Another Human Kind Inbound, Here

[Aluminum Elite Master]

I always want games like Millennia to succeed... I want them to put pressure on Firaxis to push Civ even further and/or to provide something Civ doesn't already do.

But these 'historical' turn-based 4X games that incorporate semi-randomized/customizable elements for the civilization choices are a bad idea. The allure of making it historical in any way is to create a set of known civilizations, and give them personalities, and then let the gameplay choices steer the zaniness that diverges from history.

Human Kind somewhat flopped because you had no personalities and kept changing cultures. While this isn't going to have that culture-switching element, it does still look to have sort of adjustable civs that will likely end up equally soulless to what HK did.

I am not cheering against Millennia... I want something like this to work. Same as I did when I eventually bought HK, warts and all.

But there has to, absolutely has to, be a focus on building the personality up for each side. Having customizable elements and what not does not forgive if the different sides feel soulless. If this doesn't manage to do both (make them customizable but still unique and personable), then this will be the next HK.

And boy, the presentation quality/aesthetic of this does not bode well for what I am talking about... that screenshot with giant British robot spiders in 7700 BCE fighting regular soldies looks really silly, and there doesn't look to be any avatar on screen representing each civ's leader. Maybe some of that will be added or is stuff I just missed, but wow does this look less than promising :(

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by Limz:

But what you want sort of runs against the idea of having a blank slate and evolving a tribe to a nation through the ages which is probably why they didn't name the national spirits after existing cultures. You basically should approach this as you would Stellaris or an alternative Earth where everyone truly did begin as a blank slate.

But then why not just turn this into a complete fantasy setting or something? Why even use real-world terminology and symbols, things seen in the world's history?

And that's where I think it is indeed relevant to what HK did. If HK had made up a bunch of vaguely-earth-like cultures and dropped them into a planet that wasn't earth and didn't draw on real history, then the culture-switching thing would be far less jarring.

And that's the same thing for Millennia, because you are right: I am complaining that this game takes a historical tack but is basically just giving amorphous factions to play as, which is muddled and is similar to changing cultures in HK.

If they want this to be like Stellaris, then do that. Make up cultures. Make up government names and unit types and give it a lore apart from real history, and it'll just happened to be set in one less-advanced world unlike the universe-spanning sci-fi setting.

At the end of the day, I guess my complaint is that at some point, either make a game historical and buy in to it, or make a game totally fictional. This looks to straddle that line a bit.

You can't really have a blank slate AND have it feel historical. That's kind of the antithesis of being historical, there, having it be a blank slate.

[evolena]

Thus that's exactly what uchronia is. Non-historical history.
Think of this game as an uchronical (uchronial? whatever) game, and maybe you can make your peace with it.

[Fortuna]

It is more of a "history simulator" than a "historical reenactment." It isn't Earth, but humans and trees means sticks with pointy ends. I don't think we need a new language to describe such things. It might be nice to have fictional names/symbols for nations as an option, however, because calling whatever nation you are growing "Japan" doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by evolena:

Thus that's exactly what uchronia is. Non-historical history.
Think of this game as an uchronical (uchronial? whatever) game, and maybe you can make your peace with it.

True.

I get that to an extent. And at some point, I'll either have to make peace with it or move on once launch arrives and the whole thing is there to see reviews for, etc.

I'm just wishing that that would be an intentional route they take with it then. Like go big with it. Stellaris is a pretty solid game, and it works because it is complete sci-fi fantasy and invents a good portion of lore for itself as a framing to build those cultures and empires on. That's just something lacking a bit of intentional focus here, where bring in fictional leaders and avatars, and build the immersion a bit further.

EDIT:

While I was typing, the perfect quote was written just now:

Originally posted by Fortuna:

It might be nice to have fictional names/symbols for nations as an option, however, because calling whatever nation you are growing "Japan" doesn't make a lot of sense.

All of that. That's my point. Give me more tools to have fictional names/symbols, and allow for a freedom to get further away from things being identical to the names of real world stuff.

Doesn't necessitate a whole new language... just necessitates the option for me to invent a bit more, or for the game to use different wording in a few spots.

[evolena]

I thnk there is a nation builder available when you create a new game (there was a button but not clickable on the demo), where you can choose your nation name, flag and bonus, so in some extent (esp. the available flags) you can have fictional nations. I don't know if you can create several nations and if then you can assign one of these to the AI (you can assign a nation to each AI, I did it to match their flag with their color)

[Da_Boss]

Originally posted by evolena:

I thnk there is a nation builder available when you create a new game (there was a button but not clickable on the demo), where you can choose your nation name, flag and bonus, so in some extent (esp. the available flags) you can have fictional nations. I don't know if you can create several nations and if then you can assign one of these to the AI (you can assign a nation to each AI, I did it to match their flag with their color)

Not sure about nation builder. But there was a option to set up the start (I can't remember what it was called but kind of like an advanced set up game option). Rather than just go with a quick start. If that is what you mean with nation builder, then yes. That option worked for me during the demo.

Using that set up option you could pick one flag/nation. Then chose whatever starting bonus you want them to have. So if you want a more belanced game you can set the starting bonus to be the same for all players. AI's as well. Chose color for each nation. Except red which seems to be reserved for barbarians. So you are not stuck with picking a specific nation because you like their bonus over the others. You are not stuck with picking a nation and excluding some nations for the opponents due to their starting bonus being op. You can pick whatever starting bonus you like for you and the opponents. No matter if you prefer to be Japan, Sweden, United States, whatever.

I also think there was an option to set difficulty of each opponent. I didn't try this specific one out and could be confusing it with some other game. But I am pretty sure.

So each nation have their deafult bonuses if you want to go by default but you don't have to.

[evolena]

No, there was a specific grey-out "Nation Builder" button where you can customize more.
Jumbo Pixel has had access to a build where it was active: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdz3TlzWYJY (first minute of the video)
Name + Flag + pool for the name of cities + pool for the name of towns + start bonus

[Da_Boss]

Originally posted by evolena:

No, there was a specific grey-out "Nation Builder" button where you can customize more.
Jumbo Pixel has had access to a build where it was active: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdz3TlzWYJY (first minute of the video)
Name + Flag + pool for the name of cities + pool for the name of towns + start bonus

Aha that sounds nice. More than the option I found then. I have to rewatch some of his videos then. Thank you for that fact.

[Limz]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

But then why not just turn this into a complete fantasy setting or something? Why even use real-world terminology and symbols, things seen in the world's history?

Are the alien invasions and AI robot rebellions or a steam punk setting not fantastical enough? How about the mythical heroes that spawn? This is a complete fantasy setting that you can vaguely guide a play through to resemble what we have today. Would you not consider Command and Conquer a fantasy setting?

And that's where I think it is indeed relevant to what HK did. If HK had made up a bunch of vaguely-earth-like cultures and dropped them into a planet that wasn't earth and didn't draw on real history, then the culture-switching thing would be far less jarring.

And that's the same thing for Millennia, because you are right: I am complaining that this game takes a historical tack but is basically just giving amorphous factions to play as, which is muddled and is similar to changing cultures in HK.

HK labeled them and packaged everything tightly so you had no sub choices - buildings, names, units, that's part of makes it historical. Millennia doesn't really do that as national spirits and governments cover a wide array of organizational concepts without putting a historical name to it. You complain it is muddled but that's what you need for a game that's asking you to develop your civilization from stone age up. A national spirit is not the same as saying your civilization is now Zhou and you have this new Confucian school (without ever having to found the religion) and a chariot.

If they want this to be like Stellaris, then do that. Make up cultures. Make up government names and unit types and give it a lore apart from real history, and it'll just happened to be set in one less-advanced world unlike the universe-spanning sci-fi setting.

Nation builder exists for that reason. Also, government types are all labeled after concepts more or less and same with national spirits or are otherwise agnostic. That's like complaining that Stellaris has terms like authoritarian or they have concepts like egalitarianism.

At the end of the day, I guess my complaint is that at some point, either make a game historical and buy in to it, or make a game totally fictional. This looks to straddle that line a bit.

You can't really have a blank slate AND have it feel historical. That's kind of the antithesis of being historical, there, having it be a blank slate.

This isn't a HoI. And also Civ is more or less completely fictional especially with some of the expansions or things like giant death robots, xcom, etc. I think the issue is that we cope as a collective and accept that things like Stalin can exist in the Stone Age or that you can meet the United States of America a thousand years before its founding.

[archonsod]

Originally posted by folgra:

I don't understand the need to keep one leader the whole game.

It's the fixed point. Civ could actually get away with changing leaders, or getting rid of them altogether, because the civilisations are set - the Indians you're dealing with in 1000 BC are the same Indians you're dealing with in 1000 AD, they might have better tech but they're fundamentally the same faction. It failed in HK because the factions weren't fixed and the avatars were too generic - often you had no way of knowing whether the diplomacy window that just popped up from the French was the player who was the Mongols last turn or not. What made it worse was the way the cultural selection worked; with the legacy effects of previous choices being so minor it often felt like it made zero difference what had been picked in previous era's - when the Mongols did become the French it felt far more like a new player had joined the game than the development of an ongoing culture.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by archonsod:

It failed in HK because the factions weren't fixed and the avatars were too generic - often you had no way of knowing whether the diplomacy window that just popped up from the French was the player who was the Mongols last turn or not. What made it worse was the way the cultural selection worked; with the legacy effects of previous choices being so minor it often felt like it made zero difference what had been picked in previous era's - when the Mongols did become the French it felt far more like a new player had joined the game than the development of an ongoing culture.

The quote is what I am saying.

And I think it might play out that way, to a lesser extent, with Millennia: you have a pretty customizable faction that keeps getting new stuff but without much of any stage presence, so to speak, in the form of a leader/avatar.

I do think that HK was worse... there, like the quote points out, it was so bad that it felt like a new faction or player just sprang up. I don't think it will be quite that drastic, here.

But having that avatar and some form of soul/personality to a faction looks to be missing for Millennia, which is similar to HK (though, again, HK was a decent amount worse).

[Bruce Wayne]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

I always want games like Millennia to succeed... I want them to put pressure on Firaxis to push Civ even further and/or to provide something Civ doesn't already do.

But these 'historical' turn-based 4X games that incorporate semi-randomized/customizable elements for the civilization choices are a bad idea. The allure of making it historical in any way is to create a set of known civilizations, and give them personalities, and then let the gameplay choices steer the zaniness that diverges from history.

Human Kind somewhat flopped because you had no personalities and kept changing cultures. While this isn't going to have that culture-switching element, it does still look to have sort of adjustable civs that will likely end up equally soulless to what HK did.

I am not cheering against Millennia... I want something like this to work. Same as I did when I eventually bought HK, warts and all.

But there has to, absolutely has to, be a focus on building the personality up for each side. Having customizable elements and what not does not forgive if the different sides feel soulless. If this doesn't manage to do both (make them customizable but still unique and personable), then this will be the next HK.

And boy, the presentation quality/aesthetic of this does not bode well for what I am talking about... that screenshot with giant British robot spiders in 7700 BCE fighting regular soldies looks really silly, and there doesn't look to be any avatar on screen representing each civ's leader. Maybe some of that will be added or is stuff I just missed, but wow does this look less than promising :(

I REALLYY hope they get the religion right in this game. Humankind take on religion was hot garbage.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by Bruce Wayne:

I REALLYY hope they get the religion right in this game. Humankind take on religion was hot garbage.

That part I am open either way. If Millennia were to omit religion entirely, or were to really do it right, I'd be fine.

Civ V's religion mechanics were also terrible prior to the G&K expansion to it.

And yeah, HK didn't get religion right.

Even Civ 6 is a spam-fest of religious units if you want to maximize the religion mechanics.

So if Millennia does something different that works, awesome, but if it just were to not even include religion, I'd be okay with that, because almost none of the 4X's I've played for a decade now have really made it a fun mechanic. Like I get that it would be silly not to include it at all in terms of the huge impact on real world history from it... but in pure game-play terms, even Civ has not implemented religion well as of late.

[CDuque]

I agree with you about the different civilizations. It's what made me play civ 6 for so long. With Humankind, I felt that I always ended doing the same thing, playing the same civ basically, as some cultures are way more OP than others.

With CIV6, I was kinda forced to play a certain style depending on each civilization... and that's what I liked. Each civ has its own perks and cons, and you need to adapt to it. If you play Spain, or Arabia, or Korea, or Germany, or X or Y, you play totally differently. Each gameplay with each different civ feels different and you are right about the identity part.

The problem I had with Humankind, and I feel the same thing will happen here... Is that in the end, you will only have 3 or 4 "civs" instead of the 20+ of civ 6, (and even more with mods). I played the Super Hero civ packs that introduced like 40 new civs based on super heroes for example. (Playing Batman or Iron man in civ 6 ! ahah ! Awesome!)

In HK, you either played "science", "war", "commerce" or "production" and that's it basically. Here, I feel it will be the same, all the games will look the same after a while, contrary to civ 6 where all games are different BECAUSE the civ you chose at the start.

[Lord Funk]

Originally posted by Bruce Wayne:

I REALLYY hope they get the religion right in this game. Humankind take on religion was hot garbage.

Expectations On Religion In Millennia
I wouldn't set my expectations too high and hold my breath for the religion aspects of Millennia though. It is probably the one most common criticism I have heard from various YouTubers with access to a version which also contains mid to end game playability. For example someone said religion is setting you up for a crisis further into the game, since there is no way to satisfy your populations religious desires. Unless maybe chosing some specific "National Spirit", like maybe the "Theologians", improves it a lot. Although the YouTuber called "Purvis", who chose that spirit, did not get that far into the game, not yet anyway, for it to show (unless he's uploaded some new video today maybe). 60 turns did not give me any chance to try it, so I can really have a personal opinion either way on Millennnias religion mechanics.

Religion In Other Turn Based 4X Games I Have Played
I remember vanilla Civ 5 not even having religion and hardly no diplomacy at all, even though Civ 4 did. Vanilla Civ 5 was basically just make military units and fight the AI's to win. However that game did improve a lot over time. It's probably my favourite Civ game in the series. Although Civ 4 and the original first Civ holds special places for me as well.

I honestly do not like the religion in Civ 6 either. Sure it was changed and evolved a bit, but it's still a "spam-fest", just like "Aluminium Elite Master" wrote above and almost no way to keep up with AI on harder difficulties, unless you waste basically all your focus and gameplay on just playing a religious game. Even then it's just a spam fest and really boring. I could even go as far as to say I find that religion in Civ 6 more often ruins the gameplay than enhances it. At least in Humankind it's just "meh" and you can ignore it to some extent. It doesn't add a lot, but it also at least does not intrude and ruin alot either.

It was fun in Civ 4, since it felt kind of new back then and it wasn't too intrusive. A fun little extra mini game to make monks (or was it missionairies, it's been a while) and go out and try to convert the world. It sure did give some nice bonuses of course. Since then religion has just become an annoying feature everyone expects to be part of base game in 4X games, but rarely well implemented. Not in the turn based 4X games I have played anyway. There might be some, but then they probably lack in some other area, like combat, diplomacy etc, or being too much "grand strategy" and take over all the free time in your life.

Old World - An Awesome Game But - Decision Fatigue (probably just me)
If I would object to one thing in "Old World" it would be that I quickly got into what I call "decision fatigue". Every turn popped-up new windows with consant events and new choices to make. At first I found that fun, but after a while it feels very disruptive and as I said, I find it gives me some kind fo fatigue. I understand that it sets it apart from Civ and I respect that. It's still a good game. It just takes so much energy, for me at least, with constant pop-ups that it borderlines grand strategy and feels tiresome. Just like Endless Space 2. It wears me out. Almost like text messages on a phone, which I also detest and tell people not to text me at all. People expects you to constantly reply within a certain time, even if you turn off notifications. It drains me. Burns me out fast. That's probably just me though.

I only have Old World on Epic (the only game I ever paid for there), so I haven't played it that much and it's been a long time now since last. When I played it, units still didn't have animations and just sort of "slided" or "floated" forward (which was understandable, since it was only in early access). I feel I don't want to buy expansions for it either, since it would just add to the base game on my Epic account which I rarely ever load up anyway. If I owned it on Steam, or even better some GoG copy (not sure it's even on gog) I might give it another go, not sure.