Corruption/Waste/Riots/Pollution, something we need to discuss

[Max Sinister]

Maybe we could throw corruption and unhappiness together? The more cities, the angrier the citizens, and you have to raise luxury rate. Still micromanagement, but at least we have no bad stuff we hadn't before, and we get rid of corruption.

[Robert]

No, please no options that make it difficult to expand.
More cities should be encouraged, not worked against.

I hate it that when my empire begins to grow I walk against the borders of 99% corruption/waste/angry people etc.

That's REALLY an unfun part of the game.
Ok, it would be fun if I could battle it.

But right now it's hardly possible to battle it. (eventhough in C3C the corruption problem can be battled though)

[Drachasor]

I think my idea would lessen corruption and waste overall (certainly compared to Civ III!), and make massive improvements in cities far from your capital.

Afterall, it isn't capital distance that causes corruption and waste, it is unhappiness, general inefficiency (which can be simplified into increased unhappiness in my system), and other such factors. If you spend the time to make a large city at the far borders of your empire happy, then they should be good productive citizens.

There should be some number of city factor as there is in CivII/III where after you pass a certain number of cities, you get extra unhappiness. This would be from general inefficiency and troubles handling people spread out so much. This is how this system would combat ICS, perhaps the effect could be particularly bad with a primitive government and lots of small cities. Justification: there's less of a sense of nationalism, and people are more likely to take stuff for themselves. As you advance more, you are able to handle larger and larger amounts of cities more effectively, which means happier citizens.

As I said, Pollution would be largely handled by increased unhappiness (so that you can build factories and gain a net production, but you'll be less efficient in other areas). Perhaps any/most of the third-tier structures should cause additional unhappiness, enough so that if you make all three then you haven't gained anything. This would encourage specialization (but I am open to discussion on this way).

Anyhow, I think the bar for rioting, as I said, should be lowered. Perhaps everyone in the city should be unhappy before anything happens, and perhaps you should need angry faces. Any comment on this? I think having unhappy people less productive would be better, with riots reserved for extreme circumstances. Right now riots happen a bit too easily. Also, some sort of warning the a Riot will happen next turn unless you do something should be in the game.

-Drachasor

[Max Sinister]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Afterall, it isn't capital distance that causes corruption and waste, it is unhappiness, general inefficiency (which can be simplified into increased unhappiness in my system), and other such factors. If you spend the time to make a large city at the far borders of your empire happy, then they should be good productive citizens.

Right. If in the past cities near the borders were more problematic, it's also because of the emprors and kings who had to wait for *months* to get the news delivered from there, and maybe often didn't much care.

[Robert]

It's not a problem to have problems to face.
But as a good leader I need to be able to fix the problems.

That there is initial corruption is fine. Like there is initial unhappyness. But let me be able to battle it
I'm playing a game, and I want to be able to win it.
I don't want to face problems I can't face anyway.

That's like playing pacman and starting in this situation:
------------------------
.M-->....P....<-- M...
------------------------
(M=monster, P=Packman)

I must admit that C3C does a good thing giving me tools to battle corruption though.

[shmily_dana]

I think this riot feature needs to be looked at. When you are conquering an enemy, some of the conquered cities will go into riot mode. When the last enemy city falls, all your cities, including recently conquered cities get happy because the war is over.

"Yeah...the war is over and you destroyed our empire!"

[GePap]

I like a pollution system that attacks citywide production and not just is tiled based, which is obnoxious.

Thought it should first strike production, then increase unhappiness. MOre importantly, it should even slow growth directly, and not indirectly though curbing food.

As for unhappiness- a model based simply on city size is unrealistic and promotes ICS. Unhappiness should also cut production due to lower productivity as well as trade. And it should be prone to riots and civil disturbances. Honestly, all those things are very similar to today.

As for the issue of corruption- I have to think about it some more.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by GePap
I like a pollution system that attacks citywide production and not just is tiled based, which is obnoxious.

Thought it should first strike production, then increase unhappiness. MOre importantly, it should even slow growth directly, and not indirectly though curbing food.

Pollution in the real world doesn't really affect production in any direct way. It messes up some aspects of the environment (like killing wildlife), but it doesn't hurt industries directly. That's why they have no normal incentive to stop polluting, they don't suffer any ill-effects.

It can affect food growing eventually, in the area anyhow. It probably does effect growth to some extent. I proposed my model because it is very simple (lowers happiness, and happiness in general is related to work efficiency), and gets most of the effects you want. If they don't change the city growth system, then lowered amounts of food causes lower growth rates. If they do change it so food supply and growth is taken into account, then pollution should affect the growth rate and food production, but the latter only because of unhappiness.

Originally posted by GePap As for unhappiness- a model based simply on city size is unrealistic and promotes ICS. Unhappiness should also cut production due to lower productivity as well as trade. And it should be prone to riots and civil disturbances. Honestly, all those things are very similar to today.

True, though I think you can have everyone a bit unhappy without much disruption from riots and the like. A standard protest doesn't cause much disruption, and an outright riot requires pretty intense emotions beyond just being unhappy. IMHO, of course.

-Drachasor

PS. I think we largely agree, I hope I don't come across as overly critical.

[Brent]

get rid of all of them.

[Fosse]

Drachasor's idea, boiled down, is to make unhappiness reduce efficiency (ie, cause waste and corruption), and pollution increase unhappiness.

This has to be the best approach that's been posted. It's simple, elegant, intuitive, and realistic.

It also allows lots of ways to impact corruption, unhappiness, and pollution... If you want a government style that, like previous Civs, has high corruption on the fringes then add a palace distance unhappiness factor to that government. That way corruption doesn't have a set level for each government, as in the past. A benevolent king might have a less corrupt country than a stingy democracy does, depending on happiness levels.

I hope Firaxis gives it some thought, and adopts an approach like this instead of just excising the "unfun" elements. Unfun just means poorly designed.

[Arrian]

I like tying corruption/waste to unhappiness, although I also feel other factors from CivIII must be kept too (system of government, trade net connection, buildings, specialists). I'd also like to see corruption/waste lessened directly by advances in technology.

Pollution, in order to prevent "whack a mole," will have to screw up overall production and/or growth in the city without actually polluting an individual tile. It will probably look more like it did in MOO2.

Speaking of happiness and corruption/waste, what do you all think about "We Love the President Day?" Keep it? Junk it? If kept, what should it do? CivII-style growth boost? CivIII-style waste reduction? Or something else?

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Chalk me up as against pollution.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Chalk me up as against pollution.

If I may ask, what don't you like about the concept of Pollution?

Originally posted by Arrian
Speaking of happiness and corruption/waste, what do you all think about "We Love the President Day?" Keep it? Junk it? If kept, what should it do? CivII-style growth boost? CivIII-style waste reduction? Or something else?

Well, since my idea already gives a production/etc bonus, perhaps a growth boost from WLTK Day. Not as insane as Civ II though (didn't that have 1 entire pop point each turn?).

Hmm, I would like to keep the day, but it is hard to find something suitably rewarding (beyond what you'd get anyway under my system). Perhaps net happy citizens shouldn't give bonus production until you get half of the city happy....but that seems unduly harsh.

-Drachasor

[Arrian]

CivII's WLTKD was nuts. But a more moderate growth bonus would be good

-Arrian

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Arrian
I like tying corruption/waste to unhappiness, although I also feel other factors from CivIII must be kept too (system of government, trade net connection, buildings, specialists).

The nice thing about that system is that it lets governments either effect corruption directly (ie, a MOnarchy can never have more than 80% of its shields) or indirectly through happiness (Moarchy's suffer unhappiness when cities are far from the capital, thus distant cities have more corruption). You could fight the one by making people happy, and the other is more permanant.


Slightly off the current topic:
Maybe "Happiness" is a misnomer. Shouldn't "Ruler Approval" or some other civic sounding term be better at measuring whether the people riot or defect to another empire? (I know... possibly the least important point that will be made today... but still! )