I kind of agree but... Civ 6 does not seem too complicated. Each era has hits own 2 or 3 strategic resources: iron + horses / coal + oil / uranium + aluminium. And with the latest expansion pack you can still use coal or oil in the end game with power plants. But I agree that except for military units they are quite useless.

You make a good point, everything in history is interconnected, and given that the devs are trying to show how cultures do not exist in a vacuum, I think showing the unexpected side effects of gameplay would be cool. 

I know that they have the random event system, where choices you made in the past come back several eras later (for instance, a focus on science in the bronze and classical eras allows you to use the research of astronomy in the medieval era to grant a science boost, for a basic example). They also have hinted at an 8 values politics system, (progress vs tradition, individualism vs collectivism, etc) to show how your culture was influenced by the choices you made and how it can respond to new problems. 

But having the choices you make and technologies and policies you or other players use have a game-wide influence would definitely be cool. How does writing and literacy, for instance, influence religion? Or how does a war between two world powers influence the trade, politics, and art of a neutral power?

This might not be exactly what you meant, but I liked the idea Civ 6 had of eurekas, where the speed of your scientific and cultural development was influenced by gameplay. I guess what you're proposing is having it be the other way around also, so that special bonuses and maluses that influence gameplay spin off of combinations of techs and culture to make the game world evolve over time?

I understand what you are saying, and I quite like this line of thought; but as you mentioned, we have to think about the AI and also a generalized audience. Speaking to the AI, Paradox games are notorious for having AI that has various problems between patches from being too easy to too hard (depending on who you ask), not using mechanics, skipping/'cheating' mechanics, etc. Along with this, I would also say I don't like the way Paradox handles AI difficulties in general with bonuses and disadvantages instead of increased AI logic and I feel this is a symptom of how they handle their in-game systems and the complex there-in. It could also be said that AI in general may not have reached a possible complexity needed for interaction within the complex systems.

Don't get me wrong, I personally would love a game that is incredibly complex and has all these inter-working systems that make each game 'truly' unique, it's just not currently possible it would seem with our understanding of AI. As well, games generally try and appeal to the largest possible demographic as, in the end, games are a business looking to create entertainment but also maximize profit. Having extremely complex systems could alienate a large, generalized population who don't have the patience, time, etc. to learn all the complex, inter-working systems.

As an example, look at EVE Online. There is an amazing, complex economy but there is a good portion of the community that tries their hardest to avoid or skirt around the economy because of how hard it is to learn. Instead of learning how to 'game' or work within the economy, they simply list the best price and move on. This works because of how EVE can cater to different groups with the size and diversity of systems offered; essentially the economy in a way can be independently operated while some players solely focus on fighting or resource managment.

This is much harder to accomplish with a more 'linear' game like those in 4X games where the goal is to build up and work through the various systems, such as tech trees for culture and science, until you reach the end. This isn't to say it would be impossible, just not currently, knowingly possible. The idea hasn't necessary come to mind how to create a balance between AI, generalized audiences, and complex interactions. As always, balance is key.

I feel that 'complicated' systems have grown to be normal as we sort of plateau currently in AI for game development. Now this isn't a 'normal' plateau like many people think, in essence, we are making advancements in AI everyday but it is a generalized plateau in the sense of usage. Essentialy, we are limited by hardware which in turn limites our understanding and creation of AI. So as computers advance into the general markets and more intelligent AI can be created and used in those cases, we will likely see another jump within the industry in terms of complexity and depth similar to what we started to see as hardware really advanced at the beginning of the century and this past decade. Until then, I believe we will generally seen 'complicated' systems in use more widely than 'complex' systems.

This has been an interesting conversation. Let's see how and if it can apply to Humankind.

One of the interesting mechanics in the Endless series has been influence. Unlike a lot of the example resources, it has a wide variety of uses, from improving your own society's government to allowing the creation of diplomatic agreements to certain species using them for construction, research, and dealing with minor civs. Unless you put all your other resources and time towards maximizing influence you'll find yourself having to pick and choose between them. I'm pretty sure this system will be brought into Humankind, so that may help.

Wonders typically cause major changes to a culture, perhaps they could be made to change your playstyle slightly and how other cultures interact with you? For that matter, who's to say "Wonders" should be the only major project with major bonuses upon completion? We know certain goals each era can get you stars, but what if they also had other changes built in? For instance, the first culture to kill 10 units with one particular kind of unit will gain a reputation for that particular unit and get both a moral bonus using that unit against others of the same kind but depending on the kind it could have other bonuses, such as allowing you to sell them for a greater value than normal as mercenaries, or an air unit bonus giving you greater range for airdrops, or allowing you to steal certain resources from the opponant using them. What about having the longest continuous road giving a bonus to commerce?

Another thing that probably won't get in based on the images we've seen of the tech tree but might still happen in the cultural "tree" or get added later is mutually exclusive advancements that have major effects based on which you pick, if only diplomatically. For instance, you could have techs that only can be researched in a particular era. In addition to the usual benefits, researching that tech will make peaceful deals with cultures that chose the opposite tech more expensive and hostile ones cheaper, with the opposite effect on cultures that made the same choice. The current alignment system will probably supercede this, but perhaps similar effects could happen when either your culture gets far enough in an allignment or enough cultures reach an allignment?

I couldn't agree more with what all of you people are saying.
I'm so happy that now that there is Humankind, Civ will have a competitor. And hopefully, it will lead to innovation in the genre.
I think that one of the key elements is definitely complexity and interaction, as you all mentioned above. Hopefully, we'll see less tedious micromanagement and more dynamic experiences.