PolyCast 2015 Christmas Special: "What Civ Is This?"

[DanQ]

Answers aplenty. The 2015 PolyCast Christmas Special, "What Civ Is This?", is now available for netcasting. Join regular panelists Daniel "DanQ" Quick, "Makahlua", Philip "TheMeInTeam" Bellew and "MadDjinn" as they give their take on questions and comments received from members of the show's audience and otherwise in this hour-long plus (73m02s) production.

The summary of topics is as follows:

- 01m59s | Forum Post #1A
Taking the third of three questions from "Ilitarist" first: Total War's connection to the Civilization series.
- 03m55s | Forum Post #2
From "phantomax1207" comes a question leading to an answer that raises a ruckus.
- 10m26s | Forum Post #3
Wishing and hoping on a Civilization VI, prompted by "DefiantMars".
- 18m56s | Forum Post #4
From a seperate, dedicated thread by "Ilitarist" linking music in Civilization IV, CivV and on the show.
- 24m48s | Forum Post #5
A purely hypothetical whilst humourous inquiry from "Timewalker102" on what historical leaders featured in the gaming series would do with a copy of one of its titles.
- 27m45s | Forum Post #6
A question directed at one panelist in particular by "NewEarthRelic" about their appearance earlier this year on the sixty-first episode of Podcasters Roundtable about, and entitled, "Audience Engagement".
- 34m50s | Forum Post #7
Responding to the first of two questions from "CaptainKoloth" leads to the longest response of the recording: preferring CivIV or CivV overall.
- 50m41s | Forum Post #1B
Back to "Ilitarist" to respond to the second of two questions posed about the impact of much of Paradox Interactive's gaming catalogue on the Civilization series.
- 56m07s | Forum Posts #8, 9
Two-for-one on hopes and expectations for Civ in 2017 from "Camikaze", with added focus on Civilization: Beyond Earth via "CelJaded".

- Intro/Outro | Miscellaneous
Cataclysmic inference, pride and profit.

PolyCast is a bi-weekly audio production in an ongoing effort to give the Civ community an interactive voice on game strategy; its final episode of this, its ninth season, is number 244 set to be released in one week's time. Fellow sibling shows also in production presently are ModCast on Civ modding and TurnCast on Civ multiplay.

 

[Sync]

Fell flat, and could never really get into it.

Giving this a 4/10.

 

[DanQ]

Fell flat, and could never really get into it.

Giving this a 4/10.

I'm sorry to learn that you didn't enjoy the listen. My perception is that the topics -- at least most of them -- were not of interest to you, based on your description. Is that a fair take?

 

[Ilitarist]

Thanks for questions. Interesting discussion.

About leaders playing Civ: yeah, Napoleon would be the guy. First, he was a chess player. Second, he was very pragmatic and ruthless and had a very similar view on rulership as to what Civilization presents. Civ world is not the world of today or world of ancients, it's based on the world of 19th century Great Games and 20th century World Wars. It's about playing Napoleon or Bismark. Besides, he doesn't look like a guy who would roleplay.

About Civ4 VS Civ5: I think we all are used to inconsistencies in Civ5 UI and forget how good was Civ4 in that regard. Also Civ5 expansions added many good features (trade, ideologies, UN, more or less religion) and excessive unneeded features that weren't garbage (archaelogy, espionage). Archaelogy is a busy work, religions does feel arbitrary and too tied to specific Civs but you don't want to turn them off. Unlike Apostolic palace. Which as far as I know you can't turn off.

 

[DanQ]

Thanks for questions. Interesting discussion.

Glad you enjoyed the listen.

About leaders playing Civ: yeah, Napoleon would be the guy. [..] ... he doesn't look like a guy who would roleplay.

About Civ4 VS Civ5: I think we all are used to inconsistencies in Civ5 UI and forget how good was Civ4 in that regard.

It's true that we did not discuss User Interface with respect to either title.

Also Civ5 expansions added many good features (trade, ideologies, UN, more or less religion) and excessive unneeded features that weren't garbage (archaelogy, espionage).

I disagree that espionage was unneeded, but I agree it wasn't garbage. As per discussion on this special, espionage did not go far enough in CivV to meet what CivIV had let alone exceed it. While some implementation issues remain, Civilization: Beyond Earth alone was better with espionage than CivV, and the Rising Tide expansion furthered that even. Borrowing some from CivIV for added depth and tweking some of the breadth I feel would finally dethrone IV from its espionage crown.

Archaelogy is a busy work

I agree. I ignore Great Works completely, though I will create and dispatch Archaeologists to Antiquity Digs for culture yields from Landmarks.

religions does feel arbitrary and too tied to specific Civs

Do you mean certain religion names being "too tied" to specific civilizations? I find that incidental in CivV, yet commonplace in IV. What is arbitrary, a point which is no stranger to recurring PolyCast mentions, is the spawning mechanic of Great Prophets.

 

[Ilitarist]

Do you mean certain religion names being "too tied" to specific civilizations? I find that incidental in CivV, yet commonplace in IV. What is arbitrary, a point which is no stranger to recurring PolyCast mentions, is the spawning mechanic of Great Prophets.

Not names but ownership and religion beliefs. In Civ4 having any religion is better than none even if you give espionage data and income to a contender. In Civ5 religion may be just useless to a follower cause its beliefs all depend on religion owner choices. It's also deterministic even though it uses unnecessary complex math so it doesn't feel as natural as in Civ4. My main problem with it is it's probably the most complex mechanic in the game, is least integrated in other mechanics and its impact is inadequate compared to complexity. I may not like Espionage (isn't integrated to the game too, to the point it doesn't seem to notice the game has a freaking map) but at least it's ironically transparent.

As for arbitrary - yes, 20 faith for pantheon and 200+ for Prophet do not make much sense. As well as separate window for choosing pantheon belief and religious belief. I remember how I boot G&K for the first time. It made game better but new mechanics looked clumsy and more complex than they had to be compared to vanilla's elegance and consistency.

 

[DanQ]

Not names but ownership and religion beliefs.

Ah.

In Civ4 having any religion is better than none even if you give espionage data and income to a contender. In Civ5 religion may be just useless to a follower cause its beliefs all depend on religion owner choices.

I generally concur, though I would err on the side of "less useful" as opposed to "just useless". At least in the absence of other considerations, I tend to target those religions founded by others with strong follower beliefs for its elimination -- one way or another -- to terminate the founder belief benefit where I perceive it as a threat to my religion (or lack thereof).

My main problem with it is it's probably the most complex mechanic in the game, is least integrated in other mechanics and its impact is inadequate compared to complexity. I may not like Espionage (isn't integrated to the game too, to the point it doesn't seem to notice the game has a freaking map) but at least it's ironically transparent.

I can understand where you are coming from here.

I remember how I boot G&K for the first time. It made game better but new mechanics looked clumsy and more complex than they had to be compared to vanilla's elegance and consistency.

I agree that CivV's User Interface did cause, or at least contribute, to some unneccessary headaches in relation to accessing and making sense of some mechanics in the game yes. I have never felt or perceived any notable difference in, or between, its vanilla release and expansions but I can appreciate that perspective too.