My Proposed Solution the Corruption Issues

[Worthingtons]

Right, We hate Corruption, Some of REALLY Hate it, and some of us have even used the editor to eradicate it from our games, but Corruption was a built in to the game design. However , We all agree it's too Much.

The Points here are :

1. Corruption is used to combat massive empires, so that building a huge empire wont easily win you the game like on Civ II , This Element is good, and must be kept to an extent.

2. The Model on Civ III massively depends on Distance from Capital, as We all know, this is a silly model, especially in Modern Ages, and leads to wonder cities that are reduced to producing 1 gold/shield per turn!

3. One way to Fix Corruption the is the 'Forbidden Palace' , Nice Idea, many of us are now creating more versions, which is also sticking with Realism and adding more stratagy to the game.

4. Corruption seems to continue right into Modern times, despite what technology ect is Discovered, But Really, the 'era' should have certain effects on Corruption.


Here is my plan to Make corruption Managable (not crippling), Still keep the Aim of super corruption very much in touch, enhance realism, and finally, pose us with some interesting Strategical decisions.


1. Distance From Capital Issue should DECREASE when entering a New Era. In Ancient Times a City Hundreds of Miles from the Capital SHOULD have MEGA corruption. Communication between the Two Cities is difficult, and at a minimal level - it makes sense. In the Modern tiems of Radio,Televesion, Internet,Railways,Airports ect, Distance is hardly an issue.
Corruption due to distance from Capital (Or Center Of Empire) should be, IMO, about 35% of what it is during Ancient Times (90% in Medieval times, and 70% in Industrial times).

2. More Palaces.
The Forbidden Palace is Great, But in England we must about 5 'forbidden' palaces', Probably more. I think For *Standard goverments , There should be the Option to Build TWO (No more mind) Fp's, Therefore Creating 3 Center Of Empires.
Here's an Interesting Twist though, palaces are often associated With Monarchy Figures Like Kings, Princesses ect. So, With a Monarchy there should be the option to have THREE fp's,
This then , would create More stratagy headaches when decideding whether or not to change govts (More Stratagy is GOOD!), and also Strenghen the Currently Weak Monarchy. This would be even better, if when the Player Switched, THe Effects of the Third fp were not removed completely, but say, removed by 50%)

3. City Improvements have small effects on Corruption.
Courthouses Reduce Corruption , as do Police Stations, So Much is Obvious. I think a Bank&Barracks would decrease Corruption too, but certainly not as much as a Courthouse.
So, Certain improvements in a city, like Banks,Barracks ect, ought to decrease Corruption , but by say, 20%


4. Finally
Different Government types have an effect on Corruption, as proven in another thread, this is NOT a big enough effect, Increase it!!



So lets put things Briefly

-3 Palaces (4 With Monarchy)
-Distance from Capital effects reduced by 65% Over time.
-3-5 City Improvements which also Decrease Corruption by a small amount
-Government Type has a greater influence, The difference between Rampant and Minimal should be , IMO, 25% Greater

This would leave us with a MUCH better Corruption Model, One which we would have to MANAGE Corruption, Instead of it having it an unmanagable,annoying effect. A Model that would pose us MORE Stratagy Decisions!, Surely this is GOOD!, A Model that would add Further add Spice to Governments, And Finally, a Model , which would mean we have City Improvements that ACTUALLY DO Something!!! (Cos IMO a Bank is not something i'm ever Desperate to Build)


Any Thoughts/Ideas??

[yin26]

I think your ideas along with other posted here need serious consideration at Firaxis. Nice work.

[Dida]

do they take into consideration that you HAVE roads between your capital and the city? Distance from capital should have depend on the number of tiles, but depend on movement points needed to go there.

[Thrawn05]

I find curruption in the game okay. I don't expand my empire like a rabbit, I keep it tight enough I use 99% of the squares in my turf and 0-1% overlapping tiles. On a huge map I can get about 15 cities and very little curruption. I don't even move my capital, and once I know the shape of my empire, I place the forbid palace in the other end of my empire (usualy near or at the enemy border). Any city I get due to culture flipping I just deal with, even it there is large curruption, at least that's less land the other guy can control.

[barefootbadass]

I've always thought that being connected by roads/railroads does reduce corruption, roughly. And that sea routes and air routes reduce it a little, if they connect up resources. I could be wrong, haven't tested this.

I think corruption IS manageable in this game, but you do have to manage it, not merely build a few buildings. Its more than just a few factors, I like it that way.

If you expand or conquer to much, you will have cities that only bring 1 shield no matter what you do, but what else can they bring you? They can hook you up with resources and luxuries, and you need them overseas to hold harbors and such to send them back, since colonies can't connect by sea.

Historically, big globe spanning empires like those that produce virtually infinite corruption in civ 3 did not exist or at least did not last, and consisted mainly of colonies to some centralized state(like the British empire where the sun never set). Where is that empire today? Its mostly gone.

You can still conquer the world but it is made more difficult(although, seemingly not hard enough yet, since pop rush is so powerful. but alas! salvation is in sight for the millions who stand to lose their lives under the whip of the despots in the future).

[Worthingtons]

I would disagree that is Managable.
The only decision a player really has to make is where to place the Palace and forbidden Palace. Corruption can be a fun thing to deal with, but with the present version, it makes no difference or not whether you build a Courthouse in a distanct city, and you usually have the spare production to build one in nearby city.

[Willem]

One idea I've had bouncing around my brain is to tie the corruption to the Governor. When I first capture an enemy's city, I'm given the option of installing a Governor or razing. But what if the idea of installing a Governor was extended so that it can be done at any time, to any city. If you see that a city has a ridiculous amount of corruption, naturally the Governor would not be doing his job properly, or he's corrupt himself. So you'd have the option of installing a new Governor, and hopefully you'd end up with someone who's competent/honest. Or you may get someone who's worse.

At first you wouldn't be able to tell whether he was any good since being new to the job, he'll naturally be trying his best. But as time goes by, an incompetent/corrupt official would start to show himself for what he was, provided you made the effort to check up on him.

The only exception to assigning a governor would be in a Democracy, in which case the people of the city would elect one every so often, leaving you with no control over the decision.

[Arrian]

Well, I strongly agree with the idea that "distance to capitol" corruption should drop as you progress through the eras of the game. Actually, I'd like it tied to specific technologies, but eras are probably easier to implement.

Road/sea route connection should definitely effect things, if it doesn't now.

I don't think more forbidden palace type minor wonders should be added. If you reduce the distance corruption based upon technology, then this would be overkill. Here's how I'd like to see it done (in Rob's perfect world):

Add caps to corruption. Have a maximum corruption % based upon government, adjusted by era. Then the buildings kick in.
Whether a city has the maximum corruption rate, or a lower rate can be based upon distance to capitol (or maybe just # of cities instead).

Example:

Despot, Ancient Era: Max corruption = total (1shield/1gold)
Republic, Ancient Era: Max Corruption = 75%
Monarch, Ancient Era: Max Corruption = 85%

Despot, Middle Ages: Max corruption = 90%
Monarch, Middle Ages: MC = 80%
Republic, Middle Ages: MC = 70%
Democracy, MA: MC = 60%

Despot, Industrial: MC = 80%
Monarch, Industrial: MC = 70%
Republic, Industrial: MC = 60%
Demo, Industrial: MC = 50%

Despot, Modern: MC = 70%
Monarch, Modern: MC = 60%
Republic, Modern: MC = 50%
Democracy, Modern: MC = 40%

I left out communism because corruption works differently under that form of govt. Flat rate of say 50%/40% (industrial/modern), before building effects. Demo or Rep. would still be my choice for the extra trade per square, but to each their own.

Now, if a city is unconnected to your trade system, the caps don't kick in. Thus, you could have a 99% corrupt city under demo in modern times, but once you rush that harbor it's limited to 40% loss of shields/gold.

Like I said, in my perfect world...

-Arrian

[Grumbold]

I think corruption as it stands on a standard sized map is acceptable and manageable. It just isn't fun. Changing it to be less hassle would be welcome as long as it didn't break all the other balancing acts about rate of science increase, production and military strength. Just halving corruption is going to jump us straight back to "bigger is always better" empire syndrome that made Civ II so boring.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I think corruption as it stands on a standard sized map is acceptable and manageable. It just isn't fun. Changing it to be less hassle would be welcome as long as it didn't break all the other balancing acts about rate of science increase, production and military strength. Just halving corruption is going to jump us straight back to "bigger is always better" empire syndrome that made Civ II so boring.

Well that's just the point, it isn't fun. Yes you can live with it, yes you can still play the game. But is it adding to the challenge, the enjoyment? No. It's just an obstacle you have no control over, and can't do anything about. There needs to be some sort of mechanism that allows us to think, "Maybe there's some way around this". Even if it takes a thousand years, there needs to be something we can try that requires more than just forgetting about a city that doesn't really do much of anything.