When it comes to complex global strategy games, there is no way around the video game series "Civilization" by the American development studio Firaxis.
The latest game in the series was released in 2016 and, with its wealth of functions, still sets standards for controlling a world empire.
With the game "Humankind" released in August, the French studio Amplitude Studios dared to try to stand up to the top dog from America.
As is typical of the genre, in “Humankind” we control the fortunes of an entire people in a game principle based on rounds. As in “Civilization”, this journey through time begins in antiquity and continues to the present day - and even beyond. Our initial settlement areas grow from epoch to epoch into ever larger metropolises. Farmers become employees, marketplaces become financial districts, and knights become professional soldiers. In addition, we can research over ninety technologies, including stone processing, that make our early construction projects more efficient. Later on, we will make use of satellite technology that can be used to monitor the movements of enemy troops.
What in reality belongs to the complex, often confusing subject areas, pragmatically shrinks here into given causal chains: the construction of monuments and people-specific buildings as well as the creation of one's own religion bring certain cultural advantages with them. For example, once we have established a strong faith, the cultural influences of our opponents cannot diminish our power. If, on the other hand, we rely on trade, more money will flow into the state treasury, but our cities will then be influenced by the culture of other peoples. This becomes problematic in the game when it calls into question our city ordinances. The very real political Sisyphus task of balancing investment and integration is presented in the miniature format of a video game.
The consecration of social development
In direct comparison to "Civilization", Humankind appears leaner in terms of its range of functions.
It often provides the same food, industrial, entertainment, and research districts that we use to expand our cities.
Interactions with other areas of the city create individual bonuses.
And improvements to the infrastructure - for example, building city walls or building schools have further advantages.
But the possibilities remain behind those of the function and path monster "Civilization".
While in "Humankind" the establishment of a science district speeds up our research in general, in "Civilization" we can always erect new buildings on the campuses of our universities, which unlock different bonuses.
The great strength of "Humankind" is its dynamic world. The mountainous and rugged game worlds are significantly more varied than the landscapes from "Civilization" due to the differences in altitude, and they also have a strategic value. For example, certain city districts can only be built on mountains, troops receive an attack bonus in elevated positions, and the cavalry does more damage when they descend a mountain at high speed into enemy ranks. The combat system is not much more complex than in "Civilization", but because of its connection with the game world it is more varied and at the same time intuitively understandable. Various troops can also be combined to form an army that is very easy to control.Only in the confrontation with enemy units is a battlefield created on the game world, within which we can position our various units. "Civilization" sometimes frustrates its players with the fact that each unit has to be moved individually.
Humankind also offers more when it comes to the choice of peoples, albeit beyond all historical correctness: With each advancement into a further age, we choose a new people who have individual characteristics. If we were still the Khmer in the Young Stone Age, we can play the Poles in the Bronze Age, for example. Even if unrealistic, this principle creates many exciting strategic opportunities. In each of the six epochs, players can choose between ten races, each with their own skills, troops or bonuses for certain projects. If we want to build a wonder of the world quickly, we recommend choosing a “master builder” people. If, on the other hand, we plan to attack an adversary in the next epoch, we will choose an expansionist people. Many of these benefits remain active in later epochs,so that we actually have the feeling of creating a unique civilization. However, there is also a certain time pressure. If an opponent first moves up into a new epoch and grabs the people we want, we have to be content with one of the remaining peoples until the next epoch.
In “Civilization”, at the beginning of a game, players choose a historical figure, for example Otto von Bismarck, who will represent them throughout the game. A Prussian Prime Minister is also out of place in antiquity, but this gives the opponents a higher recognition value. We still remember an arch enmity with Gandhi in “Civilization” pretty clearly. In “Humankind” the opponents remain comparatively pale. Nonetheless: The dynamic battles in a varied game world and the strategic options for choosing people make “Humankind” a fresh alternative in the global strategy genre. Players who shy away from the myriad of functions in "Civilization" will find this game easier to get started with.
Humankind
is available for Windows PC and Stadia and costs around 50 euros.