Forbidden Palace - catch 22

[Hans2]

I think the theory that Firaxis wanted to make the game less of a war-mongering one is very likely, especially when you remember that Fundamentalism was eliminated as a government form and not replaced.

[Soren Johnson]

I just wanted to let everyone know that I have been following this thread and while I still do believe that corruption has been modelled correctly to make Civ III fun, we may have made some mistakes regarding Tiny and Small maps.

At any rate, I will examine this issue fully before we release the patch...

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
I just wanted to let everyone know that I have been following this thread and while I still do believe that corruption has been modelled correctly to make Civ III fun, we may have made some mistakes regarding Tiny and Small maps.

At any rate, I will examine this issue fully before we release the patch...

Many thanks for the clarification, Soren.

BTW, is there some reward for a poor European who makes valuable contributions to a Civ3 patch even if he doesn´t have the game yet? (E.g., I´d like to read the manual. )

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
I just wanted to let everyone know that I have been following this thread and while I still do believe that corruption has been modelled correctly to make Civ III fun, we may have made some mistakes regarding Tiny and Small maps.

At any rate, I will examine this issue fully before we release the patch...

Thanks, I really appreciate that.

I know that Tiny maps don't get much testing because the majority of Civers want huge, expansive campaigns. I like quick, tight fights where Ancient-Era combat can make or break your game.

If you are really serious about making Tiny map games playable, please do something about the lack of fresh water. I have had only one game (out of about 8) where I had access to fresh water (one inland lake square). I used it to create a huge irrigation chain through my empire.

I *know* that you guys didn't intend it to be that restrictive, and I have started games on larger maps to see if rivers are more commonplace (they are by a longshot). So please check this out as well. I can't find a way in the scenario editor to increase the number of rivers.

[Döbeln_2001]

Here's what I do: I force build, using forced labor. Food production isn't affected by corruption - thus, converting poulation to shields becomes a very attractive option for building a courthouse, for instance...

Regards / Döbeln 2001

[Green Giant]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
I just wanted to let everyone know that I have been following this thread and while I still do believe that corruption has been modelled correctly to make Civ III fun, we may have made some mistakes regarding Tiny and Small maps.

At any rate, I will examine this issue fully before we release the patch...

I like the idea to increase the effect of corruption, just tone it down a little for all size maps. Thats my 2 cents.

[LtChambers]

I have to second Ray's plea for better fresh water placement. I think it was somewhat of a mistake in the first place to limit irrigation to freshwater only, as it results in the computer making huge grids of mines on GRASSLAND squares when freshwater is unavailable! I actually had to modify my standard earth map to put rivers in EUROPE! Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Rome built on the banks of the Tigris? I have to wonder if the team really took the Earth maps seriously when they got ready for release - I for one really enjoy playing them more than anything else because you can remake OUR history, not somebody else's. Lack of rivers and England being a hilly blotch to the west of the Iberian peninsula are my two biggest complaints about this game - everything else is great, including this new idea of corruption mainly based around your populace's happiness (feeling of unity).

Thanks!

[Sandman]

but wasn't Rome built on the banks of the Tigris?

Wasn't it the Tiber? The Tigris is in the Middle East.

[old dog]

I haven't played thoroughly enough to be anything like sure, but maybe some of you can check my theory: Are luxuries/happiness related to corruption and efficiency? I have a sense that a somewhat far flung city is better off if it has a few luxuries. But, who knows, maybe I'm crazy. (My wife vouches for the latter theory )

[Ray K]

Originally posted by old dog
I haven't played thoroughly enough to be anything like sure, but maybe some of you can check my theory: Are luxuries/happiness related to corruption and efficiency? I have a sense that a somewhat far flung city is better off if it has a few luxuries. But, who knows, maybe I'm crazy. (My wife vouches for the latter theory )

Well, she knows you better than I, so I have to go with 'crazy'

[LarryLard]

Originally posted by Sandman


Wasn't it the Tiber? The Tigris is in the Middle East.

Sandman is right. Rome is on the Tiber (now called the Tevere). The Tigris in modern-day Iraq. The Tigris and the Euphrates were the two rivers that gave Mesopotamia ("the Land between the Rivers") its name.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by lockstep
Civ3´s normal map (100*100) is approximately 2.8 times larger than the tiny map (60*60); the huge map (180*180) is 9 times larger than the tiny map. Other things equal (land coverage etc.), the number of placeable cities is also 2.8 times resp. 9 times higher. The default number of civs is 4 on the tiny map, 8 on the normal map and 16 on the huge map. Therefore, the 'average' civ should be able to found more cities on the 'bigger' maps; the ratios are approximately 1.4 (normal compared to tiny map) and 2.25 (huge compared to tiny map).

In the 'optimal cities' setting that seems to define the number of cities with 'reasonable' waste and corruption for the different maps, one would expect to find the same ratios; however, this is not the case. The setting is 8/12/16/24/32 (the numbers for small and large maps included), i.e. the ratios mentioned above are 2 (instead of 1.4) and 4 (instead of 2.25). Therefore, waste and corruption will be much harder on tiny maps than on normal or huge maps, other things equal. I don´t know if this was done intentionally.

If it is deemed necessary to ease waste and corruption for tiny maps, I´d suggest that we assume the settings for the normal map - including an 'optimal cities' number of 16 - to be reasonably balanced by Firaxis. Adopting the ratios derived from map size and number of civs would then result in a new 'optimal cities' setting of 12/14/16/21/26, making waste and corruption easier on tiny maps and harder on huge maps.

(I posted this on another thread and thought I'd put it here to.)

I have to respectfully disagree with this evaluation, unless of course you're willing to scale back the amount of movement points each unit receives as well as the amount of land each city can work?

It is my belief that the numbers are skewed to reflect the very smallness and largeness of the respectable map sizes. For instance, on a Huge map it would take a naval unit much, much longer to circle the world while on a tiny map it would probably take only take a matter of turns. To balance this I imagine that the numbers need to be skewed in order to reflect the relative size of the map. Allowing only a few cities on a tiny map means that your enemies capital is less likely to be within striking distance of your entire army. Giving players more cities on a Huge map increases the likelyhood of you being within striking distance of at least your enemies border cities.

While the math that has been done is interesting it fails to consider that the amount of land worked per city and that amound of movement points per units remains unchanged. If one is to truly scale the game down I think these things must also be considered.

[Admiral PJ]

Not enough rivers? I guess we'll have to use more sea harbours on those maps to get the extra food bonus.
Perhaps you need to change the settings in the map generation screen to make it a wet world for small maps etc?
I always thought using sea water to drink was unrealistic , but I hope there are some interesting ways of getting water like drilling for Well aquifers or Canals- if not there should be to make up for this crippling factor.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
Not enough rivers? I guess we'll have to use more sea harbours on those maps to get the extra food bonus.
Perhaps you need to change the settings in the map generation screen to make it a wet world for small maps etc?
I always thought using sea water to drink was unrealistic , but I hope there are some interesting ways of getting water like drilling for Well aquifers or Canals- if not there should be to make up for this crippling factor.

Harbors help a little, but to grow effectively you need tiles that can produce three food.

I tried using a "wet" world earlier tonight and it solved the "no rivers" problem. What a relief!

I just had my most fun game since buying Civ3. Tiny world, 16 civs, fighting tooth and nail to grow all of the way.

[LtChambers]

whoops

Originally posted by LarryLard


Sandman is right. Rome is on the Tiber (now called the Tevere). The Tigris in modern-day Iraq. The Tigris and the Euphrates were the two rivers that gave Mesopotamia ("the Land between the Rivers") its name.

Yeah, that's it! LOL! I knew it was one of the two :P Both extremely important rivers though - the default earth map with Civ3 didn't have a player starting point near the Fertile Crescent (same area)! The current middle east is a damn good example of what happens to land when it's used heavily for 5000 years...

Also - maybe drinking salt water is unrealistic, but irrigating land with it is not (completely). Though salinated soil will lead to infertility eventually (from what I learned from env. sci.), it's not like people wouldn't be able to water their crops at all! Maybe irrigation that doesn't have access to freshwater should be "salinated irrigation" which only provides half the benefit of irrigation (but still always producing at least one food).