Governments: CivIII is broken

[Ironikinit]

But income can replace shields. I have more money than I need by the modern era. The only hard part is remembering to go build in my corrupt areas.

Libertarian once suggested building stealth fighters and disbanding them in corrupt cities to give them shields. He might've been joking because he was a real smart alec, but it makes good sense once you've got your military where you want it and the city doing the building is maxed to your tech level. I don't know if it makes more sense than building wealth, but they can relocate anywhere.

[Zachriel]

Yes, money is the answer. So everyone is just quibbling over price.

[Zachriel]

Also, turning swords into plowshares is a time honored tradition. Once I am sure my borders are safe, I often disband my offensive units into the new cities to rush Cathedrals and what not.

[DrFell]

Yes, you can disband units, but it's a great loss of shields. Better to upgrade them if they become obsolete or save them for future conquests. Also, why bother building improvements in cities that are going to be unproductive whatever you do (although you can scrape some minimal production from tax collectors, or considerable production from despot rushing) as you'll just be wasting money.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DrFell
Yes, you can disband units, but it's a great loss of shields. Better to upgrade them if they become obsolete or save them for future conquests. Also, why bother building improvements in cities that are going to be unproductive whatever you do (although you can scrape some minimal production from tax collectors, or considerable production from despot rushing) as you'll just be wasting money.

Units have a per turn cost. If you don't need them for a while, you should consider disbanding them. If you are disbanding them, then in new cities may be appropriate.

I often force-build Temples and other cultural improvements to help the people accept my rule, and maybe a Courthouse and Police Station for corruption.

Once these initial builds are in place, then over enough time, and with a little help from the central treasury, most towns become quite happy.

[Akka]

The U.S. is actually a small country and a nation of comparable size in Civ3 has low corruption.

1 - The USA is 9,3 millions km² large. It's the fourth biggest country in the world, and is roughly three times the size of Europe, which is considered to be a CONTINENT (the smallest, yes, but still big enough to hold many countries among the most powerful in the world).

2 - Take a huge map, Regent level, build all the cities to the propre places, with your capitol in Washington, see the actual REAL corruption. Then, if you consider it LOW...

The corruption is out of hands, why just can't you accept it ?
Sincerely, would ANY OF YOU have voiced "corruption is too low !" if the "ideal number of cities" was, let's say, five times what it's actually ?
Guess you wouldn't even noticed it.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
1 - The USA is 9,3 millions km² large. It's the fourth biggest country in the world, and is roughly three times the size of Europe, which is considered to be a CONTINENT (the smallest, yes, but still big enough to hold many countries among the most powerful in the world).

2 - Take a huge map, Regent level, build all the cities to the propre places, with your capitol in Washington, see the actual REAL corruption. Then, if you consider it LOW...

The corruption is out of hands, why just can't you accept it ?
Sincerely, would ANY OF YOU have voiced "corruption is too low !" if the "ideal number of cities" was, let's say, five times what it's actually ?
Guess you wouldn't even noticed it.

1. Europe has an area of 9,938,037 sq mi., about the same size as the U.S., or 1/16th of the total land area of the earth. This is another good example, as no one has successfully united Europe. Indeed, Europeans are struggling to invent a new form of government to accomplish this very goal.

2. Game play is much more relevant, of course. Covering just 1/16 of the land area of the world should not cause undue corruption even on a huge map, especially if you have built the Forbidden Palace. However, if that isn't sufficient, then adjust the values in the editor or play a smaller map.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
1 - The USA is 9,3 millions km² large. It's the fourth biggest country in the world, and is roughly three times the size of Europe, which is considered to be a CONTINENT (the smallest, yes, but still big enough to hold many countries among the most powerful in the world).

Europe is 9.95m km², larger than the USA, although not by much. Its only a continent for political convenience since Eurasia is the true landmass. The North American continent makes up 16.2% of the worlds landmass. On a huge 16 player map this works out about right for the USA as a civ since the continent should be occupied by two large civs with Central America (Mexico) belonging to another.

2 - Take a huge map, Regent level, build all the cities to the propre places, with your capitol in Washington, see the actual REAL corruption. Then, if you consider it LOW...

If you don't like the level of corruption you get with that amount of space for your civ, tweak it. It is, after all, a game mechanic. One designed more to combat the problem of bigger is always better that realistically model efficiency levels around the world. That was of course one of the big flaws in Civ II many of us wanted them to fix. "We" just dont like their answer. In this case, building the Forbidden Palace and moving your other "palace" to efficient locations is part of that answer, even if your true national capital ought to be within sight of the east coast. With Enron in the news daily this isn't a good time for anyone to be touting corruption free democracies either.

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by Zachriel


1. Europe has an area of 9,938,037 sq mi., about the same size as the U.S., or 1/16th of the total land area of the earth. This is another good example, as no one has successfully united Europe. Indeed, Europeans are struggling to invent a new form of government to accomplish this very goal.

2. Game play is much more relevant, of course. Covering just 1/16 of the land area of the world should not cause undue corruption even on a huge map, especially if you have built the Forbidden Palace. However, if that isn't sufficient, then adjust the values in the editor or play a smaller map.

May I ask what Map size you play your civ games? [All mine are Huge]

I am beginning to suspect you play most of your games on a smaller map.. ??

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by KoenigMkII
May I ask what Map size you play your civ games? [All mine are Huge] I am beginning to suspect you play most of your games on a smaller map.. ??

I've played all map types at various times, though I prefer standard as the best for playability. I have never finished a huge map due to time constraints, though I did control up to 1/3 of the map.

Nevertheless, if you insist on conquering the world with brute force, you cannot expect everyone to be cooperative. Most of your production will come from the core of your empire. For example, during WWII slave labor in France never really produced much of value. Much that was produced was inferior, or worse sabotaged, and that was right next door to Germany. If they had succeeded in holding onto Easter Europe, production would have been nil for at least a generation, maybe longer. Meanwhile, nearly all the military units had to be produced in the German industrial heartland.

The empires you are trying to build are bigger than anything ever built in history. Corruption and cultural flips are models used to represent the difficulty involved in controlling a large empire. The largest empire in recent history, the Soviet Union, just collapsed, in large part due to corruption and the surrounding cultural powerhouses. Civ3 is not meant to be an easy game.

I am not against changes to Civ3; I just think it is playable as it is, though you are free to edit many features of the game if you want.

On the other hand, anybody who can finish a game on huge is definitely a committed player and deserves to have their opinion heard.

[player1]

That should be nice explanation for introducing different corruption for foreign citizens.

But it won't explain why should your distant city have high corruption just because it's far away form capitol.

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by Zachriel


I've played all map types at various times, though I prefer standard as the best for playability. I have never finished a huge map due to time constraints, though I did control up to 1/3 of the map.

Nevertheless, if you insist on conquering the world with brute force, you cannot expect everyone to be cooperative. Most of your production will come from the core of your empire. For example, during WWII slave labor in France never really produced much of value. Much that was produced was inferior, or worse sabotaged, and that was right next door to Germany. If they had succeeded in holding onto Easter Europe, production would have been nil for at least a generation, maybe longer. Meanwhile, nearly all the military units had to be produced in the German industrial heartland.

The empires you are trying to build are bigger than anything ever built in history. Corruption and cultural flips are models used to represent the difficulty involved in controlling a large empire. The largest empire in recent history, the Soviet Union, just collapsed, in large part due to corruption and the surrounding cultural powerhouses. Civ3 is not meant to be an easy game.

I am not against changes to Civ3; I just think it is playable as it is, though you are free to edit many features of the game if you want.

On the other hand, anybody who can finish a game on huge is definitely a committed player and deserves to have their opinion heard.

Ko's reply:
Had Hitler stuck to the methodical phased plan described as described in Case Bleu for the Wehrmacht's 1942 summer campaign the Germans/Nazis could easily have won the second world war.

July 1942 is the turning point - if Germany can conquer the Caucasus it will deliver a fatal blow to the Soviet Union, without the 90 million tonnes of annual production of oil from Baku and the other oil fields Russia is finished.

Granted, the Germans could not have used the conquered oil wells straight away - more likely they would have to drill new ones. But simply their reduced losses in the East of manpower and material transform the war - Germany gets geometrically stronger as Russia collapses.

All Germanies War production programmes, especially the high tech ones like the V-1, V-2, Me-262, Type 23 U-boats would have been increased in size, and occur earlier in the war.

Germany can abandon obsolete fighter production earlier, and standardise on the better FW-190 instead of a version of the BF-109. The Me-262 would have appeared in Thousands, then finally tens of thousands.

Instead of losing control of airspace over Germany and occupied France, the Luftwaffe can threaten UK airspace itself.

Forget D-day, Britain could well have been literally starved into submission by a near total U-Boat blockade. If Britain falls, its the US that will be fearing a German Nuclear attack by 1945.

If the US sues for Peace after a German conquest of the UK, then the nightmare of a 1000 year Third Reich would have become a reality.

Then you would have seen what a high tech country could do with the total suspension of moral restrictions on treatment of the conquered eastern areas.

I honestly think the Nazis would have nerve gassed any partisan resistance, maybe whole conquered russian cities [it chills the blood to ice just to contemplate it] - their expansion over the next 50 years would have been simply staggering. I think the US would have been facing a gigantic opponent by 2000 - maybe a German population of one billion plus.

One launguage, one culture (however evil), one Nation. Nationalism, THATS the glue that can hold an empire like that together, combined with modern technology.

Your comment that I am trying to construct an empire that is bigger than anything in human history is correct. But don't forget we are talking about a history in which the ruthless aggressor was twice defeated by the democratic governments of the world, in WWI and WWII.

In neither war was the eventual outcome a forgone conclusion.

If an empire is composed 100% of the same nationality, I will make the statement that it can grow to a country of virtually unlimited size - if there is no competition for space, and the empire has sufficient technology to solve the physical and infomation communication problems.

Its Europe's petty little Nations that will frustrate the ambitions of those who believe in a "Euroland."

If Civ III wants to slow expansion, it should ban advanced goverments from raising enemy cities in war. Bombardment yes, but wiping out to the last population point? no way!

If you then make multinational cities unproductive - realistic I think, there is always a lot of tension, then a Democracy cannot really expand by launching a war of conquest. Its a waste of time - which is why Democracies dont do it.

But war weariness in a democracy in a defensive war - that is totally wrong. Just put in the realistic moral limitations for a Democratic gov at war.

That way, there can be many early wars in Civ III, while primitive govs are still arround, but once players change to higher govs theire is much less point to starting wars, correct??

Nations may even choose to make peacefull trade for vital raw materials, rather than risk a revolution to a primitive gov. just to gain space and those resources, IF the corruption level for high govs was more realistic, because the remaining democracies would speed ahead in tech.

The only exception to this is if you allow facism (see gory details above) into the game, then massive and late wars could easily occur.

I think that is much more realistic than the position of your Capital/F.C., as a game mechanism, trying to stop expansion by insanely high corruption.

By the way good luck to you on your standard map games, bet thats going to be good practice for a MP version if it comes out :-)

[Zachriel]

I think you are right for the most part. Hitler would have had a huge slave population. Production outside of Germany would plummet as they killed all the brave, the wise, the intellectuals, the stubborn, the minorities, the "defectives," the Jews, the Gypsies, the Communists, and the labor organizers. So you have made an excellent case for the Civ3 corruption model.

However, these billion people would certainly not be Germans. Indeed, the Nazis were an exclusive club and had no desire to assimiliate inferior races. Restless ethnic populations would make the empire unstable. It would probably break apart once Hitler died.

Your idea to prevent the razing of cities by democracies deserves consideration, but democracies have committed genocide in the past, for instance against the Native populations in the Americas.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Grumbold
On a huge 16 player map this works out about right for the USA as a civ since the continent should be occupied by two large civs with Central America (Mexico) belonging to another.

Hey! Them's fightin words, eh.

The proper statement would be that there is a Mexican and a Canadian civ. Border is somewhere around Texas/Southern CA.

54:40. We fought. We're here.

As for Europe, Just the Romans should do. No need for all the pretenders.

Salve

[DrFell]

'Units have a per turn cost. If you don't need them for a while, you should consider disbanding them. If you are disbanding them, then in new cities may be appropriate.'

I'm usually fighting 80-90% of the game, so I don't need to worry about that.