Announcement

**dasaecorvic** · November 3, 2001, 07:25

you are right

good reasoning, I just can not wait to have the game....

**Diety** · November 3, 2001, 16:13

Democracy, courthouses, the forbidden palace and... luxuries are your weapons against corruption.

The main reason for corruption is your number of citites : when you have like 40+ cities you'll be crippled with corruption. Do it with 15-20 and you'll be fine...

**shark** · November 3, 2001, 16:17

Try sticking to monarchy if you have problems with corruption
works for me anyway

**notyoueither** · November 12, 2001, 18:44

Originally posted by Diety
Democracy, courthouses, the forbidden palace and... luxuries are your weapons against corruption.

The main reason for corruption is your number of citites : when you have like 40+ cities you'll be crippled with corruption. Do it with 15-20 and you'll be fine...

Nope, nope, nope. Unless my settings are messed up.

Optimum city number on huge map is 32. That is 32 cities before corruption increases. I had less than that.

I repeat, neither Monarchy, nor Republic, nor Court houses made a single jot of a difference. That makes the game unplayable in many situations. Democracy, Rail Roads and Air Ports are not making a much bigger difference in later experience. (I don't think they claim that RR or Air travel would have an effect, but they should, shouldn't they?)

BTW, I did discover the secret decoder strategy after 4 hours playing with 0 other civs (no opposition means you win on turn 1, and then continue playing without distractions so you can figure out the mechanics). Once I built Forbidden Palace in a city closer to the East coast the corruption levels in that area decreased a certain amount and made them usable.

It seems to me that corruption is based on distance in squares to the capital. I observed a significant drop off in efficiency the further I went from Rome (SanFrancisco), but that there was a relatively short distance to absolute corruption (ie, the point at which you will not be able to dent corruption no matter what). The distance of that leash is very short (huge map anyone?). As I said from West coast to East coast of the US (actually somewhere around the Great Lakes). Building Forbidden Palace in Denver made Washington and Atlanta usable (but still very corrupt, even with Democracy, RRs and Airports in a subsequent game), Florida, Baja and Southern Mexico are still fairly much a write-off.

Tell me how India was so profitable for the British...

My conclusions are that the designers wanted to limit huge empires. Makes sense, can't see the Allies rolling into Germany and beginning to make Panther and Tiger tanks. In this I agree, production value of far off conquests should be limited in some circumstances. However, I think they have an overly simple model, and one in which the solutions to the problem that they list in the supporting material don't really work (ie, results in frustration for players).

Anyhow, I have seen mention that they are taking a second look at corruption for the patch. This is very good, because as it stands it is a good idea gone horribly bad and is a blemish on an otherwise excellent game.

**Grundel** · November 12, 2001, 20:44

I think that the corruption is high on purpose. From what I have gathered reading the posts from Firaxians is that it is programmed that way on purpose, for whatever reason.

There are some things to do to help counteract it, though...

1. Rebuild your Palace in a more central location.
2. Make sure your forbidden palace is built somewhere that may be considered the 'polar opposite' location of your palace, for best results.
3. Strategic placement of courthouses.

That is all Ihave been able to do in the default rules. However, if this still is not enough, you could try to download a user created mod from this location :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8004

It may also be in the files section here in this forum, though I have not double checked.

Also, you can create your own solution. If you use the editor, just go to the improvements tab and increase the number of corruption lessening buildings.

Hope this helps

**Citizen W** · November 12, 2001, 20:45

It appears the strategy for handling corruption is to stay small until you really build your core cities, then plan on having them crank out the military to garrison your conguered provinces.

Warning, tweaking the corruption setting appears to seriously make the AI go on a warmongering fit. Corruption lowers for everybody, I guess.

**remconius** · November 13, 2001, 11:42

I read that the official patch will also tweak the effects of corruption.

Eventhough, I can understand the reasoning behind the corruption, forcing you to keep you civ relatively small, I miss the possiblity to create a massive empire.

Especially taking over another civ and keeping it to be twice as powerful. The makers are forcing us to raze cities instead of taking them over, which I don't really get. I mean, when rome conquered Europe, they didnt destroy all the cities, they ruled for many years and were more powerful through them. According to civ rules, they would have been useless to them....

**SeanK** · November 13, 2001, 12:07

Actually, the Allies rolled into Germany and started making Volkswagons, not Panzers. But that's a different story.

I noticed last night that connecting a city to your Capital by roads has a slight effect on corruption. A small city maybe 12 squares away went from producing one shield with three or four waste to producing two shields with two or three waste. Roads are very important in this game.

**remconius** · November 13, 2001, 12:13

So, then perhaps in democracy with all cities connected to the capital, by roads, harbor or airport, would do the trick.

Has anyone tried this?

**Beau** · November 13, 2001, 12:35

Corruption is good

I have 20 cities on a large map. In reality corruption was very extreme in large empries. The Roman Empire for instance fell because of immorality which lead to corruption split factions and ultimate ruin by surrounding barbarian tribes.

No one should be able to just conquer another civ and be twice as strong because other people do not accept rule by a more powerful nation for very long. Anyone ever heard of the USSR? Well it lasted 80 years by civ time that would be a couple of turns before the entire huge empire you owned fell to its knees.

The fact is all those nations got there old names back when the USSR fell and coughed up the conquered land. If anything owning other peoples cities should cause either your soldiers to die or there population points to die in the form of resistors.

If you capture a pop 12 city then 7 or 8 of those pops should turn into fighting gurillas.

Corruption is a reality the USA loses hundreds of millions each year to corruption and by Civ standards its SMALL.

The empires some of you people complain about having to much corrution are USSR sized nations in the civ game and in real life they really would be as corrupt as in the game.

Its a challenege to prevent people from always winning by flying colors and I for one and glad corruption exists the way it does. It means careful planning, strategic locations, fitting my cities correctly and making a nice medium sized managable empire which if I played correctly would yield a very satisfying productive empire.

**Skeeve** · November 13, 2001, 12:57

Hey speaking of corruption....
Is it still flat under a communist government?
And if so, would the forbidden palace have any effect?

I haven't played a game using this gov't yet.

**HotWot** · November 13, 2001, 15:03

I found the only things that work against corruption is the palace and the forbidden palace.

Courthouses haven't got the slightest effect, nor do changing the government to rep./dem.. And does communism flatten the rate of corruption in your empire?? In one word, No! Must be a bug or something.

Keeping your empire small is a good solution, but that way you can only win by spacerace, culture or diplomatics. Which is nice to try once or twice, but conquering the world is just more fun (at least in my opinion).

So, if you wanna win by conquering the world, you'll gonna need at some leaders. Strategically place your palace and F. Palace on your own continent. (wait with building your F. Palace until you have some idea what shape and size your initial empire is gonna be). As you conquer more of the world, rebuild your palace in the new territories (There is no way to rebuild the F. Palace).

Because of the high levels of corruption in thos new territories, your gonna need a leader to build the palace. You could also use the plant/harvest forest-technique (explained in another thread, IFE or so). (Otherwise rebuilding the palace will cost you approx. 200 turns)

**sachmo71** · November 13, 2001, 16:08

It's all well and good that some think that the rampant corruption is realistic, but it is almost unplayable. If you take over cities on a distant island, it would take 200 turns to build a forbidden palace! That is not fun. The cities I took over are almost useless. If Germany had not been able to use the cities it captured in Czechsolvakia, Rumania, and Poland, they wouldn't have had enough steel, oil or wheat to sustain a land war for more than a year. Corruption needs to be toned down, a great deal. Even if they operated on half production it would be better than 1 shield!

**Skeeve** · November 13, 2001, 16:13

So Communism doesn't flatten the corruption rate after all.
I thought I remember reading that this was the intended effect from the manual. Maybe a patch will fix this.

Announcement

Corruption

Corruption

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment