Corruption and Waste destroy Civ3

[Ben Williams]

It's true and everybody knows it. If you're playing a normal, unmodded game, there is no way to ever create a realistic large empire. It gets worse the further you get, and horrifying if you're actually trying to conquer the world.

The model of tying corruption almost solely to distance from your capital is absurd. Until this is fixed Civ3 will not be complete.

Right now I'm playing a game with no corruption or waste and it's amazing. You can actually build things. I'm not saying there should be none at all, just that it should make sense.

Okay, I'm done.

[Tuberski]

Then why does everybody play the game the way it is? A lot of people do.

I don't, I reduce corruption to 50% and it seems to help a lot.

ACK!

[trickey]

That is a pretty bad rant. I have seen lots of players (much more skilled than me) build very large empires without being crippled by corruption.

You should take into account the placement of your Palace and forbidden palace. Don't build your forbidden palace as soon as you can. Wait a little while, untill you can almost visualize a second core for your empire.

Once you are very well off (in terms of # of cities) then consieder making a palace jump. A palace on the tip of a pinninsula is a waste, move it to a much more central location.

[SanPellegrino]

I played civ 1,2 and AC before and I hated the corruption in Civ 3 of course. But the more I played, I get to like it! It considers careful planning and gives the Human an edge over the AI.

[WarpStorm]

Plus you can always switch to Communism, which in some cases can help a lot (if you are prepared for the switch ahead of time).

[BigDork]

Cool, Ithaca. I'm originally from Binghamton... anyway

I'm currently playing PtW without any patches. Don't currently have internet at home. Sure corruption is a pain but it doesn't make the game unplayable. I'm sure it's a better game with patches but not playing it patched I wouldn't know. I enjoy it now and am sure I'll still love it after I can finally patch the thing.

BigDork

[Egbert]

Re: Corruption and Waste destroy Civ3

Originally posted by Ben Williams
It's true and everybody knows it.

I didn't know and I think it is not true. Tuberski said it all.

[Antonin]

Me, I think corruption is a good feature. It's another obstacle for me to overcome on my way to global domination. I wouldn't play C3/PTW without it.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Boot to the head

Top five ways to avoid distance-corruption issues:

1. Palace movement
2. Proper placement of FP
3. Communism
4. Play a commercial Civ
5. Play smaller maps

If you're getting this problem after conquering cities, you could always adopt a scorched earth policy and use workers to build invasion roads.

[Lambiorix_be]

Although I agree that even with corruption and waste you are still able to build large empires I would like to see some changes to way it is conceived.

I think corruption should not only be linked to the distance of the captital or FP but also to the technological level of the infrastructure. If the city is liked to the capital with a railroad and or an airport it should have less corruption then a similar distant city that has only a road. This is only logical since the distance to the capital in 'time' diminishes.

I don't think this change would unbalance the game in any way...

[sabrewolf]

i used to mod out corruption because it annoyed me. but since i play CFC's GotM, i've got to practise with the original unmodded version.

corruption truly can cripple you. however, it does make sence. specially the # of city-corruption is good for beating a much more powerful nation (the AI sucks in dealing with corruption in large empires).

however, i'd prefer the disctance-based corruption to be less extreme. cities more than 10 tiles away are waaaay too slow in despotism. so if you don't start in a great region full of bonus resources and lots of shields and trade, it can be quite difficult to have a powerful core.

i agree with lambiorix about the time-distance that sould count. 2000 BC an empire was the size of a modern day country like egypt (egyptians) or iraq (mesopotamians, babylonians). around year 0, it was the mediterranean region, then always bigger and bigger.

look at today: archorage, san francisco and honolulu don't have bigger corruption than washington, and they ARE very far away from the east cost...

[Jimboscott]

Tips

Very usefull tips, I think :

If you have the chance to win a leader use it to build the Forbidden Palace, if you choose the good place, that's is very usefull. The FP come simply in one turn and all cities around have immediatly the benefit...

Do all the think possible to have a leader, like build Barracks in each city, always attack with the Elite troups when that's possible and you increase your chance to win a leader.

I hope this is helpfull...

[Ben Williams]

I'm not dumb, I know all about the FB and palace placement. I almost always play a commercial civ, and I build every corruption improvment available. What I'm complaining about here is the way corruption is instituted. As it has often been said, the current corruption model would make Washington (and Las Vegas, if you consider that to be the location of the FP) the least corrupt city in the country. At the same time, Alaska and Hawaii would never produce anything, and would be more corrupt than any place in the continental U.S. What I'm complaining about primarily here is what I see as the massive hole in gameplay brought about by a drastic over-simplification in the current system governing corruption and waste. Sure, you probably can manage a large empire with enough planning, but it will never be realisitic, esspecially as you enter the modern age. You cannot, for example, have one large continent and a small island, because the island will only have one production for the bulk of the game. It is almost impossaible to build remote bases.

Also, it's ridiculus that communism is the best form of government for corruption. Maybe for small governments this would work, but as Russia showed us, just because something is communal does not mean it's less corrupt.

[Mazarin]

first: why do you think that communism is the "best form of government for corruption"? At the strategy forum, alexman made some excellent research on corruption and the results were -IIRC- that communism is not better in terms of corruption than monarchy.
second: this game is not realistic -it's not supposed to be. Civ3needs corruption as it is the only way of balancing expansion vs. building...I actually would like to have corruption tied to happiness/culture but they prefered to make it more simple...that's ok for balancing the game.

[Panag]

hi ,

give the editor a look , ....

have a nice day