C3C Corruption: Whoa!!!

[Theseus]

THESEUS' ALL NEW "PROGRESSIVE CITY PLACEMENT" SCHEME

Build capitol.
Build one city each at 2/2.5, 3/3.5,4/4.5 etc.
Cities following #2 should be equidistant from it and the capitol.
Build FP in city #2 (2/2.5)
Move Palace.

[alexman]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
I think they should get rid of the concept of ranks totally. They don't correspond to anything natural.

It is the reason why ICS is not as dominant in Civ3 as in earlier versions of Civ. Turn-based moves don't correspond to anything natural either!

Theseus, are you trying to confuse us even more?

[Arrian]

Ok, I think I finally get it.

This thing doesn't do a heckuva lot to the close-in core cities. But a city that is ranked, say, 10 gets boosted to 18!!! 2*(10-1). So the core cities take a slight hit, but you do get a new group of core cities. Meanwhile, however, the so-so cities get killed.

-Arrian

[dexters]

I have noticed the increased corruption in my last game. It makes any empire of any considerable size unworkable on the fringers

I actually think this works against the AI more than the human, since AI loves to rely on domesticically produced defense units. If their distant cities aren't as productive as before, they probably will tend to have fewer defenders.

[shirleyrocks]

So, generally speaking, is the Forbidden Palace not worth building anymore?

[Dominae]

Re: C3C Corruption: Whoa!!!

Originally posted by alexman
They 'fixed' RCP by giving equidistant cities the worst rank, instead of the best, as was the case in PTW. So now you get penalized for building two or more cities the same distance from the Palace or FP.

Yes, this is a weird fix. It annoys me because yet again knowing about Corruption forces unnatural city placement schemes. On the bright side, I like this much better than RCP.

More specifically, when you build a FP far from your capital, all cities near your capital have their corruption increased because their rank is increased to 2(r-1), where r is their old rank without the FP.

I see no problem here. At least, with my interests in mind. Good FP placement is a trick only open to the human player; the AI usually puts its FP very close to the Palace. So what this "problem" amounts to is a reduced effect of the FP. Given the numerous ways to combat Corruption in Conquests, I hardly think this is a big deal.

Building a FP (and SPHQ) in Communism always increases your corruption.

Now this I can agree is bad.

Let us pray for a patch now...

Other than the Communism thing, I see nothing on this list that is patch-worthy. Learn not to place your cities in rings and not to rely on the FP, and all should be well. Other than (again) the Communism problem, all these points make the AI stronger relative to the human player.


Dominae


P.S: Thanks for doing this analysis, alexman!

[Arrian]

The AI in PTW also used to build its FP close in, which Alexman notes is really bad in Conquests. So if the AI is still doing that... it's really getting screwed.

Which may help explain the "X" factor I couldn't put my finger on in my game we're talking about in the other thread.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Arrian
The AI in PTW also used to build its FP close in, which Alexman notes is really bad in Conquests. So if the AI is still doing that... it's really getting screwed.

From alexman's analysis (if I understand it correctly), placing the FP far away results in bad Corruption due to the rank problem. Placing the FP close the Palace (as the AI does) should not result in anything too drastic.


Dominae

[Catt]

Patch! Patch! Patch!

(said patch should also include the gpt bug fix)

Catt

[Mazarin]

This will result in a new era: HCP (HelixCityPlacement)!

If they were unable to fix the corruption bugs properly, they should've waited and done that with one of the patches.

[Arrian]

I see no problem here. At least, with my interests in mind. Good FP placement is a trick only open to the human player; the AI usually puts its FP very close to the Palace. So what this "problem" amounts to is a reduced effect of the FP. Given the numerous ways to combat Corruption in Conquests, I hardly think this is a big deal.

I'd hardly call it a "trick." But we have different perspectives on the matter.

I for one really, really, really hope this is changed.

-Arrian

[alexman]

Originally posted by Dominae

From alexman's analysis (if I understand it correctly), placing the FP far away results in bad Corruption due to the rank problem. Placing the FP close the Palace (as the AI does) should not result in anything too drastic.

No, placing it close to the palace is bad as well. The rank of all cities is doubled eityher way, but with a overlapping core you have higher ranks than with no overlap.

I just mentioned 'far away' because that's the case where the total corruption for a city is guaranteed to increase. With overlap, some of the old palace core cities might get lower overall corruption because of distance, but the rest of your empire will suffer big time.

[Theseus]

I think this is horrible.

[Arrian]

Translation: the AI is still screwed. Perhaps more so.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Then I officially change my position to "this is horrible".




Dominae