Forbidden Palace - catch 22

[player1]

I agree, that corruption shoudl do the way it is designed, but I think that effect should be toned down, a little.
Like:

-Corruption on Tiny map should be like corruption on Small map
-Corruption on Small map should be like corruption on Medium map
-Corruption on Medium map should be like corruption on Large map
-Corruption on Large map should be like corruption on Gigantic map
-Corruption on Gigantic map shoudl be lower than now.

-just to improve a GAMEPLAY

-I mean it is OK if you can't realy controll (make usefull) a 60% of World, but make it possibile to control a 40%, not a 15%.

[Robert]

btw, I wouldn't say that the point of the high corruption is "fewer cities are better." It is simply the negative side of having a huge number of cities. Certainly, there are positive things about having that many cities!

In Civ2, more cities was always better, so it failed to qualify as an "interesting decision" (one of Sid's requirements for good gameplay...) In Civ3, we believe that having more cities is better under certain circumstances and having less cities is better under certain circumstances

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis


btw, I wouldn't say that the point of the high corruption is "fewer cities are better." It is simply the negative side of having a huge number of cities. Certainly, there are positive things about having that many cities!

In Civ2, more cities was always better, so it failed to qualify as an "interesting decision" (one of Sid's requirements for good gameplay...) In Civ3, we believe that having more cities is better under certain circumstances and having less cities is better under certain circumstances.

Did anyone test the game on a Tiny map?

The map generation for that size has an annoying habit of providing very few rivers or fresh-water areas.

[dennis580]

Well thats one way to stop ICS dead in its tracks. You probaly should just concentrate on building a few big cities instead.

[Hose]

Re: Re: catch 22

Originally posted by Oerdin


The answer is simple; an inadequate amount of playtesting was done. I hope this issue will be fixed by an upcoming patch and that the game can be balanced to allow a military victory as well. Right now Fraxis has been so anti-military that controlling a colonial empire is virtually impossible.

patch?? ahh, come on! the hole corruption thing is great! it's one of several more realistic facettes of Civ3.
Most of the strategies used in Civ2 don't work anymore and that's just great!
i didn't pay $60 just to play another Civ2 with some enhanced graphics...

[Master Marcus]

to resume the discussion about corruption: this is obviously an anti-ICS move, planned from the start by the team to imprint a more realistic struggle between strong civs til almost the end of a long game. So far Civ III's AI is strong when defending and attacking, and expand at a fast pace. The genocidal and extermination thing is much more hazardous to manage. I agree though the Forbidden Palace isn't as beneficial as it should for the cost. A good candidate for a fix in the first patch. Also, in distant cities the corruption should affect the gold income as it is now , but with a lighter side effect on the shields. This should be fixed, if possible, in a way where some of the good citizens of a distant city can logically work as hard as some nearer the capital, without the exaggerated inefficiency in the actual Civ III version, but the cash flow can still be a problem.

Just need a slight balancing with a FP fix, but so far I like how they did balance the empire thriving in the game.

[Grumbold]

I can understand it as an anti-ICS move in the pre-industrial era but find it very disturbing that more advanced governments with modern communications cannot improve upon a corruption rate of everything bar one shield. I wouldn't accuse any "modern" country, no matter how large, of being that inefficient. Even the backward ones only suffer rates like that when there is civil war going on. Smells like a bug in the government code IMO.

[joey703]

Re: Re: Re: catch 22

Originally posted by Hose


patch?? ahh, come on! the hole corruption thing is great! it's one of several more realistic facettes of Civ3.
Most of the strategies used in Civ2 don't work anymore and that's just great!
i didn't pay $60 just to play another Civ2 with some enhanced graphics...

I agree. Even though I havent tried out the smaller maps, i m playing on a large map and my civ has about 30 cities. Under democracy, and with the forbidden palace sm. wonder in a pretty central spot. Corruption is manageable.

[Ray K]

Re: Re: Re: Re: catch 22

Originally posted by joey703


I agree. Even though I havent tried out the smaller maps, i m playing on a large map and my civ has about 30 cities. Under democracy, and with the forbidden palace sm. wonder in a pretty central spot. Corruption is manageable.

The "optimal cities" setting for a large map is 24 cities. With a forbidden palace, this is probably better.

Let us know how you border cities are functioning when you get to 40 cities.

[SuiteSisterMary]

more advanced governments with modern communications

Lord knows that Roman Republic or Greek Democracy had great communications. :-)

Now, a couple of advancements should, in theory, reduce corruption. Computers, for example; better record keeping. That sort of thing.

[dainbramaged13]

I hvae this problem too, rush-bought courthouse (or else it would have taken 58 turns with only one prodcution in a size six city, admittedly, half-way across the normal map because of conquest) did absolut++++NOTHING to raise productions rates.

Corruptions definetly needs to be reduced. I agree, it is a good anti-ics measure, but its basically impossible to play as a warmonger in the ancient and middle ages before communism because of the corruption it makes in conquered cities around the globe. I cant build the forbidden palace because it woudl take 300 turns and i cant rush buy it, and i dont have a leader (never had one, even though i have plenty of elites and elite riders running around conquering cities...

[Kc7mxo]

Well, I for one like this corruption, i just wish i knew more about its causes.

But the problem is that the AI doesn't have a clue. If I don't expand all over the map, then the AI will. Which leads to the same problem.

Not eaxactly sure what should be done . . . .

[player1]

Maybe the bets solution is to decrease WASTE (from prod.)
I mean in far distatnt city you just conquered, you can use local resources to build aditional army, but science & trade will stagnate. That way you will compenzate to Warmongers & make Corthouse & F. city easier to build.

On the other way by keeping corruption (from gold), you wil stop a peacfull player from OVERexpanding.

That way you CAN MAKE A STARTEGIC DECISION:
-will you otp form smaller empire with better science & gold rate, or
-will you otp form bigger empire with better production (if wasted is reduced) & military, but bad science.

So if you overexpand, some smaller empire whould get crucail TECH. & take some of your land by militaristic means.

I think that this is reallistic & fun!

P.S. Anyway in civ2 waste was only problem in Despotism.

[Howling Chip]

Playing for three days solid at Regent Level, large map, 8 civilizations. All my games I have gone gung ho for culture (temples as one of my first three builds). I grab all the luxury resources I can get with roads, and base my city builds on luxury items. I've yet to have more than 15-20 cities so far. And I have not made it to the third age in any game yet. The game I am currently playing was started four hours ago. I am up to 980 AD and am in good shape.

From my experience to date with corruption, it is not a bug. I have never had the extremes some have posted. I am not playing total conquest war mongering either. Not to say I have not had my share of wars. I do not start them (well I did goad the Romans into war more than once, and, uh, in my current game the Aztecs asked me if I wanted to give them gold or blood, "make my day" I replied).

Rules have changed from CIV II on how you play. It has been years since CIV II was a challenge at Prince Level. I get the impression that attention to detail will be required in CIV III until one understands how the relationships between cities, population, luxury, tax allocation, etc. etc. all work. I think its to early to think a "patch" or adjustment is required for corruption. Sure this is a challenge, but I am enjoying it. My successes in technology research, finance management, war, they all get better with each game.

I plan to stay with it, read the posts as others find the way to manage corruption and other aspects of the game, and share what works for me (like the culture and luxury angles in paragraph one).

PS: That strategy guide that many claimed would be useless has been very very helpful on figuring this game out in conjunction with the manual. That and three straight days of play.

[chumly]

Re: Culture Power

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
It seems culture is extremely potent in this game & perhaps the 1 area the AI is lacking. I haven't read of anyone losing cities to an AI because of culture, but I've read plenty of people gaining multiple cities from the enemies by culture. Culture also helps with the happiness (and thus production) of your citizens from what I've read. It almost seems culture power is too powerful... especially given the quantity of cities to be gained & since it is not seen as war-like. Comments?

I've read plenty of people playing on difficulties lower than Monarch as well. Yes, I've had the AI consume my cities via culture, several times (as well as combined military assaults, propaganda, etc)

This isn't a slam on people who like Chieftan, just a statement that drawing some conclusions based on many games at a given difficulty do not hold true in some areas of the game (AI most particularly)

World size and configuration are also a big part of the picture.