Corruption Levels Are Fair

[Deathray]

Originally posted by Roytheboy


I'm wondering that too

What map size is it ?

Did you play around with the num city limits in the .bic with the editor ?

Have you ever had any corruption problems with the empire ?

What year is it ?

How can I make empire so corruption free ?????

Huge map, 16 civs, continents with 70% water coverage.

I haven't even loaded up the editor yet.

I have yet to have corruption problems in any of my 8 games.

It is 1997.

Well, I dunno. My technique:
Never let two cities share the same radius square. I personally build in a grid pattern.
Stick the forbidden palace in the middle of the continent.
Build courthouses in each of the cities.
Connect all of the cities to the capital.
Have strong culture (not sure if this affects it).
Don't have cities on other continents.
Raze foreign cities and build your own cities in their place.

[Allemand]

Corruption on a huge map is a real bear. If you find a nice little unoccupied island on the other side of the world you can't do much with it because production will always be one shield per turn. That's not good.

On the other hand, I would like to see higher corruption in captured cities, no matter where they are, until the population becomes less hostile. A city inhabited by my enemies should not produce as much for me as one inhabited by loyal subjects.

[greggbert]

I think that the corruption levels are fine the way they are. With the new AI and rules, I do not want a single AI player on a large continent to nuke me in 1624 because they were able to build 200 cities with factories.

The main bonus of the corruption levels, are twofold (1) you end up with a modern age with many more significant civs vying for power and (2), the game is more challenging all the way through, not just until the point where you hit that "domination" point. That is not fun, especially when it happens in the ancient times.

Having this all figure automatically into corruption is certainly a lot better than alpha centauri, where all the civs declare war on you once you get to a certain size.

-Gregg

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Deathray


Huge map, 16 civs, continents with 70% water coverage.

Well, there you go.

For corruption, the 'Max # Cities" is set to 8 for Tiny maps, and 32 for Huge maps.

You're barely over the limit, probably under it when you consider the Forbidden Palace.

[STING]

Originally posted by LaRusso


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

my god, another short-minded reply.......
The corruption thing just isn't realistic, and Firaxis also saw that. (they maybe even changed it already without the user feedback)

[codemast01]

Originally posted by greggbert
I do not want a single AI player on a large continent to nuke me in 1624 because they were able to build 200 cities with factories.

A possible compromise between your point of view and others who want courruption reduced is for a specific tech to be created and added to the modern age.

[Unnamed Tech]
effects : allows an amount of gold per turn to be invested into any city with a courthouse. The more gold invested the more effective the courthouse is at reducing corruption.

The tech should be in the modern age because it is not until the modern age do people have fast forms of communications. Before this time there is no television and radio and therefore no pesky investigative reporters that weed out corruption.

The tech being in the modern age should address greggbert's concerns. Also the expansion is slowed because it should be costly to have a large and efficient empire.

[Bismark29]

Re: Re: Corruption not the answer

Originally posted by Venger


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.



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...



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

I couldn't agree more with your point about conquering the world. That's exactly why something needs to be done about the corruption. Cross your fingers

[Grumbold]

If you are so dominant you can take out the enemy capital every turn that seems to prevent reversions and allows you to swallow the cities rather than raze them.

[BigBopper]

Give me choice or give me death! Why oh why can't I set up game rules before a game starts like in civ 2, smac and even in the CTP's?!? We can controll age, land type, size of the map, and barbarian lvls, etc. So why not corruption lvls, etc. etc. I say let the hard core freaks play on diety, small map with high coruption, raging barbarians, 16 civs, and cities that revolt at the drop of the hat. Me, I'll play what I think is fun. Yep thats right contrary to what some of you think, I have a right to have fun my way, to spell worth crap, and to be horrible at grammer.

[habitualuser]

Re: Corruption realistic?

Originally posted by kailhun
But also point of view. Is the USA (large) more corrupt than the Netherlands (small)? Well yes. This is because listening to lobbyists, and being wined and dined by them, is considered corrupt by the Dutch. From a Dutch point of view the Americans have institutionalized corruption. From an American point of view lobbying isn't corruption, it's simply excersing your right to talk to the people's representative and stating your point of view.

I knew there was a reason (other then the coffee shops) I loved the Dutch

You hit the nail on the head, there is no corruption in the US... it's just the cost of doing business




As for the game, making corruption based on the difficultly level would be a good solution that would please everyone...

Also the penalty for having cities of a physically diffrent landmass should be reduced. Yeah a colony on the other side of the world should suffer more corruption, but not an island right off my coast (that always seems to have a stratigic or luxury resource)


My main complaint is that is AI DOES GET A REDUCTION in corruption...

In the game I was playing, a few games ago (Warlord, Large Map of Med. Islands, 6 Civs), I had just finished completely settling my Island when I made contact with the Japanese. They had manages to totally settle and island that was about the same size as mine, plus another two islands whose total size was also about the same. He had about twice the number of cities that I did, with seemingly no or minimal corruption. There capitol was on the east shore of the western most island, but the eastern most island still should have been suffering such corruption as to make all those cities on usable, but they had no problem pumping out units....

I guess I wouldn't have minded it so much if I was playing on Emperor or Diety and not Warlord...

When they say the computer doesn't get any bonuses or doesn't cheat they're lying.... my favorite is AI tremlines, err Galleys, crossing long stretches of sea to reach me (and I'm the one w/ the Great Lighthouse), or when they head out to the open ocean from off my coast, only to return the next turn...


ps. playing on regant now. having my cities make a settler every other unit makes the start of the game is boring as hell, but once all the available land has been taken it really picks up

[Grumbold]

Re: Re: Corruption realistic?

Originally posted by habitualuser
As for the game, making corruption based on the difficultly level would be a good solution that would please everyone...

No solution would please everyone, since there are boud to be some who want to play on monarch+ with less corruption or more anti-corruption measures.

My main complaint is that is AI DOES GET A REDUCTION in corruption...

In the game I was playing, a few games ago (Warlord, Large Map of Med. Islands, 6 Civs), I had just finished completely settling my Island when I made contact with the Japanese. They had manages to totally settle and island that was about the same size as mine, plus another two islands whose total size was also about the same. He had about twice the number of cities that I did, with seemingly no or minimal corruption. There capitol was on the east shore of the western most island, but the eastern most island still should have been suffering such corruption as to make all those cities on usable, but they had no problem pumping out units....

Remember that Despots and Communists can rush production using population and growth is not affected by corruption. Its a key way of expanding at the start of the game and if you have good food tiles, production can actually drop significantly if you switch to monarchy or republic too early.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Corruption not the answer

Originally posted by Venger


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.
Venger

But hte reason the Roman Republic fell to the empire, was, in large part. corruption associated with the administration of a large empire. Governors (generally Senators) played their own games in the provinces. Attempts were made to have equites man corruption courts in Rome to judge governors, but these were bitterly opposed by many in the Senatorial class. And the equites, who were bureaucrats, contractors, etc in the provinces were often corrupt themselves and governors needed power to keep them in check. Ultimately the vast corrupt wealth fed ever growing Senatorial ambitions, leading to the civil wars in the last century of the Republic. Which is why there was so little real resistance when Augustus effectively ended the Republic.

Better leadership might have helped Rome survive longer. It almost certainly could NOT have let it get any BIGGER, except perhaps for some rounding out here and there. Which seems to be the point at issue.

LOTM