Personally, I feel like a pre-order tester.but thanks to the game developers, although the game is really getting better little by little, the slow progress has caused my perception of the game to become "very tired"

I actually see a good tendency in the update frequency. We've just got cultures of Latin America and Bolivar and few weeks later the are already teasing the next update. I think the game has a high replayability (for me at least) but it could have even higher if you'd been allowed to play against your own AI personas. For now I need to browse the collection here to find interesting AI opponents and tbh there are only few players who've made their AI personas strong, I can recommend @PangolinAdvisor @PARAdoxiBLE @Ucculer55 @wilbefast @Siptah and mb @koxsos (his girl doesn't have a lot of bonuses but smh always gives me sweat in my games lol)

Feel like the early adopter of a game with the potential of creating a new benchmark for the historial 4X genre if sufficient flesh can be added on a (now) functional "barebone" game, specifically in the following areas ; 

- diplo

- religion

- trade & naval

- endgame (which overlaps the previous three)

with the caveat that these updates should either be paced relatively quickly (and the last weeks have been an improvement on that front after the long drought that preceded da Vinci) or at least laid out more transparently in a timeline (e.g. diplo around summer 22, religion end 22, trade spring 23, etc.)

My attitude is very positive. Why?

Because I play the game and I have fun playing the game. 

I don't worry about what the game will be - It'll get better in fits and starts - you can say slow - but the real question is, are you having fun now? If not, wait; if yes, then play and stop worrying about the development of the game. (Of course you can still provide feedback and ideas - the devs are listening!)

I would also say - compare it to other games. If you're talking diplo, it took CA until Three Kingdoms to have a pretty decent diplomacy model - and then they abandoned the game! And diplo in Civ? Still a joke (prove me wrong?).

I'm most disappointed in the naval aspect (I think they should have gone the Paradox route), but it's just one minor aspect of the game.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind naval gameplay if not for the fact that ships tend to be weaker than contemporary land units - while, imo, it should be opposite, land units should have hard time when they're caught within ships range, rather than ships being in hot water if they get within musket shot distance from shore (and it's a very powerful musket too, considering they can hardly answer with cannonballs). There's short fun to be had early on, when you can catch and obliterate whole armies in transit with galleys, because they probably won't have enough movement to reach land and then there's another era when you have Ironclads and your fleet really reigns for its duration.

I've clocked a lot of hours in HK and I've been enjoying it a lot. Even if lately I'm being regularly beaten by the AI and am too prideful to just finally lower the difficulty instead of just getting frustrated :D

I'm having fun for the first time (once I found/made a good modset anyway). It still has bugs and rough edges (religion seems way too underdeveloped for how hard the game pushes it with EQs) but there's promise.

'Tis novel.

I think its a fun game that has the possibility of becoming something really great.

Spent 400+ hours in the game already, sometimes I liked it and sometimes I hated it. If people asking for a suggestion, I would recommend Civ6 instead of Humankind. Unless they want for a sci-fi in the same genre, then without any doubt I will suggest Endless Space 2, since I'm a huge fan of the Endless universe.

I love the game but am extremely disappointed by Amplitude's approach towards M1 Mac support.

All we ask is for them to end the silence - treat us with respect and tell us whether or not you're even still working on it.

So I'm giving Old World a try now as they now have native M1 support.

TheCivEngineer wrote:

I love the game but am extremely disappointed by Amplitude's approach towards M1 Mac support.

All we ask is for them to end the silence - treat us with respect and tell us whether or not you're even still working on it.

So I'm giving Old World a try now as they now have native M1 support.

Seconding this !!

I like the state the game is in now. There are still a few annoying bugs. A few curious design choices (not right or wrong, just curious). I tend to play a game or two of Humankind, Then a game or two of CiVI. I flip back and forth. The only exception is if a patch is due soon, then I play CIVI for a few extra days. Once the patch drops, I'll play a few extra games of humankind. I still think the pacing is slightly off, and sometimes an AI can snowball a Tech ending, long before I ever get there. I am hoping for some bigger developments from the Amplitude Team. Just before the Cultures of Latin America, there was also a listing for an expansion??? It was something to do with diplomacy. Hopefully, they can add an immersive but still simple espionage system to the game. They are heading in the right direction.

     Anyone that asks me if this is the next Civ game, I tell them no, it's the next 4x game. If you expect CivVII, you will be disappointed. If you expect a 4x game with stunning graphics, and a game that is getting progressively better, then you can love this game.

   A few of my friends dislike that the only victory is fame. The way the game ends is not the victory. Some of them, are so used to the CiVI model, that they end up disliking the victory as Humankind does it. 

   I am looking forward to each new patch, and am looking forward to any new content.

The game is in a good shape and I am looking forward to the new patch and the first expansion!

I like the game but it gets boring quickly and it isn't as mindblowing as other Amplitude games. I find it remarkably sad that there are many systems (ideology, influence expansion, unit customisation, quests, competitive quests, spying, diplomacy) that are better designed in Endless Space 2 than in Humankind. Sometimes I feel like we waited all these years to get a game that is worse than the ones Amplitude produced in the past and certainly is far from being a "magnum opus". The game is not bad by any means, but it could have been much more. We are slowly getting there but oftentimes I feel too tired of Humankind to even bother trying the new updates and DLCs. I hope they release a more fleshed-out expansion that incorporates new systems, maybe that will make me more optimistic.

roger212 wrote:

I like the game but it gets boring quickly and it isn't as mindblowing as other Amplitude games. I find it remarkably sad that there are many systems (ideology, influence expansion, unit customisation, quests, competitive quests, spying, diplomacy) that are better designed in Endless Space 2 than in Humankind. Sometimes I feel like we waited all these years to get a game that is worse than the ones Amplitude produced in the past and certainly is far from being a "magnum opus". The game is not bad by any means, but it could have been much more. We are slowly getting there but oftentimes I feel too tired of Humankind to even bother trying the new updates and DLCs. I hope they release a more fleshed-out expansion that incorporates new systems, maybe that will make me more optimistic.

Since I haven't played too much of their previous games, I don't have this feeling here.

But what you described is exactly how I (and many others) felt about CK3 when it came out - it was missing so much stuff that CK2 already had (similarly Imperator:Rome launched with almost none of the QoL features that other Paradox titles already had as if the teams never talked to each other or learned from each other). And they're all the same engine! I just don't understand why they did that.

Is this the new industry standard? Where a sequel will launch at 40% of the previous edition, and build up to 140% after several years, then launch a new one at a low base and build up; repeat ad infinitum.

I probably would like Humankind more if I could skip the first era. More often than not I don't even complete it because of the boredom it creates for me.

I have been really trying to love this game, but it's difficult:

1.  Combat: Attacking cities is such a wild card from water. It's difficult to locate a feasible landing point, defenders can shoot units into rubble in 1 hit at long ranges, and you don't really know how far they can shoot. Meanwhile, your units have serious penalties. Attacking units behind walls, range of 1, can't position or flank due to map constraints. No usable intel pre-assault. Just annoying as hell. Many times, my units are unable to get on the field due to terrain limits and it's so difficult to see when terrain is screwing you pre attack.

2. Saved games: Is there an easier way to delete saved games? Manually in the loading menu is horrible. Do you have to goto files in the game folder?

3. Resources: I should be able to just use default settings and have a functional map. Sure, I may have to trade for a couple resources, or wage a war for a specific resource, but on Metropolis, I have been resource starved for oil/coal/alum all at the same time on EVERY game. Does the map intentionally spawn these assets in the most difficult places and furthest from player territory?

4.  Culture starvation: I get it, conquering opponents has its downsides, but merging territories or being 3-5 cities OVER cap near end game gets dumb when it take 106k for a single merge, or you have to burn your new city down and out post it. There's gotta be a better way.

I have about 200 hours played, and the game is fun until about turn 280, then it starts getting stupid.

CoconutTank wrote:

4. Razing the city and re-attaching the newly created outpost is pretty much the only workaround I've come across. It's way cheaper than merging cities, and even in the beta, merging cities still starts getting some crazy high influence costs.

It remains a problem and feels like an exploit, mostly because I'm pretty sure the AI doesn't know it and can not use it.
I'm not sure however that the AI merges cities often...

CoconutTank wrote:
I don't remember if Ironclads can damage fortifications

They can and Inner Sea Mastodonte makes them hilariously good at it too. Researching Propeller opens a small window in which navy can absolutely dominate (probably why I enjoy Industrial Era warfare the most).

I still think heavy ships with siege capabilities should be unlocked at much earlier stage, so that there's more reason for having a navy in earlier eras, both to attack and defend the coast.

DNLH wrote:

I still think heavy ships with siege capabilities should be unlocked at much earlier stage, so that there's more reason for having a navy in earlier eras, both to attack and defend the coast.

I'm going to agree, too. But just want to say that navies are already great at defending a coast from invading armies (if they don't have a navy). A few pentekators can sink a full stack of Mongol hordes :) Worst case scenario, have a few archers on the coast as they'll decimate the transport ships as well.

Unless there's a sliver of land ranged units on those transport ships can reach, then the early navy has to flee and do it quickly. I just think that it's situational, they can come in handy, but they're not necessary even when the terrain is favourable.