Oi oi!

Just wanted to make a few quick notes on my thoughts so far after playing 100h+.

The late game right now is extremely broken, mainly because of:

1. The tech that boosts industry by 50% in all cities (forget the name but its in the end of the research institute tech tree) is ridiculously OP and too easy to unlock

2. Combine above with a science civ affinity and you can basically research every  tech in contemporary era + many from earlier in 10 turns or so and end the game. Just tried this on humandkind difficulty and won way too easily. 

The scientific culture ability of converting production and money to science is way too strong late game. I'm not even sure a 50% nerf would be enough. 

Other notes:

1. Cultural civs also seem really underpowered, especially considering there's a civic that basically negates all cultural influence. Influence kicks in too late and its not all that useful once most of map has been grabbed compared to other bonuses, Cultural civ ability also seems pretty useless - needs a rework
2. Harappans and Egyptians seem 2-3 tiers above all the other ancient era cultures. 
3. The production cultures all seem quite a bit stronger than the other civs (i.e. mughals, khmer, maya)

Cheers!

All the techs need to have their cost increased (balanced by a new "free tech" mechanic for the empires that are behind)

But the Final Techs need a massive increase in cost, [and it should scale with world size]

Same for the Mars Mission, Much more expensive, with cost scaling with world size [basically take the current cost and multiply it by the std number of players for this map size... for all the Space Race Projects]

The Aesthete Affinity Ability is actually quite powerful early in the game. The bigger problem is that Influence has little value late in the game, at least in most circumstances. The game needs a late-game Influence sink that provides worthwhile effects. I guess the intention was that Aesthete empires could stack up Civics and claim more Wonders? But most Civics don't do very much in the first place and Wonders tend to only be situationally useful. In my current game I've never played an Aesthete culture, it's the end of Industrial, and I've got 37K Influence + 2K per turn. An Aesthete build could surely get much more Influence but there's just no point. What do you spend it on?

I think there are various ways to approach that problem but any of them would require a lot of reworking. One possibility I find appealing is that Influence could play a much stronger role in diplo, letting you force treaty conditions. That would reflect your cultural sway over the world. Another might be powerful Aesthete-only civics that give you big bonuses to reward your cultural strength and unity.

Krikkitone wrote:

All the techs need to have their cost increased (balanced by a new "free tech" mechanic for the empires that are behind)

But the Final Techs need a massive increase in cost, [and it should scale with world size]

Same for the Mars Mission, Much more expensive, with cost scaling with world size [basically take the current cost and multiply it by the std number of players for this map size... for all the Space Race Projects]

you are right about tech costs being too low.  there seems to be a strong snowball effect. And final Techs are easily accessible

I would say making stability more relevant in later stage is more interesting than an influence sink

although I am not against an influence sink if it's done well.

I know the Aesthete Affinity Ability trails behind as you play. 

I myself almost always go for industrial Cultures. Ideas on this issue are welcome.

the why :

I think making cities at risk of revolt because of empire overextension is an exciting possibility. it would keep players on their toes even if they've had a winning streak through the eras. 

I notice players who have a rough time in later stage have revolts in their cities because further advanced players have ideology pull on their neighbours . So this would level the playing field in later stages of the game.

In real life people speak of 5th or 4th generation warfare as a real thing, so having stability play a larger role in Humankind The game only makes the game more immersive and exciting. 

That might free up influence points for more diverse political moves / intrigue etc... 

Think the BRICS countries or G20 influencing global markets and trade. International Investment banks and debt traps, Or media ops influencing the perception people have of the war (that could impact war morale at home) 

Ignoring this is a missed opportunity. Right now,  it's as if human conflicts stopped at a battle between state funded , on-field armies. It's  completely missing  most of 21rst century warfare, it's missing the core of the Cold War which is proxy war. Influence and stability would be greatly used with these in mind.

PS : I  want NO ! World congress  NO ! United Nations, 

We can tell BRICS, G20 and International Banks are so much more dynamic and consequential, it's not even close.

the what :

I propose something like

no more influence point penalty on City Cap ( frees Influence for usage in other mechanics )

10 stability point penalty on all cities per number of cities above the cap

and double the penalty per era

now we could make the penalty scale per era

also, we could make the penalty harsher or more generous depending on the size of map, number of player or game difficulty

PS: I genuinely believe that the number of cities allowed, with the allocated technologies for that, is too small.

Especially if you plan to play with a more conquest-militarist mindset through your game.

The present mechanics locks you in Cities skylines gameplay mindset. It gets repetitive,  

it's a waste of Humankind's amazing on field combat system. That System is AMAZING.

___My typing in English is improving ____

Krikkitone wrote:

All the techs need to have their cost increased (balanced by a new "free tech" mechanic for the empires that are behind)

But the Final Techs need a massive increase in cost, [and it should scale with world size]

Same for the Mars Mission, Much more expensive, with cost scaling with world size [basically take the current cost and multiply it by the std number of players for this map size... for all the Space Race Projects]

+1

noah0111 wrote:

I would say making stability more relevant in later stage is more interesting than an influence sink

although I am not against an influence sink if it's done well.

I know the Aesthete Affinity Ability trails behind as you play. 

I myself almost always go for industrial Cultures. Ideas on this issue are welcome.

the why :

I think making cities at risk of revolt because of empire overextension is an exciting possibility. it would keep players on their toes even if they've had a winning streak through the eras. 

I notice players who have a rough time in later stage have revolts in their cities because further advanced players have ideology pull on their neighbours . So this would level the playing field in later stages of the game.

In real life people speak of 5th or 4th generation warfare as a real thing, so having stability play a larger role in Humankind The game only makes the game more immersive and exciting. 

That might free up influence points for more diverse political moves / intrigue etc... 

Think the BRICS countries or G20 influencing global markets and trade. International Investment banks and debt traps, Or media ops influencing the perception people have of the war (that could impact war morale at home) 

Ignoring this is a missed opportunity. Right now,  it's as if human conflicts stopped at a battle between state funded , on-field armies. It's  completely missing  most of 21rst century warfare, it's missing the core of the Cold War which is proxy war. Influence and stability would be greatly used with these in mind.

PS : I  want NO ! World congress  NO ! United Nations, 

We can tell BRICS, G20 and International Banks are so much more dynamic and consequential, it's not even close.

the what :

I propose something like

no more influence point penalty on City Cap ( frees Influence for usage in other mechanics )

10 stability point penalty on all cities per number of cities above the cap

and double the penalty per era

now we could make the penalty scale per era

also, we could make the penalty harsher or more generous depending on the size of map, number of player or game difficulty

PS: I genuinely believe that the number of cities allowed, with the allocated technologies for that, is too small.

Especially if you plan to play with a more conquest-militarist mindset through your game.

The present mechanics locks you in Cities skylines gameplay mindset. It gets repetitive,  

it's a waste of Humankind's amazing on field combat system. That System is AMAZING.

___My typing in English is improving ____

Stability for city cap is great but keep debuff influence is important . You cannot have many cities cuz they would be less well govern so you would get in addition -5% FMIS on all cities 

noah0111 wrote:

I would say making stability more relevant in later stage is more interesting than an influence sink

although I am not against an influence sink if it's done well.

I know the Aesthete Affinity Ability trails behind as you play. 

I myself almost always go for industrial Cultures. Ideas on this issue are welcome.

the why :

I think making cities at risk of revolt because of empire overextension is an exciting possibility. it would keep players on their toes even if they've had a winning streak through the eras. 

I notice players who have a rough time in later stage have revolts in their cities because further advanced players have ideology pull on their neighbours . So this would level the playing field in later stages of the game.

In real life people speak of 5th or 4th generation warfare as a real thing, so having stability play a larger role in Humankind The game only makes the game more immersive and exciting. 

That might free up influence points for more diverse political moves / intrigue etc... 

Think the BRICS countries or G20 influencing global markets and trade. International Investment banks and debt traps, Or media ops influencing the perception people have of the war (that could impact war morale at home) 

Ignoring this is a missed opportunity. Right now,  it's as if human conflicts stopped at a battle between state funded , on-field armies. It's  completely missing  most of 21rst century warfare, it's missing the core of the Cold War which is proxy war. Influence and stability would be greatly used with these in mind.

PS : I  want NO ! World congress  NO ! United Nations, 

We can tell BRICS, G20 and International Banks are so much more dynamic and consequential, it's not even close.

the what :

I propose something like

no more influence point penalty on City Cap ( frees Influence for usage in other mechanics )

10 stability point penalty on all cities per number of cities above the cap

and double the penalty per era

now we could make the penalty scale per era

also, we could make the penalty harsher or more generous depending on the size of map, number of player or game difficulty

PS: I genuinely believe that the number of cities allowed, with the allocated technologies for that, is too small.

Especially if you plan to play with a more conquest-militarist mindset through your game.

The present mechanics locks you in Cities skylines gameplay mindset. It gets repetitive,  

it's a waste of Humankind's amazing on field combat system. That System is AMAZING.

___My typing in English is improving ____

And yes humankind is really good at warfare but could be cool for undirect warfare too for ideology i think this should really get you great stability debuffs so culture that produce stability would get advantages .

tppytel wrote:

The Aesthete Affinity Ability is actually quite powerful early in the game. The bigger problem is that Influence has little value late in the game, at least in most circumstances. The game needs a late-game Influence sink that provides worthwhile effects. I guess the intention was that Aesthete empires could stack up Civics and claim more Wonders? But most Civics don't do very much in the first place and Wonders tend to only be situationally useful. In my current game I've never played an Aesthete culture, it's the end of Industrial, and I've got 37K Influence + 2K per turn. An Aesthete build could surely get much more Influence but there's just no point. What do you spend it on?

I think there are various ways to approach that problem but any of them would require a lot of reworking. One possibility I find appealing is that Influence could play a much stronger role in diplo, letting you force treaty conditions. That would reflect your cultural sway over the world. Another might be powerful Aesthete-only civics that give you big bonuses to reward your cultural strength and unity.

+1 as well as all indirect pressure or so like if a city is under your influence you can influence people choices if it's democracy making them vote special parties a system like EL2 would be neat but like -20% money or industry ( government civic shiul actually give you more gameplay impact ! ) or  encourage revolts with a big cost of influence . As a sphere of economic influence if you control a trade node city or port you siphon the profit their making or reduce stability by saying to your companies to up prices . Religion and science could have they role too .

Another event when controlling ( would be in forms of tiers depending on the time those territory are under you influence {if mixe 50/50 this would up too like in a global score overtime }  ) : stop any trades roads by influencing the pop this is bad , events in cities with larger pops would have a larger impact than small cities 

Stability penalty for overextension is good... but it should not be a "cap" it should be a growing penalty.

So my proposal

Overextension:

on every City and Outpost: -1 Stability per turn for every Attached Territory more than the Average number of Attached Territories [ie Total Attached Territories in the World/Number of Empires the map started with]

This number could go down, if you have less than the Average, but the total would never be positive.

Good one !