I have been playing Humankind (on and off) since it was released and there are so many things I love about Humankind. Everything from the Cultures, the beautiful graphics and animations and the warfare system (for the most part) and the simultaneous turns and unit movement (although not perfect). The ebb and flow of culture advancement and all of the amazing improvements to the game over the last year or so. I could list a lot more of the aspects of the game I think are great, but there are a couple of things that tip the scales into the negative and that far outweigh the good.

But I want to voice my opinion on why I think the game isn't as successful as it could be (in the hope that this can be seen as constructive feedback with the desire to make the game better). This is just another random person's opinion, I am not stating fact, just simply my perspective.

Frustration is one thing that can kill any video game and Humankind can be very frustrating. I am not referring to difficulty, but rather game mechanics producing inconsistent results, inappropriate result/output that is at odds with intention. I am referring to the unpredictability of game mechanics that often makes player effort, planning and intentional play redundant, pointless and at times a bit of a lottery. It would be great if worked in a way that meant considered play and effort to position and plan was rewarding and consistent.

1. The beginning of a turn

Simultaneous play and info-pop-ups at the beginning of a turn are a direct contradiction that generates a lot of frustration. The random nature of the pop-ups right at a point when you want/need to move a key unit before the AI/opponent, detracts from what would otherwise be a really great dynamic in prioritisation. But by the time you have exited the pop-ups, the moment has gone, very frustrating. This takes away from game narrative and it reduces immersiveness, as it creates the need to quickly dismiss narrative and info dialogues that have been designed as part of the game. I am sure a lot of effort went into the creation of the mini animation sequences and pops boxes, but the game pushes you towards dismissing all the pop-ups without enjoying them. I am literally escaping my way through the narrative of the game in order to focus on a broken mechanic.

A suggestion would be to delay the start of the turn until turn events have been processed. Then players are left to prioritise their tactical play without the hindrance of game narrative. This would also allow for a more immersive experience, especially when achieving a fame star or viewing a significant event and it would mean that the effort that went into the art and graphics/animations was not wasted.

2. Inconsistency with battle mechanics especially when a battle involves cites, multiple cities and/or both land and sea units.

So many battles end up in some bizarre battlefield layout, that makes no sense and often means loss/loses that were entirely unnecessary. It leads to problems like having no area to deploy units because the battlefield was skewed at a weird angle and fails to include perfectly good terrain where common sense would dictate unit deployment. This inconsistency in the battlefield and line of sight mechanics is also hugely frustrating. This issue is more obvious when there are cities that are close together or where impassable terrain splits a battlefield with areas that are inaccessible and not a good representation of how a battle would unfold. Sometimes this has a lot to do with where the AI decides to put the defending players flag. A flag in itself is the ultimate goal of a battle, it is the domination of one force over another and a randomly placed flag in an indefensible or questionable position is not very realistic. A 2-3 hexagon range and player choice of where the flag should go (following movement rules so it is accessible) would be much more realistic. No commander ever said “my troops, we must stay at the bottom of the hill, because that's where I left our flag!”

These battlefield inconsistencies are essentially a lottery. In one instance you get to defend against an attack with all 15 units, in another only one stack of units gets to defend with the others designated as reinforcements (leading to the initial force being defeated before reinforcements can be deployed).

3. Unit movement (in battles) and line of sight

The auto path for units attacking when in a battle seems to have gotten worse, now units seem to 'prefer' to attack uphill or over a river. So manual movement of units is required (which is not a huge issue), but may affect the bonuses applied to units that have the 'bonus for attacking non adjacent units' attribute.

Line of sight (although improved) continues to be very painful with obvious high ground holding no advantage for ranged units (example) and with continued inconsistencies across the same battlefield (one hill providing LOS and an adjacent hill not proving LOS with no obvious difference).

4. There is still a lingering fog that surrounds the civic choices and the effect those choices have on the balance of the game you are in. When prompted (for example) do I want extra science for each scientist or extra science for each trade route, the game might as well roll a dice for me. It's not easy to find the information needed to make a decision (number of trade routes??) and not having the information presented means it is often impossible to understand the effect a decision will have on your civilisation and also prevents you from considering the future of the effect, very much necessary as you strategise towards your next Era. Again, this feels like a bit of a lottery, especially in the mid-late game.

On this last point, it is worth saying that there is a lot of enjoyment to be had from putting in the time to develop an understand of how a game works, and having every decision spelled out would not improve the game, but I don't think the right balance has been struck here (imo).

When I boot up Humankind I know that I will eventually, if I persevere, have another good game. But when it takes many attempts before enjoying another play (one that isn't plagued by the issues above or any other bugs), it's very easy to look elsewhere for similar content.

I think the developers have done an amazing job with both the launch and updates to Humankind and I hope the game continues to improve and more people come back to the game.

Hey, thanks for all the feedback, I would like to clarify or give more context to a couple of points:

Sometimes this has a lot to do with where the AI decides to put the defending players flag. A flag in itself is the ultimate goal of a battle, it is the domination of one force over another and a randomly placed flag in an indefensible or questionable position is not very realistic. A 2-3 hexagon range and player choice of where the flag should go (following movement rules so it is accessible) would be much more realistic. No commander ever said “my troops, we must stay at the bottom of the hill, because that's where I left our flag!”

The AI do not decide the flag

Line of sight (although improved) continues to be very painful with obvious high ground holding no advantage for ranged units (example) and with continued inconsistencies across the same battlefield (one hill providing LOS and an adjacent hill not proving LOS with no obvious difference).

As you mentioned, we have been improving this, so i was wondering if you have an example or something that could be not clear?

4. There is still a lingering fog that surrounds the civic choices and the effect those choices have on the balance of the game you are in. When prompted (for example) do I want extra science for each scientist or extra science for each trade route, the game might as well roll a dice for me. It's not easy to find the information needed to make a decision (number of trade routes??) and not having the information presented means it is often impossible to understand the effect a decision will have on your civilisation and also prevents you from considering the future of the effect, very much necessary as you strategise towards your next Era. Again, this feels like a bit of a lottery, especially in the mid-late game.

Agree, it could be tedious to close that screen and go to look for the info. 

I think the developers have done an amazing job with both the launch and updates to Humankind and I hope the game continues to improve and more people come back to the game.

Thank very much for the words :)

Of course, we will keep the work to make a better game.

Daarkarrow wrote:

Sometimes this has a lot to do with where the AI decides to put the defending players flag. A flag in itself is the ultimate goal of a battle, it is the domination of one force over another and a randomly placed flag in an indefensible or questionable position is not very realistic. A 2-3 hexagon range and player choice of where the flag should go (following movement rules so it is accessible) would be much more realistic. No commander ever said “my troops, we must stay at the bottom of the hill, because that's where I left our flag!”

The AI do not decide the flag

I think the implication was that "a neutral referee" places the flag, not your AI opponent.  Where does the flag go? Is it the tile that the defending army is standing on?  I'm a bit embarrassed to say I haven't paid attention.  If it were consistently where the defender was standing, that would encourage you to keep your armies in defensible places.

Daarkarrow wrote:

Hey, thanks for all the feedback, I would like to clarify or give more context to a couple of points:

Sometimes this has a lot to do with where the AI decides to put the defending players flag. A flag in itself is the ultimate goal of a battle, it is the domination of one force over another and a randomly placed flag in an indefensible or questionable position is not very realistic. A 2-3 hexagon range and player choice of where the flag should go (following movement rules so it is accessible) would be much more realistic. No commander ever said “my troops, we must stay at the bottom of the hill, because that's where I left our flag!”

The AI do not decide the flag

Line of sight (although improved) continues to be very painful with obvious high ground holding no advantage for ranged units (example) and with continued inconsistencies across the same battlefield (one hill providing LOS and an adjacent hill not proving LOS with no obvious difference).

As you mentioned, we have been improving this, so i was wondering if you have an example or something that could be not clear?

4. There is still a lingering fog that surrounds the civic choices and the effect those choices have on the balance of the game you are in. When prompted (for example) do I want extra science for each scientist or extra science for each trade route, the game might as well roll a dice for me. It's not easy to find the information needed to make a decision (number of trade routes??) and not having the information presented means it is often impossible to understand the effect a decision will have on your civilisation and also prevents you from considering the future of the effect, very much necessary as you strategise towards your next Era. Again, this feels like a bit of a lottery, especially in the mid-late game.

Agree, it could be tedious to close that screen and go to look for the info. 

I think the developers have done an amazing job with both the launch and updates to Humankind and I hope the game continues to improve and more people come back to the game.

Thank very much for the words :)

Of course, we will keep the work to make a better game.

Hey @Daarkarrow and @CaptainAdHoc, thank you for the responses :)

On the first point a about the flag, apologies I wasn't very clear in my language, I meant the game engine rather than an AI opponent (as RedSirus suggested, thanks).

This point really ties in with the second point about inconsistencies with the battlefield layout, how a battlefield is decided and how it changes depending on which stack of units is attacked (which can lead to other stacks of units not being able to defend) and the angle of the hex that is being attacked (which is a challenge when you want to attack from a specific hex, but the only way to do so is to move there first only to be attacked by the AI before you can click attack, this forces you to 'defend your flag' instead of being the one to attack).

It would obviously be much more helpful if I can post some examples for you to see, so I will play some more and screenshot as I encounter, assuming you will find this helpful. I will also do the same for the line of site issues I have encountered, which might also be part of a wider issue with the way some of the maps end up generated. I say this because I have also recently experienced a few instances where you can move between two hex's in only one direction (you can walk from hex A directly to hex B, but not directly from B to A) I have this screenshot already if you want to see it?

Thanks again for the responses, I really hope my feedback is helping in some way.

At some point, I hope you reintegrate Generals into the game, with one of their abilities when attached to an army is ability to place your flag.

Wald

eventdecay wrote:

Daarkarrow wrote:

Hey, thanks for all the feedback, I would like to clarify or give more context to a couple of points:

Line of sight (although improved) continues to be very painful with obvious high ground holding no advantage for ranged units (example) and with continued inconsistencies across the same battlefield (one hill providing LOS and an adjacent hill not proving LOS with no obvious difference).

As you mentioned, we have been improving this, so i was wondering if you have an example or something that could be not clear?

Hi Daarkarrow, As promised, a couple of screenshots of examples of where LOS can still be a little frustrating. Hope this helps.

In this image the highlight range unit (which is on a slight elevation) can apparently see and attack the three enemy units (obvious by the red outlines).

However, the unit that has a more elevated position and less LOS obstructions is unable to attack the targets even when one is closer.

This unit (which is on the same elevation can has LOS obscured) can also attack the three units.

I don't recall what archers they were (they might have an ability the means LOS isn't necessary), but why would the unit on higher elevation and less obstructions not be able to attack?

This screen shot is another example of the same issue where an archer has clear LOS, is on an elevated position but is unable to shoot the target.

I noitce (after taking the screenshots) that the units that are unable to attack, have this icon under their banner:

But I am not able to find any reference to it and cant figure out why it is there or what it means.

I will reply to DEV CaptainAdHoc regarding the flag placement.

Hopefully all of this will help.

Okay that symbol means that they are poisoned and therefore they got a penalty on movements and attack range, setting it to 1

Okay that symbol means that they are poisoned and therefore they got a penalty on movements and attack range, setting it to 1

That would explain it. Is there somewhere I can find a reference for the icons?

eventdecay wrote:

Okay that symbol means that they are poisoned and therefore they got a penalty on movements and attack range, setting it to 1

That would explain it. Is there somewhere I can find a reference for the icons?

When you select your unit (displaying the icon) - you'll see 'Poisoned' in the same place you'd see 'Ferocious' or 'Supplied' (which I believe would show when the individual unit is selected from the army screen - I'm at work so can't pull it up at the moment).  Unfortunately, I don't think there's an available key/reference for icons, though typically just selecting the unit and looking that box will let you know what the status effect might be.