Corruption: Why I miss it

[SofaKing]

After taking a long break from CIV 3, I just recently reloaded it on to my machine and downloaded the most recent patch. I was amazed to find the game significantly easier. Upon reading the boards and the patch readme, I found out why. Corruption/Waste has been neutered. I think this may have been a mistake.
When Civ 3 first came out, several strategies from CIV 2 went out the window, most notably ICS. While this was originally attributed to the increased population cost of a settler, I think it was actually corruption that nuked this strat. The dozens of cities created were at best only good as culture bombs, and more often only served as expensive colonies.
Warfare was also of limited value. Conquered cities were only useful if they added a resource or had a wonder. Otherwise, it was really only a denial strategy to "pacify" the enemy.
All this amounted to having smaller empires, and de-emphasizing conquest. Since that goes along well with my style of play, I thought it was pretty nice. However, I was in a small minority. Corruption seemed to be the number 1 complaint on the boards, and I fully understand Firaxis' decision to make alterations. Keeping your customers happy is the main priority of an business.
However, I am curious if anyone else feels, as I do, that the original corruption rules were balanced and did make an addition the overall play of the game.
Is there a change I could make with the Editor to use the original Corruption model? I don't want to remove the patch because there are so many fixes in them for problems other than Corruption.

[aebrahim]

If you look in the editor, you can now change this using a slider somewhere (I forget where).

[Zachriel]

I agree and disagree.

I believe corruption has a very proper place in the game, but I think the current levels are fine. The only thing is that they really need is another Forbidden Palace.

I think that corruption can be adjusted in the editor.

[Inverse Icarus]

they should make it so that you could build SEVERAL forbidden palaces absed on your # of cities... and leave the corruption levels as they were before.

[ruskiyparen]

Only make each successive forbidden palace more expensive!
I.e. first is 600 shields, second 1000, third 1500...

[Apocalypse]

I would like the forbidden palace to be moveable. One is really enough though.

[SofaKing]

Building multiple FP's would only further eliminate the concept of corruption. Corruption should be a heavily limiting constraint. Aside from being realistic, it alleviates the major problem of turn-based games, micro-management.
Under the current corr. model, players are rewarded for producing tons of cities and crushing the AI with numeric superiority. However, this can often lead to the arduous task of setting production ques and managing the scads of units produced.
However, with heavier corruption, a player is encouraged (if not forced) to build a smaller empire. Instead of simply out producing the enemy, you are forced to employ more finesse when using your limited resources. The opportunity cost of certain action (building Wonders most notably) are more acutely felt when you only have a limited amount of production points.

[Apocalypse]

When you span 3+ continents it is good to be able to have a palace on the one you are concentrating on. This is not just sending off settlers, but also good during war efforts when you need the front line cities to be able to do something before the war ends.

[kimmygibler]

I agree, I play on small and tiny maps and I raised corruption by quite a bit. You can still have large empires but you generally have to wait for either communism or democracy. Also you must have a good economy to support the needed improvements in so many cities. It seems kind of realistic to me. Plus I like the challenge and the decreased incentive to build endless settlers.

[SofaKing]

I think that the degree of corruption has a significant impact on the game. Far more so, than say, barbarian activity. I think that this would be a great "slide" option on the new game option page. A high corruption setting would set the game for smaller "builder" empires, while a low setting would be for more of a "momentum" player.

[Jon Shafer]

I must say, I have to agree with SofaKing to some degree. I feel that there should be some limitation to reduce the size of empires. However, I feel that using corruption to curtail them is not the way to go about it... In history, multiple cultures causing fragmentation of large empires was the primary cause of their downfall (yes, corruption was a problem, but it did not bring the demise of empires). True revolts and rebellions would add a sharp penalty for large empires that would have to be carefully weighed against the benefits of more cities. Look at EU/2 for a good demonstration of how this system could work.

[Fitz]

IT seems we have come full circle from the original complaints about corruption being too strong. I personally never found it to be so, and post 1.21 I still find it unimportant. But I almost never ICS.

The problem (IMO) was two-fold. First, so many people were used to the ICS model. Even in SMAC, you could deal with the resulting unhappiness from too many cities rather easily, but in civ3 it was much harder to deal with the resulting corruption. In addition, the distance corruption was probably way too high. IF you place a city half way around the world, there should be a penalty, but it is very frustrating when it is a crippling penalty. It would have been better if originally the corruption due to empire size in terms of cities had stayed fairly large, and the distance factor been heavily reduced (or btter yet scaled in a non-linear fashion). That way, ICS would have been reduced, or at least netted heavily diminishing returns, but a small city empire could have easily afforded a semi-distant outpost.

Still, if I felt that strongly about it, I would enter the editor and mod the optimal number of cities down to about 3/4 it's current number. That might stop/slow the AI from mass settling too, provided it is programmed to take corruption levels into aco****. But my dislike of editing the game still outways my opinions on the corruption model.

[MiloMilo]

I agree, SoFaKing, that corruption levels are too low post-1.21. Corruption is a realistic limiting factor to the size and productivity of an empire. With high corruption but strong, productive core cities, one could simply do as Theseus suggests and simply buy all the necessary improvements in the outlying colonies. Sure it would be expensive, but that's the sacrifice you make; a important feature of this game (and any strategy game, I guess) is making strategic sacrifices.

Corruption should should be higher, and to counter it the "wealth" build option should be more efficient, maybe double what it is now.

Lucky for us, all of this is fixable in the editor. For small, efficient nations, and to counter so-called "AI Settler Diarrhea," leave the corruption slider as it is and reduce the "optimal cities" value in the "world sizes" tab. For larger nations that need to fight rampant corruption, leave the optimal cities and increase basic corruption.

[Spiffor]

The problem isn't really corruption, it's the lack of ways to struggle against it. Sure, it's possible to build couthouses, police stations, FP, be democratic, be commercial. But still, your overseas cities will be half as efficient as your mainland cities if FP isn't nearby. What I miss, is another way to deal with corruption, which is corruption-reducing techs. For example, once you discovered "postal network", corruption in all your cities should be lower, because the orders go back and forth more efficiently.

Maybe a given modern (say "telephone") tech should cancel whole corruption due to distance. Distance from the capital doesn't influenc the efficiency of a city in the modern world, while it was the central concern in the ancient world.

But I like having an important corruption because of the number of cities : even in democracies, large countries / empires mean more bureaucracy, more slowness etc.

[MiloMilo]

Another note: I think the gov't type should affect not just general corruption, but the aoptimal cities value as well. This way the filling of the map would be more gradual; not every little bit of land would be filled until civs become monarchies or republics, or even democracies.

This would also hinder (slightly) the somewhat exploitative tactic of religious civs building up armies in democracy and switching to Monarchy to go to war. If they have lots of cities as a democracy, they would take a double corruption hit for reverting, thus making them less able to make new reinforcements.