PolyCast Episode 185: "One More Turn It"

Do it well. The one-hundred-and-eighty-fifth episode of PolyCast, "One More Turn It", features regular co-hosts Daniel "DanQ" Quick, "Makahlua", Philip "TheMeInTeam" Bellew and "MadDjinn" with first-time guest co-host "MasterMishi". Carrying a runtime of 59m59s, the summary of topics is as follows:

- 02m19s | News
New Civilization V Downloadable Content (DLC), entitled "Scrambled Continents Map Pack" is released to some mixed reactions.
- 08m15s | Forum Talk
Challenging the state of war in Civ as being overkill far too often is followed by the case for nerfing Archery units when attacking a city (20m01s), forcing military unit retirement or upgrade from one game Era to another (30m37s) and a hotly contested exchange over whether or not Airports should constitute city connections (34m23s).
- 44m09s | Miscellaneous
A comparative, and at times contrasting, view on strategy game design from developers Firaxis Games and Paradox Interactive is weighed.

- Intro/Outro | Miscellaneous
A certain something is out, dealing with sass, stealth parody and a milestone recognition for a regular co-host lays a twisted path.

Recording live before a listening audience every other Saturday, PolyCast is a bi-weekly audio production in an ongoing effort to give the Civ community an interactive voice on game strategy; listeners are encouraged to follow the show on Twitter, and check out the YouTube channel for caption capability. Sibling show RevCast focuses on Civilization: Revolution, ModCast on Civ modding, SCivCast on Civ social gaming and TurnCast on Civ multiplay.

Error Opening File: October 28,
12:15 PM, PDT.

Jaybe said:

Error Opening File: October 28,
12:15 PM, PDT.

Click to expand...

This error applied to the embedded player only (link incorrect) -- fixed. Thanks for the heads-up.

Hope you enjoy the show.

Wow, that Airport discussion got hilariously heated. Glad I could contribute.The one phrase that stuck with me though was that "A connection is a connection nonetheless" and although both sides made great points, I don't think either of you covered half the topic, but I wont go into that.

An idea that I had was that Trade Routes basically graduate by Road and then by Sea. If Roads and Harbours provide city connections (with Airports potentially providing them too) - then why not Allow Air Trade Routes? As you guys said, you don't ship masses of stuff - so perhaps the quantity could be limited to that of 1/3 - 2/3 the yield of a caravan (and only to cities that have another Airport). It might be nice to provide far flung cities with a small amount of food or hammers for a shorter amount of time (say 10 turns) and would potentially eliminate the psuedo-requirement for cities to be built along the coast so as to build a Harbour. That's a whole new mechanic though.

Anyway, other than that - great cast guys. And I'm pretty happy as of now being Australian - one might even say that it trumps being Canadian by a large degree. Woot for distinctive accents and nice weather I guess!

DanQ said:

...

Hope you enjoy the show.

Click to expand...

And so I did; even more than usual, actually.

The 'nerfing Archery units' segment was particularly interesting. Perhaps I respect MadDjinn too much , but his affirmation on the subject impressed me.

I had been considering rebalancing ranged/siege units but was going to do it from the other direction: by making siege more powerful vs. land units (by granting them the Bombardment I promotion available to naval ranged units).

After the show, I may do both (ranged -33 vs cities, siege +33 vs units) and see if it is doable or overdoes it.

TPangolin said:

Wow, that Airport discussion got hilariously heated. Glad I could contribute.The one phrase that stuck with me though was that "A connection is a connection nonetheless" and although both sides made great points, I don't think either of you covered half the topic, but I wont go into that.

An idea that I had was that Trade Routes basically graduate by Road and then by Sea. If Roads and Harbours provide city connections (with Airports potentially providing them too) - then why not Allow Air Trade Routes? As you guys said, you don't ship masses of stuff - so perhaps the quantity could be limited to that of 1/3 - 2/3 the yield of a caravan (and only to cities that have another Airport). It might be nice to provide far flung cities with a small amount of food or hammers for a shorter amount of time (say 10 turns) and would potentially eliminate the psuedo-requirement for cities to be built along the coast so as to build a Harbour. That's a whole new mechanic though.

Anyway, other than that - great cast guys. And I'm pretty happy as of now being Australian - one might even say that it trumps being Canadian by a large degree. Woot for distinctive accents and nice weather I guess!

Click to expand...

I sort of feel that one point that was missed in the discussion about whether it would be overpowered to have airports provide city connection and how you could just delete all your roads and railroads to save the money is that connecting by railroad provides that pretty significant 25 % production bonus, which you would lose by deleting the railroads. Personally I'm with whoever it was (was that Dan?) who said "why not" because it's going to be such a marginal case where it's relevant, but I know from the forum topic that people have (surprisingly) strong opinions on this subject.

Also one thing that was not discussed but which I think is an interesting thought is with regards to the subjects of units claiming land. I do feel that when you are in war with someone, if you place a military unit on top of a strategic resource and you have an unhindered path of transport from the resource into your territory, you should be able to claim control of that resource. For instance, if I park my unit on a mine of 4 Iron, I should be able to claim this Iron for myself and use it to build swordsmen as long as the mine is not cut off by enemy units from bringing the resource back to my territory. I know it would probably also be a marginal case, but it would be something that added a bit of flavor and might just give a bit of a strategic element to land control, and it does seem fairly realistic to me also in terms of real life resource control during wars. It would offer a nice alternative to just pillaging the mine.

Excellent, excellent episode as usual guys, fantastic job.

I particularly found the discussion on the state of war very interesting; although I was of a divided mind on the topic it definitely provided some good insight. One that got touched on that I loved (and would want to see implemented) was MD's idea of using armed forces to "assert" your will and repel settlers. I feel like there were aspects of this that were glanced over, and much of it was handwaved with the idea that "if it's important to you, just declare war."

I don't mind the idea of using war as a tool to assert yourself, but my concern is that is carries a diplomacy weight that can be detrimental. The settler example was a perfect one. I do feel like a system that allowed you to tell certain units- ideally civil units because you shouldn't be able to just strongarm someone's military- to essentially "take a hike" would be beneficial. I'm perfectly okay also with it carrying diplo penalties to the nation I'm having the brush-up with. To draw an analogy of why: If I'm in a game and someone like Ethiopia starts sending missionaries/GPs towards me, I can tell him to get lost. And sure, he gets mad at me and maybe he doesn't pay attention, but maybe he does; if he does it prevents an all out war at the cost of me making him a little mad at me. In the case of settlers out in the field, there isn't the same recourse: If Ethiopia has settlers moving in on a spot I'm getting ready to settle, my options essentially boil down to either DoWing him to kill the settler, or DoWing him to take the new city once he puts it down; both of those not only come with the diplomacy hit to him, but because of the nature of war declarations, I'll anger Russia/Poland/whoever else might be my neighbor as well. MD's idea of having an armed presence repel the settlers falls more in line with the prior example of the missionaries; the settler may ignore me in which case I still do the war, but if they don't, then we managed to push them off of our intended lands, and while the civ we're in a rue with over settling locations gets mad at us and thinks we're jerks, it resolves the situation without us having to take a diplo hit from all the other nearby civs thinking we're a jerk for declaring war. As a fan of the diplomacy game, I like the idea of more options that you have to weigh on your individual diplomatic actions with a single nation, especially if it can replace the sweeping "everyone thinks you're a warmonger" hit that comes when war is the only option on the table.

Cpt Oblivious said:

I don't mind the idea of using war as a tool to assert yourself, but my concern is that is carries a diplomacy weight that can be detrimental. The settler example was a perfect one. I do feel like a system that allowed you to tell certain units- ideally civil units because you shouldn't be able to just strongarm someone's military- to essentially "take a hike" would be beneficial. I'm perfectly okay also with it carrying diplo penalties to the nation I'm having the brush-up with. To draw an analogy of why: If I'm in a game and someone like Ethiopia starts sending missionaries/GPs towards me, I can tell him to get lost. And sure, he gets mad at me and maybe he doesn't pay attention, but maybe he does; if he does it prevents an all out war at the cost of me making him a little mad at me. In the case of settlers out in the field, there isn't the same recourse: If Ethiopia has settlers moving in on a spot I'm getting ready to settle, my options essentially boil down to either DoWing him to kill the settler, or DoWing him to take the new city once he puts it down; both of those not only come with the diplomacy hit to him, but because of the nature of war declarations, I'll anger Russia/Poland/whoever else might be my neighbor as well. MD's idea of having an armed presence repel the settlers falls more in line with the prior example of the missionaries; the settler may ignore me in which case I still do the war, but if they don't, then we managed to push them off of our intended lands, and while the civ we're in a rue with over settling locations gets mad at us and thinks we're jerks, it resolves the situation without us having to take a diplo hit from all the other nearby civs thinking we're a jerk for declaring war. As a fan of the diplomacy game, I like the idea of more options that you have to weigh on your individual diplomatic actions with a single nation, especially if it can replace the sweeping "everyone thinks you're a warmonger" hit that comes when war is the only option on the table.

Click to expand...

Yes, I fully agree with this. Not only would it be useful in the Settler situation, but also you have an excellent point about people sending missionaries and prophets into your territory, which you currently can do nothing about except either buy Inquisitors and move around or containing them by surrounding them by units (which is silly).

TPangolin said:

Wow, that Airport discussion got hilariously heated.

Click to expand...

Glad I could contribute.

Click to expand...

I like hearing reports back like this. To this end, what I'm referring to is I often wonder how often the starters of threads that we discuss on the show become aware that we have done so... and if so, a) how long afterwards they become aware and b) do they listen to what we have to say.

... great cast guys.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how long have you been listening to the show? Did you first find it here through CFC or..?

I'm pretty happy as of now being Australian - one might even say that it trumps being Canadian by a large degree. Woot for distinctive accents and nice weather I guess!

Click to expand...

We'll agree to disagree here.

Jaybe said:

And so I did; even more than usual, actually.

Click to expand...

The 'nerfing Archery units' segment was particularly interesting. [..] After the show, I may do both (ranged -33 vs cities, siege +33 vs units) and see if it is doable or overdoes it.

Click to expand...

Hope you'll let us know of your findings and analysis afterwards in follow-up.

kaspergm said:

I sort of feel that one point that was missed in the discussion about whether it would be overpowered to have airports provide city connection and how you could just delete all your roads and railroads to save the money is that connecting by railroad provides that pretty significant 25 % production bonus, which you would lose by deleting the railroads.

Click to expand...

Ahhh yes -- I wish I had mentioned that as part of my argument, given that it supports it. So, I'll 'add' it in addendum here.

Personally I'm with whoever it was (was that Dan?) who said "why not" because it's going to be such a marginal case where it's relevant,

Click to expand...

, though I of course gave reasons for why it should be the case too.

but I know from the forum topic that people have (surprisingly) strong opinions on this subject.

Click to expand...

That's partly why it the discussion caught my attention and, in turn, why it was covered on the show. (I by and large set the topics from episode-to-episode.)

Cpt Oblivious said:

Excellent, excellent episode as usual guys, fantastic job.

Click to expand...

Thank you kindly.

Out of curiosity, how long have you been listening to the show? Did you first find it here through CFC or..?

I particularly found the discussion on the state of war very interesting; although I was of a divided mind on the topic it definitely provided some good insight.

Click to expand...

When we can not only add to the conversations we cover on PolyCast through our contributions, but also get our listeners thinking and talking about them -- with each other and otherwise -- it's all the more rewarding. For the recording of the show's next episode scheduled for this coming Saturday, I've already noted this thread for coverage.

DanQ said:

Out of curiosity, how long have you been listening to the show? Did you first find it here through CFC or..?

Click to expand...

Been listening regularly since about middle of S6, but I tend to even go back to older episodes and listen to them while I play. And you can thank yourself and MD for me finding it, between shoutouts you guys have given on BtM and the entertainment you each provided on your respective minecraft LPs Polycraft [and this is what happens when I try to respond without coffee], it drew me in to check out this cast since you guys were involved.

Keep up the good work (I expect nothing less )

Cpt Oblivious said:

Been listening regularly since about middle of S6, but I tend to even go back to older episodes and listen to them while I play. And you can thank yourself and MD for me finding it, between shoutouts you guys have given on BtM and the entertainment you each provided on your respective minecraft LPs, it drew me in to check out this cast since you guys were involved.

Click to expand...

(For the record I, myself, have no Minecraft LPs though I have been apart of some MC videos (not LPs though.)

Keep up the good work (I expect nothing less )

Click to expand...

, then , and finally was the series of my first reactions to this.

Maddjin argument on airport was pretty weak (no offense great guy)
He says plane cargo isn t a lot ....well it s still comparable to the goods moved around cities in 1000 bc

Karmah said:

Maddjin argument on airport was pretty weak (no offense great guy)
He says plane cargo isn t a lot ....well it s still comparable to the goods moved around cities in 1000 bc

Click to expand...

I take it that I brought you onto my side of the argument then.

Trust you enjoyed the listen, Karmah.