PolyCast Episode 274: "It's All About the Technique"

[DanQ]

Firm. The two-hundred-and-seventy-fourth episode of PolyCast, "It's All About the Technique", features regular co-hosts Daniel "DanQ" Quick, Stephanie "Makahlua", Philip "TheMeInTeam" Bellew and "MadDjinn" with returning guest co-host "CanusAlbinus". It carries a runtime of 59m59s.

The summary of topics is as follows:

- 01m13s | Open Mic
Given the present state of Civilization VI's Artificial Intelligence (AI), how can one enjoy its single player experience? Longtime show listener "slo" puts this to the panel in an email.
- 08m36s | Senate
In the strategy layer for CivVI tackling barbarians approaches, Great People management (19m25s), City States treatment (27m50s), consolidating and connecting the three (41m16s) and if, and when, to promote game units (47m57s; recorded for Episode 272).
- 50m11s | News
Team multiplayer amongst the features being "worked on" for Civilization VI, according to developer Firaxis Games.

- Intro/Outro | Miscellaneous
Gripping and bad placement.

PolyCast is a bi-weekly audio production recording live every other Saturday throughout the year, in an ongoing effort to give the Civilization community an interactive voice; sibling show ModCast focuses on Civ modding, TurnCast on Civ multiplay.

 

[drubell]

TMIT is correct. City-states exist to be turned into my cities. In almost all cases, getting the city's natural yields and potential internal trade routes using that city-state is much more powerful to me than using envoys to get suzerain bonuses. In mid-game I'm more willing to use the envoys I've banked to take good city-states that aren't directly next to my empire.

This is a much different approach to how I would treat city-states in Civ 5, but yields between the two games are calculated differently.

 

[DanQ]

TMIT is correct. City-states exist to be turned into my cities.

Absolute statements are absolutely problematic, such as this approach to City State treatment as stated (or the opposite of never considering capturing them for that matter).

In almost all cases, getting the city's natural yields and potential internal trade routes using that city-state is much more powerful to me than using envoys to get suzerain bonuses.

You're excluding an important counter argument, one that I and Mad raised elements of in this episode: one cannot focus on becoming a City State Suzerain as the only, even primary, balance against conquering them. You must also take into account the benefits you can reap at the 1 and in particular 3 and 6 envoy tiers, in particular the latter two as they carry across like districts across your empire and not just your capital. You do not need to become the Suzerain at any time in order to benefit from these tiers, and will short of war with their Suzerain. (And even then, you can return to a state of peace with them in a set amount of turns regardless of the war's status otherwise.) In consideration of this, "almost all" lessens to "some" at least.

In mid-game I'm more willing to use the envoys I've banked to take good city-states that aren't directly next to my empire.

"Good" is subjective, as is "directly" though understood more clearly than the former though this added context is appreciated in elaboration.

If a "good" City State of one type -- again, as from the episode I would argue that's Trade, Science and Industrial respectively all but universally -- is near(er) to you, than you ought to have come across it sooner than others through exploration and can therefore take more immediate advantage of banked envoys to dispatch them to and start reaping its benefits, again sooner and at a scale which can easily be just as great if not greater than a once City State under your direct control for some time.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Absolute statements are absolutely problematic

The only thing "absolutely problematic" is your dove/hippy/handholding hard on for babying city states .

All the city states are belong to me. The only real question to answer is when to bring them in.

You're excluding an important counter argument, one that I and Mad raised elements of in this episode: one cannot focus on becoming a City State Suzerain as the only, even primary, balance against conquering them. You must also take into account the benefits you can reap at the 1 and in particular 3 and 6 envoy tiers, in particular the latter two as they carry across like districts across your empire and not just your capital.

It's not like you gave a rock solid analysis of how the envoy tiers (6 being frequently impractical) compare to an additional 1-2 trade routes, more production, and more direct science from that city, on average.

Obviously "this city state gives me more than that city state" will affect the "when to conquer this" question.

To some extent, I was screwing around on the episode. But the reality of the matter is that in MANY cases, owning the city directly compares favorably. It's hard for non-suz bonuses to compete with district yields and more production. Some can, and since envoys are a resource you can employ them on city states conferring most benefit in the short run and avoid beating those down until later (if you ever bother once a runaway). Some of the per-city stuff is really strong when you're huge. But ultimately, most city states really are better off belonging to the player on average and if you don't want to do the math at all it's probably safer to take most of them.

This is a much different approach to how I would treat city-states in Civ 5, but yields between the two games are calculated differently.

Civ 5 also severely knee-capped you for owning more cities which greatly constrained the utility of taking them. GG rekt Mongols, though their UU carried them anyway. Too bad they didn't make the cut in Civ 6 because reasons!

 

[legalizefreedom]

TMIT, I would like to hear your strategy for dealing with war weariness in this game. Although not currently balanced, it seems to be a much different mechanic. And you appear to still be a warmonger...


In as much as I've played VI to date, I have always taken GPs right away after seeing how many GP points I would stand to lose if I passed. Maybe I don't fully understand the mechanic, but it sure looks like a big number to me.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

TMIT, I would like to hear your strategy for dealing with war weariness in this game. Although not currently balanced, it seems to be a much different mechanic. And you appear to still be a warmonger...


In as much as I've played VI to date, I have always taken GPs right away after seeing how many GP points I would stand to lose if I passed. Maybe I don't fully understand the mechanic, but it sure looks like a big number to me.

For most of the game you just don't want to grind out wars, instead winning them faster. Later on when you have stuff like fascism you can stack 25% WW reducers and trash civs before it gets significant.

I dislike the mechanic because its workings are hidden (I have no respect for hidden rules in games where fake difficulty isn't a core theme and liken Firaxis to EA for doing this), but if you're gutting an AI decently fast then spending even a little time at peace you'll clear it fast.

Ghandi is super annoying early on because the elephants tank so much and he spams them, that's the only time WW can be dangerous so be careful with him, try to take a city or so and get out of the war/go for someone else a bit if you can't end him quickly.

 

[legalizefreedom]

For most of the game you just don't want to grind out wars, instead winning them faster. Later on when you have stuff like fascism you can stack 25% WW reducers and trash civs before it gets significant.

I dislike the mechanic because its workings are hidden (I have no respect for hidden rules in games where fake difficulty isn't a core theme and liken Firaxis to EA for doing this), but if you're gutting an AI decently fast then spending even a little time at peace you'll clear it fast.

Ghandi is super annoying early on because the elephants tank so much and he spams them, that's the only time WW can be dangerous so be careful with him, try to take a city or so and get out of the war/go for someone else a bit if you can't end him quickly.

I guess VI has made you a more efficient warmonger at the least. I probably wouldn't let it decide my government type unless it was a full on war play though since that would seem to nerf you in other areas.

Seems like it is pretty effective and fair... More like traditional war weariness. I wonder how it will eventually shake out, but for now it seems to be working and maybe even working as intended.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I guess VI has made you a more efficient warmonger at the least. I probably wouldn't let it decide my government type unless it was a full on war play though since that would seem to nerf you in other areas.

Seems like it is pretty effective and fair... More like traditional war weariness. I wonder how it will eventually shake out, but for now it seems to be working and maybe even working as intended.

My problem with how Firaxis handled WW is the specifics are hidden, not necessarily the mechanic itself (though we wouldn't be able to tell if something wasn't working if the rules are hidden...right EA?).

WW functionality is a gameplay *rule*, and it should be treated like one in a strategy game. This thread is a perfect example; you're asking for what choices to make to offset the WW constraint...and the game denies you knowledge of which actions contribute to it and by how much, its decay rate, etc. This is 100% identical in principle to hiding how much food your cities produce, hiding the food bar, and starving them anyway in a shortage. Yes, you can note that you're on a surplus after figuring out what citizens eat and adding it up yourself. You can. But it would be a needlessly hidden game rule and a hampering to actual strategy. You'd be forced to learn by trial and error (yours or someone else's), just like WW, with no strategy used in the process of doing so. That is why I liken Firaxis to EA; they've gone through two patches while being okay with this, and I have equal respect for that as I do for hiding how stats contribute to in-game performance in Madden: negative respect.

If you're going for domination, you might as well go down that path for government type. It's not like tech is a serious constraint, and the other warmonger options are helpful.

If you're not doing a full-on war playthrough, you probably shouldn't be at war even 50% of the time and ideally won't be extending wars a long time, so you wouldn't need to halve WW.

 

[legalizefreedom]

My problem with how Firaxis handled WW is the specifics are hidden, not necessarily the mechanic itself (though we wouldn't be able to tell if something wasn't working if the rules are hidden...right EA?).

Agreed. Although I'm glad the mechanic is somewhat solid to begin with. I would expect the UI info to improve over time, but then again, I also expected them to finish BE...

Thank you for the detailed replies!

 

[NarrativeKnight]

You guys do realize that if the barbarian hasn't made it to your borders you can lead it away until you find someone else's border. This is strategy. You can go around the other player's borders and drag the barbarian through it. The issue is the min spawn distance not someone being smart enough to send the scouts off after other players.

The harder they work on multiplayer the more excuses they have for not fixing the AI.

 

[DanQ]

You guys do realize that if the barbarian hasn't made it to your borders you can lead it away until you find someone else's border.

We do. I believe we noted this on this episode, but if not we did previously (and in that case ought to have again on this occasion).