Repairing corruption

[Ray K]

Originally posted by lockstep


As the 'other poster' Ray K referred to, I have to say that the issue of additional corruption hardship on tiny maps is not just a matter of 'credence', but strongly backed by rather simple calculations regarding map sizes, numbers of civs and the 'optimal cities' setting.

lockstep,
my apologies for not remembering your moniker. These forums load too slow!

Again, thank you very much for those calculations. I'm guessing that is probably what turned the tide in demonstrating that, yes, there is a real problem here. Hey, maybe I'm not a newbie whiner after all!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by CygnusZ
1) You have to learn to deal with corruption, it's part of the challange. It really isn't so bad.
2) The goal of Civilization is not "Take over the world"
I won by making the world very good freinds with me.
You could by getting votes in the UN.
You could also win by building a Space Ship.

None of these victories are easy, all must be earned.

Yes, you could win by using those methods, but, what about also being able to win through military means? The way the game is currently configured it is not possible to recreate historical real world empire's like the British, French, Spanish, or Mongol. I admit the purpose of the game isn't to reproduce the real world but shouldn't the player's have the option of creating far flung colonial empires if they want to? Right now that just isn't a practical possibility.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Ray K
lockstep,
my apologies for not remembering your moniker. These forums load too slow!

Again, thank you very much for those calculations. I'm guessing that is probably what turned the tide in demonstrating that, yes, there is a real problem here. Hey, maybe I'm not a newbie whiner after all!

Hey, if you were a newbie, what would I be then?

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13


theres where youre wrong, if i have 13 production in a city, no matter how far away from my capital, i should have more than 1 active prodoctuion. This is ridiculus!

Hmm, You know, I really don't have these problems with corruption. Yeah, it sucks and leeches my resources, but I always manage to get *SOMETHING* out of the city. Worst comes to worst I can always make it "specialistic city".

I have a suspicion that cities experince less corruption the longer they've been in your empire and the stronger your cultural influence.

Maybe Commerical Civs have too large an advantage in dealing with corruption too.. ah well. It's still my opinon that the corruption adds only a bit of challange to the game.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by CygnusZ


Hmm, You know, I really don't have these problems with corruption. Yeah, it sucks and leeches my resources, but I always manage to get *SOMETHING* out of the city. Worst comes to worst I can always make it "specialistic city".

Not on a Tiny map. Give it a shot sometime.

I have a suspicion that cities experince less corruption the longer they've been in your empire and the stronger your cultural influence.

Possibly, although Soren never mentioned that in his post about dealing with corruption.

Maybe Commerical Civs have too large an advantage in dealing with corruption too.. ah well. It's still my opinon that the corruption adds only a bit of challange to the game.

I play a commercial Civ - the Greeks.

Soren has admitted that they may have a corruption problem with the Small & Tiny maps. If there is a problem, they will probably adjust something in the patch.

You guys should be thanking me for complaining about this problem instead of just saying it's OK because it's a new feature.

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Yes, you could win by using those methods, but, what about also being able to win through military means? The way the game is currently configured it is not possible to recreate historical real world empire's like the British, French, Spanish, or Mongol. I admit the purpose of the game isn't to reproduce the real world but shouldn't the player's have the option of creating far flung colonial empires if they want to? Right now that just isn't a practical possibility.

Let me right now assure you that I had a tremendous empire. Not multiple contients, but I managed to clear my contient in the name of Glorious Empire of France. It was easily 30% of the entire landmass. Meanwhile, on the other contient the 4 other "peaceful" (snicker) powers lagged behind me due to their lack of expansion.

I made a choice at a point where I decided I would just load up my gold coffers and spend money on cultural buildlings. I'd say at the middle of the Industrial Era you start to gain the choice of what type of victory you wish to achieve. I'm pretty certain that if I decided I wanted a military victory, I probably would have been able to attain it through the use of Diplomacy.

The game I'm playing I've not decided what type of victory to aim for (I have one more tech in "Ancient"), but given the huge landmass I'm starting on, military is starting to look like a viable solution.

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Ray K
Soren has admitted that they may have a corruption problem with the Small & Tiny maps. If there is a problem, they will probably adjust something in the patch.

You guys should be thanking me for complaining about this problem instead of just saying it's OK because it's a new feature.

I've only played "Normal" maps, so you could be right
Why do you want to play "Tiny" maps anyway?

[yavoon]

ray k ur so transparent.

now u only harp ont his "tiny map" imbalance, well I suggest than that u do ur lil math thing, readjust the # of cities allowed for tiny, and not mess w/ the rest. unfortunately thats not what you did, u set everything to 256 so u didn't have to worry about it nemore. and u could continue to not adapt to new challenges.

good job.

[The Rook]

Adjusting the city limit for map size I can understand, but setting it to 256 so that you can expand all you want is defeating the purpose of the game. You may not agree with the numbers set by Firaxis, so change 'em, but when you go around bragging about how you beat the game on Diety level, be sure to include that little bit of information.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by CygnusZ


I've only played "Normal" maps, so you could be right
Why do you want to play "Tiny" maps anyway?

Very valid reasons.

#1. I like to encounter the other Civs as soon as possible. Ancient-era combat is cool to me, and I like for the early turns in the game to have a real impact on the end. Yes, keeping the Babylonians from expanding into this part of the continent could make the difference.

#2. Every city is important. There's something very tense about being attacked by Roman legions when you only have 5-6 cities in your empire, and your capital city is not that far away.

#3. Less tedium. In the old games, the endgame micromanagement was unbearable for me, and that is cut way down on small maps.

#4. Games play faster. I have to get my Civ playing time in during breaks from the family, so a large map would take me several weeks to play!

In the end, I understand that it's a personal preference. However, if Firaxis is going to make Tiny maps a standard option, they should make them playable.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by yavoon
ray k ur so transparent.

now u only harp ont his "tiny map" imbalance, well I suggest than that u do ur lil math thing, readjust the # of cities allowed for tiny, and not mess w/ the rest. unfortunately thats not what you did, u set everything to 256 so u didn't have to worry about it nemore. and u could continue to not adapt to new challenges.

good job.

oh shut up. You continue to be so uninformed that I shouldn't waste my time responding to your feeble barbs. However, the next poster made a related comment so I will address that.

I set the limit to 256 last night because I didn't know what the proper limits should be. I set them arbitrarily high just to see if the "Optimal # Cities" limit was at the root of the problem. It was.

Now, TODAY -- the poster 'lockstep' has figured out mathematically what the proper numbers should be. From this point on, I will be using those numbers until Firaxis patches the problem.

Tonight will be my first chance to use the proper settings.

[HalfLotus]

If your palace is not near the center of your empire after you get going a bit, relocate it to the center. If you live on two continents, build the forbidden palace on the second one.
Can anyone confirm that happiness and/or culture decreases corruption?

[albiedamned]

Have you tried it on regular map size yet or only tiny? Obviously everyone has their preferences, but I think 3 of your 4 points reasons for preferring tiny maps are not necessarily valid in Civ3:

#1. I like to encounter the other Civs as soon as possible. Ancient-era combat is cool to me, and I like for the early turns in the game to have a real impact on the end. Yes, keeping the Babylonians from expanding into this part of the continent could make the difference.

In my normal map games with 8 civs, I've encountered at least 2 or 3 other civs very early. The only civs I didn't encounter early were those on a different continent, but that should be no different on a tiny map (you still needs techs to cross the ocean).

#2. Every city is important. There's something very tense about being attacked by Roman legions when you only have 5-6 cities in your empire, and your capital city is not that far away.

Every city is important in normal map games too, simply because you don't build nearly as many cities in Civ3 as in Civ2 (at least I don't). I started with a core of 5-6 solid cities, and I didn't expand that for a long time. In fact, I didn't expand it at all until I went to war with one civ and conquered a few, and then culturally assimilated a few from another civ.

#3. Less tedium. In the old games, the endgame micromanagement was unbearable for me, and that is cut way down on small maps.

Given my comments in #2 above (less quantity, higher quality cities), it follows that there should be less micromanagement in the endgame. I haven't gotten to the endgame though, so I can't say for sure!

#4. Games play faster. I have to get my Civ playing time in during breaks from the family, so a large map would take me several weeks to play!

I do agree with this one - games should probably play faster on a tiny map.

I'm not criticizing you here, I just think that given your reasons for preferring a tiny map, you might want to at least try a normal size map if you haven't already.

[yavoon]

ray, ur a petty whiner, the game got hard, u took away the feature that madeit hard then sed "problem solved." I have no respect for that attitude, and I never will.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by albiedamned
I'm not criticizing you here, I just think that given your reasons for preferring a tiny map, you might want to at least try a normal size map if you haven't already.

Well, under the fresh-water problem on Tiny maps is fixed, I will be playing on Small maps. That's a copromise, I guess.