88% Corruption loss in Democracy!

[Drago Sinio]

I noticed in my first game (at the easiest level) currently at year 1925, that cities at the furthest distance away from your capitol city lose almost their entire production to corruption. Even under Democracy. Playing on a standard random map, with my capitol at the center, a size 6 city at the extreme edge of the map was losing 7 out of 8 shields , and 22 of 23 commerce to corruption.

I built a courthouse which is supposed to cut corruption, and then had 5 of 8 shields lost , and 24 of 28 commerce. The city had at that point grown to size 7.

Interestingly, a larger city right next to the size 7 city , at size 16, had much less corruption. It was losing "only" about forty percent , without a courthouse. So it seems that a city at great distance to your capitol is useless to you until it grows to a very large size. The size six city was costing me more to maintain than it was generating, and could not produce anything in under 30 turns.

[Nikolai]

Guess Dan Magaha must come and visit this furum ASAP and explain this, or I guess this will hurt Firaxis income!

[Drago Sinio]

I think this is intentional, not a bug. Probably meant to discourage ICS tactics. No point building small cities everywhere if they just bankrupt you.
The large cities at the center of my territory are , as expected, experiencing very little loss to corruption.
I guess the point is, dont build cities at a distance from your capitol unless they have some critical resource you need.

I dont know, this is a completely different game from CIV2.
Which is a good thing, I think. I would feel "ripped off" if had spent $50 for a game that was just CIV2 with better graphics.
I am only on my first game, but so far I am liking CIV3 , a lot.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Drago Sinio
I would feel "ripped off" if had spent $50 for a game that was just CIV2 with better graphics.

Keep chanting that mantra. The game is still called "Civilization", so it's reasonable to expect some similarity. I would feel "ripped off" if world conquest was no longer provided as a viable option.

Besides the math has been done and corruption IS proportionally worse on Tiny maps and easier on the larger maps.

[Drago Sinio]

I would feel "ripped off" if world conquest was no longer provided as a viable option.

Well, its not a question of that. You can certainly conquer the world if you like.

The question is what best to DO with the territory you conquer?

You could just raze the cities.

Or you keep some, and raze some.

Or maybe you could use the captured city to create new workers and improve your territory or build population in your core cities.

Maybe just use the new citys as barracks to heal your troops.

Or you can build the small wonder "Forbidden Palace" at a good location in your conquered territory. The city you build it in would provide the benefit of a second capitol for corruption purposes.

Of course where, and how soon do you build it is the question.

There must be a million options to choose from, each with a million variations.

And that, to me, makes for a fun game. Not just conquering and building, but figuring out how best to conquer and build.