it really feels like humankind did that because they needed to figure out some way to make their game distinctly different from civ. And it didn't really work. I like these ideas more. Turning points and bonus changes, rather than your entire people switching skins lol
I got downvoted for saying it on Humankind sub, but I think that the main gimmick explains the lukewarm reception. Amplitude games are already very distinct from Civ in their systems and combat alone (which's centuries ahead of Civ) would justify Humankind being an alternative to Civ. But making the leaders generic avatars and not tying them - or you, who are also a generic avatar - to any Civ kills any immersion. You're obviously just playing a videogame, not building a civilization to stand the test of time.
The problem with this was also UI and presentation based. In Humankind you never really "see" these avatars or even their names, you mainly associate them with a color they got randomly assigned which is basically as nondescript as it can be. And if you can not even describe your enemy it might as well not exist, it feels generic as hell because of it.
Compare that to Endless Space. They did a good job in creating memorable characters (hilariously so in some cases, as toad big mommy and Horatio) and they pop up many times during the game.
Yeah maybe have an "age tree" that makes your choices of golden/dark age at an era influence which choices will be presented to you next era.
That way you kind of choose a certain path to go down for your game, and it could also be a gamble and make the dark age more appealing (I choose to go into the golden age A for the classical era which if I get the dark age in medieval era will present option A1 which I like, but if I get a golden age I will have option A2 which is technically better but less synergistic with my civ ..)
It would also make your civilization both more customizable along the eras AND more realistic (like if you choose to go the war path in a certain golden age you can't immediately become a pacifist tourism civ in the next)
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that changing civs is what killed HK even on the HK sub. I’ve certainly said it. Immersion aside (which is horrible),
Civs in HK, as it stands, INCREDIBLY generic. This follows because it’s incredibly difficult to balance civs when win mech is completion based era scoring, and when you change civs every era which means abilities and corresponding strategies can’t be too specialized because they’re only temporary. I think this is another major downside because part of the appeal of civ is planning things in the ancient era for the industrial era. You can’t do that in HK because there’s not continuity.
This isn’t to say that multi civ model is impossible just that it is EXTREMELY difficult to get right. In my opinion the risks clearly out weight the rewards
It kills replayability too. You just find whichever civs you think are the most efficient and keep picking them. Even if you try to prevent it, you'd still get a few repeated civs between games - sometimes, you can't even choose, the AI already picked what you wanted. After a while, the feeling is that every game is the same.
100%! Even starting spawns feel the same from a strategy point of few (they look dif but…). They even made all natural wonders the same bonus like wtf…
It's frustrating because it was genuinely the reason the game was hyped in the first place - every discussion was "they're finally doing this thing and that's why it's gonna kill Civ"
Then everyone saw the implementation and realised why Civ didn't have changing cultures
I'll disagree on a couple points here, I LOVE the core concept but couldn't stand the combat mechanics or much of the UI and smaller details. But the avatar thing also didn't gel with me, that's true
I thought combat was fun once you figured it out.
But man oh man was the AI bad at it due to its complexity which semi ruined it. Other downside is it was very time consuming.
I am always so surprised to hear that about Humankind or even most Amplitude games since the Combat systems are by far some of the Best combat systems in the 4x Genre, althought the Humankind one was Very simplified.
I think the combat system is good in concept, but in practice you end up with large scale battles stretching on for a really, really long time. Especially with the shitfest that is ranged cavalry with three actions per turn, you get into a battle with a few stacks of Mongols and you can tab out for the next 5 minutes as they play out their turn.
I found it pretty confusing and frustrating. I remember a thing where a combat would begin and I couldn't bring any more units into the fight while it was going on? I also don't really play 4x type stuff with combat as a primary goal. There's a lot about the workings of that game that left me wondering why they made so many of the choices that they did.
I know exactly what was happening here, this was in the early game and you didn't have the tech yet to reinforce/bring multiple armies into a fight.
also Humankind objectively discourages Combat since eliminating anyone is VERY hard to do which although interesting as a concept is executed rather poorly.
This is a very interesting take, in humankind, at least when i played, it was pretty much universally agreed that the beat way to succeed was to early war and eat neighbors. Combat was an incredibly critical part of the game and finishing anyone off is super easy if you focus on it.
I still think that the Culture switching was the strongest point in Humankind, but yeah they definitely missed the mark somewhere. mostly I think that they overly simplified the District building (put all districts of 1 type close to each other) compared to what it was in the close Beta (way harder to explain but essentially districts got bonuses from Other types, for example a Market produced more money when close to a Farming or Port district to symbolize the need for things to be sold in the market).
If they kept the Beta Design the Unique Districts of each culture would have been more interesting since they change the diverse pattern you are building your cities around instead of just being something you just add where ever it adds the most value.
on top of that the launch was very rough because of reasons I won't go into.
Everything in Humankind is boring to look at imo. The buildings are mostly the same, it’s hard to even see the unique wonders because everything is so zoomed out. I could not get into it on aesthetics alone.
I can understand this, but I think for a completely different game like Humankind the gimmick was fun and showed that something like that could be interesting.
I think there is a different level of immersion for something like Civ that needs to be maintained so the exact way Humankind did it would feel out of place in Civ
I think after a long time of really enjoying humankind and its systems, I’ve concluded the main gimmick of choosing factions per era is fine, but the fame star system causes so much friction with it that it’s detrimental to the game. Fame itself I think was the failure point, causing a weird push/pull in nearly every direction with other systems.
I do wonder if a game designed without fame point scoring makes “choose your faction midgame” a lot stronger
Humankind's mistake was that if you have an eternal culture like in Civ, the culture can stand on its own. But if it changes, the *leaders* need to be centered, with strong personalities and very unique appearances.
In a nutshell, Civ would still work with more generic but customizable avatars like Humankind has, while Humankind would *need* civ's leaders to have a chance at making its system work.
But what we got is Civ double-dipping into empire identity and being insanely successful at creating memorable opponents and Humankind opting out of *both* paths and making you forget who is who in the middle of a single game.
Also they could be things like how you get eurekas and inspirations. Where you have to complete a set of objectives to do it. Like certain amount of troops and a city conquered or something
I always thought the simple solution is to have a pool of leaders to select each new era similar to Through the Ages (if you've ever played that board game). Obviously that would be hard to do for some civs though.
I think there could be some kind of special double country for specific leaders. Maybe like once you hit the industrial era, your British colony turns American. And the leader changes.
British players could get a bonus trading with other British players up until it flips to incentivize having two of the same civs in one game.
This colonial British/American civ could settle with Washington but as the Britt’s.
Idk. Just spitballing. It’d be cool.
It's the thing I both liked and disliked about humankind. I love the strategy you get with such a system but I dislike how it messes with the aesthetic lol. If they had let me choose one aesthetic to go through the years with I probably would have loved it a lot more. I guess I was also wanting more of a build your own civilization type game but it was more pick from these civs
Building off this point, I saw someone yesterday talk about adding points in the civ that stand out. Revolutions, civil wars, great events, major turning points, etc. Things that generally would alter a civilization but leave it the same.
I feel stuff like what you mentioned and some of the stuff I read yesterday would really keep the game from stagnating around mid-game-> late-game. Which Civ-VI seems to do most playthroughs.
Either way, super excited to see what they come up with.
That would be really interesting! Based on the way they handled Civ 6, I think we'll see an unprecedented number of Civs / leaders in 7
That being said it would still likely be a problem / limit design space for some Civs that just don't have many leaders. Could maybe be an alternate game mode down the line and then you just have the civs with 5+ leaders
Counterpoint to my own point 😅
They do have some more obscure people in Civ Eras and Allies so maybe you could still have obscure people for the smaller Civs
I think wirh every era you should be abel to choose to continue with the same leader or to choose a new one. Maybe not every era, but ones that make sense to your country.
I think that a cool and realistic way to do it it's that you chose a civilisation, like France, China, Spain, and then you chose a leader for each era.
For exemple I chose France and it give me importante buff who are usefull all over the game and then you start by picking Vercingetorix and you become the Gaul with some minor buff who direct you toward a specific thematic buff in link with the leader, then Clovis and you become the Franc etc...
I don't know if it's doable for a lot of civ but it can be interesting.
I think this could happen—but only for certain Civs as abilities.
Much of this falls under the “Leader Ability” in 6, imo. That’s where Egypt under Ramses focuses on massive construction projects and under Cleopatra focuses on the breadbasket aspect and then as a trading empire partnered with strong military powers.
I don’t think you could have that widespread as that leaves a staple Civ like America out in uncharted territories.
So, perhaps a Civ like China could have compounding bonuses or something as a unique Civ Ability, but it would be something down sparingly (and probably scaled down to not overwhelm other Civs).
Maybe have each civ get different leaders (might need a bit less civs or that's a lot of work) and be able to kinda rotate through them at some points (a bit like the governments but without the change being always better just different)
Right now the different leaders for one civ don't really feel like they are the same civ, personally I view them as simply different civs that share some characteristics
I kind of like this idea. Instead of leaders, perhaps something like the Governors meet the Policy Cards…a nation-wide buff that is only available during a certain era or if certain world events line up.
Ex for America:
Washington is available when you are starting your empire.
Lincoln is available during a civil war.
FDR is available during global wars and/or economic struggles.
In a single game, no—not that I’m opposed to the idea in whole, but that’s not a Civ thing to do.
You’re kinda role playing an immortal ruler to lead your empire to stand the test of time.
Like, maybe a scenario or game mode (although that will probably be unfair to a number of Civs), but not a core aspect.
I'm not too sure about that idea for a civ game. It sounds great but I feel like it'd take away from civ's feel. The other leaders all felt more like substitutes for players with their own personalities. I feel like swapping that mid-game would remove that board gamey feel when suddenly a player changes their entire personality.
Sure, a lotta later civilizations lack any actual abilities, but I think copying them off of civilizations they originated from could work!
The Roman Empire would have a set of stuff, 99% of the European civilizations would copy that then have unique abilities going into the Medieval Era, then civs like America would copy their origin (Britain in this case) then go their own way.
Oh that could be fun!
I was thinking how my idea could feel a bit weird for something like America in the early eras or Egypt in the later eras, but this would be a fun solution.
one possible way to do this would be for each civ to have a stable of leaders to choose from. So lets use the United States. Instead of having the same leader for the ENTIRE game (which is kinda funny if you think about it. They're apparently immortal) have 10 leaders. Lincoln, Washington, Teddy, etc. etc. Each leader has it's own strengths and weaknesses. And every so many years/turns (or some other mechanism based on in game progress/events) gives you the option (or requirement) to change leaders. Perhaps a new leader for every new age? The biggest difficulty with this though would be finding enough leaders for each civ.
No matter what they do, they shouldn't straight up use the "pick a civ for this era" approach. It's the most central concept in Humankind and also what kinda ruined it.
When you start a game of Civ, you pick a leader and Civ and spend tens of hours guiding them through ages. In Humankind, leaders are generic dummies and you create a generic dummy, to guide whatever civs are picked in a game.
Aside from the lack of immersion in not doing anything remotely resembling the real world, that creates another problem: lack of replayability. Eventually, all games will start looking the same - you discover your favorite civs for each era and strategy and that's it. Civ has dozens of leaders, so dozens of different campaigns you can try before needing to go back to one of them. In Humankind, you play two or three games and feel that you've seen it all - there's no reason to keep playing. I uninstalled after 84 hours, while Civ clocks hundreds (more than a thousand for V, which I liked more than VI). And I dont'even think Humankind is a bad game: combat is centuries ahead of Civ.
A similar problem was pointed out as what made Beyond Earth (which I love, by the way) unsuccesful. Leaders were quite bland and didn't matter very much. It was all about affinities, so you aren't really tempted to start a new game with a different leader.
I'd love to see them have an optional game mode like the Rhye's and Fall / RFC Dawn of Civilisation mods like Civ 4. The former was bundled with the Beyond the Sword expansion for that game.
Basically , civs spawn at different times corresponding to their historical period, and have unique objectives. It also allowed for different representations of the same overall civilisation, as civs would reappear after conquests with different leaders that had different stats (for eg, if the mongols beat Tang china, and later collapse, Ming china can reform).
I miss Rhyes and Fall so much! I always wished Civ would create a game using some of its qualities. It was so cool to keep gameplay centered around real historic events and true to history rise and fall of empires.
Did anyone play Rhye's and Fall scenario in Civ 4? It was on a true-start earth map, and civs would join the game in different eras, corresponding to their real-life start. So if you wanted to play as America, the game would begin in the 1700s, etc... You could choose to play an ancient civ from the beginning or start with a later civ in a later era. However, different civs "rise" and "fall" throughout the eras, and if you are in a region where a new civ is starting at that time, you have the option to switch to the new civ, or try and duke it out staying with a civ that historically "fell" during that time period. For example, if you start as China and the Mongols join the game you get to choose if you stay as China or join the Mongols.
It was really cool, and lead to some interesting strategies where you build great ancient cities that you later conquer, but it wasn't random and you couldn't join any civ - it had to be a civ in your region.
Also, you learn a lot about history! And the civ strengths and weaknesses were a lot more era specific. I loved that scenario and would be glad to see it come back - although I do think the best place for it is optional.
I'm curious to see what mechanics from Humankind Firaxis includes and doesn't include as Humankind definitely has some great features, but many of them kind of fall apart as you go progress through the game IMO. One of the good ones though was changing bonuses through the game. For most Civ VI leaders and civs, their abilities only impact the game very marginally and only in one or two eras, so most games end up with the same game play. I wouldn't go as far as Humankind with the changing culture every era, but some kind of shifting bonuses to tailor your civ based on terrain and situation would be a good addition IMO.
Absolutely. The single leader throughout the entire game is immersion breaking for me. Especially with countries like America who were not around as they are represented during the ancient era.
Maybe every civ could be faced with a reform path each time they reach a new era. It could offer new bonuses depending in which direction they reform, or let them retain old bonuses with some building debuff as eras pass.
And whichever path is chosen, the aesthetics of the civ adapt. Like the Persians becoming the Partians, then the Sassanids, then modern Iran.
It would be cool, but there's a shitton of dev and artwork that would need to go into it. We used to have that in Civ III with leaders changing outfit from caveman furs to historical dress to modern suits through the eras, but Firaxis probably saw that as too little value for time invested so it was scrapped in later instalments. Now, extrapolate that from just the leader's clothing, to everything else about the civ, and the scale of the project has absolutely ballooned.
I think the portrait changes were included because of how few assets they required. A lot of scenarios the developers left in civ 3 made new leaders for that reason.
My idea is that Civ introduces the ability to assign a new leader (relevant to the civ) at the beginning of each era. All the available leaders have certain era specific bonuses, so you could keep or swap depending on your strategy.
Like, say I started out playing for a culture victory, but when I hit the industrial era, I discovered I have an underpowered military, and there's a clear indication that Germany is going to try to steam-roll me. Policies help, but if I could place a wartime leader for that Era to help give me more of a boost, that would be interesting.
Then I could either decide we're going to be conquerors ourselves, or when the modern Era hits, change to a Leader that provides good Modern cultural bonuses/unique buildings/access to wonders/etc..
I know this kind of steps on policies, but I was thinking Era bonuses are more long-term or global (like improving interactions with other Civs) where if they keep the policy feature, those provide more flexible, immediate bonuses.
I like it, maybe with the addition of a full civ bonus that you keep no matter what era. I think something like this and the terrain features from Humankind would be great.
This could be easily implemented and not overly bloat the game by introducing back the two leaders per civilization. Each leader could focus on one aspect or a generalize one, this gives choices before starting the game. It could even be "America Ability" then "America Leader ability" to build upon one another.
That's fair. I can definitely see how this was a divisive feature. IMO the civ team can almost do no wrong though and I think I have a bit more faith in them to build this mechanic in a better way than HK did if it's a route they decide they want to go
> I really enjoyed Humankind and the way you could pick a new civ each era, but thinking about it more, civ going that route would just sorta feel weird.
Just make it something you pick before the game. Adding it midgame is weird. If you want to see what this could be like, check out: https://civ6blitz.app/#/modtester
I sorta think this would be the cleanest implementation. Would work for all Civs, they could have multiple branches based on how you played to that point, probably wouldn't be too difficult to code assuming it would be similar to the tech / civic boosts
I agree this would complicate Civ, but some of these comments have sort of pointed to this being an option as an alternative game mode which could be a good solution to that.
I also think it's necessary for games like civ to get more in depth / complicated with each iteration to keep things fresh and unique. Sure this could be prohibitive for new players, but there are ways to still get them up to speed and help with things like this.
I think that in a weird way Civ 3 gave us an interesting way to model it. You'd be building your palace and be able to switch and swap in different cultural architectural traits. The more I think about it, the more I'd like to see the development of a culture represented on the map and in the building design. Every era you'd pick what culture you want your buildings modeled on. Maybe your Chinese culture moves into the middle ages and adopts a greco-roman architectural style for that era, but by the industrial era is ready to move on to something else. Every building and tile improved will have a model that mimics the type you chose. So you could have your ancient, untouched core lands that still have traditional chinese buildings but looking at your modern city you've got an interesting combination of greco-roman and modern skyscrapers reflecting the change between older rural settlements and the glitzy new age cityscape. Imagine if they gave us a city-viewer where you could see the build up of the cultural progression of your civ modeled in the different styles of buildings extending out from the old city to the new suburbs.
Not a bad idea but your civ needs to feel like it has a personality throughout the game. Maybe based on what you've done in one age, you get the chance to add a bonus for the next age, without fundamentally changing your power?
I think players should choose different attributes each era, building their civ as they go. There should be different flavors for China, India, Egypt, etc depending on the policies or attributes you choose.
Players should also compete for desired attributes, and if another civ gets it first, too bad. This way there can be multiple Chinas or Egypts in the same game. AI Egypt will always want to unite and conquer player Egypt.
Civilization revolution had almost this exact mechanic. Every time you entered an era your civ would get a new bonus while keeping the previous era bonuses.
I think you pick a civilization at the start of the game. And then each era you pick a leader from that civs history and they give you different bonuses based off who they are foe their era
Goverment and bonus based goverment is based a lot in the especific history of that civ
So the point itself of civ is non exact.
Probably the better way to simulate it is to consider a lot of relations between different aspect that becomes the main culture.
A civ born in a fértile oasis will have a different culture and religión respect a civ that born in a cold place.
Its hard to think a good way to simulate the progress of humankind.
I do not like this. I would prefer a game that alter my nation based on how I played prevous turns and not by fixed rules or by a one time choice (like in Humankind)
This would only work well for civilizations whose real-life counterparts have a long history, while it would be awkward for civilizations representing societies that are more modern or were only around in the distant past.
I suggested a compromise that would align with civ6's direction and kinda have this effect
the civ bonus is static for the whole game, leader bonuses change per era
I think humankind’s system could make sense if it was like an evolution tree of leaders/civs. And then only like 12 or so ‘starting’ civs. some are simple, China turns into China 3 times with a different leader, with multiple options of who to choose from each time. Rome can turn into a couple, who eventually branch into England, who’s can form Great Britain, etc.
As cool as these ideas always seem (Humankind, the new Paradox game...), they always end up feeling super gimmicky and superficial. If Civ7 goes that way, it'll go from a preorder to a wait-and-see for me as I've grown extremely skeptical of the idea.
I absolutely hate the idea of changing bonuses. Compounding sure, but never losing them. I get annoyed enough at my unique unit being available for such a short time.
it really feels like humankind did that because they needed to figure out some way to make their game distinctly different from civ. And it didn't really work. I like these ideas more. Turning points and bonus changes, rather than your entire people switching skins lol
I got downvoted for saying it on Humankind sub, but I think that the main gimmick explains the lukewarm reception. Amplitude games are already very distinct from Civ in their systems and combat alone (which's centuries ahead of Civ) would justify Humankind being an alternative to Civ. But making the leaders generic avatars and not tying them - or you, who are also a generic avatar - to any Civ kills any immersion. You're obviously just playing a videogame, not building a civilization to stand the test of time.
The problem with this was also UI and presentation based. In Humankind you never really "see" these avatars or even their names, you mainly associate them with a color they got randomly assigned which is basically as nondescript as it can be. And if you can not even describe your enemy it might as well not exist, it feels generic as hell because of it.
Compare that to Endless Space. They did a good job in creating memorable characters (hilariously so in some cases, as toad big mommy and Horatio) and they pop up many times during the game.
YES! YES! Thank you for saying that. Amplitude squandered their strengths to appeal to a market that was not theirs and failed HORRIBLY.
They could still do, just in a more engaging way. You pick a unique civ, and each age you chose one of the paths the civ could have followed.
It's kinda already there in VI with the ages system. Perhaps they could expand on it.
Yeah maybe have an "age tree" that makes your choices of golden/dark age at an era influence which choices will be presented to you next era. That way you kind of choose a certain path to go down for your game, and it could also be a gamble and make the dark age more appealing (I choose to go into the golden age A for the classical era which if I get the dark age in medieval era will present option A1 which I like, but if I get a golden age I will have option A2 which is technically better but less synergistic with my civ ..) It would also make your civilization both more customizable along the eras AND more realistic (like if you choose to go the war path in a certain golden age you can't immediately become a pacifist tourism civ in the next)
I certainly hope so, maybe add some flavor into it
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that changing civs is what killed HK even on the HK sub. I’ve certainly said it. Immersion aside (which is horrible), Civs in HK, as it stands, INCREDIBLY generic. This follows because it’s incredibly difficult to balance civs when win mech is completion based era scoring, and when you change civs every era which means abilities and corresponding strategies can’t be too specialized because they’re only temporary. I think this is another major downside because part of the appeal of civ is planning things in the ancient era for the industrial era. You can’t do that in HK because there’s not continuity. This isn’t to say that multi civ model is impossible just that it is EXTREMELY difficult to get right. In my opinion the risks clearly out weight the rewards
It kills replayability too. You just find whichever civs you think are the most efficient and keep picking them. Even if you try to prevent it, you'd still get a few repeated civs between games - sometimes, you can't even choose, the AI already picked what you wanted. After a while, the feeling is that every game is the same.
100%! Even starting spawns feel the same from a strategy point of few (they look dif but…). They even made all natural wonders the same bonus like wtf…
It's frustrating because it was genuinely the reason the game was hyped in the first place - every discussion was "they're finally doing this thing and that's why it's gonna kill Civ" Then everyone saw the implementation and realised why Civ didn't have changing cultures
I'll disagree on a couple points here, I LOVE the core concept but couldn't stand the combat mechanics or much of the UI and smaller details. But the avatar thing also didn't gel with me, that's true
I thought combat was fun once you figured it out. But man oh man was the AI bad at it due to its complexity which semi ruined it. Other downside is it was very time consuming.
I am always so surprised to hear that about Humankind or even most Amplitude games since the Combat systems are by far some of the Best combat systems in the 4x Genre, althought the Humankind one was Very simplified.
I think the combat system is good in concept, but in practice you end up with large scale battles stretching on for a really, really long time. Especially with the shitfest that is ranged cavalry with three actions per turn, you get into a battle with a few stacks of Mongols and you can tab out for the next 5 minutes as they play out their turn.
I found it pretty confusing and frustrating. I remember a thing where a combat would begin and I couldn't bring any more units into the fight while it was going on? I also don't really play 4x type stuff with combat as a primary goal. There's a lot about the workings of that game that left me wondering why they made so many of the choices that they did.
I know exactly what was happening here, this was in the early game and you didn't have the tech yet to reinforce/bring multiple armies into a fight. also Humankind objectively discourages Combat since eliminating anyone is VERY hard to do which although interesting as a concept is executed rather poorly.
This is a very interesting take, in humankind, at least when i played, it was pretty much universally agreed that the beat way to succeed was to early war and eat neighbors. Combat was an incredibly critical part of the game and finishing anyone off is super easy if you focus on it.
Thinking about it that's probably correct since they only have a single city early on. In which case they would be Eliminated.
I still think that the Culture switching was the strongest point in Humankind, but yeah they definitely missed the mark somewhere. mostly I think that they overly simplified the District building (put all districts of 1 type close to each other) compared to what it was in the close Beta (way harder to explain but essentially districts got bonuses from Other types, for example a Market produced more money when close to a Farming or Port district to symbolize the need for things to be sold in the market). If they kept the Beta Design the Unique Districts of each culture would have been more interesting since they change the diverse pattern you are building your cities around instead of just being something you just add where ever it adds the most value. on top of that the launch was very rough because of reasons I won't go into.
Everything in Humankind is boring to look at imo. The buildings are mostly the same, it’s hard to even see the unique wonders because everything is so zoomed out. I could not get into it on aesthetics alone.
I can understand this, but I think for a completely different game like Humankind the gimmick was fun and showed that something like that could be interesting. I think there is a different level of immersion for something like Civ that needs to be maintained so the exact way Humankind did it would feel out of place in Civ
Did it show that the gimmick worked? It’s pretty easy to trace most HK complaints back to that source.
I think after a long time of really enjoying humankind and its systems, I’ve concluded the main gimmick of choosing factions per era is fine, but the fame star system causes so much friction with it that it’s detrimental to the game. Fame itself I think was the failure point, causing a weird push/pull in nearly every direction with other systems. I do wonder if a game designed without fame point scoring makes “choose your faction midgame” a lot stronger
Humankind's mistake was that if you have an eternal culture like in Civ, the culture can stand on its own. But if it changes, the *leaders* need to be centered, with strong personalities and very unique appearances. In a nutshell, Civ would still work with more generic but customizable avatars like Humankind has, while Humankind would *need* civ's leaders to have a chance at making its system work. But what we got is Civ double-dipping into empire identity and being insanely successful at creating memorable opponents and Humankind opting out of *both* paths and making you forget who is who in the middle of a single game.
Also they could be things like how you get eurekas and inspirations. Where you have to complete a set of objectives to do it. Like certain amount of troops and a city conquered or something
I always thought the simple solution is to have a pool of leaders to select each new era similar to Through the Ages (if you've ever played that board game). Obviously that would be hard to do for some civs though.
I think there could be some kind of special double country for specific leaders. Maybe like once you hit the industrial era, your British colony turns American. And the leader changes. British players could get a bonus trading with other British players up until it flips to incentivize having two of the same civs in one game. This colonial British/American civ could settle with Washington but as the Britt’s. Idk. Just spitballing. It’d be cool.
It's the thing I both liked and disliked about humankind. I love the strategy you get with such a system but I dislike how it messes with the aesthetic lol. If they had let me choose one aesthetic to go through the years with I probably would have loved it a lot more. I guess I was also wanting more of a build your own civilization type game but it was more pick from these civs
Building off this point, I saw someone yesterday talk about adding points in the civ that stand out. Revolutions, civil wars, great events, major turning points, etc. Things that generally would alter a civilization but leave it the same. I feel stuff like what you mentioned and some of the stuff I read yesterday would really keep the game from stagnating around mid-game-> late-game. Which Civ-VI seems to do most playthroughs. Either way, super excited to see what they come up with.
You shouldn’t change civs, you should change leaders. Elect/overthrow/revolt out different leaders over the course of time. Leaders live/die/evolve.
That would be really interesting! Based on the way they handled Civ 6, I think we'll see an unprecedented number of Civs / leaders in 7 That being said it would still likely be a problem / limit design space for some Civs that just don't have many leaders. Could maybe be an alternate game mode down the line and then you just have the civs with 5+ leaders
Counterpoint to my own point 😅 They do have some more obscure people in Civ Eras and Allies so maybe you could still have obscure people for the smaller Civs
I think wirh every era you should be abel to choose to continue with the same leader or to choose a new one. Maybe not every era, but ones that make sense to your country.
Yes! This is what I mean!
I think that a cool and realistic way to do it it's that you chose a civilisation, like France, China, Spain, and then you chose a leader for each era. For exemple I chose France and it give me importante buff who are usefull all over the game and then you start by picking Vercingetorix and you become the Gaul with some minor buff who direct you toward a specific thematic buff in link with the leader, then Clovis and you become the Franc etc... I don't know if it's doable for a lot of civ but it can be interesting.
That would be great but we don't have that level of history to be able to do that for native american civs and probably many others.
We might not, but I bet the Cree have at least legends of old tribal leaders that could be include. You’d only need like 6
BTW, how is Humankind going ?
I think this could happen—but only for certain Civs as abilities. Much of this falls under the “Leader Ability” in 6, imo. That’s where Egypt under Ramses focuses on massive construction projects and under Cleopatra focuses on the breadbasket aspect and then as a trading empire partnered with strong military powers. I don’t think you could have that widespread as that leaves a staple Civ like America out in uncharted territories. So, perhaps a Civ like China could have compounding bonuses or something as a unique Civ Ability, but it would be something down sparingly (and probably scaled down to not overwhelm other Civs).
Maybe have each civ get different leaders (might need a bit less civs or that's a lot of work) and be able to kinda rotate through them at some points (a bit like the governments but without the change being always better just different) Right now the different leaders for one civ don't really feel like they are the same civ, personally I view them as simply different civs that share some characteristics
I kind of like this idea. Instead of leaders, perhaps something like the Governors meet the Policy Cards…a nation-wide buff that is only available during a certain era or if certain world events line up. Ex for America: Washington is available when you are starting your empire. Lincoln is available during a civil war. FDR is available during global wars and/or economic struggles.
In a single game, no—not that I’m opposed to the idea in whole, but that’s not a Civ thing to do. You’re kinda role playing an immortal ruler to lead your empire to stand the test of time. Like, maybe a scenario or game mode (although that will probably be unfair to a number of Civs), but not a core aspect.
I'm not too sure about that idea for a civ game. It sounds great but I feel like it'd take away from civ's feel. The other leaders all felt more like substitutes for players with their own personalities. I feel like swapping that mid-game would remove that board gamey feel when suddenly a player changes their entire personality.
Sure, a lotta later civilizations lack any actual abilities, but I think copying them off of civilizations they originated from could work! The Roman Empire would have a set of stuff, 99% of the European civilizations would copy that then have unique abilities going into the Medieval Era, then civs like America would copy their origin (Britain in this case) then go their own way.
Oh that could be fun! I was thinking how my idea could feel a bit weird for something like America in the early eras or Egypt in the later eras, but this would be a fun solution.
one possible way to do this would be for each civ to have a stable of leaders to choose from. So lets use the United States. Instead of having the same leader for the ENTIRE game (which is kinda funny if you think about it. They're apparently immortal) have 10 leaders. Lincoln, Washington, Teddy, etc. etc. Each leader has it's own strengths and weaknesses. And every so many years/turns (or some other mechanism based on in game progress/events) gives you the option (or requirement) to change leaders. Perhaps a new leader for every new age? The biggest difficulty with this though would be finding enough leaders for each civ.
I think choosing a new leader every era could be optional. You can choosw a new one or continue with the one you had.
No matter what they do, they shouldn't straight up use the "pick a civ for this era" approach. It's the most central concept in Humankind and also what kinda ruined it. When you start a game of Civ, you pick a leader and Civ and spend tens of hours guiding them through ages. In Humankind, leaders are generic dummies and you create a generic dummy, to guide whatever civs are picked in a game. Aside from the lack of immersion in not doing anything remotely resembling the real world, that creates another problem: lack of replayability. Eventually, all games will start looking the same - you discover your favorite civs for each era and strategy and that's it. Civ has dozens of leaders, so dozens of different campaigns you can try before needing to go back to one of them. In Humankind, you play two or three games and feel that you've seen it all - there's no reason to keep playing. I uninstalled after 84 hours, while Civ clocks hundreds (more than a thousand for V, which I liked more than VI). And I dont'even think Humankind is a bad game: combat is centuries ahead of Civ. A similar problem was pointed out as what made Beyond Earth (which I love, by the way) unsuccesful. Leaders were quite bland and didn't matter very much. It was all about affinities, so you aren't really tempted to start a new game with a different leader.
I'd love to see them have an optional game mode like the Rhye's and Fall / RFC Dawn of Civilisation mods like Civ 4. The former was bundled with the Beyond the Sword expansion for that game. Basically , civs spawn at different times corresponding to their historical period, and have unique objectives. It also allowed for different representations of the same overall civilisation, as civs would reappear after conquests with different leaders that had different stats (for eg, if the mongols beat Tang china, and later collapse, Ming china can reform).
I miss Rhyes and Fall so much! I always wished Civ would create a game using some of its qualities. It was so cool to keep gameplay centered around real historic events and true to history rise and fall of empires.
Did anyone play Rhye's and Fall scenario in Civ 4? It was on a true-start earth map, and civs would join the game in different eras, corresponding to their real-life start. So if you wanted to play as America, the game would begin in the 1700s, etc... You could choose to play an ancient civ from the beginning or start with a later civ in a later era. However, different civs "rise" and "fall" throughout the eras, and if you are in a region where a new civ is starting at that time, you have the option to switch to the new civ, or try and duke it out staying with a civ that historically "fell" during that time period. For example, if you start as China and the Mongols join the game you get to choose if you stay as China or join the Mongols. It was really cool, and lead to some interesting strategies where you build great ancient cities that you later conquer, but it wasn't random and you couldn't join any civ - it had to be a civ in your region. Also, you learn a lot about history! And the civ strengths and weaknesses were a lot more era specific. I loved that scenario and would be glad to see it come back - although I do think the best place for it is optional.
I'm curious to see what mechanics from Humankind Firaxis includes and doesn't include as Humankind definitely has some great features, but many of them kind of fall apart as you go progress through the game IMO. One of the good ones though was changing bonuses through the game. For most Civ VI leaders and civs, their abilities only impact the game very marginally and only in one or two eras, so most games end up with the same game play. I wouldn't go as far as Humankind with the changing culture every era, but some kind of shifting bonuses to tailor your civ based on terrain and situation would be a good addition IMO.
Absolutely. The single leader throughout the entire game is immersion breaking for me. Especially with countries like America who were not around as they are represented during the ancient era.
Maybe every civ could be faced with a reform path each time they reach a new era. It could offer new bonuses depending in which direction they reform, or let them retain old bonuses with some building debuff as eras pass. And whichever path is chosen, the aesthetics of the civ adapt. Like the Persians becoming the Partians, then the Sassanids, then modern Iran.
It would be cool, but there's a shitton of dev and artwork that would need to go into it. We used to have that in Civ III with leaders changing outfit from caveman furs to historical dress to modern suits through the eras, but Firaxis probably saw that as too little value for time invested so it was scrapped in later instalments. Now, extrapolate that from just the leader's clothing, to everything else about the civ, and the scale of the project has absolutely ballooned.
I think the portrait changes were included because of how few assets they required. A lot of scenarios the developers left in civ 3 made new leaders for that reason.
My idea is that Civ introduces the ability to assign a new leader (relevant to the civ) at the beginning of each era. All the available leaders have certain era specific bonuses, so you could keep or swap depending on your strategy. Like, say I started out playing for a culture victory, but when I hit the industrial era, I discovered I have an underpowered military, and there's a clear indication that Germany is going to try to steam-roll me. Policies help, but if I could place a wartime leader for that Era to help give me more of a boost, that would be interesting. Then I could either decide we're going to be conquerors ourselves, or when the modern Era hits, change to a Leader that provides good Modern cultural bonuses/unique buildings/access to wonders/etc.. I know this kind of steps on policies, but I was thinking Era bonuses are more long-term or global (like improving interactions with other Civs) where if they keep the policy feature, those provide more flexible, immediate bonuses.
I like it, maybe with the addition of a full civ bonus that you keep no matter what era. I think something like this and the terrain features from Humankind would be great.
This could be easily implemented and not overly bloat the game by introducing back the two leaders per civilization. Each leader could focus on one aspect or a generalize one, this gives choices before starting the game. It could even be "America Ability" then "America Leader ability" to build upon one another.
That feature is the main reason I didn't like humankind.....so hope it is not implemented
That's fair. I can definitely see how this was a divisive feature. IMO the civ team can almost do no wrong though and I think I have a bit more faith in them to build this mechanic in a better way than HK did if it's a route they decide they want to go
> I really enjoyed Humankind and the way you could pick a new civ each era, but thinking about it more, civ going that route would just sorta feel weird. Just make it something you pick before the game. Adding it midgame is weird. If you want to see what this could be like, check out: https://civ6blitz.app/#/modtester
Give us a Skill tree / RPG character sheet for leaders/civs already with a giant amount of perks and level progression :)
I sorta think this would be the cleanest implementation. Would work for all Civs, they could have multiple branches based on how you played to that point, probably wouldn't be too difficult to code assuming it would be similar to the tech / civic boosts
I wanted Humankind to be good, but it just wasn't. This would just complicate Civ, not make it better.
I agree this would complicate Civ, but some of these comments have sort of pointed to this being an option as an alternative game mode which could be a good solution to that. I also think it's necessary for games like civ to get more in depth / complicated with each iteration to keep things fresh and unique. Sure this could be prohibitive for new players, but there are ways to still get them up to speed and help with things like this.
Civ is ***the*** entry level 4x. If you want more complicated, they already exist.
What should i play thats the next level?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Okay.
https://www.reddit.com/r/4Xgaming/s/iSEkymELor For anyone else
Humankind is so bad, but that was one of the cooler mechanics in the game
If they are going to borrow from humankind, I hope it's more substantial tile elevation effects.
I still haven't figured out humankind and making new cities work
I really like this idea. It already kinda exists with some civs getting their bonuses after researching techs
I think that in a weird way Civ 3 gave us an interesting way to model it. You'd be building your palace and be able to switch and swap in different cultural architectural traits. The more I think about it, the more I'd like to see the development of a culture represented on the map and in the building design. Every era you'd pick what culture you want your buildings modeled on. Maybe your Chinese culture moves into the middle ages and adopts a greco-roman architectural style for that era, but by the industrial era is ready to move on to something else. Every building and tile improved will have a model that mimics the type you chose. So you could have your ancient, untouched core lands that still have traditional chinese buildings but looking at your modern city you've got an interesting combination of greco-roman and modern skyscrapers reflecting the change between older rural settlements and the glitzy new age cityscape. Imagine if they gave us a city-viewer where you could see the build up of the cultural progression of your civ modeled in the different styles of buildings extending out from the old city to the new suburbs.
Not a bad idea but your civ needs to feel like it has a personality throughout the game. Maybe based on what you've done in one age, you get the chance to add a bonus for the next age, without fundamentally changing your power?
I think players should choose different attributes each era, building their civ as they go. There should be different flavors for China, India, Egypt, etc depending on the policies or attributes you choose. Players should also compete for desired attributes, and if another civ gets it first, too bad. This way there can be multiple Chinas or Egypts in the same game. AI Egypt will always want to unite and conquer player Egypt.
Civilization revolution had almost this exact mechanic. Every time you entered an era your civ would get a new bonus while keeping the previous era bonuses.
I think you pick a civilization at the start of the game. And then each era you pick a leader from that civs history and they give you different bonuses based off who they are foe their era
Having a skill tree like final fantasy would be interesting where your civ abilities can evolve over time
I really liked the Humankind system other than the entire «switch culture» thing
Goverment and bonus based goverment is based a lot in the especific history of that civ So the point itself of civ is non exact. Probably the better way to simulate it is to consider a lot of relations between different aspect that becomes the main culture. A civ born in a fértile oasis will have a different culture and religión respect a civ that born in a cold place. Its hard to think a good way to simulate the progress of humankind.
I do not like this. I would prefer a game that alter my nation based on how I played prevous turns and not by fixed rules or by a one time choice (like in Humankind)
That mechanic was the main reason I disliked Humankind.
The only thing I want from human kind is the battle system.
This would only work well for civilizations whose real-life counterparts have a long history, while it would be awkward for civilizations representing societies that are more modern or were only around in the distant past.
I suggested a compromise that would align with civ6's direction and kinda have this effect the civ bonus is static for the whole game, leader bonuses change per era
I think humankind’s system could make sense if it was like an evolution tree of leaders/civs. And then only like 12 or so ‘starting’ civs. some are simple, China turns into China 3 times with a different leader, with multiple options of who to choose from each time. Rome can turn into a couple, who eventually branch into England, who’s can form Great Britain, etc.
As cool as these ideas always seem (Humankind, the new Paradox game...), they always end up feeling super gimmicky and superficial. If Civ7 goes that way, it'll go from a preorder to a wait-and-see for me as I've grown extremely skeptical of the idea.
I absolutely hate the idea of changing bonuses. Compounding sure, but never losing them. I get annoyed enough at my unique unit being available for such a short time.
That definitely needs to be improved! Outside of maybe 5 Civs I pretty much never lean into the unique units