Tweet
CORRUPTION
I tihnk it's worthy of its own list, don't you? In previous civs, it was all government. Remember how Democracy completely cured all corruption? Those were the days, eh?
Yet, this was better for one important reason: If you had corruption, you could DO something about it. Although I'm not as violently upset as some folks about it, the main problem with corruption is that it's not fun.
I'd like to suggest some alternate models, as discussion fodder:
Call it "waste", not corruption. (Wasn't that the original name in earlier civs?)
Waste includes: corruption, crime, incompetence, sabotage and disobediance. These can all be handled by existing game mechanisms, and don't need to be fully handle-able.
1. Corruption increases with time, size, war and productivity. The longer a social structure stays put, the more corrupt it becomes. (New, small settlements would be the least corrupt in this model.) Revolution would set the corruption counter to zero (per Thomas Jefferson
). If corruption hit a certain level, it could result in rioting, which could reduce or reset the counter. A "city improvement" called "investigation/scourge" could be used to reduice the counter, resulting in a one-turn production loss, a pop point loss,
2. Crime increases with city size, corruption and poverty. Decreases with police, literacy and possibly war, hostile terrain like desert or jungle.
3. Incompetence increases with corruption, size, and decreases with literacy, education.
4. Sabotage increases with proximity to hostile civs. Decreases with police. Crime and sabotage could both be reducable through national police and intelligence agencies (wihch might increase corruption?).
5. Disobediance. All the usual things that go into making people riot. Instead of going from productive to all riot in a single turn, an imbalanced city could produce a single protestor per turn. Maybe.
[ok]
I tihnk it's worthy of its own list, don't you? In previous civs, it was all government. Remember how Democracy completely cured all corruption? Those were the days, eh?
Yet, this was better for one important reason: If you had corruption, you could DO something about it. Although I'm not as violently upset as some folks about it, the main problem with corruption is that it's not fun.
I'd like to suggest some alternate models, as discussion fodder:
Call it "waste", not corruption. (Wasn't that the original name in earlier civs?)
Waste includes: corruption, crime, incompetence, sabotage and disobediance. These can all be handled by existing game mechanisms, and don't need to be fully handle-able.
1. Corruption increases with time, size, war and productivity. The longer a social structure stays put, the more corrupt it becomes. (New, small settlements would be the least corrupt in this model.) Revolution would set the corruption counter to zero (per Thomas Jefferson
). If corruption hit a certain level, it could result in rioting, which could reduce or reset the counter. A "city improvement" called "investigation/scourge" could be used to reduice the counter, resulting in a one-turn production loss, a pop point loss, 2. Crime increases with city size, corruption and poverty. Decreases with police, literacy and possibly war, hostile terrain like desert or jungle.
3. Incompetence increases with corruption, size, and decreases with literacy, education.
4. Sabotage increases with proximity to hostile civs. Decreases with police. Crime and sabotage could both be reducable through national police and intelligence agencies (wihch might increase corruption?).
5. Disobediance. All the usual things that go into making people riot. Instead of going from productive to all riot in a single turn, an imbalanced city could produce a single protestor per turn. Maybe.
[ok]