Tweet
In righting my long-winded article on what I like and don't like about Civ3, I realized that several features that I find enjoyable are a bane to other players. Hence, I decided to try to create an open debate on some of these items. Hopefully a good discussion can result. Maybe you might even persuade a few people to see things your way and garner support for your cause. Maybe you will gain a new respect for a particular feature of the game. At the very least, if you proceed with an open mind, you will at least gain an understanding of how the “other side” feels about a particular issue.
I picked corruption first because it seems to be one of the biggest gripes many people have about the game. It is also a feature that I find to be good for the game. Before I get into why I like the current corruption scheme (I play v 1.16), I would like to set a few ground rules that I hope everyone can agree to follow:
This is meant to be a debate - not a gripe session; not a name calling event; not a battle of who can be the funniest, wittiest, most sarcastic, etc. Regardless if you agree with something or wish to refute it, give a good argument with solid reasoning. Posting “it just sucks” or “just deal with it” are not arguments and thus not wanted. If you disagree with a point another has made, refute it with a reason not a “you are wrong” or “what an idiot”. Prove they are an idiot with facts, sound logic and/or good examples, its much more satisfying that way. Basically, play nice, be thoughtful and provide the best defense for your opinions that you can.
All that being said, on with the discussion…
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s a loaded question to kick things off… Is corruption a bad thing? If you are the one skimming profits off the top and living the good life because of it, maybe not. However, for the rest of us it is not so good a deal. Oh wait, wrong corruption debate…
In Civ3, corruption levels are rather high. Many complain that corruption is far too rampant and a real hindrance to their ability to enjoy the game. I however, contend that corruption is just another obstacle to be overcome and is actually a game play enhancer. “How so?” you ask skeptically.
First, the courthouse is no longer a useless building. How many of you ever built courthouses in civ 2? I know I never did except in late game situations in which I had absolutely nothing better to do with my production and gold. Now, the further your cities get from your capital, the higher a priority it is to build one.
Another excellent feature of the corruption “problem” is that ICS based strategies are much less effective. How many of you corruption complained that it was too easy to win civ 2 by continually building more and more and more cities until you could simply overrun the competition with sheer force of numbers? How many recognized the power of building a settler instead of an offensive unit because a settler removed 1 worker from your city radius and provided 2 workers in the new city. Now high corruption values and the 2-population point hit of settlers, ICS is a less effective means of easily swarming the world and winning the game.
The near overwhelming corruption that occurs when conquering or settling other continents is a third “good effect” high corruption. Again, it increases the challenge of trying to win in this manner. It should be a challenge to keep workers productive and governors honest when they are far from the central seat of government. In game play terms, it keeps a player from conquering a larger foreign coastal city and then turning it into a military factory to swarm the originally nation that created the city.
My final discussion is on the realistic aspects that corruption gives the game. As I have mentioned in other posts, I generally try to avoid this type of argument for 3 reasons. One, civ is a game, not real-life and not even a simulation. Secondly, the realism argument is quite the double-edged sword. For every example one can give from the real world to support a feature, another kind generally find an equally valid counter example. Finally, I am not a historian by trade or education. History is a mere hobby and fascination for myself and thus I am not as well versed in facts and figures as one would need to be to offer a true argument of how the game models past events. All that being said, I am now going to offer real world support for the civ corruption model. For example, corruption was rampant in the out-lying areas of the Roman Empire and eventually became a problem for the interior cities as well. Oppression and corruption were key factors in the British (and other) colonies breaking away, revolting, etc. And as a last example, the ‘old west’ of the United States was terribly corrupt until the migrating people demanded and established justice and order (i.e. courthouses).
In general, I say that corruption should be embraced as a game feature. I agree that it is a formidable obstacle to overcome, but not unbeatable. It is also a great enhancement to the game. It is one of the biggest reasons that many civ 2 game strategies do not work in civ 3. Any change that makes me alter my plans and think of new ways to play is a good thing. If I wanted to continue playing the same old game in the same old way, I would have stuck with civ 2 and just downloaded a mod or two to change the name of units or advances. In some ways, corruption is merely the 17th civ in the great battle for control of the world. You just need to identify the enemy and find ways to defeat it.
I picked corruption first because it seems to be one of the biggest gripes many people have about the game. It is also a feature that I find to be good for the game. Before I get into why I like the current corruption scheme (I play v 1.16), I would like to set a few ground rules that I hope everyone can agree to follow:
This is meant to be a debate - not a gripe session; not a name calling event; not a battle of who can be the funniest, wittiest, most sarcastic, etc. Regardless if you agree with something or wish to refute it, give a good argument with solid reasoning. Posting “it just sucks” or “just deal with it” are not arguments and thus not wanted. If you disagree with a point another has made, refute it with a reason not a “you are wrong” or “what an idiot”. Prove they are an idiot with facts, sound logic and/or good examples, its much more satisfying that way. Basically, play nice, be thoughtful and provide the best defense for your opinions that you can.
All that being said, on with the discussion…
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s a loaded question to kick things off… Is corruption a bad thing? If you are the one skimming profits off the top and living the good life because of it, maybe not. However, for the rest of us it is not so good a deal. Oh wait, wrong corruption debate…
In Civ3, corruption levels are rather high. Many complain that corruption is far too rampant and a real hindrance to their ability to enjoy the game. I however, contend that corruption is just another obstacle to be overcome and is actually a game play enhancer. “How so?” you ask skeptically.
First, the courthouse is no longer a useless building. How many of you ever built courthouses in civ 2? I know I never did except in late game situations in which I had absolutely nothing better to do with my production and gold. Now, the further your cities get from your capital, the higher a priority it is to build one.
Another excellent feature of the corruption “problem” is that ICS based strategies are much less effective. How many of you corruption complained that it was too easy to win civ 2 by continually building more and more and more cities until you could simply overrun the competition with sheer force of numbers? How many recognized the power of building a settler instead of an offensive unit because a settler removed 1 worker from your city radius and provided 2 workers in the new city. Now high corruption values and the 2-population point hit of settlers, ICS is a less effective means of easily swarming the world and winning the game.
The near overwhelming corruption that occurs when conquering or settling other continents is a third “good effect” high corruption. Again, it increases the challenge of trying to win in this manner. It should be a challenge to keep workers productive and governors honest when they are far from the central seat of government. In game play terms, it keeps a player from conquering a larger foreign coastal city and then turning it into a military factory to swarm the originally nation that created the city.
My final discussion is on the realistic aspects that corruption gives the game. As I have mentioned in other posts, I generally try to avoid this type of argument for 3 reasons. One, civ is a game, not real-life and not even a simulation. Secondly, the realism argument is quite the double-edged sword. For every example one can give from the real world to support a feature, another kind generally find an equally valid counter example. Finally, I am not a historian by trade or education. History is a mere hobby and fascination for myself and thus I am not as well versed in facts and figures as one would need to be to offer a true argument of how the game models past events. All that being said, I am now going to offer real world support for the civ corruption model. For example, corruption was rampant in the out-lying areas of the Roman Empire and eventually became a problem for the interior cities as well. Oppression and corruption were key factors in the British (and other) colonies breaking away, revolting, etc. And as a last example, the ‘old west’ of the United States was terribly corrupt until the migrating people demanded and established justice and order (i.e. courthouses).
In general, I say that corruption should be embraced as a game feature. I agree that it is a formidable obstacle to overcome, but not unbeatable. It is also a great enhancement to the game. It is one of the biggest reasons that many civ 2 game strategies do not work in civ 3. Any change that makes me alter my plans and think of new ways to play is a good thing. If I wanted to continue playing the same old game in the same old way, I would have stuck with civ 2 and just downloaded a mod or two to change the name of units or advances. In some ways, corruption is merely the 17th civ in the great battle for control of the world. You just need to identify the enemy and find ways to defeat it.
Comment