This realy bugged me about Civilization .In the early days rivers acted as roads for trade .This has been long gone in Civlization .Is it possible such a system could be implimented into Humankind ?Im pretty new here so sorry if its been mentine .I have visual impediments so I could look back with ease.

They have yet to announce anything about trade as far as I am aware. It's possible that this already is in the game, or that there is no trade system with routes. We'll have to see how this could fit in. I hope there is trade with routes and that rivers count.

I agree, I've always felt that the Civ series drastically undervalued the importance of rivers. It would be great to see the role of rivers as conduits of trade represented better in Humankind. While it would also be great to see the movement of certain naval vessels along rivers (allowing for raiding for example), there are a lot of logistical issues from a game design perspective that would make that really difficult.

Honestly, maybe there should be several "classes" or categories of rivers (navigable rivers, and others), and different landforms associated with them (like river deltas or estuaries). But again this goes back to one of the fundamental difficulties in making 4X games - balancing too little VS too much complexity. And in my opinion it is something that Civ 6 and Endless Legend/Space 2 did well with the vanilla game, but really disrupted with some of the later expansions (still a huge fan Amplitude!!!). I would much rather see expansions deepen mechanics as opposed to broadening the number of mechanics at play at one time. To bring this ramble back on topic, I hope that Amplitude does something inventive with the trade system - that incorporates both micro and macro decision-making.

Hmm, I feel like this brings up a weird point. Just what is the trade system in humankind, It's a big deal. Especially for me as I mainly play these types of games for trading. Though if they did have river trade on cities connected to rivers I think I would actually cry tears of joy.

ost wrote:

Honestly, maybe there should be several "classes" or categories of rivers (navigable rivers, and others), and different landforms associated with them (like river deltas or estuaries). But again this goes back to one of the fundamental difficulties in making 4X games - balancing too little VS too much complexity.

This is a perfect example of the type of complexity that I was condoning in my earlier thread. This adds detail, realism, strategy, and generally enriches the game. If it isn't in the budget, so be it, but I hope the dev never cuts a detail because it might make the game more difficult to understand.

This is a perfect example of the type of complexity that I was condoning in my earlier thread. This adds detail, realism, strategy, and generally enriches the game. If it isn't in the budget, so be it, but I hope the dev never cuts a detail because it might make the game more difficult to understand.

The counter-argument would be the too much clutter can make for an unfocused experiance. I'd much rather a simple yet streamlined experiance that can be expanded upon later via mods/DLC than a bunch of half baked features, however this does not mean I don't want advanced features and interesting mechanics far from it.

I wholeheartedly do want more advanced features, so long as they add to the endgoal (that being a city builder/4x) rather than add superfluous features that actually may take away from the experiance. I think an example of this would be the radiant ai system in oblivion, ultimately it was a failure due to its ambition and at the end didn't actually contribute much to the game even if it were to be implemented sucessfully. Getting back on topic I like the river system idea a lot, however multiple types and categories is bordering on redundant, it would be much better to simply have all rivers act as ways for an inland city to trade to the ocean/other inland cities. This is far more advanced than any other 4x and adds to the experiance, rather than becoming it.

Eulogos wrote:

I think that trade is a good size for a DLC, too big and too niche to be added into the base game properly, but not large enough to warrant an expansion pack. I hope that Humankind also follows Stellaris' model in terms of making pieces of new features free so that there is a single version of the game rather than having contradictory possible combinations of DLC that makes modding and patching a nightmare.

As a fellow paradox fan (1300hrs in eu4) I can definitely agree that I would like them to follow paradoxes Dlc format in that regard. And from previous Amplitude games it looks like only the host will have to have the Dlc.

Taokr wrote:

Eulogos wrote:

I think that trade is a good size for a DLC, too big and too niche to be added into the base game properly, but not large enough to warrant an expansion pack. I hope that Humankind also follows Stellaris' model in terms of making pieces of new features free so that there is a single version of the game rather than having contradictory possible combinations of DLC that makes modding and patching a nightmare.

As a fellow paradox fan (1300hrs in eu4) I can definitely agree that I would like them to follow paradoxes Dlc format in that regard. And from previous Amplitude games it looks like only the host will have to have the Dlc.

They did add certain improvements to the main game, when a new dlc was released, but not always whole new systems like hacking, if you don't got the add-on. And as stated you can participate in mp if the host got the dlc. I don't think amplitude will change this philosophy suddenly. :)