Civ1/2/3 (Corruption) VS Civ4 (City Maintenance) VS Civ5 (Global Happiness)

Which limitation for large ampires do you prefer over Civ series ?


  • Total voters
    70

Naokaukodem

Millenary King
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
3,952
Once I felt corruption was a bad system, and I felt that scrapping it would unleash the player, just for him to be able to rule full capacity cities.

Then, City Maintenance came. I hated this system because it was too obscure.

Then, came Global Happiness. I'm hating this system because since Prince difficulty I always feel I have not enough, and I can find absolutely no synergy with my other occupations aka conquering or expanding. (I have to WAIT long long times before my happiness is risen again)

I can with difficulty say what I dislike the most between G.H. and C.M., but one thing is certain : I prefer corruption over both of them.

What is the system you prefer ?
 
City manteinance:

- It allowed you to have fun building cities, unlike the corruption system which rendered vast swaths of your empire useless, thus making geographic expansion pointless

- Making each city an economic investment meant that overexpansion without internal consolidation would lead you to bankrupcy, as it happened with many empires trought history

- It did succeeded in order to delay and space out your expansion, unlike the happiness mechanic

The only thing that I would change would be its obscure way of calculate the manteinance.

About corruption: hell no, most hated system ever. It sucked up the fun of the game, greatly. Perhaps we would need to create yet another system that would limit expansion and "snowball effect" that it is not any of these...
 
Good points Ikael, and thanks for the answer.

Corruption was sure making large pans of your empire useless, but the good thing was it wasn't harming you nevertheless. In III it was still usefull particularly with resources, and in I, II and III for territory control, which can be of great help when at war with a neighbour. It was also usefull for the victories (domination and conquest). You could have cities with few output, could yet improve it with a courthouse, and yet it was still without hurt. It was a win-win scheme, having a lot of cities was without consequence and even was contributing to refine your game.
The only hurting thing was according to human player feelings, when you had a large city with a courthouse that produced only 1 or 2 shields, it felt insane and a great loss a purpose. (but it wasn't, it was usefull for example to let an AI civ live in order to it profit more of its capital surrounding cities than we would have done conquering them) One can try to find a solution to this frustration however. (like the possibility to link high corruption cities to a core one, in order to get a maximizing bonus to it, like +2 shields per turn, +4 golds and +2 science. It would make expanding still usefull without harming smaller civs too much)

I now appreciate city maintenance, but I disliked it long time, too much. I learn to control it only by looking at TheMeInTeam walkthroughs, but surely I wished I could do without them.

I still hate global happiness, I play only on Warlord for that purpose.
 
Corruption.

I would be hard pressed to choose between corruption & maintenance if it wasn't for the way the AI now expands like the plauge! I think it's post-patch but the speed of expansion seems manic, especially as it seems to be for any piece of land going, including right up against your borders.

Plus, corruption would also limit the absurd distances the AI sometimes settles cities away from each other. For example I was playing on Gedemons Giant Earth Map as India and Persia settled their capital & 2nd city quite close to each other, but then the 3rd one was all the way over in SE China, 30+ tiles away!

But really, i'd say either corruption or maintenance over happiness. I didn't see much wrong with the Civ 4 maintenance/health mechanism personally.
 
What about a revamped corruption system? Let me give it a shot:

Cultural identity radious

- The further a city is located from your capital, the more it looses its cultural identity, in a similar fashion of how the corruption system worked back in the day

- However, the loss of cultural identity would just consist in a penalty to the city's culture and science output, leaving gold and production output unscratched

- That would replicate the whole "Metropolis VS colony" historic mechanic. Scientific discoveries and cultural archievements will come from the metropolis, while colonies will be used as tools to project power (producing and healing units) and gain wealth.

- That way, wide empires wouldn't have a technological advantage over tall ones, forcing big empires to have their own house (core) in order before starting expanding and colonizing

- That would also mean that tile adquisition in oversea territories will require gold, since culture production would amount to nil in the colonies. That lack of culture output will leave said colonies heavily vulnerable to cultural assimilation by the native civs of said continent (since these pesky colonies would be on their backyard), which could create really interesting scenarios of assimilation and revolts, me thinks ;)

Good points Ikael, and thanks for the answer.

You're welcome! :)
 
Once I felt corruption was a bad system, and I felt that scrapping it would unleash the player, just for him to be able to rule full capacity cities.

Then, City Maintenance came. I hated this system because it was too obscure.

Then, came Global Happiness. I'm hating this system because since Prince difficulty I always feel I have not enough, and I can find absolutely no synergy with my other occupations aka conquering or expanding. (I have to WAIT long long times before my happiness is risen again)

I can with difficulty say what I dislike the most between G.H. and C.M., but one thing is certain : I prefer corruption over both of them.

What is the system you prefer ?

You forgot another factor limiting large empires in ciV: Each city you found increase the future policy :c5culture: cost by 15%. so actually ciV uses a combination of cultural and happiness penalty to limit a large empire.
 
The problem is that the Culture isn' t used anymore for flipping ( unless Culture Bomb , but it's the only way) but for purchase Governament type , ok that makes sense ( it's difficult change ideas to a big country about governament ) , but it's the only way to use culture ! I think that the culture malus in lesser cities must be placed if culture is back the old system , otherwise , a combination of overall happiness and maintieance can do the shot , but in this mean :
I conquer a city , i decide to annex it , i lost for some time money , then i have a loss of happiness, but not much ( like +3 ) but... if happiness is under a positive number , some "REbel" units will spawn , in that way , we will avoid a rampaging colonization everywhere and makes the thing more suitable
 
I liked the city maintenance in CivIV, but I agree it wasn't very clear how it was being calculated and how your decisions would impact it. This could probably be improved though with a clearer maintenance breakdown screen. I also think it would be cool if it interacted more with what's going on in the rest of the world, say instead of emancipation making for unhappiness, it could increases distance/unconnectedness maintenance penalties. Combined with having high maintenance cities causing rebels it could cause a bit of an independence movement once people start employing democracy, which I think would be cool.
 
What about a revamped corruption system? Let me give it a shot:

Cultural identity radious

- The further a city is located from your capital, the more it looses its cultural identity, in a similar fashion of how the corruption system worked back in the day

- However, the loss of cultural identity would just consist in a penalty to the city's culture and science output, leaving gold and production output unscratched

- That would replicate the whole "Metropolis VS colony" historic mechanic. Scientific discoveries and cultural archievements will come from the metropolis, while colonies will be used as tools to project power (producing and healing units) and gain wealth.

- That way, wide empires wouldn't have a technological advantage over tall ones, forcing big empires to have their own house (core) in order before starting expanding and colonizing

- That would also mean that tile adquisition in oversea territories will require gold, since culture production would amount to nil in the colonies. That lack of culture output will leave said colonies heavily vulnerable to cultural assimilation by the native civs of said continent (since these pesky colonies would be on their backyard), which could create really interesting scenarios of assimilation and revolts, me thinks ;)

Seems quite interesting . Another idea that could work together with it can be about Social order and Popular influence over the government . It would work like this:

- There is a bar at the top of the screen indicating the state of the "Social order" . It's divide between the Red half(where the risk of being in anarchy or losing your cities is very high),the Green half(where you receive advantages,such as cheaper golden ages for example),and the Neutral part,where nothing special happen .

- Social order differ from "Happiness",due to the fact it's quite more complex . While Happiness is somehow more a static concept,Social order is dynamic concept,that can be changed by lots of things;

- SOQ(abbreviated from "Social Order Quests") range can be from local(build a specific building or allocate a military unit) or general(build a connection between cities,completes a quest of some city-state,build a National/World Wonder,etc.) and its difficulty depends on the game difficulty and on the number of the players at the game . For practical purposes,positive SO points are SO+ and SO- are negative ones .

- Divison between local SOQ and general SOQ may exist in a city that has a divergent culture of your Capital . The more cities with a divergent culture from the capital you have,the higher is the chance that you receive two contradictory general SOQ .

- To get SO+,you'll have to do things that makes your :c5citizen: proud of your government,such as winning a war or get rid of some cities,for example .

- The size and the cultural diversity of your empire defines the ammount of quests,its difficulty and its range . Each annexed/settled city into your empire increases your need for more "Social Order" points,in order to make sure such city will not become a rebel . Warmongers have three options here(that differs slightly from Civ5) :
1)Annex the captured city . Such option difficults the healing rate of your units and may make this city demands a contradictory quests of the Metropolis(unless you get "Police state" social policy,and allocate a military or police unit(details below) there);
2)Make it successfully surrender and then becomes its Vassal . You'll lose control of the city over time,but you receive some gold and possibly,even a free production bonus . And your troops will heal at the
3)Burn the city to the ground . By doing that,the chance that a unprotected city to become your Vassal,but beware,consequences may be too harsh .

- Popular influence over the government can also be controlled . Such thing defines the ammount and the range of the quests you may receive . Having too few popular influence increases culture requirement for adopting a new policy,while having too much popular influence may overwork you with too many quests .

- Current Social policies here define what kind of question you may receive . Examples for Social policy openers are:

- Freedom: Receives more General SOQ when increasing popular participation(but less local SOQ) and receives SO+ for every Great person born in your empire;
- Autocracy:gives SO+ everytime you promote persecution over a cultural minority,an even bigger SO+ everytime you execute part of a chased cultural minority and a free golden age,if you successfully wiped them out of this planet;
- Order: When you increase popular participation,the number of SOQ will increase less and you'll receive only local SOQ . The "Green half" of the Social policy bar is slightly expanded as well .


Along with those features,there is also a special unit called Police unit,unlocked with a "Industrial era" technology . Such unit can work as a "counter-spy",decreasing spy's efficiency and can also be used to suppress cultural minorities,although there is a chance that you may receive SO- when doing so . With Police state,you can also use Police unit to suppress resistance from annexed cities or Military unit,but using the latter one may cause the :c5citizen: to reduce);
 
Corruption.

I would be hard pressed to choose between corruption & maintenance if it wasn't for the way the AI now expands like the plauge! I think it's post-patch but the speed of expansion seems manic, especially as it seems to be for any piece of land going, including right up against your borders.

Plus, corruption would also limit the absurd distances the AI sometimes settles cities away from each other. For example I was playing on Gedemons Giant Earth Map as India and Persia settled their capital & 2nd city quite close to each other, but then the 3rd one was all the way over in SE China, 30+ tiles away!

But really, i'd say either corruption or maintenance over happiness. I didn't see much wrong with the Civ 4 maintenance/health mechanism personally.

Well, you are one the rare guys, including myself, to vote for corruption. What I must say is that this system seems pretty archaic, because it indeed makes no sense that so much production, gold, culture and science to (uniformally) vanish like that in the air. At least, the corrupted parts should go to some system of criminality, and/or be under the control of local authorities, aka semi puppetting. (rate of production that isn't under your direct control goes to the AI, that can build a totally new range of units like rebels, rogues, partisans, and criminals of all sorts, and also totally new kinds of buildings like squats, gang streets, marks, etc... It would be interesting that even core city to suffer from corruption at a less extent, in order to see criminality rise in those, and you could organize operations in order to annihilate them (or fail). The game could become a kind of game between good and evil) Of course, it could be good that corruption to not do a perfect circle around the capital, you could, like that quickly, have an influence rate and settle cities according to it, or not, being a little like Civ5 happiness but it wouldn't slow down your expansion or conquest, just mortgage it the time you get more control capacity, and in case you let this part alone too much, see criminaly/independency rise in some of your cities. Example : you have a 10 influence capacity on start after the creation of your capital, craeting your second city on close range would cost you 4 influence points (6 left), you third in same range 5 influence points (1 left), your fourth in middle range 10 (so this particular city would have a -9 influence factor, maybe translating in corruption and semi-puppetting like above, or going into a criminality system that will act soon ar later) When you earned new influence points, you can decide to spend them in the cities you want. For example, if you get 10 influence points you can spend them in your fourth city and get its influence back to 0 (and have still +1 influence point to spend for future settlements.) The problem with this system is that corruption would not exist at all in those full influenced cities. (unless corruption can never really reach 0 but have a minimum) (EDIT: I think that influence points cost should depend on fertility too, settling in ice should not cost as much as settling in flood plain)

What about a revamped corruption system? Let me give it a shot:

Cultural identity radious

- The further a city is located from your capital, the more it looses its cultural identity, in a similar fashion of how the corruption system worked back in the day

- However, the loss of cultural identity would just consist in a penalty to the city's culture and science output, leaving gold and production output unscratched

- That would replicate the whole "Metropolis VS colony" historic mechanic. Scientific discoveries and cultural archievements will come from the metropolis, while colonies will be used as tools to project power (producing and healing units) and gain wealth.

- That way, wide empires wouldn't have a technological advantage over tall ones, forcing big empires to have their own house (core) in order before starting expanding and colonizing

- That would also mean that tile adquisition in oversea territories will require gold, since culture production would amount to nil in the colonies. That lack of culture output will leave said colonies heavily vulnerable to cultural assimilation by the native civs of said continent (since these pesky colonies would be on their backyard), which could create really interesting scenarios of assimilation and revolts, me thinks ;)

You're welcome! :)

Seems, very, very good to me ! This way, small nations cans still catch up with bigger ones, and being big still offers some advantages like it should do. (gold and units/buildings, aka conquest-defense/maximizing)
 
Top Bottom