It occurs to me that a lot of these complaints...

[Frugal_Gourmet]

A lot of these complaints could be easily resolved if people wouldn't try all playing the "huge maps". If you don't want massive corruption or the inability to conquer the world or lots of micro-management, play on a reasonably sized map. You'll find a lot of these problems dwindle to nothingness.

I think the corruption was originally modeled on the normal-sized map.

The game was difficult at first, but now that I have the hang of it it's a lot more fun than Civ 2.

[Dravin]

I'm playing on a tiny map and corruption is horrible as well. (They should let you rush build the Forbidden Palace if you ask me, normally that is.)

Of course the effects of distance and the number of cities until corruption changes for each map size, so a Civ that would have minimal corruption on one map size, if transplanted on another map size could have crippling corruption.

[H Tower]

my problem is with the lack of design editor and no standardized starting location on the world map, and no real cheat menu to help design scenarios

[Venger]

I'm playing on a large map and corruption is horrific - oh sure, if you want to sit and have about 20 cities it's okay, but try and expand to be a large country - forget it! I had about 80 cities when I had finally had enough...corruption was still bad, even with editor mods...

Venger

[Terser]

My first two complete CivIII games were on huge maps. Corruption was pretty bad...but tolerable. I couldn't really understand what people were complaining about.

Just finished my fourth complete game on a standard size map. Corruption was far, far worse. It was every bit as bad as people had said: cities eight or nine tiles from my capitol losing all but one shield to corruption. Ridiculous.

Here's hoping the patch restores some reason...

[Terser]

Double post...