Cool stuff, I wonder what kinds of choices you get to make about your leader besides the way they look?

This is really interesting, I love the idea behind the Humankind and the customization it brings.

I do wonder if it means we'll be able to design our rivals as well, then. Give them different personalities, difficulty levels? I'd so make a Montezuma just so I can carry him on my back from Civ series just to kick his butt in a whole new game.

https://techraptor.net/videos/humankind-your-story-trailer-game-awards-2019

https://twinfinite.net/2019/12/shape-your-world-leader-in-a-new-trailer-for-humankind/

https://www.pcgamer.com/grand-strategy-game-humankind-will-let-you-design-your-own-leader/

https://www.polygon.com/game-awards...ega-amplitude-trailer-avatar-leaders-tga-2019

Some articles

I don't particularly like the idea about creating personalities (especially AI ones). I don't want AIs to become one-dimensional, like in Civilization (6). I want AI to adopt a best strategy regarding the circuimstances.

Wouldn't it be cool, if AI could learn about your behaviour through the gameplay and maybe this knowledge abuot your playstyle could carry on in the next game?

AI should have an idea what kind of victory you're pursuing and act accordingly. Maybe a certain victory type is not an optimal strategy for them in a particular situation, so they should know how to re-focus. 

In civilization it's always so one-dimensional. You always know how a particular AI will behave, and it becomes boring.

Catodion wrote:

I don't particularly like the idea about creating personalities (especially AI ones). I don't want AIs to become one-dimensional, like in Civilization (6). I want AI to adopt a best strategy regarding the circuimstances.

Wouldn't it be cool, if AI could learn about your behaviour through the gameplay and maybe this knowledge abuot your playstyle could carry on in the next game?

AI should have an idea what kind of victory you're pursuing and act accordingly. Maybe a certain victory type is not an optimal strategy for them in a particular situation, so they should know how to re-focus. 

In civilization it's always so one-dimensional. You always know how a particular AI will behave, and it becomes boring.

Forced, pre-set personalities are bad. But I think it would be perfectly okay if personality customizations are just optional. Having a choice is always good isn't it?

Catodion wrote:

I don't particularly like the idea about creating personalities (especially AI ones). I don't want AIs to become one-dimensional, like in Civilization (6). I want AI to adopt a best strategy regarding the circuimstances.

Wouldn't it be cool, if AI could learn about your behaviour through the gameplay and maybe this knowledge abuot your playstyle could carry on in the next game?

AI should have an idea what kind of victory you're pursuing and act accordingly. Maybe a certain victory type is not an optimal strategy for them in a particular situation, so they should know how to re-focus. 

In civilization it's always so one-dimensional. You always know how a particular AI will behave, and it becomes boring.

But it's not the case in Civ6, because of the leader agendas. It always become clear at some point what victory each civ is aiming for, which is normal since in Civilization you'r eaiming for a specific victory type - so it allows you to predict the general behaviour of that civ.

I would argue that in any case, "adopting the best strategy regarding the circumstances" is much more boring and predictable, unless you're talking about a fantasy AI that isn't doable in the real world. We basically have two options, either the Civ6 kind of AI, or the Paradox style with weights and no long term plan.

info about the harappans

https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1207042833712132098

So far the the Babylonians or the Harappans look like my prefered choices for my first playthrough, the former for their scientific advantage and focus on astronomy and the latter for their more peaceful nature. And of course the art is beautiful as always. Depending on how the different cultures in this and future era turn out I might even go with the Harappans and then go down the line of germanic tribes in something of a homage to the historical migration period. And it would be delightful to build a lasting and successful civilization rooted in a culture mostly known for their peaceful ways and clever use of canal and irrigation systems. On the other hand I might also try to focus on cultures with a focus on the stars and see where that takes me.

New screenshot
https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1207707814321426432

Dhaelig wrote:

New screenshot
https://twitter.com/humankindgame/status/1207707814321426432

So, hot springs/geysers are apparently going to be a thing. Also, what's that lump of brown dirt at the edge of the forest in the upper left corner?

The fact that there are two geysers on screen makes me think they are closer to Endless Legend anomalies than Civ natural wonders.

CaptainCobbs wrote:

The fact that there are two geysers on screen makes me think they are closer to Endless Legend anomalies than Civ natural wonders.

honestly i'd love it if the anomalies like endless legend would be present in humankind since it sure looks like it

Hittites information shared yesterday. 

Wonder what the difference between these guys as "Warmongers" and the Assyrians as "Expansionists" are? 

Warmongers are obviously military based, so perhaps expansionists are something between Agrarian and Industrial

Or maybe Expansionist is a military/agrarian? Can fight and generate settlers more easily? Maybe late game a culture with this tag will generate more influence to compensate for less land up for grabs?

Maybe happiness/approval focused?