Corruption: Why I miss it

[MiloMilo]

Spiffor, I find your views interesting and attractive. I would like to subscribe to you newsletter.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by 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.

Very good points, I agree.
I still think that there should be a better way to limit empire size rather than focusing on corruption, but working within Civ 3 your ideas are very appropriate.

[Spiffor]

MiloMilo :
My newsletter

Trip :
These aren't really my ideas. Actually, I didn't invent anything, these are the points I read on 'Poly, and I agreed with. (Just said this not to take credit for those ideas)

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Spiffor
MiloMilo :
My newsletter

LoL
It would be even better if someone asked if they could donate to your charity.

[MiloMilo]

Sorry, Spiffor, arcane Simpsons reference.

[Captain]

Originally posted by 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.

Interesting ideas, I like the corruption-reducing tech ideas.

Otoh, you can mod the game. Add a second Forbidden palace.

In my mod, I increase its price 50%. Add a third FP. Increase its price another 50%. Add a fourth, increase price another 50%.
Theoretically you could keep building FPs, but the price keeps going up. There's no actual cap, just a point where it becomes not "worthwhile" or not "efficient" anymore. This would depend on geography and your particular civ's circumstance. This keeps FP placement also strategic.

"Efficient" empires are still possible, but making them "efficient" is a time-dependent process (unless you have leaders) representing your govt's longterm struggle to stamp out corruption. Warmongers not building infrastructure will find their empire's fringes weak. Builder-imperialists will be able to make their fringe cities more valuable and productive, though it will take time.

Without the extra FPs, after the first major expansion, any further expansion isn't worthwhile (except to deny the land to someone else).

[albiedamned]

SofaKing, it sounds like you and I are in the exact same boat. I played intensely for a month in November when the game first came out, then for some reason I didn't play again until just recently. Like you, I installed the latest patch. And while I was pleased that air superiority works now , I was surprised as I started to play by how much corruption had been reduced.

I was one of the people arguing vehemently on these boards when the game first came out that the new corruption model was a good thing and that all the conquerors and ICS'ers of the world would just have to learn to adapt instead of criticizing the game. I still think that. I was able to consistently win at Monarch level despite the corruption, because I adapted my playing strategies for it. To me, the people screaming about corruption were probably just bitter because their Civ2/SMAC strategies were causing them to, gasp, lose.

Anyway, I agree that corruption should be raised back up somewhat. It is not realistic to be able to conquer an entire other continent and maintain useful control of it. Name one example in history where that has happened.

[Arrian]

Spiffor,

I remember arguing for corruption reduction based upon technology back when everyone was complaining about corruption. I thought the initial level of corruption was a bit too high, and was largely satisfied by the time 1.17 came around. Still, I think battling corruption should be a process that continues into the modern age.

I posted a rather long, drawn out table of maximum corruption limits for cities under the various forms of government, divided up by Era (did it that way for simplicity, but I actually like using specific techs better). I should try and find that post...

Anyway, I agree with you. I think that would add something to the game... give you a sense of moving through history.

-Arrian

[Spiffor]

Arrian :
In fact you're agreeing with yourself Sorry I forgot you were the one who thought of it. It's a great idea, and I hope it will be implemented one day (although it's not my top priority, as you can see in my sig. )

[kimmygibler]

"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****."

The sd thing is that this isn't the case. The ai will continuously build useless cities that produce nothing just to take up territory. The ai doesn't think about corruption at all as far as I can tell. There needs to be harsher penalties for severe corruption. For example, 'the angry rebels haveformed a new civilization, they are calling themselves the Zulus.' Or at least some sort of major penalty that the ai takse into account.

btw, I have never changed my opinion on this. I was always in favour of the high corruption and even raised corruption in the editor since the beginning.

[Panag]

Originally posted by kimmygibler
"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****."

The sd thing is that this isn't the case. The ai will continuously build useless cities that produce nothing just to take up territory. The ai doesn't think about corruption at all as far as I can tell. There needs to be harsher penalties for severe corruption. For example, 'the angry rebels haveformed a new civilization, they are calling themselves the Zulus.' Or at least some sort of major penalty that the ai takse into account.

btw, I have never changed my opinion on this. I was always in favour of the high corruption and even raised corruption in the editor since the beginning.

hi ,

you can also put zero food on a forest and tundra , together with putting the cost for a a settler a 60-80 shields , ..

have a nice day

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The problem isn't really corruption, it's the lack of ways to struggle against it.
...

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.

You've got my full support, Spiffor.

The distance-related corruption should really be limited to the ancient and medieval eras... maybe tied to the form of government plus some small wonders? First a postal system, then a telephone network, finally maybe the internet... the corruption/waste due to the number of cities might, on the other hand, be even increased a bit for the more sophisticated government types then (imagine how many offices and governmental institutions current democratic countries maintain...).

[Panag]

hi ,

corruption is part of our real lives , ....in some countries half the GNP is "under the table" , .......

have a nice day

[Barchan]

Corruption v. Waste

As I've said before, I think most people's beef with the early versions of the game was the crippling effect of waste, which affects shields, rather than corruption, which affects trade. I, for one, can accept that a far-flung city will get only a small percentage of gold back to the royal coffers at the King's palace. Similarly, I can accept that a large empire will suffer a greater level of corruption than a smaller one, due to administration and policing issues. But I could never stomach the fact that a city, despite having a reasonably well-developed infrastructure and police department, would still somehow manage to lose 90% or more of its basic raw materials used for LOCAL production (which shields are, essentially, since they're not centrally pooled). Waste was (and is) what made building distant colonies impossible, not corruption.

I think Firaxis missed a golden opportunity. If they had fully developed the difference between waste and corruption and reduced waste while keeping corruption high, it would have bettered the game. By divorcing waste from corruption, it would have been possible to build distant strategic outposts that could actually support themselves with local construction projects and unit recruitment while minimizing some of the snowball effects of a large empire, specifically tons-o-gold and massive research capacity.

The bottom line would have been that large empires would primarily benefit only the conquerors, and not everyone. More cities would equal the ability to produce more units, but not necessarily more money or science. Indeed, a small, well-managed empire would have been nearly as wealthy as a large, sprawling one. But by reducing both waste and corruption, now it profits everyone to grow a huge empire. And thus, with yet another strategic pathway pruned (a la the "mandatory science" required to advance a new age), the game is slowly becoming more and more of a "horserace" game where whoever best implements the same (and only) strategy wins.

Yes, yes, I know that there’s a slider for corruption now so you can set it to your own liking, but there’s just the one slider for both corruption and waste. I just think it’s a shame that Firaxis came up with a great idea to distinguish between waste and corruption but then failed to meaningfully implement it. Not as great a shame as colonies, mind you, but there you have it....

[Jon Shafer]

But Barchan, you're missing the point of corruption and waste. Yes, your points make perfect sense, I'm sure most of us will agree. However, corruption and waste were included to tone down on using warfare to expand, and just plain to expand period. Reducing waste would still make it possible for larger empires to be much more powerful than a smaller one. It's designed so that at a certain point, a new city can do NOTHING because the corruption and waste is so high that it's not worth having. That's the point. And changing things would render the system useless.

I still say the problem is massive empires that grow without limits. And I still say the solution is not 'corruption' and 'waste'. It needs to be more historical: the farther away a city/province was from the capital, the more rebellious and independent it became. Rebellions and revolts become more common, requiring a larger military, which is more expensive. Eventually the costs of maintaining a large empire outstrip the benefits of having one. That's how it should be.