Corruption and Waste destroy Civ3

[Azeem]

I think the corruption model for Civ3 makes sense for the Ancient Era to the Industrial Era, but in the Modern Era, communal corruption makes a lot more sense. Since communications and transportation is easier, distant cities shouldn't suffer from extreme corruption. The capital city can be as corrupt as distant cities. There's corruption everywhere (especially in our nation's capital! ). Perhaps it should be that the larger your empire, the more corruption you have in ALL cities (Courthouses and Police Stations should reduce corruption, of course). Say you have 10 cities (without courthouses and police stations) in your nation and about 5 corruption and waste in each city. Add 2 more cities and you now have 6 corruption. Kind of extreme, but Courthouses and Police Stations should reduce corruption by 25%. Markets and Stock Brokerages may even have the potential to increase corruption in a metropolis (how about 1 corruption and waste for every 3 or 4 citizens beyond a population of 12?) a bit (piracy and insider trading ). This way, you'll have a corruption model that makes somewhat more sense. Distance could be a factor somewhat. But cities have to be extremely far (such as the other side of the world) to have a bit more corruption. Other factors should include happiness. Unhappy people should cause corruption and waste. When your cities get too populated, you end up with a bunch of unhappy people so their unhappiness ought to damage you further.

What do you think of this idea?

[Crimson Shadow]

One solution could be that each era would reduce corruption by 1, regardless of government. That effect would be the first to apply to calculation.

• Middle Age: +1 production; +1 trade
• Industrial Age: +1 production; +1 trade
• Modern Time: +1 production; +1 trade

To better reflect usefulness of knowledge and research, table could be progressing.

• Middle Age: +1 production; +1 trade
• Industrial Age: +2 productions; +2 trade
• Modern Time :+3 production; +3 trade

In my opinion that would not be hard to implement, but question is if Firaxis is willing to implement such feature.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Boot to the head

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
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.

Mind if one of those "long-gone Civ2 players" another poster mentioned de-lurks for a moment?

Nice advice. You're effectively telling me to...

1> Waste time rebuilding something I already have
2> Build something I have little chance of rushing at a location far enough away that I'd be lucky to get 1 shield a turn at
3> Use a form of government that historically is among the most corrupt, and doesn't work well with a peaceful civ...
4> Limits the number of civs I can actually play, and
5> Not play on support map sizes.

Right. And you wonder why those of us who like Civ2 and consider Civ3 to be a lesser product aren't posting on these boards much?

[sabrewolf]

well, actualy point 5 "Play smaller maps" isn't quite true. on smaller maps the distance corruption is a hell lot higher than on larger maps. e.g. on tiny maps, a city 4 tiles away has already some 20% corruption, while on huge maps the inner 2 circles of cities less corrupted.

it's up to you, TheEmerged, if you prefer civ2 and don't want to play civ3 because of corruption. but as someone mentioned earlier on: maybe you should consider playing your games different - after all, it is a different game. most of us didn't want civ3 to be an exact copy of civ2 with niftier graphics. i really love this culture-thingy. expanding FoW through cultural buildings is a very neat idea imho.

[ZargonX]

If what I've seen is correct, having your cities connected to the capitol by road or rail actually does decrease the ammount of corruption. I'm not sure the exact amount, but it does have an effect. Corruption also is deeply effected by how you play. Courthouses and Police Stations can make even far off cities quite productive, assuming you take the time to build them.

That, I think, is the closest reflection to reality. Alaska and Hawaii are not unproductive wastelands because they have an infrastructure in place to keep law and order. On the other hand, tiny villages off in the mountains in Afghanistan, far from the capitol, are probably pretty much going to do what they please.

It's not absolutely realistic, but I think it reflects reality well enough.

[Zurai]

Originally posted by Ben Williams
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.

That's highly amusing, considering it's not applicable at all. What are the distance corruption modifiers for a map the size of Planet Earth? How many tiles is it? What's the Optimum City Number?

Oh, that's right, there aren't any, because it's not a game, and the game isn't made to resemble real life more than superficially.

If you want a real life simulator, go play Europa Universalis. Or, better yet, get a 10-hour a day job. That'll give you plenty of reality.

[FNBrown]

Originally posted by Zurai


If you want a real life simulator, go play Europa Universalis. Or, better yet, get a 10-hour a day job. That'll give you plenty of reality.

... as I finish another 10-hour day at the office...

[Azeem]

Infograme: n: a message received and understood that produces certain anger, wrath, and scorn in its recipient. (Don't believe me? Look up 'info' and 'grame' at dictionary.com.)

I know this is a bit off topic, but I actually looked that up and you're exactly right.
Hmm... "Infogrames"? Kind of makes you wonder now, doesn't it?

[Ben Williams]

How come whenever you complain about something in a game, for almost any reason, there are always people who post something like "it's just a game dummy?"

I am aware that planning and all that can help deal with corruption, but no amount of planning or investment can deal with the inherent problems in the way it works. I think corruption and waste are very nessecary parts of the game, but Fraxis took the low road in programming them.

[Panag]

hi ,

well with some looks at the editor its easy to satisfy both the people who are in favour and the people who are against corruption , .....

have a nice day

[annoyed]

well with some looks at the editor its easy to satisfy both the people who are in favour and the people who are against corruption , .....
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________

actually the editor has fairly limited options for everything, including corruption

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
1> Waste time rebuilding something I already have

The time isn't wasted if it gives you less corruption.

2> Build something I have little chance of rushing at a location far enough away that I'd be lucky to get 1 shield a turn at

That's what GLs are for.

3> Use a form of government that historically is among the most corrupt, and doesn't work well with a peaceful civ...

Actually, check in the strat forum... communism is actually not as good against corruption as you might think.

4> Limits the number of civs I can actually play, and
5> Not play on support map sizes.

What he's telling you to do are things to lower corruption, he's not forcing you to do anything. I play non-comm civs on large maps 90% of the time and I don't find corruption to be an unmanagable problem.

Right. And you wonder why those of us who like Civ2 and consider Civ3 to be a lesser product aren't posting on these boards much?

No, I wonder why you are posting, because you have nothing of value to say.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Re: Re: Boot to the head

Originally posted by TheEmerged


Mind if one of those "long-gone Civ2 players" another poster mentioned de-lurks for a moment?

Nice advice. You're effectively telling me to...

1> Waste time rebuilding something I already have
2> Build something I have little chance of rushing at a location far enough away that I'd be lucky to get 1 shield a turn at
3> Use a form of government that historically is among the most corrupt, and doesn't work well with a peaceful civ...
4> Limits the number of civs I can actually play, and
5> Not play on support map sizes.

Right. And you wonder why those of us who like Civ2 and consider Civ3 to be a lesser product aren't posting on these boards much?

Erm, no.

1) I'm telling you to rebuild something in a more efficient location. Efficiency is good and companies, governments, and just about everyone else spends some time streamlining and making things more efficient all the time, as the needs of the entity change. Why should this be different?
2) Build something that is a good use of a GL, or will take a fair amount of time in return for a significant bonus.
3) Use a form of government which may be historically corrupt - which is irrelevant - but works fairly well for the game, if you choose to expand to a size where it is needed.
4) I'm telling you that if you feel corruption is too much and it is worth trading another advantage to get a lowering of that one- here is an option for you. In exchange for losing another bonus, you can build cities further away from your main capital.
5) I'm assuming you meant "Not play on supported map sizes" and again, no- I'm saying that if it bothers you that much, play on smaller maps where games tend to resolve faster and Civs have less room to expand, thereby limiting corruption through competition.

And no, I never said that Civ3 was everything it could've been, or Civ2 wasn't better in some ways. Civ3 is currently too much of a warmonger's game. There are other problems. I'm merely offering options.

A king whose name escapes me once stamped his cannons with the phrase "The Last Argument of Kings." Firaxis has done the same thing with the Editor.

Don't like something? Feel free to use it. I have. In the meantime, keep posting useful suggestions in the hopes that Firaxis will do something to change it.

Respectfully, in the hopes that more of the old Civ2ers will return....

[Azeem]

Speaking of the corruption model, is there a way we can alter it in the editor? It's been a while since I used the editor so I've forgotten.

[Argos65987]

Originally posted by Azeem
Speaking of the corruption model, is there a way we can alter it in the editor? It's been a while since I used the editor so I've forgotten.

You can change the optimum # of cities, making it higher reduces corruption. There are some other things, but i'm at work right now and can't be more help until later.