HUMANKIND™

➤ Who This Game Is For I mostly recommend this game to players who enjoy the X4 genre, civilizations, turn-based combat, and strategy games in general. Humankind is visually appealing and has a decent variety of civilizations, even if many of them feel somewhat generic and not very distinct from one another. Most of the difference comes from their gameplay specialization, such as militarist, agricultural, expansionist, and similar archetypes. While this is not my most played genre, the game fulfills its purpose well as a casual strategy experience, and my review comes from that perspective. The turn-based battles are a good addition, and the custom avatar creation is also a nice feature. The game is overall simple and not overly demanding, making it enjoyable for casual sessions or playing with friends. It has its inconsistencies and flaws, but it can still be enjoyable in a straightforward way, even if it sometimes feels generic or lacking in depth. ➤ The Star System and Era Progression I think the implementation of the star system is one of the game's weakest aspects. You can advance technologically, but if you do not gain enough stars, you cannot progress to the next era. For a game focused on civilizations and historical ages, this feels contradictory and incoherent. You can be technologically in the Medieval Era while still officially remaining in the Classical Era due to a lack of stars, or reach the Medieval Era while still researching Classical technologies. In the end, stars matter more than technology itself when progressing through eras. The Fame system also contributes to this issue. Civilizations become generalized because players are rewarded for doing everything rather than focusing on what their civilization specializes in. The strongest civilization is usually the one that expands, conquers, builds districts everywhere, destroys units, and progresses in every category regardless of its intended specialization. That makes the game feel overly “generalist,” because most civilizations end up being played similarly if the player wants to remain competitive. This weakens the identity and uniqueness of each civilization. ➤ Civilization Identity and Replayability As a competitor to the Civilization VI series, I think Humankind fulfills its role reasonably well, but there is little emotional attachment or identity tied to the civilizations themselves. I think the game lacks more civilizations overall, and some are unlocked too late. For example, the United States appears in Era VI when it could reasonably fit into Era IV or V. I also do not see much replayability because many civilizations and mechanics feel too generic and lack deeper identity or unique mechanics. The soundtrack is functional but not memorable, and it can become repetitive if you remain in the same era for too long. Diplomacy is simple and serviceable. The AI can progress very quickly on higher difficulties even without using the most extreme settings, although I personally play more for the experience than for optimization or meta strategies. When games try to cover too much, they often become shallow, and that is noticeable here. ➤ Gameplay Systems and Mechanics The city interface is simple and accessible, as is the population management system. I also find it strange that you cannot build if there is a battle “nearby,” because in reality the scale of the map suggests the battle is actually far away from the city or construction area. I assume this exists as a gameplay limitation for PvP balance or anti-spam mechanics. Strategic resources are another issue. Units and infrastructure depend heavily on them, but they often feel either too scarce or too punishing. If you do not have them, progression can feel extremely restrictive, but even when you do possess them, the increasing costs can still become limiting. Combined with the star system and research pacing, this can create situations that feel like swords versus firearms. I think strategic resources should be slightly more common and accessible. ➤ Stability System Stability is another questionable mechanic. If each district gives around -10 stability, then forts or defensive structures giving only +5 stability feels conceptually strange. Fortresses are supposed to provide safety and order to a city, not simply exist as decoration. If districts reduce stability significantly, then forts, bastions, or defensive structures should logically provide a stronger counterbalance. Otherwise, there should be additional accessible ways to manage stability. From my perspective as a casual player, the issue is that some buildings feel designed more around gameplay balance than around the concept they are supposed to represent. Those are two different things. ➤ Final Thoughts Humankind works well enough as a casual strategy game, especially for players who enjoy experimenting with civilizations, turn-based battles, and relaxed progression. However, many of its systems feel too generalized, and that weakens both civilization identity and replayability. The game has enjoyable ideas and accessible mechanics, but it often feels more focused on covering many systems at once rather than deeply developing the uniqueness of each civilization or historical era.