PolyCast Episode 110: "Plausible Deniability"

[DanQ]

[img=right]http://civcomm.weplayciv.com/polycast/images/polycast_logo.jpg[/img] No comment. The one-hundred-and-tenth episode of PolyCast, "Plausible Deniability", features regular co-hosts Daniel "DanQ" Quick, "Makahlua", Philip "TheMeInTeam" Bellew and Lisa "qnl" Bang and returning guest co-host David "Hans Lemurson" Skold; it has a runtime of 59m59s.

The summary of topics is as follows:

- 01m55s | Open Mic (Part 1 of 2)
Answering a letter from a listener regarding naval combat in Civilization V and how it differs from previous Civ titles.
- 11m19s | Forum Talk
The "Chick Parabola" and CivV relevancy, and liking or not liking the game's Denouncement diplomatic mechanic.
- 22m29s | Senate
On a long standing practice of stealing Worker units in Civ, with a focus on CivV, and the good, the bad and the ugly of Wonders of the World in this latest series iteration.
- 40m27s | Open Mic (Part 2 of 2)
Continuing the Wonders discussion from the previous segment with a call-in from Daniel "dacole" Cole, a past guest co-host: beyond Domination Victory efforts, singleplayer versus multiplayer approaches, and a way within to generate wealth for one's civilization.

- Intro/Outro | Miscellaneous
Basic computer hardware troubleshooting, a late arrival, and sticking to a script.

PolyCast is a bi-weekly audio production in an ongoing effort to give the Civ community an interactive voice on game strategy; sibling show RevCast focuses on Civilization: Revolution and ModCast focuses on Civ modding.

 

[DanQ]

1. The primary recording software gave indications that it was functioning during the live broadcast of this episode, but it did not. I am confident I have identified the reason for this lack of recording (though not the interface discrepancy) and will be able to work around it. As such, the secondary recording mechanism -- that made available by our broadcast service uStream -- had to be used instead.

2. Based on listener feedback on the last episode post-produced, as well as that of myself and fellow regular panelists, changes have been made affecting a number of aspects including runtime and stock clip inclusions.

 

[AlphaShard]

I enjoy not just worker stealing but whiping out a Civ or two early in the game either with rushing or finding their capital close to mine and undefended.

When I saw "Chick Parabola" I thought you were talking about women again. *hehe*
I'm a different kind of gamer, one that doesn't always care about AI difficulty and enjoys story games.

 

[hennord]

Hello there.

1. The primary recording software gave indications that it was functioning during the live broadcast of this episode, but it did not. I am confident I have identified the reason for this lack of recording (though not the interface discrepancy) and will be able to work around it. As such, the secondary recording mechanism -- that made available by our broadcast service uStream -- had to be used instead.

I sure hope you manage to get that recording software to work cause the sound was awful.

On the basis of the two live polycasts you made so far, I think you might wonna consider changing the setup a little. You will have to tighten things up to compensate for the lack of post editing. In my oppinion 5-6 panlists is to much confusion. With the new format this should be cut down to 3 regulars and one guest or something like that.

But then again, that's just my oppinion...

Regards
Hennord

 

[DanQ]

When I saw "Chick Parabola" I thought you were talking about women again. *hehe*

Hello there.

Heya.

I sure hope you manage to get that recording software to work cause the sound was awful.

With the primary recording software to be "back in action", the recording quality for the next episode should be akin to that of #109... but more with the post-production treatment heard here applied to it.

On the basis of the two live polycasts you made so far, I think you might wonna consider changing the setup a little. You will have to tighten things up to compensate for the lack of post editing. In my oppinion 5-6 panlists is to much confusion. With the new format this should be cut down to 3 regulars and one guest or something like that.

Let me emphasize that there is still post-production being applied to episodes. While we have no intention on changing the approach to the number of regular panelists or number of guests (1-2 typically per episode), tinkering is continuing still in both editing and initial production (i.e. the live recording of these episodes themselves).

 

[TheDS]

A comment on the Navy paradigm Hans mentioned: he said there's a need for a navy to be fast enough to be relevant but not so fast that they're overpowered, and this creates a problem. Here's what I've noticed, from a general gameplay standpoint:

In earlier versions of Civ, getting mobility was easy. Once you had rails, you could get your army anywhere in one turn. Then they introduced the idea of borders, and then came the idea that while within enemy borders you can't use roads/rails. However, no similar change was made for the navy. (Modern) Ships have huge movement allotments and no slowdowns comparable to land units. IMNSHO it would make a TON of sense for ships moving in enemy territory (especially along the coasts) to move more slowly.

We assume that on land, there is some civil resistance (which really didn't start happening until nationalism - peasants didn't much care which king ruled them), so why not also assume that something similar happens at sea, especially once mines and submarines become prevalent? Changing the movement cost within enemy borders from 1 to 2 would make a ton of sense.

Likewise, we've all done the insta-naval-invasion, but that's incredibly unfair. Look at the Paratrooper (Civ4). He can't attack after being dropped, and he can't drop after being moved. Why should a Transport be able to unload troops the same turn it moves? Isn't unloading kind of a time-intensive thing? Can't we assume there may be some resistance to ships unloading SoDs next to a city that requires a turn to overcome?


Much better getting this down to an hour. The sound quality wasn't great, especially Phil's, but his seems to be bad most of the time anyway. Not sure what to suggest to him other than trying a different mic.

Congrats on getting a live caller in!

 

[bryanw1995]

I enjoy not just worker stealing but whiping out a Civ or two early in the game either with rushing or finding their capital close to mine and undefended.

When I saw "Chick Parabola" I thought you were talking about women again. *hehe*
I'm a different kind of gamer, one that doesn't always care about AI difficulty and enjoys story games.

yeah, every time I see "chick parabola" I think about the "hot vs psycho" chart that Barney talks about in "How I met your mother". Sadly, I have been on the wrong side of that chart too many times in my lifetime...

 

[DanQ]

In earlier versions of Civ, getting mobility was easy. Once you had rails, you could get your army anywhere in one turn.

, indeed... except when you wanted to move them across bodies of water. You could have your workers build railroads still, but they had no practical effect (the 'original' title).

Then they introduced the idea of borders, and then came the idea that while within enemy borders you can't use roads/rails. However, no similar change was made for the navy. (Modern) Ships have huge movement allotments and no slowdowns comparable to land units. IMNSHO it would make a TON of sense for ships moving in enemy territory (especially along the coasts) to move more slowly.

We assume that on land, there is some civil resistance (which really didn't start happening until nationalism - peasants didn't much care which king ruled them), so why not also assume that something similar happens at sea, especially once mines and submarines become prevalent? Changing the movement cost within enemy borders from 1 to 2 would make a ton of sense.

No objections here "on the face of it". (That being my caveat for taking greater gameplay considerations into account which I haven't done as of yet.)

Much better getting this down to an hour.

For 'standard' fare such as this (so outside of specials), I concur. It does amount to 33% more post-produced content per episode as compared to episode lengths for the vast majority of the show's run to date. So, we can think of it as watching a show that's blocked for one hour on television, only that entire hour is filled with content... even if it is audio only.

Congrats on getting a live caller in!

bryanw1995, are you a PolyCast listener as well?

 

[TheDS]

No objections here "on the face of it". (That being my caveat for taking greater gameplay considerations into account which I haven't done as of yet.)

What kind of gameplay considerations do you see? My goal with this idea is to make it much harder (if not impossible) to launch an amphibious assault on the same turn a war is declared. In addition to increasing the movement cost when going through enemy waters, I also think that, like the Paratrooper can't paradrop the same turn it moves, a transport shouldn't be able to unload the same turn it moves. (Or it should at least require half it's movement allotment to unload.)

In Civ5, the transport paradigm shifted a bit with units being able to turn into transports and back, but I think this still makes sense. In fact, I'm pretty sure Panzer General does this (the game Civ5's combat subgame was supposedly going to be like).