Governments: CivIII is broken

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by Zachriel


There are three main national capitals (Washington, Ottawa and Mexico City) and several smaller ones in North America.

If you use the number 6%, that means the U.S. takes up 1/16 of the world, or an equal share between 16 civs.

If you use the exaggerated number of 18%, that means an equal share between 5 civs. Corruption should be controllable if you occupy only a fifth of the map.

Ko's reply:-

Para 1. yes there are 3 capitals, the physical location of which is totally irrelevent to the level of corruption experienced by a democratic government - unlike Civ III in which the location of the capital /Forbidden city are absolutely crucial.

This is a near perfect model for a Despotism/Monarchy/Communism, sort of OK for republic (but corruption shoul still be less intense for republic), but an absurd one for a high tech democracy.

And for para 3, corruption is not controllable once a democracy is a fifth of the land area of the map [a huge map] - the peripheral cities are horribly crippled. But a lot depends on the shape of the Civ's territory - its the distance from Cap. /F.C. factor that kills your production.

Since the location of vital resources is not known until you have the tech to see them on the map, axis of previous expansion may leave a gamer with extremely poorly placed capital and F.C. for future desired expansion -its not enough to build a colony/isolated city near enough to a vital resource, its a sitting duck for the AI's naval-heavy strategy. Once the Harbour allowing access to a distant resource is destroyed- zap, no coal/oil/iron etc.

To protect your vital resorces securely only defence in depth will do. This meens ideally a ring of productive cities with strong garrisons. Because of the illogical "curruption is a function of distance from capital" in Civ III for a Democratic government, you can easily find yourself building totally crippled cities, and forced to buy cultural city improvements at high cost.

Now add in the long distance DOW's that the AI are so fond of. Even fighting a defensive war you will find yourself forced to regress from Democracy to Monarchy/Communism due to accumulated war weariness. And a 7 turn wait during which your civ produces no shields, nothing (except more of that damn pollution- ha! that still pours out)

What else can I say?

Time to fix the higher govs.

[DrFell]

'Para two. Corruption in the game (I am talking about a huge map here) is a severe and crippling problem. This is because in order to acquire and defend luxuries and strategic resources you MUST expand beyond one continent to 1.5 or 2.5 times what the games designers think you should be allowed. The limit of 32 cities is far too little for a huge map size.'

Yeah but the outer cities don't really need to be productive - they only need to be there to control the resources.

'Outlying cities are totally crippled by corruption (gold) and waste (shields), indeed because of maintenance costs, a fully developed city on the edge of your Democracy begins to drain your entire Civ. Anti-corruption improvements and wonders only help to a limited degree.'

There are also ways of getting round corruption - although I've not tried it, you can support scientists/tax collectors in the city and I believe they do not suffer from corruption, or you can use despot/commie rush.

'The Civ III government model is flawed. Corruption for these more advanced gov. types is insane. '

The other corruption realism issues I agree with mostly, it is silly that a modern democracy or even communism can suffer SO much corruption. Modern communications etc. are so much more efficient, and if the governors of a city were found to be so corrupt that they drained 90%+ of the cities production for themselves then they would probably be replaced promptly. This kind of corruption is however realistic in (ancient) despo, and reasonable in (ancient) monarchy and republic. Probably railroads should have a great effect on corruption to represent modern communication.

[FrantzX]

If I remember correctly, Denver has the highest amount of federal building outside of Washington D.C. If you consider Denver to be the equivilent of a Forbidden palace, everything works out.

[KoenigMkII]

I don't wish to be cruel, but if Denver vanished tomorrow, what effect of corruption do you think it would have on L.A. or Chicago curruption??

I doubt anyone would notice any difference.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zachriel


The U.S. is actually a small country and a nation of comparable size in Civ3 has low corruption. A larger country, such as the Soviet Union or the Mongol conquests experiences much higher corruption, which is historically accurate.

Corruption in the game is not really a problem. Most towns do not have Cathedrals or Universities. If you need to have one in a strategic position, just pay for it.

Even in the U.S. people complain that the government in Washington is too removed from their daily concerns, wastes their money, and doesn't provide the benefits they believe they have paid for. The money just disappears.

Here in Canada, we have the second largest country in the world, after Russia. There's no way that Vancouver is more corrupt simply because it's further away from our capital in Ottawa. Distance is irrelevant, as it should be in the game as well.

A better approach would have been, at least for Democracy, every few years the people of the city elect a Governor. If that official is corrupt, so's the city, if he's honest, the city produces well. That would still allow the use of corruption as a limiting factor, though it wouldn't be a constant thing. At least some of the time it would be able to produce something.

[Ironikinit]

I'm glad Zach has the patience to post to these.

The US example, you wouldn't even need a forbidden palace, just move your palace to, say, Missouri, and you'd have acceptable corruption coverage in the continental US.

Yes, that's silly that location is so important, but it's an abstraction.

Just as cities... there's more cities in my state irl than you could fit in North America on a huge Earth map in civ. The degree of realism in Civ just isn't very high. It's all an abstraction.

With the editor you can make a lot of adjustments to corruption, and that should please those who really just gotta have empires spread all over the place. People even make up their own governments. Eventually I'll start tinkering with the editor, but for now I'm getting comfortable with the game as it is.

It's a pretty good game if you take the time to learn to play it.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Willem
Here in Canada, we have the second largest country in the world, after Russia. There's no way that Vancouver is more corrupt simply because it's further away from our capital in Ottawa. Distance is irrelevant, as it should be in the game as well.

Remembering that Civ3 is just a game abstraction, Canada still takes up only a small portion of the land area of the Earth, the entire of North America being 1/5 of the total.

Unless Canada were to try to take over the entire Americas, then there would be huge problem with corruption in Brazil being so far from the Imperialist capital in Ottawa.

In the U.S., nearly everyone complains about our capital is so far away culturally that they don't understand the problems of people in "real people" in California or Texas. Canada is a good example, because as you know, it is having troubles just staying in one piece due to the Quebec separatist movement.

[Zachriel]

Another way to put it is like this:

Canada, a very large country, is holding it together (barely).
Russia is using military force to hold theirs together (Chechnya).
The U.S. has had only one Civil War (that is considered "good" by historical standards).

Anything larger falls aparts (Soviet Union, Colonial Empires, Mongul Conquests).

No one has yet found a way to knit together larger political units than what exist today.

[player1]

Wake up guys!

Don't you see that there "abstractions" are just one big JOKE!

[player1]

Wake up guys!

Don't you see that there "abstractions" are just one big JOKE!



Having big contry means trobulbe, but that doesn't depend form distance to capitol (at least in modern, post-railroad age).


P.S.
I always thought that corruption model needs more too many cities factor, and LESS DISTACNE FROM CAPITOL FACTOR. A little more closer to Civ3 Communism.

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by DrFell
The other corruption realism issues I agree with mostly, it is silly that a modern democracy or even communism can suffer SO much corruption. Modern communications etc. are so much more efficient, and if the governors of a city were found to be so corrupt that they drained 90%+ of the cities production for themselves then they would probably be replaced promptly. This kind of corruption is however realistic in (ancient) despo, and reasonable in (ancient) monarchy and republic. Probably railroads should have a great effect on corruption to represent modern communication.

Modern communications is an important factor. Could try editing the game: add a "telegraph station" improvement or something that has a big effect on the corruption and that requires electricity advance.

Also use the editor to increase the effect of courthouses.

It's not perfect but it might help.

[Ironikinit]

Looking back at notes of an old game, I've gotten corruption as a democracy under 15% of income from cities. Maintainance and science were the big expenses. I'm not talking about a weakling tiny civ, either, this was when I was leading or at worst in second. The level was monarch.

I'm curious as to why people find corruption unacceptable when other expenditures are more. Is it because in Civ 2 you could completely eliminate corruption just by going to democracy?

Is it the waste? In the same game I had some off shore cities that were pretty corrupt, but if I kept them in WLTK status they'd produce. One was quite far away.

Is 15% really that bad? So bad that you can't adjust it further with the editor and live with it? I'm willing to bet that in my current game it's even lower, going to go check.

I checked. In my current game, corruption eats up 12% of my income from cities. Now, I don't have the stats right here in front of me but I'm pretty sure that the IRS (US tax service) misses out on more than 12% of the taxes it could be collecting, just on black market alone. I think I should make it clear that I haven't modified my game, either. 12%, that's it. Again, I'm in the lead, too. Monarch level. I have an emperor level game saved, but I bet the corruption is higher because I did a lot of conquering and I hadn't got my patterns down as good as I do now.

I'm not even sure if 12% corruption is anything to brag about, but I sure can live with it. As I said, it's probably low compared to the current corruption levels in the US.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by player1
Wake up guys!
Don't you see that there "abstractions" are just one big JOKE!
Having big contry means trobulbe, but that doesn't depend form distance to capitol (at least in modern, post-railroad age).

It took federal troops to enforce desegregation, so not everyone will quietly accept rule from Washington even in the post-modern age. The U.S. has had quite a few good years without regional tensions, but it is not indicative of the overall history of the country. And to repeat, the U.S. is small and very wealthy compared to the size of the empires people are trying to build.

I am all for various improvements to the game model, but the current game is quite playable.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Another way to put it is like this:

Canada, a very large country, is holding it together (barely).
Russia is using military force to hold theirs together (Chechnya).
The U.S. has had only one Civil War (that is considered "good" by historical standards).

Anything larger falls aparts (Soviet Union, Colonial Empires, Mongul Conquests).

No one has yet found a way to knit together larger political units than what exist today.

Yes, I understand the underlying concept behind the corruption model, and personally I don't mind it. But that's only because I've created several versions of the Forbidden Palace for my game. If they had provided more tools with which to combat the problem, and the same goes for War Weariness, I don't think people would be complaining so much. As it stands now though, the game forces everyone to play the same way. You can't get to big because of corruption, you can't stay small or the other civs will run over you. It's trying to force you into this middle path with few options, and that shouldn't be. I don't think there's anything wrong with an ICS game myself, yet the corruption hobbles anyone who tries to play that way.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Looking back at notes of an old game, I've gotten corruption as a democracy under 15% of income from cities. Maintainance and science were the big expenses. I'm not talking about a weakling tiny civ, either, this was when I was leading or at worst in second. The level was monarch.

I'm curious as to why people find corruption unacceptable when other expenditures are more. Is it because in Civ 2 you could completely eliminate corruption just by going to democracy?

Is it the waste? In the same game I had some off shore cities that were pretty corrupt, but if I kept them in WLTK status they'd produce. One was quite far away.

Is 15% really that bad? So bad that you can't adjust it further with the editor and live with it? I'm willing to bet that in my current game it's even lower, going to go check.

I checked. In my current game, corruption eats up 12% of my income from cities. Now, I don't have the stats right here in front of me but I'm pretty sure that the IRS (US tax service) misses out on more than 12% of the taxes it could be collecting, just on black market alone. I think I should make it clear that I haven't modified my game, either. 12%, that's it. Again, I'm in the lead, too. Monarch level. I have an emperor level game saved, but I bet the corruption is higher because I did a lot of conquering and I hadn't got my patterns down as good as I do now.

I'm not even sure if 12% corruption is anything to brag about, but I sure can live with it. As I said, it's probably low compared to the current corruption levels in the US.

It's not the loss of income that bugs people, it's the loss of production. More importantly, it's the complete inabilty to do anything about it. At least if there were some improvements you could build to make these cities more or less productive, there would be some sense of control, but the Forbidden Palace is all there is. Like I said, I don't really care since I've created several versions of it in my own game, but I can understand why people would feel annoyed. They've been left with no choices, no options, no control.