anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Can anyone confirm this is fixed in Conquests?
A Rank Corruption Discovery and Exploit to negate rank corruption
- Thread starter Qitai
- Start date
I hope not!
I'm just beginning to have fun with this negative rank corruption method....let me put it this way...I won't buy Conquests if this is fixed.
Grille
panel insect
Agreed.
Maybe C3C has an optional RCP check-box at game start...
Maybe C3C has an optional RCP check-box at game start...
i think i can confirm that this "exploit" has been fixed in conquest. i tried the method a number of times and it doesn't work. i'm pretty sure, 99%, that i did the method right. if i didn't, plz somebody e-mail me cuz corruptions are MAKING ME ANGRY!!!!
Welcome to CFC XenoOGear! 
Yes, this exploit as well as several others were negated in C3C. As far as what to do about corruption in Conquests, there's not much you can do except wait for the next official patch.
Corruption is hell in unpatched Conquests, and a little better in the beta patch, although there's a raging controversy in the C3C forums about the FP.
Yes, this exploit as well as several others were negated in C3C. As far as what to do about corruption in Conquests, there's not much you can do except wait for the next official patch.
Corruption is hell in unpatched Conquests, and a little better in the beta patch, although there's a raging controversy in the C3C forums about the FP.
one_hoop
Chieftain
I was shocked to discover upon trading maps with China in my current game that the AI uses the Ring City Placement around their capital! (Not all civs do, who else?) This means that it was an intended part of the game and for us to compete it is vital that we understand it either.
Still not certain about the distant palace, but like the idea of a Forbidden Palace in general. I'm unwilling to use the palace jump because it is too much of a struggle not to build any wonders in my (1st) capital. And since it is important to use the first Great Leader to build an Army (and the associated small wonders that follow from it), it is often late in the game when I actually produce a 2nd GL.
Therefore, I've been going with a large (Dc=6 or 6.5, 36 squares, ~10 cities - ocean = ~3-4) inner ring for my palace, a reasonably close secondary ring (9 or 9.5 which doesn't leave a lot of room between the two, 48 squares, ~11 cites - ocean = ~4-5). By now you should have a vast understanding of the map around you. Rather than worry about another ring, new cities are placed for culture flips of neighboring-civ cities. The FP is constructed on the side most promising for growth with ICP (intensive city placement?) around it (not inside either of the two other rings, but counting cities of the outter ring). This gives little corruption for any cities less than or equal to the second ring out, since those cities are still at rank 4 or 5.
Still working on it though, so the main contribution: Chinese AI uses RCP.
Another thought. The connectivity factor... does a harbor to roads count the same as roads? Does connectivity to a FP substitute for connectivity to the actual Palace?
M@
Still not certain about the distant palace, but like the idea of a Forbidden Palace in general. I'm unwilling to use the palace jump because it is too much of a struggle not to build any wonders in my (1st) capital. And since it is important to use the first Great Leader to build an Army (and the associated small wonders that follow from it), it is often late in the game when I actually produce a 2nd GL.
Therefore, I've been going with a large (Dc=6 or 6.5, 36 squares, ~10 cities - ocean = ~3-4) inner ring for my palace, a reasonably close secondary ring (9 or 9.5 which doesn't leave a lot of room between the two, 48 squares, ~11 cites - ocean = ~4-5). By now you should have a vast understanding of the map around you. Rather than worry about another ring, new cities are placed for culture flips of neighboring-civ cities. The FP is constructed on the side most promising for growth with ICP (intensive city placement?) around it (not inside either of the two other rings, but counting cities of the outter ring). This gives little corruption for any cities less than or equal to the second ring out, since those cities are still at rank 4 or 5.
Still working on it though, so the main contribution: Chinese AI uses RCP.
Another thought. The connectivity factor... does a harbor to roads count the same as roads? Does connectivity to a FP substitute for connectivity to the actual Palace?
M@
Grille
panel insect
I can promise you that this was just a coincidence. When you observe AI's city distances, you will often find AI cities that share a rank.[China may have used RCP when I played them...
]I don't think that any AI has a build-in flag to go for RCP. (And even if they did by chance, they get a RCP punishment in C3C 1.00, where it would be better to go for a spiral-like founding style.)
Nor does the AI use Palace jumping to a remote place - accidently, the Palace might have gone to a big city on a remote island if the former capital was captured by another civ. Very likely, the former AI 'core' was already crippled and consisted of only very few small towns - then again, question remains if their FP was still in function in that place.
1. Doesn't matter if roads or harbors (harbors are often much more handy if you jump your Palace to a remote area and shipped your settlers to the new location before).
2. I don't think so - at least according to alexman's formula.
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
The AI tries to avoid overlapping city zones and will therefore often end up with an inner ring.
The way corruption works just encourages placing cities in certain patterns - and rewards it greatly.
It takes a lot of the fun out of the game for me. It is unintuitive and mathematical, and it really turns me off.
I see that there is a need for limiting ressources if you expand more and more, but the way it works it is simply subject of exploitation and bugs - these problems have been reduced and the concept of corruption was "improved" with the latest patch, but it still is the worst part of the game.
Ever placed outposts far away from home? They are corrupt to the max and mess up your inner cities, too.
Great concept.
Ceterum censeo corruptionem esse...blubb.
It takes a lot of the fun out of the game for me. It is unintuitive and mathematical, and it really turns me off.
I see that there is a need for limiting ressources if you expand more and more, but the way it works it is simply subject of exploitation and bugs - these problems have been reduced and the concept of corruption was "improved" with the latest patch, but it still is the worst part of the game.
Ever placed outposts far away from home? They are corrupt to the max and mess up your inner cities, too.
Great concept.
Ceterum censeo corruptionem esse...blubb.
... of all this "palace jumping" and "mathematically computed city placement". When I play the game, I never ever build new palaces. I build a forbidden palace at the edge of my empire before the first big wars of the industrial age, but I could never see moving my capital purposely any time after that. One of the reasons the British empire went down was because it was geographically scattered and run from London, not from India or East Africa, the geographical focus of their power in the 19th century. Russia had a contiguous empire with a better capital placement, that's why the bulk of the Russian empire persists to this day. Sure, the capital of America moved around a few times, but America was a young republic with no culture of history of its own. Historical capitals don't move so easily. If Britain tried to move their capital from London to Cape Town, the empire would have fragmented after a bloody civil war. The French woud control most of England, the Dutch would control South Africa, the US would have grabbed Canada, and so on. I find the idea of moving a capital of a large, thriving empire unrealistically silly and completely distasteful.
- danz
- danz
zerksees
in remission
danz said:
The point is there is a bug in the game that helped the human player reduce corruption.
Clearly there was no historical significance as this was fixed in Conquests.
There are plenty of other historical inaccuracies in this game, but it is just a game.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Lol... I played vanilla civ3 for over three years and never noticed this bug! 
Maybe I just don't play competitively... or mathematically... enough!
Maybe I just don't play competitively... or mathematically... enough! Similar threads
