Announcement

**dexters** · December 23, 2003, 06:25

This is really stange. I had recalled checking on Matsuyama earlier in the game and seeing low corruption. And this was proven with a backsave that I loaded.

I had only built/acquired 3 cities during the 30 turns so it was easy for me to go back and find out what happened.

Here is Matsuyama 3 or 4 turns into my patched v1.12 game. City count 22 (ocn for standard map is 20)

Attached Files

**dexters** · December 23, 2003, 06:25

I rushbuilt a settler in one my cities and 1 turn later, I plopped down a new city.

City count is 23.

Look at the difference.

**dexters** · December 23, 2003, 06:28

Checking F1 empire status screen, overall corruption increasely only marginally. So that's good. But it still feels like corruption is running higher than expected... about 132 on income of 800 (before foreign income)

Attached Files

**watorrey** · December 23, 2003, 07:05

I noticed the same thing with a 1.02 game. When you first load it and look it over, all appears fine. Once you do something that causes a recalculation of city production, everything goes bad. The overall corruption increases alot, most of it lost around the FP.

Just for giggles, i abandoned the FP city and everything got worse still.

I'm curious to find out if it works the same way in a new 1.12 game, but do not really want to play one out that far to find out.

**MrWhereItsAt** · December 23, 2003, 07:20

This could always be the result of loading an old game with the patch. It was reported Jesse advised we should start new games with the patch.

**dexters** · December 23, 2003, 07:32

Originally posted by watorrey
I noticed the same thing with a 1.02 game. When you first load it and look it over, all appears fine. Once you do something that causes a recalculation of city production, everything goes bad. The overall corruption increases alot, most of it lost around the FP.

Just for giggles, i abandoned the FP city and everything got worse still.

I'm curious to find out if it works the same way in a new 1.12 game, but do not really want to play one out that far to find out.

The anomaly I'm reported IS from v1.12

Mr. whereitsat, good point. I made sure to point out in my 1st post it's a continuation of a v 1.00 game (I'm in Canada and we get the US version and hence, I never upgraded to v 1.02)

**MrWhereItsAt** · December 23, 2003, 09:00

I have just noticed corruption go up for FP-centric cities, but down for Palace-centric cities! With a recalc of corruption/waste from a game saved and started in v1.00, the corresponding increase in production/trade for Palace-centric cities roughly matched the decrease in FP-centric cities.

[Wild hypothesis]

Perhaps now when using city rank to caclulate corruption the game gives the Palce-centric cities the lower value and FP-centric a higher one. Or maybe there is a new factor added to the equation for corruption - the distance from the Palace (in addition to the distance from either Palace OR FP in the presently established formula).

/wild hypothesis

**nbarclay** · December 24, 2003, 02:11

I'm playing a new game started with the patch, and can confirm that the odd behavior of the FP is not just bcause the game was loaded from a pre-patch save. I built the FP fairly close to the palace and was surprised to see that corruption was still rather high. I just tested what would happen if I abandoned it, and two of the three closest cities lost a shield. It looks like the FP now has a small positive impact on corruption, but only a small one. So instead of a FP that can be used as the center of a second core but that causes harm to cities in the original core, we now seem to have a FP that does not cause harm but that can no longer provide a second core either.

Nathan

**vmxa1** · December 24, 2003, 03:54

I have not put up an FP with the patch yet. I sort of gathered it would be as you say Nathan. I guess that is what everybody wanted. A dimunition of the FP so no second core.

**nbarclay** · December 24, 2003, 15:08

What "everybody" wanted? I certainly never wanted it; at least not to anywhere near this degree. With the ability to establish a second core, a civilization that started on a relatively small land mass could establish a second core on a larger land mass to build a stronger economic base without effectively throwing away most of its investment in its original cities. Now that option no longer exists. Either you settle for your original land mass with its weak economic potential (possibly gaining relatively marginal additional value from conquests on other land masses) or you move your palace to a new land mass and watch the original core you worked so hard on lose most of its value. For me, as a builder who views warmongering as a way to acquire additional territory to build in, that is not a choice that makes the game more fun!

(The "Son of So Very Cold" Apolyton University game is a classic example of how, with enough hard work, a combination of a well-placed Forbidden Palace and a subsequent palace move could be used to turn a nation that started on a small continent into a superpower with a huge economy. Under the C3C rules as of the current patch, with starting position having so much larger a long-term effect on a civ's destiny, the starting position in that game would be both less playable and less enjoyable in the ultimate fruits of success.)

Also consider the impact on civs that start on the far tip of a land mass. (That is especially likely to happen to Seafaring civs, since they are essentially guaranteed coastal starts.) Under the old rules, such a civ would normally use its FP either to establish a well-centered core or to provide a counterbalance at the other end of the land mass. Under the new rules, moving the palace is the only way to get lower overall distance corruption, and building a new palace is vastly more expensive than building a FP (at least by the time the investment in a new palace can be spared). If the cost of a palace would be reduced to a hundred shields or so, that would be no big deal (and would also, incidentally, go a long way toward killing the use of a palace as a prebuild for wonders). But as things stand, it strikes me as a serious problem.

I'll admit that good use of a second core gave us humans a huge advantage over the AIs in previous versions of Civ 3. But if the value of the FP is to be largely destroyed, other balance issues need to be considered to deal with problems of small, somewhat isolated starting land masses and off-center starting locations.

Nathan

Edit: P.S. The idea of potentially having to move a civilization's only core far from its original territory in order to have a good economic base also has serious problems from a roleplay perspective. If my Roman (or Dutch or whatever) people succeed in fighing their way out of a bad starting position and becoming the world's greatest superpower, I don't want their "reward" to be that the natives of the nation's original homeland have to live in cities with rampant waste and corruption.

**Aggie** · December 24, 2003, 15:27

I was going to respond but then I saw Nathan's response. That says it all. This change in the FP is not what i wanted. for a matter of fact I'd prefer more FP's not less.
Aggie

**WarpStorm** · December 24, 2003, 15:53

What I would want is an FP that worked more or less like before just without the various exploits.

(Either that or a whole new corruption system based on transit time and number of cities without the concept of rank an the various exploits it gives)

**vmxa1** · December 24, 2003, 16:46

Ok so maybe that is not what everyone wanted. Me I was fine with the way it worked in PTW. I understand what you are saying as it is obvious, I don't mind either way. Just pick the way it works, let me know how it works and I will deal with it.
Stop changing it all the time, that is all I ask.

**Sarxis** · December 24, 2003, 16:59

I wonder if this is a balance fix, considering we have Police and SPHQ now?

It really doesn't bother me the way it is now, but I was rather surprised at how little the FP combats corruption (at least when running Monarchy).

Announcement

Was FP Corruption Bug fixed?

Was FP Corruption Bug fixed?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment