The problem with corruption: defined

[AHO]

My problem with corruption is not simply that it exists, because, to the contrary, I think it poses an excellent challenge to the would-be Empire-Builder, one that was probably met by "real" leaders throughout history. My problem with corruption as a challenge in this game is that there is no viable solution. Once you venture just a few squares away from your capital, (some of you have this measured out precisely--I think it's like 20 squares or so) you can build all the courthouses, police stations, and Forbidden palaces you want, but NOTHING will bring down the 99% corruption. Call me crazy but when I play an Empire-Building game, at some point, I expect to actually be able to build something. Is waiting 80 turns (translation, 800-1600 years) to build a courthouse only to find out that it had absolutely no effect anybody's idea of fun?

Some people are modifying the editor to give other buildings, such as a bank, corruption reducing effects, but I argue that one shouldn't have to edit a game's rules just to make it tolerable. What these "editors" are trying to do is something that Firaxis needs to address in the next installment: create a working recourse for corruption. In history, what did Caesar do, or, what did Alexander do? Build a courthouse? Send in an army? Execute the governor? They must have done something because there were Greek libraries in Egypt, and there are still Roman aqueducts and baths all over Europe. Did Hadrian wait 1000 years for his wall?

Again, I don't complain that corruption exists, and I don't even complain that it's too high, it's just that the player has no recourse to correct it. I don't mind a challenge, I just want to be able to find a solution, and when I find it, I want it to actually work.

What's the point of working a puzzle if it has no solution?

[Pyrodrew]

And that's with the patch?

[SithUK]

AHO: 100% agree!

I love empire building games and couldn't wait for the release of Civ3 (been civing since the original civ). I no longer play Civ3 for the simple reason that its no longer an empire building game due to the absolutly cripling effect that the corruption in Civ3 is set at.

I wasn't ranting about corruption when I got my hands on Civ3. Rather I decided to play it for a week or two to make my mind up. Well its made up. I have stopped playing because it isn't fun for me. I'm not saying its not possible to enjoy this game because I'm sure lots of people do. I'm simply saying that for myself, as an empire builder, it is no fun.

I'm hoping that an upcoming patch will add a slider/option to the game creation that allows us to set corruption at Civ2 levels (I enjoyed building a great empire in Civ2 and even in Civ1). I don't mind if they leave the corruption in but make it an OPTION for those of us who like empire building games (which Civ3 in its current form is anything but).

Thanks,

Sith

[art_vandelai]

There's absolutely no reason why a police station shouldn't cause a reduction in corruption. I don't see why Firaxis didn't include this in the patch - otherwise there really isn't much point in building police stations.

In the real world, cops don't prevent legitimate dissent and unhappiness among the population - they prevent crime (=c correuption) and maintain law and order in the civilaization).

Could you imagine a real world where 95% of Hawaii's production was lost to corruption just because it's so far away from Washington?

[AHO]

Exactly, Art! Can one really argue that Hawaii has more corruption than Washington DC because it's further away and off the continent?


But even if you want to make it part of the game, let me be able to BUILD something in Hawaii to counter these effects. Someone has just suggested being able to put a Great Leader in your far flung cities to reduce corruption. Great! I love it! Keep 'em coming! But please, Firaxis, listen to your customers!!!!!

[Segal]

renfro

Hmmm, very true.

To have a representative model, in a Democratic government, corruption should be highest at the Capital and decrease as you get further away.

[HawaiiFive-O]

With the patch, Police Stations DO reduce corruption.

And everyone knows that Hawaii loses 95% of its production due to the perfect weather, sandy beaches, and warm water.

Not from corruption.



Hey, surf's up! Guess I'll call in sick today. Anyone who's been a manager (or for that matter, an employee) in Hawaii will know what I mean...

[Nadexander]

I totally agree. I think the real kicker though is that corruption is solely determined by distance. It makes no distinction between conquering far flung neighbors and dominating with military rule (expected high corruption) or a city that happens to be a bit far away but is an ancient and well integrated part of a civilization with a high culture rating. Compare the distant cities on the mongol empire having very high corruption but san francisco desnt have any more corruption than washington dc. This would make it possible to build a a large empire over time, but it would make it harder to steam-roll the enitre world in a conquering spree.

[Jumping Choya]

This is kindof off the top of my head, but the idea of a city's corruption being reduced over time seems to make sense to me. As it gets settled in and a more orderly structure is established, corruption and waste would decrease.

Opinions?

[Jumping Choya]

Ah, crud. Double post, and it won't let me delete.

[art_vandelai]

Corruption in democracy

I think corruption should be more influenced by being near other civs and by culture points of opposing civs in the city.

For example, a city that was recently taken over would be almost entirely corrupt, until your culture is equal to the previous owner's culture in that city, when it would be 50%, and continue to decline from there.

Similarly, corruption would also be impacted in a small way from the accumulated culture of neighboring cities (i.e. a Roman city surrounded by Greeks would be more corrupt than a city at the heart of the empire)

Being on a different continent should also be a contributing factor, but away from your home continent you're more likely to have other civs around you, so corruption would still be high when building cities on a contient away from home.

[Cypselus]

Corruption should also decrease as communications improve. Speedier travel and communications increase a ruler's reach. It's much harder to rip off the king when his agents are in constant contact with you and can make a surprise visit on the afternoon flight. Technologies like railroads, computers, and flight should all serve to increase the reach of the capital city. Police stations, airports, and courthouses should all decrease waste and corruption. But base corruption is still too high anyway; the notion that any city more than x distance away from your capital will produce nothing, regardless of what you do is neither plausible, historically accurate, nor fun.

[YC4B4U]

I agree with the idea that advances in communication technology should reduce the corruption effects.

I like a game where I can build an empire over time, and still have land to settle later in the game. If expansion is hindered by corruption (to the AI as well) then this situation can occur. If technology reduces corruption - then the larger the empire can become over time (and not because I stopped pumping out settlers).

Propoganda can work much the same. Decreasing chance of Propoganda takeovers with increasing communications technology.

[AzureFlame]

Originally posted by Cypselus
Corruption should also decrease as communications improve. Speedier travel and communications increase a ruler's reach. It's much harder to rip off the king when his agents are in constant contact with you and can make a surprise visit on the afternoon flight. Technologies like railroads, computers, and flight should all serve to increase the reach of the capital city. Police stations, airports, and courthouses should all decrease waste and corruption. But base corruption is still too high anyway; the notion that any city more than x distance away from your capital will produce nothing, regardless of what you do is neither plausible, historically accurate, nor fun.

YES!!! Brilliant, that's exactly how it should work! Corruption should stay as is (1.16f) for Ancient Era, then the distances and max cities should increase by 25% in each era. Would keep the empires smaller initially and allow them to grow over time as communication and transport improves.

[SSBLoveU]

I am making much more gold with cities far away. Yet, transportation cost and maintenance have skyrocketed.