1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

PolyCast Episode 126: "Dividing by Zero"

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by DanQ, Aug 13, 2011.

  1. DanQ

    DanQ Owner, Civilized Communication

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,797
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Interpreting results. The one-hundred-and-twenty-sixth episode of PolyCast, "Dividing by Zero", features regular co-hosts Daniel "DanQ" Quick, "Makahlua" and Philip "TheMeInTeam" Bellew with returning guest co-host Alexander "Alexander" Strub and first-time guest co-host Eddy "CivBattle"; it has a runtime of 59m59s.

    The summary of topics is as follows:

    - 01m48s | Senate
    In the first cluster of four-topic Civilization V strategy, moving from a starting Settler position), the importance of rivers for cities (07m49s, when to prioritize a Granary city improvement build (09m05s), and if and when to build on top of a resource (16m53s).
    In the second cluster dealing with being denounced, how to get other civs to like you (23m48s), avoiding the "warmongering menace to the world" label (27m09s), and if selling 'lost cause' cities is a good idea (38m22s).
    - 42m53s | Miscellaneous
    An extension of CivV diplomacy on blending Alpha Centauri's Planetary Council mechanics into the mix, and why so many City States want to see others dead.

    - Intro/Outro | Miscellaneous
    Analytical forces, deep thoughts, personal data exploitation, welcoming financial donations to the show (actually, seriously) and spousal conspiracies.

    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, ModCast on Civ modding and TurnCast on Civ multiplay.
     
  2. apocalypse105

    apocalypse105 Deity

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    I laught my ass of at the comment of school politics give me you're lunch money

    Great topics but sometimes disagree with it warmonger diplo hit it comes to soon they shoold make it after 3 decleration of wars...
     
  3. DanQ

    DanQ Owner, Civilized Communication

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,797
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    :D

    :)

    After only 3 declaration of wars, or that being one option? Declaration against "full" civ, City-State, both? Declaring unilaterally, or as part of a co-operative effort? Just some of the variables to take into consideration in my and, I believe safe to say, my fellow panelists' assessment. We agree not necessarily that the warmonger diplo hit comes too soon, but more about the actions one takes -- or doesn't take -- in response to and/or initiation of aggression.
     
  4. apocalypse105

    apocalypse105 Deity

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    Against a civilization...

    Yeah if a other AI ask you to declare war against someone they should remove the penalty from declaring war or something...

    The penalty shoould be like : if you declare 2 times against the same one yes. And if you declare 2 times on a short time period(a period of certain turns) yes you should get the diplomatic hit..

    And if youy declared 3 times overal(throught the game) then you get it olso..

    So you actually can play the game actually even if you dont want to go for domination victory:mischief:
     
  5. DanQ

    DanQ Owner, Civilized Communication

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,797
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Whoops, delayed reply here somewhat...

    A complete removal of the diplomatic 'hit' for me isn't necessary, for you did make the choice to join in the war, but certainly that penalty shouldn't be as severe as if you declared "on your own".

    Would you see the latter as giving a greater diplomatic hit than the former, given the aggressiveness at least suggested by the declaration actions?
     

Share This Page