'balance' is that by remaining in an Age you can pick up relatively 'cheap' Fame Points, which are the only Victory Condition, but by delaying the advance to the next Age you may find that your desired Faction for that Age has already been taken, and duplicates are not allowed. You have to balance your desired future choice with current advantage.

4X is the only genre that has multiple era of weapon, or any technology for that matter. I would like to see civ7 come to market with the final era ending at gun powder and have later eras be an expansion.

Gunpowder changed warfare immensely, and there is a definite 'singularity-like' boundary between pre-gunpowder armies and units and post-gunpowder armies.

Rather than see the game sawed in half at the beginning of the "Gunpowder Era", though, I'd rather see the game better model the transition and its importance - as well as similar Massive Change events in history, like the Industrial Revolution or the relatively contemporary rise of Formal and Transcultural Religions in 700 - 500 BCE. These Singularity Events, IMHO, would be a better trigger for an "Era change" mechanic than some artificial 'Era' date.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The "Line Infantry" graphics in both Civ VI and Humankind are both from the Napoleonic Wars at the end of the 18th century. The term 'line infantry' first became 'official' with the French revolutionary armies, who divided all infantry into 'Line' (Infanterie de Ligne) and 'light' (Infanterie legere) - and the term "line infantry" was still officially in use as late as 1914 in European armies.
BUT the term is so broad as to be meaningless. Line Infantry tactics were pioneered in the 1650s by commanders like Turenne (France) and Montecuccoli (Austria) and earlier by the developments of Maurice of Nassau in the Netherlands and Gustaphus of Sweden. After 1650 ALL infantry, both pike and 'shot' were forming up in lines 4 - 6 ranks deep, which 'thinned' to 4 - 2 ranks by the beginning of the 18th century.
.

So still proper unit names should be 'Fusiliers'. And what about graphical representations. Why do you prefer Tricornes, Overcoats and Cravats of the 18th Century 'Enlightenment Era' over Napoleonics Shako and standing collar tunics which F'xis fonds of?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

So still proper unit names should be 'Fusiliers'. And what about graphical representations. Why do you prefer Tricornes, Overcoats and Cravats of the 18th Century 'Enlightenment Era' over Napoleonics Shako and standing collar tunics which F'xis fonds of?

The Napoleonic Wars and French Revolution were Great Events in European history: rise of mass conscript armies, mass populist/nationalist/patriotic movements combined with the burgeoning Industrial Revolution.

But the 'tricorn and frock coat' signals the beginning of the absolute dominance of gunpowder and gunpowder-equipped armies. Not only gunpowder, but specifically the flintlock-equipped musket with bayonet (the Fusilier I've argued for incessently) was the first Universal Weapon for virtually all infantry, replacing all the older pikes and other melee weapons as well as all earlier types of muskets and arquebus. And the adoption of that weapon between 1695 and 1708 CE was simultaneous with the turning up of the wide-brimmed hat into a tricorn and the universal adoption of uniform colors on the frock coats, waistcoats ('vests' in American) and cuff, collars and lapels of the coats, so for the first time since Rome armies were in uniform, carrying flags with symbols national rather than personal, and fighting with a Universal Weapon.

That's momentous enough, I think, to be represented by also using the graphic of an early 18th century soldier for the Unit of the period/Era rather than that of a century later.

Also, to be completely honest, I helped write several sets of rules for playing the period of 1700 - 1750 in miniature and painted up over 2500 miniature figures for the War of the Spanish Succession (1702 - 1714) and still have a library of references in 5 languages on the uniforms of the period!

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

That's momentous enough, I think, to be represented by also using the graphic of an early 18th century soldier for the Unit of the period/Era rather than that of a century later.

^ Malburians 'transitioanl' period uniforms worn by Caroleans in GS and King Louis XIV's Army? (where some units still uses wooden / leather bandoliers along with lappels as ammo containers)
And with each men wear cravats too?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

^ Malburians 'transitioanl' period uniforms worn by Caroleans in GS and King Louis XIV's Army? (where some units still uses wooden / leather bandoliers along with lappels as ammo containers)
And with each men wear cravats too?

The uniforms pictured are all from the '9 Year's War' period, before the universal adoption of the flintlock musket and socket bayonet, which really starts around 1695 and goes until 1708 (the Tula Arsenal 1708 model flintlock was the first flintlock adopted by the Russian Army and, as far as I know, the last major European army to formally adopt the flintlock musket). From about 1700 on, the headgear became a much more precise Tricorn, almost always black felt, and the coats became much 'fuller' with very pronounced cuffs and lapels that allow a very easy visual identification of the unit and soldier.
Examples:

These are, of course, miniature figures but show what can be done to make the graphics very distinctive with only slight exaggeration, and how well the coat and cuff/lapel colors can be made to stand out if they want to do 'skins' with different uniforms for different Civs - this was, after all, when the distinctive unit and national uniforms became common in Europe for the first time in over 1200 years, and I've always thought that the game was missing something graphically by not showing that.

As for the cravat, it was required by all ranks. Remember that both the coat and the waistcoat under the coat were wool, so some kind of cloth neck protection was required to keep the wool from abrading the skin around rhe neck. Officers, in the illustration the figures on either end, frequently wore their cravats 'Steenkirk' style, with long ends hanging down the front. Note that in some armies the color of the cravat might be specified, but also note that officers provided their own uniforms, and could wear any colors they anted. Their 'badge of office' was the sash worn around the waist or over the right shoulder, in either white or some national color combination.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Less city building and more tactic.
I'd like to automate builders to focus on the Adrian wall, the Great China wall, the Maginot line.
Maybe citizens could go working tiles like mines as if they were actual units. Mantaining the units there would allow for stone supply necessary for building said walls or roman roads. Roads and wall diversity and mantainance supply lines are part of a better tactical overview. These units could have to move back and forth to form a supply chain.
That would be a drastical/radical new idea.
Speed is the limit. Take time away from tactical/wars efforts, will make civ more and more a Sim game.
I see this trend prevailing. There can be no balance once the threshold has moved past a certain point.
It need to be moved back or else, radically swapped.
Right click menus should come back also. Cleaner interface is a must.
I loved the builder with charges idea, but it needs to move on...

 

[Krajzen]

1) Create combat system that AI can actually use and be decent at that (Humankind's combat in alpha gave me more challenge than civ 6's after four years of development)
2) At least on paper try to invent victory conditions, era layout and pacing mechanisms that will make the end game as interesting and dynamic as possible.

Civ 6's ideas of
- making half of game eras take place since the industrial revolution
- designing the game around a ruthless linear snowballing that makes potential victors obvious very quickly, catching up impossible and collapse of empires impossible
- making the victories a very drawn out linear process with no risks and no dynamism

All contribute to the misery of the latter half of the game.

3) Make the game actually modding friendly, not just declare that and then make it the least moddable game in the series
4) Keep closer to the history and immersion and further from arcade board game cartoon
5) Try to actually risk implementng radical, fundamental innovations (such as HK's idea of evolving cultures) instead of either just adding more of the old - style stuff (double tech tree, more of everything etc) or adding new mechanics as an inconsequential gimmick disconnected from other mechanics (climate, switchable game modes)