Announcement

**vmxa1** · October 21, 2002, 02:56

The only real way to make them productive it to build your palace on that contient. If it is big enough to justify that. The best way to accomplish this is with a leader to rush it. That is why some people put the FP close to the original palace, so when they make a new one and lose the original, those core cities will not suffer too much. If you are quite late in the game, just let the new cities limp along with just a temple.

**Demerzel** · October 21, 2002, 03:03

having commercial as one of your civ's traits sure does help, plus having courthouses and police stations too to some extent. However, regardless of the modifiers above coupled even with the least affected goverment type democracy, oversea cities are normally corruption riddled "forts".

What I mean by that is I find that the first city for me on a new continent is my entry point for troops and has an airport built if I've reached that tech level or if not, transports dropping off troops there. Then my troops simple fan out from that point, conquer another city, subdue & consolidate it and then use that as another "fort" jump off point where troops can heal & be defended. At no time do I expect the remote cities to ever really provide any meaningful manufacturing capacity for my empire.

The idea of preventing remote cities from being good production wise is to prevent Infinite City Sprawl but sometimes I have to admit that having all my oversea cities in my enlightened democratic empire producing 5 or 6 shields with 15 plus corrupted is a tad bit annoying.

C'mon Firaxis, surely there can be a better way to prevent ICS than making half your cities corruption filled cesspits? Forbidden Palaces are useful and being able to move the Palace too but when you don't have a GL to spare ( mebbe because you're a pacifist and are expanding peacefully for resources ) then having to wait 140 - 200 turns for a palace to build is just fubar.

**WarpStorm** · October 21, 2002, 07:11

Communism. It has it's flaws, but it is how you can make a big empire productive.

Forget the conventional wisdom that it sucks. It doesn't if you use it under the right circumstances. Taking over a second continent is the right circumstances.

Yes, you will take a gold/tech hit. Yes, your core cities will be 3/4 as productive as before. Yes, you will get to support 8 units per city for free. Yes, you will be able to develop those newly conquered territories.

I find that once I develop the non-core cities to full productivity under Communism (something you shouldn't do under Democracy, a waste of shields) my shield production can be double or even triple what it was under Democracy for a big enough empire.

Under Communism, there is no core.

**aahz_capone** · October 21, 2002, 07:16

I loath communism. I hate seing my capitol have a quarter of its shields slip away...

But you are riught, sometimes it's the only way. I find it despciable that an enlightened democracy could have so much corruption even WITH commercial trait, courthouse, and police. So much in fact that I've lost patience gaming on huge maps. Now if you could build more then one FP then I could arrange something, but I tend to not get so many GLs....

**bongo** · October 21, 2002, 08:34

Maybe a second FP after city #25 would be an idea for the next patch?

Until then you have but two options, stay in republic/democracy so your core cities can give you all the production/gold/science you need or switch to communism. As WarpStorm pointed out, you have to choose the right government for the situation. Conquering another continent IS the right situation for communism.

**jshelr** · October 21, 2002, 08:45

In real life and in civ III you can't expect conquered people or lands far from home to add much to the homefront's capacity. It doesn't happen. Never has. Never will. As the good comment above suggests, communism/fascism is the only answer -- and it's a bad answer most of the time. You are essentially limited to what your two core rings of cities are able to do. That's all folks. The rest is for resource gathering and opponent elimination.

**SpencerH** · October 21, 2002, 10:01

Just never bother to colonize other continents

**bongo** · October 22, 2002, 07:05

I invade(and conquer) other continents of four reasons.

1 Weaken other civs.
2 Capture importent wonders.
3 Capture luxury/strategic resources.
4 Increase my own territory

Note that 'Increase my own production/wealth/science' is not one of my goals, because I know that in the late part of the game those (corrupt) new cities will add very little production power to your empire. Just disband units/rush production to get those few buildings you need(temple/library/walls/harbor/airport/barracks)

**Zachriel** · October 22, 2002, 08:00

Re: Corruption in Democracy - expanding to new continent

Originally posted by Thriller
Somebody help me!!!

I've put together about 6 cities by settlement or conquest now on the new continent (I guess about 30 on the old one), however I can't build anything!

Historically, colonies were used just for their raw materials. North America produced tobacco; South America produced silver; Africa slaves; Asia spices. Why expect colonies to be capable of manufacturing productivity? If you need a Harbor or City Walls, just buy it with the profits from the trade of your resources; or dig into your treasury.

**WarpStorm** · October 22, 2002, 08:16

I often expand my empire to increase culture. Even totally corrupt cities generate culture points at the normal rate. Sure, you usually have to rush build those temples and libraries, but it's amazing hopw different the game is if you have a solid culture lead.

**BillChin** · October 23, 2002, 01:24

Best way to combat corruption is to limit the number of cities in your empire. Courthouses, police stations and We-Love-the-King-Day help a great deal, if a player keeps the optimal city number in mind (see editor for the number for each map size and difficulty level).

A well centered Palace and Forbidden Palace help. Many players have one on each continent for a two-continent empire.

Communism is very weak, especially on higher difficulty levels (Emperor, Deity). If your goal is winning the game in an efficient manner, Communism is rarely a good option. If your goal is to build a few buildings in outlying provinces, you are often better off raising gold in Democracy and rushing them with gold. If your goal is to build a large empire just for personal satisfaction, Communism is okay.

Communism is the weakest form of government in Civ III and shunned by most experienced players. It is one reason that human players are able to catch up to the AI in the Industrial Age. If Communism does not get a major overhaul for PTW, I expect many games will end without it ever even being researched. (Though one player may get it for Theory of Evolution.)
- Bill

**bongo** · October 23, 2002, 03:38

I totally agree, communism is close to useless. Except in the rare case where you will be waging a LONG war and cannot afford the war weariness but can afford the drop in science and wealth. Invading another continent for a domination victory may be the right situation.

Kind of ironic but if your civ has the religious trait communism is a lot more valuable(as a war government)

**star mouse** · October 23, 2002, 05:16

One thing that can be done ... if you disband the city with the Forbidden Palace, you can build it again. I did this in one game.

**aaglo** · October 23, 2002, 07:25

What if a city has great wonders? Can you disband them? Can you build those wonders again?

Announcement

Corruption in Democracy - expanding to new continent

Corruption in Democracy - expanding to new continent

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment