|
Not sure if anyone is still following this, but they've been slowly drip-feeding out info about the cultures from each era. Apparently there's six eras and ten cultures per era. So far released are: Phoenecians (Bronze Era) https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1224754659165966337 Olmecs (Bronze Era) https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1223289993436848133 Nubians (Bronze Era) https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1222195158210490374 Myceneans (Bronze Era) https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1217144415619338240 Hittites (Bronze Era) https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1214592677955678209 Harappans (Bronze Era) https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1207042833712132098 Egyptians (Bronze Era) https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1204441927627751425 Babylonians (Bronze Era) https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1201901463368355842 Assyrians (Bronze Era) https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1199364734438592517 Given the list is in alphabetical order I'm pretty confident next week's reveal will be the Zhou.
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 13:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
Oh good catch. I'm subscribed to their YouTube but don't have twitter, didn't know there was anything coming out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
No actual information about what any of those things do, I see. If I had to guess... Phoenicians: better trireme, better harbor? Or possibly an extra building - production to naval units, maybe, and/or trade stuff. Olmecs: better slinger, culture/religious building/replacement? Nubians: better archer, culture/religious building Mycenaeans: better warrior, defensive building Hittites: better chariot, defensive building Harappans: better scout (spy? diplomat?), better farm or aqueduct or something Egyptians: better chariot (better ranged chariot?), culture/religious building Babylonians: better warrior, better library (or temple that also gives science?) Assyrians: better horseman, defensive building
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
The Harappan civilization hasn't given us any direct evidence of having armies, etc. but their cities were walled, which isn't generally done in peaceful areas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:No actual information about what any of those things do, I see. The fortress-type districts ("quarter" sounds like it could be the equivalent of districts in Endless Legend, rather than buildings) could also boost armies in some way . The Assyrian one could possibly reduce discontent or boost loyalty in (conquered?) cities, if that's a thing. Flavius Aetass posted:The Harappan civilization hasn't given us any direct evidence of having armies, etc. but their cities were walled, which isn't generally done in peaceful areas. There's at least one interpretation that the walls might have been flood defences, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
One of the devs on Reddit said:quote:We chose the word "Emblematic" for a reason: So it might be a visual only thing, or it might be much larger in say you can only get bronze era archers if you pick Olmec or Nubian cultures. They've also mentioned or briefly shown other cultures from different eras: Vikings, Goths, Greeks, Romans, Germans, British, and Persians (not Sassanid). They've also mentioned at least one culture from every area of the globe, including Polynesia and Australia which should be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
webmeister posted:They've also mentioned at least one culture from every area of the globe, including Polynesia and Australia which should be interesting. Modern era civs aren't too difficult to imagine. United States, Australia, Brazil, India, possibly Argentina, Canada, or South Africa.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
Yeah I remember hearing there are at least three iterations of China in the game, starting with the Zhou in the ancient era (getting a preview any day now), and ending with the PRC in the industrial era.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
Are the Zhou not a little late for this crowd? I guess the Shang are just a bunch of question marks and turtle bones, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
The art looks to be as gorgeous as ever. I'll miss all the crazy landforms from EL, though.KOGAHAZAN!! posted:I guess the Shang are just a bunch of question marks and turtle bones, though. I really like this sentence, but I'm not sure why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
New dev diary, though not much information we didn't already know: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlfUtaxkEKE
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 06:52
|
|
|
Is there a good rundown on what is known so far?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
Basically nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm pretty sure my OP is up-to-date, except for the concept of Emblematic Units/Quarters
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
Lots of potential with what I'm seeing of the Fame system so far. What I'd really like to see (what I've been wanting to see in 4x games, period) but what we probably won't is non-exclusive win conditions. Fame seems like a good opportunity for that, and in a way that could completely cut out end game slog. Could easily see a system where if you get enough Fame and you win, period, but that doesn't necessarily mean anyone else loses. There might be enough fame for 2 or 3 winners to go around if they play smart, but so long as you win who cares if someone else does or if they all gently caress each other over squabbling over the remnants. Maybe even base it on eras passed, so "get this amount of fame within this amount of eras". So you could go for an early game victory and instead of having a runaway snowball you just.. win. And get the option of "Do you want to skip an era as your empire breaks apart and then try to win again with one of the fragments?" or something like that that lets you keep playing from that optimal enjoyment play space having already added a notch to your belt. Would also hope if Fame is supposed to be indicative of lasting cultural impact that what someone else mentioned of independent colonies or even breakaway rebel cultures adding to your Fame, so even IF your civilization ultimately falls you can still win retroactively if your cultural descendents become superpowers. I sort of expect it to be just a slightly tweaked and boring score thing though, sadly. We'll see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:20
|
|
|
that concept of multiple game winners sounds pointless though? so your number went up and you got a win screen? why not just start the game already in the "won" state what is the difference? i'd also be wary of random mechanics causing your empire to crumble after you "won" assuming that you are actually supposed to keep playing, as that is undermining the goal of an empire building game. i'm of course assuming this is an empire building game and not a sandbox with terribly implemented historical features. like that lovely overhyped Will Wright game. e: a Spore equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
I don't see how multiple winners is supposed to be any more pointless than a single winner. "Your number went up and you got a win screen" seems like it's gonna be the name of the game regardless, but that's true of all 4x games. Also I suggested the crumbling thing as an alternative you can choose as opposed to continuing to play as the curb stomping dominant superpower mopping, not something mandatory. See how many wins you can rack up with successive powers in a single game sounds like it could be more fun than traditional endgames.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
That's always been the dilemma for 4X games. Civ6 took a step in the right direction with climate change eating chunks of the map, but they needed to take quite a few more steps after that...
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
typically at the end of a 4x game there are no opponents left, that is the end state of victory. cultural victories etc are pretty hallow as they don't actually meaningfully change anything in the game state. Civ6 when you "win" via culture what actually happens mechanically?what makes it a victory? why can't the theocratic regime just burn your country to the ground? alternatively why does my full communist country care about some fairytale sone people believe. with going to space it can at least be seen as giving up on earth and spreading throughout the stars making it impossible for those left behind to catch up, plus it's less tedious then have to manage a carpet of units to conquer all the opponents capitals. with a diplomatic victory you have essentially created a one-world government with you as the first leader. what would fame "do" that makes it a victory? ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Feb 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
I like the idea of building the victory mechanic around not the literal end of history, but on the nebulous idea that the dominance of your civ is the beginning, or the definitional event, of an era. How the gently caress they’re going to turn that into a 4x game mechanic? I cannot loving wait to find out, because if they pull something like that off really well, it’s going to be pretty loving awesome. The problem is that the mechanical gameplay and the graphics are not going to be huge factors in whether they manage to capture a very vague feeling for the overall gameplay/internal/external narrative interplay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 05:01
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:what would fame "do" that makes it a victory? The way I see it, victory is not about your people still existing and your government still in control, but on the legacy your Civ has left. It's like instead of "last man standing" it's "life best lived". In real life you might say Rome or Ancient Egypt fits the bill for that even though they're dead and buried. That's a big cop-out if you like your victories to be crushing domination, but that's how I'm interpreting it and it's an interesting spin on victory that I'd like to see in practice. I really do hope it'll be more interesting than a mere score tally though. I love the idea of failing and being able to pick up in the same world, though. In Civ you invest so much in a alt-history world but if you get stomped you have to leave it behind. A mechanic that allows you to continue with another civ would be awesome. A long time ago i daydreamed about a mechanic like that; you build up a score through "political stability" (which can apply equally to empires big and small) and if you get conquered, you cash in your score to keep playing with one of the other empires on the map, with your score purchase power being the limiting factor that stops you simply picking the strongest. Something like that would tie nicely with this GlyphGryph posted:See how many wins you can rack up with successive powers in a single game sounds like it could be more fun than traditional endgames. That's a fantasy of mine though, I'm not expecting anything like that in this game. Microplastics fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Feb 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 10:45
|
|
|
LonsomeSon posted:I like the idea of building the victory mechanic around not the literal end of history, but on the nebulous idea that the dominance of your civ is the beginning, or the definitional event, of an era. The simplest way I'd do it would be "who's got the biggest score as the ancient era ends? 1 point for you" then repeat for the end of each successive era - tally at the end. If the points are based on things that don't actually strengthen you and allow you to snowball points later on - like wonders that don't do anything except add to the score - then that could lead to the interesting decision making you often see in many boardgames where you have to balance early point-scoring against later domination. Civ doesn't really have that, it's all snowballing all the time over there
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 10:53
|
|
|
Reminds me of the rhye's and fall mod for civilization.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 10:53
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:typically at the end of a 4x game there are no opponents left, that is the end state of victory. cultural victories etc are pretty hallow as they don't actually meaningfully change anything in the game state. Civ6 when you "win" via culture what actually happens mechanically?what makes it a victory? why can't the theocratic regime just burn your country to the ground? alternatively why does my full communist country care about some fairytale sone people believe. In 20 years of playing 4x games I think I could count the number of games I won via conquering all other players on one hand, personally. Most of the questions you're asking here have a pretty simple answer: "because the game is over".
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 11:01
|
|
|
Strong Glorantha vibes from that artwork, which is a very good thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 14:14
|
|
|
is this still supposed to be coming out this year?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 15:11
|
|
|
Sir DonkeyPunch posted:is this still supposed to be coming out this year? I think so, most of the material online just says "2020" so I guess that's their stated aim. That said I wouldn't expect it any time soon, probably not until the holiday season.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 11:20
|
|
|
I only played Civ 5 and I was pretty lukewarm on it for a game series that is such a sacred cow even though I really dig the overall conceit. But I love the Endless games which really knock it out of the park aesthetically and creatively, so I am happy to see the idea of a Civ game in their hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 13:32
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:In 20 years of playing 4x games I think I could count the number of games I won via conquering all other players on one hand, personally. Most of the questions you're asking here have a pretty simple answer: "because the game is over". You are correct. "The game is over" but it's arbitrary and thus unfulfilling. If no more opponents are around, that is unambiguously over. If you win via diplomacy, the game is over, but you were saved the mop up period. With culture or fame or whatever, nothing actually happened yet the game is over. As far as multiple era of civs, that is a thing in the rhyse and fall mods, and also in the best Civ4 mod, Fall From Heaven and I think Caveman to Cosmos also did it. It's fairly unfulfilling however, because if you are playing for a narrative and suddenly you are in-charge of the last place team, you've missed the narrative and mid-game events are less meaningful and thus it's hard to create a narrative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:You are correct. "The game is over" but it's arbitrary and thus unfulfilling. If no more opponents are around, that is unambiguously over. If you win via diplomacy, the game is over, but you were saved the mop up period. With culture or fame or whatever, nothing actually happened yet the game is over. I don't see how unfulfilling follows from arbitrary. It's a game, it has win conditions, one of those win conditions is "get enough points", and the game is unambiguously over if someone fulfils that criteria. Complaining that nothing actually happened is like, I dunno, complaining that a game of darts is over because someone got to 0 points, or a game of football is over because the referee blew the final whistle. I mean even with a game like chess, it's been arbitrarily decided a player wins when their opponent is put into a position where they need to move their king to escape capture and are unable to do so, regardless of the rest of the state of the board. If you were five pieces down on an opponent and you managed to mate them with skilled play, is that not fun? Would you reason "well, if we played instead until all pieces were eliminated I would lose" and find your victory unfulfilling?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
Your king being forced to surrender because he's about to be captured doesn't seem arbitrary at all. And football and darts are purely abstract games as far as I know, which is a huge difference to civ. I definitely agree that e.g. Civ 5 BNW and Civ6 tourism victories feel unsatisfying, or EL economic victories to a lesser extent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
Yeah, I'd say the thing with most military victory types in 4X games is that by the time you've accomplished the victory condition, you feel like nobody can defeat you, and playing the game further would just be a formality. On the other hand, stuff like science, religious and tourist victories tend to just be buckets you have to fill up that don't give you much in the way of bonuses to elevate your game position. Like if religious or cultural domination meant countries couldn't declare war on you and had to join your wars, it would make sense that dominating everyone meant you won the game, since you become untouchable. But those victory conditions don't give you that - it's quite possible to go from a game position that's quite precarious to, "You won!" in the space of a turn, which I agree is jarring. All that said, I do like the idea of the game being to do things other than just conquer all the opponents. "I conquered everyone so I'll control everything forever and now history is over" isn't how the world works.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
I just want to relax and build a pretty-looking empire, and I'll buy this game or not based on how well it caters to that. Civ6's completely psychotic AI is a big part of why I didn't enjoy that game and never bought the expansions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 22:29
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Your king being forced to surrender because he's about to be captured doesn't seem arbitrary at all. And football and darts are purely abstract games as far as I know, which is a huge difference to civ. I definitely agree that e.g. Civ 5 BNW and Civ6 tourism victories feel unsatisfying, or EL economic victories to a lesser extent. It's entirely arbitrary, given that the win condition just as easily could be "capture all your opponents' pieces" or "capture your opponent's queen" or some other objective. If the game is supposed to represent a battle, there are certainly battles where one side has won despite their commander, or even their king dying (e.g. the Battle of Lutzen). Also notably in chess, you can create a draw with skilled play by putting yourself in stalemate, where you have no legal moves but are not in check. There's also the completely arbitrary clock in most non-home games, where a player can lose just because they took too much time to make their moves. I don't know, maybe I'm in the minority here but games like civ are to me just more complex and visually fancier board games. You win by amassing victory points in Catan, you win in Agricola by having the highest score after 14 turns, you can win in Twilight Struggle by having 20 points or positive score at the game's end, you can win in Civilization by having more visiting tourists than the domestic tourists of all your opponents. It'd be different if we were talking about a game with like, a plot, or levels or an actual full on war game, but it doesn't strike me as unexpected at all for an empire building game to have a victory point mechanic (which tourism effectively is).
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
Gort posted:On the other hand, stuff like science, religious and tourist victories tend to just be buckets you have to fill up that don't give you much in the way of bonuses to elevate your game position. Like if religious or cultural domination meant countries couldn't declare war on you and had to join your wars, it would make sense that dominating everyone meant you won the game, since you become untouchable. But those victory conditions don't give you that - it's quite possible to go from a game position that's quite precarious to, "You won!" in the space of a turn, which I agree is jarring. It's interesting seeing the Civ games grapple with this. Science victory is a bucket-filling exercise. Religious victory was in 6; it had a very basic "theological combat" model that I'm pretty sure everyone found incredibly tedious. Culture victory in 5 was probably the best; aside from the great work theming stuff, diplomatic blocs, happiness levels and assimilation speed were hugely affected by culture and tourism, and there was that whole custom ideology-building aspect too. Sadly the whole system was really let down by structural problems with Happiness and how the AI failed to interact with it properly. Meanwhile ES2's academy quest feels like an awkward sort of compromise. On the one hand it forces the entire galaxy into one of two blocs- which would make an excellent end-game sort of war- but the blocs are pretty much random and exist independently of regular diplomacy. A real wasted opportunity, I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
cultural victories are all about having those sweet ziggarauts and wonders in your cities while the loser civs have to get by with stuff like granaries. amplitude kind of pioneering the whole districts thing adds to that. I can now see all my cool buildings and the sense of smug is only fueled even more. I'm not even a pretentious art rear end in a top hat and I can totally see the value in that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:It's entirely arbitrary, given that the win condition just as easily could be "capture all your opponents' pieces" or "capture your opponent's queen" or some other objective. If the game is supposed to represent a battle, there are certainly battles where one side has won despite their commander, or even their king dying (e.g. the Battle of Lutzen). Also notably in chess, you can create a draw with skilled play by putting yourself in stalemate, where you have no legal moves but are not in check. There's also the completely arbitrary clock in most non-home games, where a player can lose just because they took too much time to make their moves. The expectations are completely different with computer games. People expect video games to be much more simulationist than board games, see e.g. how a lot of people complain about MP in EU4. And even in boardgames there are plenty of games that don't have VP systems. An euro point salad is going to not appeal at all to a huge chunk of people who play games like civ. The genres are different. (And vp mechanics often do detract from the theme.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
If it is trying to be more simulations, then having a civilization last 1000 years without a massive, nation-shattering civil war is wildly unrealistic. I'd rather see something closer to the original Francis Tresham Civilization that inspired Sid Meier in the first place. Bring back the Archaeological Succession Table to Civilization! Otherwise, Civ will never stop the snowball problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
Civ is a simulation; it just simulates about half a dozen different scales simultaneously. One game contains all of history's tech development, a couple of centuries worth of political manoeuvring, a few battles' worth of tactical shenanigans, all represented through a continents' worth of nations represented by rulers who generally reigned for a few decades. On a map where, early in the game, it takes you centuries to walk from one end of Italy to the other. The game lets you know this is a thing by having soldiers tower over cities and trees nearly as big as mountains- but it still works, somehow!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
On the topic of simulating spans of time so big that historians are leery of any attempt at a grand unified theory... Personally, one of my big issues with the recent Civ games is the trend towards more cultural determinism. Ever since Civ 5, Firaxis has gone a bit overboard with giving civs very different gameplay styles and sometimes whole new mechanics, as if thousands of years of history were genetically determined or something. Recall how Civ 5 taught us about the Arab cultural trait of “more oil”, regardless of where they’ve actually settled, or how Venice is doomed to never break free of its city-state institutions even after absorbing half the world. Why should the player know what to expect from India? Alexander sure didn't. If anything, Civ 6 took a step in the right direction with the Eureka mechanic, where your civ’s experiences actually impact how it develops, even if it’s just a research bonus. It would be great if more of the flavor and game-changing abilities civs are assigned could be similarly dynamic. Anyways, that's my rant. Probably an odd opinion to bring to a game getting made by Amplitude, the poster child of ultra-unique factions, but still, I'm liking how Humankind looks so far. Mixing and matching cultures based on your current situation seems like a decent (albeit gamey) compromise between the tangled mess of actual history and Civ's weird monolithic snowballing cultures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2020 18:37
|
|
