We feel that you have thought about these subjects.

Thank you very much for your answer.

Wish I had seen this thread sooner because these are probably my two biggest make-or-break concerns about the game as well. Anyway, I've seen it now so I thought I'd share some of my thoughts.

On cities:

-It did worry me early on looking at screenshots that a mid-to-late-game map would be so absolutely covered in such thick urban sprawl that it would end up feeling horrendously unrealistic and like there's barely any world left that isn't just city. I do totally understand that modern megapolises can be absolutely huge, so I'm totally fine with there being a couple of really big cities in the lategame that take up a load of room but the vast majority of the map has to still just be wilderness/farmland/whatever (just not urban) even then..... it really wouldn't feel right otherwise and would be a major immersion breaker IMO.

-Cat-O-Nine-Tales seems to have hinted at something here that I've been suspecting for a while. The first dev dairy video showed a brief glimpse of the tech tree and the Chivalry tech unlocks something called "Village Center". My guess watching it then was that this is similar to Kapaku Golem Camps, a district that can be built anywhere in the region and exploit the surrounding tiles without having to be connected to the city (and perhaps additional districts can be bolted onto it). I cannot stress enough how much I hope this is the case, or that Humankind will have something along these lines. Representation of human settlement that isn't just concentrated to a few big cities is something that I feel the 4X genre has been sorely missing since Civ IV. It's always irritated me to no end that I'm supposed to believe my entire huge advanced society is limited to only 4-6 big settlements. And Civ VI was even worse, cities in that game make absolutely no sense whatsoever. They just look and feel comical.

-On a similar note, I'd say that a lot of what we've been shown/told of the game so far indicates quite strongly that there will be a pretty heavy commitment towards avoiding ICS. You can combine regions together and I seem to recall it being said in one of the dev diary videos that they wanted to avoid this kind of gameplay, or something along those lines. I imagine that even a large empire will have a relatively small number of individual "cities" (which may, in fact, look visually like smaller clusters of detached urban areas spread out over a wide area in many cases)

On combat:

-We need to try not to be too ambitious here. There are multiple different competing factors that need to be balanced carefully. Civ IV didn't have the problems other 4X games had in this area purely because the combat wasn't particularly tactical in comparison, which has its own problem that it doesn't have the potential to be as fun or deep. If we're to have tactical gameplay, it has to exist on the same map the rest of the game is played on (a AOW:PF system is the alternative and simply doesn't work in multiplayer). On the other hand, that same tactical gameplay has to not just bog down the game and make it tedious. Both of the two most recent Civ games and EL encountered this problem in different ways. Wars in Civ 5/6 tend to be extremely boring, tedious slogs because of how difficult it is to maneuvre troops and to kill units/cities and the amount of micromanagement involved. I always found EL combat very enjoyable in single player, by comparison, but I have heard there are significant issues with how its tactical system works in multiplayer in the context of simultaneous turns.

-As far as I'm aware, Humankind uses a similar system to EL but with battles spread over multiple turns, and with each turn in the battle taking place over the course of a whole game turn. This has the potential to solve both problems. I am still curious, though, as to whether it will use an initiative system like EL or simply rely on speed of clicking. I seriously hope it's the former.

There are actually several ways in which you could start a new cluster of Quarters, but we'll go into more details later (possibly when we start streaming).

Combat actually features 3 combat rounds per global turn. We'll dive into specifics of the mechanics later, but for now I will say that the system does not rely on you clicking quickly, nor does it use an initiative system, and leave you to speculate with that. :P

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

There are actually several ways in which you could start a new cluster of Quarters, but we'll go into more details later (possibly when we start streaming).

Combat actually features 3 combat rounds per global turn. We'll dive into specifics of the mechanics later, but for now I will say that the system does not rely on you clicking quickly, nor does it use an initiative system, and leave you to speculate with that. :P

I like the sound of multiple ways to start clusters. One of them is probably the outpost, but I do look forward to more on it.

Intriguing regarding the combat system. It's not fully pre-planned moves either, right? I recall that in EL there was an option to have commands only possible every two turns. My impression was that players get more control over units compared to EL, not less. Besides, that wouldn't explain what sequence units move in. Could you maybe confirm at what points the player can give orders? Per round, after any unit has moved? Other?

We've already confirmed that any battle will have three rounds per strategic turn (Well, or less if you win before then, I guess. :-P ), and that you have more direct control of the units, but we're not quite ready to talk about all the details yet.

The drawn out combat system will make this game unplayable online. I expect it to go the same way as EL and Age of Wonders and servers to be empty. Sure it'll be fun in single player when you can save your game and come back to it day after day but would you be able to complete a 4-6 player game online within 3 hours when every battle is drawn out? Also, why the heck would i want to go off and manage my empire while i have units battling? This feels like the battles are secondary and the combat system is secondary in the overall design of the game. We don't just want simcity 2020 we want a complete game that is better than Civ !

He literally just said that combat will not be drawn out. Three actions per turn is not at all like EL or AoW and sounds very reasonable, especially if you can put a timer like 10 seconds per action per unit. You would want to manage your units and empire at the same time so that the other players can still get turns in during your war, instead of waiting for you each time you battle.

You can't have it both ways. Either there is a deep, drawn out combat system like EL or AoW which has the draw back of making the game take longer and other players waiting while you fight. Or you have combat more like Civ where there is a simpler overworld system where you manage empire and units at the same time and other players don't have to wait for you, at the cost of some of the depth. Putting combat in the overworld but allowing three actions per turn is a pretty decent compromise in my opinion. Do you have a better suggestion?

GaelicWarrior wrote:

The drawn out combat system will make this game unplayable online. I expect it to go the same way as EL and Age of Wonders and servers to be empty. Sure it'll be fun in single player when you can save your game and come back to it day after day but would you be able to complete a 4-6 player game online within 3 hours when every battle is drawn out? Also, why the heck would i want to go off and manage my empire while i have units battling? This feels like the battles are secondary and the combat system is secondary in the overall design of the game. We don't just want simcity 2020 we want a complete game that is better than Civ !

I think those 3 actions are a good middleground like Eulogos pointed out. And as Cat pointed out it could make sense to do other things in your empire while the enemy is moving his units. You probably don t have to do it though.

Thanks, Cat-o-Nine-Tails. What I thought I remembered from previously. I look forward to the FF on combat when it comes.

I think this is really where player preferences come in. Some like detailed combat systems as in Total War or Age of Wonders or their space 4X equivalents. Others like a heavier focus on exploitation and empire building mechanics. For the most part, I'm in the latter camp, so a "compromise" combat system sounds great to me. I quite enjoyed EL's limited control system that game some meaningful control, but kept things pacey. I thought the system for ES2 was quite clever in theory, not sure it worked as well in practice. But good to try something new, instead of treading well-wandered paths.

But indeed the devs will need to find a way to make tactical combat work for MP for those who like to play that mode. Seems like quite a conundrum.

Hello mates, Im new!

If I might not be able to bring up interesting stuff myself but I might start a discussion that does. Sadly I never got never warm with endless legend even tho I loved the game design, but I have way to many hours in Civ 6 - a game I play competitively against other people too. 

First of all: The fighting system

I love (I hope Im allowed to compare Humankind with Civ) strategic wars in Civ6 and wouldnt say there boring at all. Of cause in a head to head fight when one player fortifies and the other one dosent have the army and miltary tec to push that might stale out the war, but there are ways around that. The use of the terrain is very essential. At least in Multiplayer that is - In Singleplayer it is quite the grind to fight deity AI.

Fortification is a Key: The use of a defensive settlement on rivers or Mountains. Placing camps to strengthen terrain and protect a unit. Fortifying troops on rough terrain and you might be able to repel tanks with fieldcannons.

The opponent has to stack up a lot of war ecco and tec related Boni to overpower the defender.

In Human Kind I would like to see the serario were a citybuilder or rapid expansion civilization has to fight a nomadic and/or warciv. I like the Idea of rewarding a player to play defensive by maybe making the land harder to pass by building outposts having an army who can take advantage of the fortifications (the implementation of more armor for allies as City defense in endless legend felt a bit weird).

The battlemap in EL was defiantly one of the features I enjoyed most, preventing the Unitblobing and the Initiative handled a fair way to determine who draws when. Way better than the Civ System : Who kicks faster wins, at least if you dont want to play 10 minute long turns for the other mode. I just hope that in Humankind the other Players can still do their turn while two (or more) people are fighting on the battle map.

I really hope the fighting will be a core feature in Humankind. Biggest Army wins would be boring concept there. Maybe give the Player a way to build fortifications improve his Land for Combat advantages. Give Warcivs Pluderunits, who ignore fortification and can evade armies? Give weaker Warcivs hit and run tactics, maybe a huge bonus for destroying/capturing/plundering Outposts. Idk Im curios for the game

I like the gigantic cities. I wish there was a feature where you could zoom into the cities - I'm not sure how the 4k system works - but I like the gigantic cities graphically