Corruption Levels Are Fair

[Zylka]

Originally posted by LaRusso


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

OH GEE! Another one, quite original when it was done in the same thread too! Refer to my post following the one you just copied.

Baby killing, post copying Serbs...

[Akka]

Originally posted by LaRusso


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

Well, let's see :
Venger complain (whine, if you want), about game issue. Wether or not it's justified, it's something that can perhaps make the game better.
You, on the other hand, just whine about whiners. Not only are you doing the exact same thing you're reproaching to Venger, but moreover you add nothing constructive and just start a flame war. Which I know I am still fueling by answering to you, guess I'm about to do the same thing that you do. So I guess I'll have to stop now.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by LaRusso


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

Listen, you moron, have you even played Civ3 without the corruption levels set so high? If not, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

I've played it both ways, and the lower corruption not only makes the game more enjoyable, but it makes the AI more challenging because it is not restricted in the number of cities it can build.

Imagine that. Both the human player and the AIs are stifled by broken corruption model in Civ3, but it is the human player that handles it better. Therefore, the excessive corruption makes the game easier to win AND more frustrating to play.

Of course, you wouldn't know that because you haven't bothered to play the game with lowered corruption.

[Howling Chip]

The relationship between the current corruption model and how it affects tech development......

One thing I like is that in my games at Regency level, large map, 8 Civs, tanks and flight and other modern stuff does not show up in the 1300's. Whatever balancing Firaxis does, I hope it does not result in Hoover Dams, Seti project, stealth bombers by 1500 AD.

Yes, after continuous play since the game came out, I have learned to adapt to the corruption model. IMO, tweaking the corruption would be good, as long as it is not done independent of the effect lower corruption will have on the rest of the game. I hope they consider adjusting the cost of city improvements, units and tech because you will have more cities that can now actually have a decent shield/commerce count.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Howling Chip
The relationship between the current corruption model and how it affects tech development......

Is a real concern...

One thing I like is that in my games at Regency level, large map, 8 Civs, tanks and flight and other modern stuff does not show up in the 1300's. Whatever balancing Firaxis does, I hope it does not result in Hoover Dams, Seti project, stealth bombers by 1500 AD.

Reducing corruption will increase the tech learning rate. Fortunately, there is a simple multiplier controlling this that Firaxis can easily fine-tune to keep techs appearing in the proper age. All it takes is some playtesting.

Yes, after continuous play since the game came out, I have learned to adapt to the corruption model. IMO, tweaking the corruption would be good, as long as it is not done independent of the effect lower corruption will have on the rest of the game. I hope they consider adjusting the cost of city improvements, units and tech because you will have more cities that can now actually have a decent shield/commerce count.

Well, the main problem with corruption is that units and improvements are essentially unbuildable in the corrupt cities. I don't think they should raise the cost of them. Both the players and the AI need to build these items in their cities.

[player1]

First, corrupt cities do have economy.
Second, they also have a production.

The thing is, that because of corrption, cities don't use its resouses in the way it is intended.
Like some local governer using some emerors gold for himself, or production for his own palace.
Than also many buerocrats, take some money for themselfs also.

Now, world conquest is usually done in order of gaining resouses.
I am not talking about things like iron, I am taliking about wood, basic metals and manpower, all things tied to production.

So if that is the need of conquest, then why is then prodction in conquered cities so big (there is no reward)?

Now, I can understand economic factor with corruption like it is now.
But, having shield corrption so big is a little to much.
It is much easier to steal money then to take production.

Still, it doesn't mean that big emires should have no problems.
Corruption should be big in big empires.

But, it must be done diferently.

DISTANCE FACTOR should be MUCH SMALLER.
SIZE FACTOR should be BIGGER (more cities, biger trouble)
But, all owerall a little lower then now.

Also production shouldn't be lower then some minimum (like 30%)

Governments shouldn't be always to centralized like now (distance factor)
I think that having ability to build MULTIPLE Forbbiden Palaces should be in game
(on standard map: 2 with 16 cities, 3 with 24, etc...)
Also every new such palace should be costlier then older one (we don't wan't to make gave to easy, do we?)

P.S.
Personaly, I don't think that just lowering some corruption modifier is solution.
Corruption should just be done a little diferent.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by player1
DISTANCE FACTOR should be MUCH SMALLER.
SIZE FACTOR should be BIGGER (more cities, biger trouble)
But, all owerall a little lower then now.

Also production shouldn't be lower then some minimum (like 30%)

Couldn´t agree more. This is, in a nutshell, what I expect Firaxis to do in the first patch. And the new distance and size factors should be tested for all map sizes.

[vee4473]

Hi,

I noticed the higher corruption when I moved into a barbarian encampment and they joined me by giving me a city.

The encampment was far from my established territory and I noticed that it had massive corruption.

I also agree that higher corruption is realistic the further you are from the home base, and I like the concept, but I have yet to find a method of countering it.

The frustration sets in when you build the city improvements designed to ward off corruption and you find that the waste of shields goes from 12 to 10...

If the designers intent was to include realistic corruption, they should have also included realistic countermeausres i think...maybe I am wrong...it is a game after all..

[Venger]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

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.

This is a great point - as each age advances, the affect that distance from the capital has on corruption should go down. The world today is an immediate place, distance no longer means much of anything...

Venger

[Venger]

Re: Corruption not the answer

Originally posted by GePap
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.

And to put a fine point on it, most empires fall due to failed leadership. Rome was both well and poorly led at times, and it's fortunes showed it. Had Rome truly been a Republic, it had a chance to endure far longer than it did. The thing that damns most empires is the mortality of those wise enough to rule them well.

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).

Colonies in Civ3 aren't colonies, they're strip mines. Had a colony been a creation that grew like any other city, that was controlled by the AI, rather than the players, they could have been far more interesting. Alas...

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?

Conquering the world is just as easy in Civ3 as it was in Civ2, except that now I have to behave like a genocidal maniac in order to expand my empire, rather than being a benevolent conqueror.

Venger

[Venger]

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

Well I see the village jackass hasn't stopped braying...

Venger

[GePap]

Colonies useless

Venger:
When i spoke of colonies, i mean any city created far away from your homeland for whatever (usually economic) reasons. The only reason to use what the game calls colonies is to exploit a resource in a useless place or in a place where corruption (that fiend again!) would generally make the city useless. I agree that those little outposts were executed badly.

[Venger]

Re: Colonies useless

Originally posted by GePap
Venger:
When i spoke of colonies, i mean any city created far away from your homeland for whatever (usually economic) reasons. The only reason to use what the game calls colonies is to exploit a resource in a useless place or in a place where corruption (that fiend again!) would generally make the city useless. I agree that those little outposts were executed badly.

Ah - I see now. Yes, the colony in the game is kinda useless - I built my first one just last turn though, in 1800! I am steamrolling the Aztecs (cause that rotten toothed little evil priçk Moctezuma had it coming) and took his captial where the oil was (how CONVENIENT for them), but it was still one square away. So I took one of his captured workers (heh) and made a colony out of it. So I can queue up oil based units again until the game can figure out a way to screw me out of oil once again...

Venger

[Ludwig]

Venger's post about the distance to capital issue reminds me of something that's been bugging me -

After I build railroads everywhere [you know, as in "on every square within my borders"] why doesn't the distance to capital penalty completely disappear? Based on the movement point cost, all of my cities are now equidistant from my capital - i.e. ZERO distance.

Cities linked by rails - or by a combination of harbors and rails - should suffer NO distance to capital penalty. Zip.

I've been halfheartedly defending other aspects of the corruption system, but the way it calculates distance to capital is just wrong. It should be based on the movement point cost for a unit to travel between the two cities, and it should drop to zero when it would cost zero movement points to get to a city from your capital.

If someone pops onto this thread and says, "Oh, that IS the way it's calculated, and all the corruption you see is caused by the # of cities in your empire," then the thing IS broken.

[Hunter Hutchins]

Remember that we are not looking strictly at realism, but at how fun the gameplay is. Firaxis seems willing to make this sacrifice. That said, I think corruption is too extreme, and that it should be related to the difficulty level.

Also can you garrison in colonies? Can they have a defense? I haven't checked that out since I never built many colonies up to this point.