PolyCast Episode 305: "Civ Fanatics Are People Too"

[DanQ]

Don't you know it. The three hundred-and-fifth episode of PolyCast, "Civ Fanatics Are People Too", features regular co-hosts Stephanie "Makahlua", Philip "TheMeInTeam" Bellew and Jason "MegaBearsFan" Grade with returning guest Steve "WarningU2" Warner and first-time guest "Uberfrog". It carries a runtime of 59m59s.

The summary of topics is as follows:

- 03m52s | Forum Talk
Would giving Civilization VI coast tiles an extra hammer of production be a sufficient improvement, should giving Fort improvements Loyalty pressure improve their standing in the game's Rise and Fall expansion, should railroads be included in this series' latest title (18m13s), could improving gameplay come about with a return of water transport units (25m03s) and the case for having barbarians act as people too (30m54s).
- 38m23s | Miscellaneous
What lessons business can learn from Civ, whether or not a pillaging action be required to clear air units from an Aerodrome district (43m48s; recorded for Episode 285) and yearning for the game's Build Queue feature to return (46m00s).
- 49m06s | Theatre
Perseverance through tundra and taking over the world from the Gaelic isle are tales followed by a Civilization IV: Colonization account of hidden nationalities (51m23s; recorded for Episode 295).

- Intro/Outro | Assorted
Learning experience, loyalty qualms, taking a liking to overflow and tongue twisted.

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]

Perhaps forts would be more reasonable to build if there was a policy card that offers new builders the ability to construct one free fort. Maybe the free fort would have a reduced effectiveness too (less than +4).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Perhaps forts would be more reasonable to build if there was a policy card that offers new builders the ability to construct one free fort. Maybe the free fort would have a reduced effectiveness too (less than +4).

And they give ZoC but only when maintained amirite? Taking one might trap you, THAT would make the game better!

...

 

[Weraptor]

Forts are all right, the problem is in military engineers

 

[drubell]

And they give ZoC but only when maintained amirite? Taking one might trap you, THAT would make the game better!

...

"Cannot attack unit because you are blocked by H O S T I L E F O R T"

 

[Victoria]

A unit in a fort is at +10 on defense not +4 on both. Your archer can shoot and stay fortified.... the clue is in the word fortified.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

A unit in a fort is at +10 on defense not +4 on both. Your archer can shoot and stay fortified.... the clue is in the word fortified.

Hmm, in that case a melee unit with battlecry/tortoise would be the best candidate for most fort locations IMO. Put that on defensive terrain and it's very impractical to attack it using contemporary units without much further investment, but ignoring it makes a bottleneck.

The district combat promotion would make it even worse but it's hard to justify leaving well-promoted units behind on defense.

 

[Scaramanga]

Forts are not useful in real life, nobody wins staying behind their lines. Unless you're trying to do offensive tourism and need Trade routes while deterring at the same time.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Forts are not useful in real life, nobody wins staying behind their lines. Unless you're trying to do offensive tourism and need Trade routes while deterring at the same time.

Forts IRL carried some real use in that you'd stall for reinforcements...not bad especially in times before professional armies existed and people were relying on levies.

Also before modern time coastal forts were nigh-unassailable by ships. This was particularly relevant to the Bosphorus strait because it's so narrow, but it was not trivial elsewhere either.

Claiming they were "not useful" is definitely inaccurate. They won't win you offensive wars by themselves in either game or IRL, but they can be significant to the outcome.

 

[Scaramanga]

Forts IRL carried some real use in that you'd stall for reinforcements...not bad especially in times before professional armies existed and people were relying on levies.

Also before modern time coastal forts were nigh-unassailable by ships. This was particularly relevant to the Bosphorus strait because it's so narrow, but it was not trivial elsewhere either.

Claiming they were "not useful" is definitely inaccurate. They won't win you offensive wars by themselves in either game or IRL, but they can be significant to the outcome.

Alright, then the Maginot Line specifically was not useful

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Alright, then the Maginot Line specifically was not useful

Relatively speaking, air power and modern doctrines are a tiny portion of historical warfare.

Even then, Germany didn't exactly ignore the Maginot line, they had to route around. Fortunately for them and not so fortunately for much of the rest of the continent, they did so in a way a lethargic post WW1 France was not prepared to handle.

 

[Uberfrog]

I had a good time recording this, thanks for having me on!

Forts are not useful in real life, nobody wins staying behind their lines. Unless you're trying to do offensive tourism and need Trade routes while deterring at the same time.

I think it also depends on what you mean by a "fort". Those represented in Civ currently are purely military holdouts built on the frontiers. But forts have also been settlements in their own right, castles (which are just as much about intimidating your subjects and repelling peasant revolts), and refuges. Hence why there's scope for adding some yields (be it loyalty, culture, housing, gold) beyond defence.

 

[Scaramanga]

I had a good time recording this, thanks for having me on!



I think it also depends on what you mean by a "fort". Those represented in Civ currently are purely military holdouts built on the frontiers. But forts have also been settlements in their own right, castles (which are just as much about intimidating your subjects and repelling peasant revolts), and refuges. Hence why there's scope for adding some yields (be it loyalty, culture, housing, gold) beyond defence.

Besides the Roman forts, the forts that appear in the game are probably the trace italienne according to when they appear in the technology tree. The improvement you're describing is the Alcazar from Granada. I think it is best as a city-state improvement because maintaining suzeraincy seems more "feudal".

 

[Uberfrog]

Besides the Roman forts, the forts that appear in the game are probably the trace italienne according to when they appear in the technology tree. The improvement you're describing is the Alcazar from Granada. I think it is best as a city-state improvement because maintaining suzeraincy seems more "feudal".

Except star forts like that are nearly always built in cities, not on remote frontiers. In fact, more often than not, they are built around the city. I'd say something like that is better represented as Renaissance Walls than an otherwise useless tile improvement...

 

[Scaramanga]

Except star forts like that are nearly always built in cities, not on remote frontiers. In fact, more often than not, they are built around the city. I'd say something like that is better represented as Renaissance Walls than an otherwise useless tile improvement...

Yes I think you're right about star forts being just a city fortification. The only real use for forts as they are might be part of a gambit to stall an attacker who has momentum so you can boost Ballistics and go back on the offensive.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes I think you're right about star forts being just a city fortification. The only real use for forts as they are might be part of a gambit to stall an attacker who has momentum so you can boost Ballistics and go back on the offensive.

If you stack enough defensive modifiers onto a unit in a fort they effectively become a deployable mountain.

With the current state of the AI that's not commonly useful in the timeframe you can make them, but making a piece of rough terrain into something functionally unbreakable means lots of unit shredding no matter how numerous. Completely ruining a front with ~2 units and a fort is at least potentially useful in principle.

 

[Scaramanga]

If you stack enough defensive modifiers onto a unit in a fort they effectively become a deployable mountain.

With the current state of the AI that's not commonly useful in the timeframe you can make them, but making a piece of rough terrain into something functionally unbreakable means lots of unit shredding no matter how numerous. Completely ruining a front with ~2 units and a fort is at least potentially useful in principle.

"Piece of rough terrain" I think is only hills because you have to remove all features to make room for the fort. They should be placed to minimise the number of ranged units that can fire on it (ie. they have to be adjacent to the fort to have sight) and other friendly units should be around it in diamond or triangle formations to give support bonuses.

 

[legalizefreedom]

BS that a unit insta-kills aircraft like they were civilians.

You were unequivocally correct, Dan. That other guy was doing it wrong.

 

[DanQ]

BS that a unit insta-kills aircraft like they were civilians.

You were unequivocally correct, Dan. That other guy was doing it wrong.

Thank you for the support of my view. I get that the aircraft are vulnerable when on the ground, but not instantly so by a unit moving onto an Aerodrome's hex.

 

[legalizefreedom]

Thank you for the support of my view. I get that the aircraft are vulnerable when on the ground, but not instantly so by a unit moving onto an Aerodrome's hex.

They are still military units, so they should have a defense (however low) and need to be attacked at least. Air units are some of the most expensive; you can't just insta-kill a stack of them. Stacking here complicates things, but I would be willing to bet the devs haven't seriously considered this situation rather than saying it is as intended.