Numbers count too.Īlthough, when the Dupuy Institute did one of their first statistical studies of warfare and battles, they found in analyzing battles from Ancient to Modern Eras that having superior numbers was one of the least important factors in determining victory. It's a huge snowball, just like other 4X games.Ĭlick to expand.Bigger Tech Advantage works unless you happen to have that advantage at Adowa, Isandhlwana, or Little Big Horn. You'll get generating more science and influence with every city capture. If you start warring your neighbors, then you'll be picking up military stars, district stars, population stars, and territory stars all at once. I'm looking forward to playing a new game! Still, I hope that they work it all out and that I'm pleasantly surprised.
Almost no 4X game has good AI and Amplitude's past games certainly do not. Maybe some of this would change if the AI was remotely competent, but it isn't, and history suggests that it won't ever be. And a lot of the city improvements and districts just don't matter because the unique districts are so much better than everything else. Trading with the AI is just a matter of guessing. The only thing that you can really do is build your (limited) holy sites. Religion is 95% passive and just gives you bonuses. It's a huge snowball, just like other 4X games.Īside from that, though, the systems in Humankind just feel unfinished. How would you exaxtly define "depth" in a game like this?Ĭlick to expand.Humankind has some of the same problems. That sounds worrying, but I don't think I remember playing a grand/4x strategy game which didn't receive "depth" complaint, including the most highly rated ones, so I shal see if it is a local subjective opinion or a symptom of a larger problem. But I didn't play later non - combat betas so I don't know how far away are we from this problem. My biggest worry regarding this game is that Amplitude is too attached to the idea of their FIDSI yields and builds too much of their games around the endless linear accumulation of yields, via the economy of a thousand small micromanaging cuts but no major macro - level strategic decisions. As the result of those two major failures, I had no motivation to interact with game's numerous mechanics, because I have felt like "all I have to do is conquer some braindead rivals early and I am untouchable runaway economy by the renaissance era - why bother with any other mechanics". Maybe that's due to the combination of "horribly low difficulty level as AI can't use neither unstacked combat nor unstacked cities" and "awful pacing and unberably static, preditable second half of the game, with boring victory conditions". I didn't find civ5 shallow at all, even before expansions, but I had this profound hard - to - explain feeling with civ6. How would you exaxtly define "depth" in a game like this? Click to expand.That sounds worrying, but I don't think I remember playing a grand/4x strategy game which didn't receive "depth" complaint, including the most highly rated ones, so I shal see if it is a local subjective opinion or a symptom of a larger problem.