Corruption Levels Are Fair

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

I get the impression that if Firaxian corruption models were applied to the United States IRL, Hawaii would be a haven for corrupt officials and people instead of a vacation destination.

CYBERAmazon

[kolpo]

i haven't heard this idea anywhere, but what if higher culture lowered corruption? sounds very good to me.

Isn't very realistic, Italy has lot's of culture but that doesn't mean that it's corruption is low

[pg]

realism isn't really the point. fun is. right now culture is not really that helpful(unless you are going for culture victory), and corruption can be a bit extreme. tying corruption and culture could be cool and useful way to improve gameplay while allowing the gameplay to be more diverse. at least that is how i see.

[Akaoz]

[Akka]

This corruption thing is in my opinion completely nuts. You can play with it, yes, and it's not "unfair" as the AI has the same penalty. But well, first it does not make any sense. Or if it does, you would have to accept that 90 % of USA is corrupted so much that it can virtually produce nothing, while Cuba suffer no corruption.
I can understand a big level of corruption in the dark age, where communications were slow (and even in this case, nothing more than 80 % corruption at most), but not in a modern time where you can reach whatever place in the world in less than a day.
Having a 1 shield 1 commerce city means that Los Angeles should produce less than a 10 000 people little town under Boston. Just plainly insane.

3) Firaxis has decided to heed the minority of whiners to make them happy

Better be a whiner than a chest banger, whose only argument is "if you think something is not well done then you're a pathetic whiner".

Originally posted by Akaoz

Very constructive and interesting. No, really.

[star mouse]

Corruption should be reduced, sure. But what I would like to see would be a distance factor in the happiness of the people. People would be unhappy about being a long way from the centre of administration. The extra entertainers that would be necessary to eliminate this extra unhappiness would have a similar effect as corruption.

[Ludwig]

Gepap, in response to your request for an example, I will make the somewhat broad observation that at no point in time in Man's roughly 10,000 year history and prehistory has anyone succeeded in conquering the world.

Large empires don't work.

Large ENDURING empires don't exist and have never existed. They fall.

Empires that are remembered for being large and enduring generally weren't. Look at the political and economic history of what is called the "Roman Empire" and count up the number of civil wars, usurpations, multiple emperors, etc. The very largest empires have been the most ephemeral. Power in the Mongol empire devolved to the periphery in a matter of decades. Hitler and Napoleon lost their marbles in timeframes you can measure in months. The British Empire did a bit better - it lasted the equivalent of 15 or 20 civ turns instead of 1 or 2.

Things fall apart. The center cannot hold. Or, in CivIII, your center better be damn good, because that's all you've got to work with if you want to kick everyone else's butt. The territories you take you're taking for one reason only: to deny them to the enemy. But that's a good reason, and if you do enough of it the other side falls apart like a house of cards. Who need production out of outlying cities? As long as I'm taking resources and production away from the AI I feel like I'm making progress.

Conquering the world by military force or by domination should be HARD. I should face resistance by subject nationalities. I should take lots of casualties. I should face a disgruntled peace party in the heartland.

Something needed to be done in the Civ series to make maintenance of large systems more challenging if the game was going to be anything but a yawn-fest. The corruption system does that a little. I actually think a greater chance of outlying cities rising in revolt would be a good device, too - outer areas should require pacification once in a while, WLTKD or no.

[Zylka]

Re: Corruption Levels Are Fair

Originally posted by coriander
Just an observation, but I've noticed that as people have had more time to actually play the game, rather than complain about it, most of them have decided that the level of corruption and waste in Civ 3 isn't unfair, it's just different from what we were used to with Civ 2 and SMAC.

The developers have said that the AI labors under the same burden of corruption as the player does. So again, it's not unfair, just different. There are those who think of "fair" as "balanced in my favor".

People are not complaining about it being "unfair", they are complaining about it not being realistic. Now please answer Vengers post, and/or leave.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by narmox


3) Firaxis has decided to heed the minority of whiners to make them happy

Funny, we have yet another contender for the thread moron crown. Firaxis botched the corruption model quite badly, they are changing it because it is not at all realistic and doesn't even work the way it is intended. It very well could have been a list minute forced handicap to fix over-production; havoc for the initially planned gameplay timeline.

If you're not a "minority whiner", then you won't download the patch as the changes "aren't needed".

Bye.

[TCO]

Maybe we need a corruption scaler. The friggen masochists can set it at "raging thieves" and the whiners (OK. OK. the realists ) can set it at "village corruption". Would that make everybody happy?

[GePap]

Corruption not the answer

Ludwig:
Yes, big empire do not hold and the larger the empire the more difficult to hold, but the current corruption system is not the way to model such an event. These large empires were not broguht down complately by corruption, and corruption existed everywhere (the idea that cpatiols are not corrupt is foolish). They were brough down by the massive cost of ever continueing campaigns, outside attack, and internal revolts. As I said, you should be able, as a governor, to try to squeeze hard and get all you can from the colony, and be able to successfully do so, at the risk of revolt by the colonies (and I don't mean this screwy defection scheme). As is, the model in civ3 is not one of resistence but of your local officals not doing much. In this Game, you can still conquer the entire damn world, just raze what you don't want, kill the rest through forced labor or staarvation. The corruption system does not make conquering the world harder, it makes conquering a world with people outside your own cities harder, and how realistic is that?

[Smash]

The more i play,the less i like this game.
Its ok..but thats it.
My current monarch level republic is losing 491 of 806.But that has little to do with the fun level of this game.
maybe I should rush a factory for that 2nd sheild

A mark of a great game is replayabilty.I can't see myself still playing this game in 5 years like civ2.
Customization and scenarios aren't going to hold me either..since there is none.
Mp,if they ever have it,will be a nightmare
If I make a mod..I may get sued

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Smash

If I make a mod..I may get sued

What do you mean by that? Sarcastic?

[Smash]

yes..at least i hope so.

but think about it,if i make a Swahili or a Latin mod where i just change languages.....do i infringe?

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Venger
Firaxis has said corruption levels would be modified in a patch. So, that means either:

1) Even they recognize corruption is out of hand

2) They will break the game and you will not apply the patch

Which answer do you think best suits the situation?

Venger

they gave in to the pressure to the likes of you who spent their whole 3 weeks whining.