Civ3 corruption is good if...

[Naokaukodem]

...we do not start on a peninsula. Players starting in the middle of a continent or worse, a pangaea, are avantaged compared to the ones who start at the periphery.

For the simple reason that corruption increase is circular. Players commencing in the middle of a earth mass can put cities all around their capital, that's already 7-8 cities early with minimum time lapse (short distance for the settlers to get there), the time the other players to arrive there and they are unbeatable, even if they ally themselves altogether against this unique enemy !

That may work with reavealed map though, players could see the situation in one eyethrow and ally themselves either explicitely of implicitely since the very start of the game !

But as this just may, because after all develoment is key, and distances large (in a Civ3 game I was against all very good players, I planted cities all around my capital and when they declared it was too late for them, I basically win the game and they were disgusted, LOL), another way would be to make corruption adaptated to the shape of the land.

For example, a isle like Japan would have cities the same efficiency as France.

It's a little like saying that in Civ5 or Civ6, the city radiuses develop towards useable terrain as well as the range from the city. For example is you start on a peninsula (I'm doubting why I insist, this pretty much never happens again in Civ6), your tiles develop towards land and you can work lands as far as wanted provided you didn't reached the maximum number of workable tiles.

A problem is still there : the time settlers travel to arrive to their founding point. Simple, make settlers immaterial, even if that deprivates players to steal them. Instead of settlers, you have in city queue "build village", that you can place X tiles from your borders. Tada ! As much efficient as a core civ.

Result ? A LOT less terrain advantages, and corruption back, with all its simplicity and attractiveness.

I'm aware making coastal cities more powerfull is a good step in the right direction though... but as long as we can't settle cities in the ocean... (and we shouldn't)

 

[Sostratus]

So for those curious I’m assuming the OP is referring to a portion of the corruption mechanic in civ3, which was essentially a gold penalty applied on the basis of how far the city was from the palace. Further cities face more corruption.

But in general, with regional effects and loyalty, we have this behavior already in the game since those effects spread out in circles.

if a distance mechanic was desired in the game, for whatever reason - I mean the City Connection mechanic could be added, it doesn’t have to be a penalty- one could use the trade efficiency mechanic introduced in GS to modulate distance effects. You could also have the base distance based on actual routes to get there, like trade routes. IE, no teleporting through mountains without a tunnel.

For example, City A is 10 tiles from City B. That’s 10 tiles if it’s by land, but suppose the cities are both on the coast. GS currently assigns an efficiency of 2 to water tiles. So this distance might become 10*2=20 for positive bonuses (like a city connection or something) but 10/2=5 for a negative effect like corruption.

You could also add multipliers for sharing a continent or not, since those are named, and you could even consider whether something lies on the same river since those are now named/internally indexed too.

that way you’ve got a mechanic that can naturally balance the map generation with a realistic “connectedness” of empires, taking into account that expansion along water, or up river, is easier than going through a desert around a mountain range, and brings real economic impacts for completing late game infrastructure- a canal network that opens a large lake with several cities on it to the ocean really would be a boon to commerce, unlike now.

 

[Naokaukodem]

which was essentially a gold penalty applied on the basis of how far the city was from the palace. Further cities face more corruption.

Not only a gold penalty, but a production one too ! (and most importantly)

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Not only a gold penalty, but a production one too ! (and most importantly)

I didn't like it to be honest. If you wanted to build island colonies or whatever they were completely worthless.

 

[playshogi]

IIRC, the corruption mechanic in Civ3 was made obsolete in Civ3 itself, by the specialists which were added in the last expansion of Civ3.

 

[The googles do nothing]

Remove AOE and replace it with effects based on how the cities are connected (roads, railroads, coastal cities, harbors + buildings).

 

[Naokaukodem]

I didn't like it to be honest. If you wanted to build island colonies or whatever they were completely worthless.

To be honest "colonies" have never been a totally good option in the Civ series : the time you discover those islands and the cities could not develop themselves meaningfully before the game ends. However it may have restricted the kinds of maps, I don't remember if there was an archipelago map in Civ3... but there's this idea that city population would not be incremential anymore, it could vary dramatically according to trade routes / epidemies / golden ages / migrations / whatever. (ex: the population of some cities near the big lakes in USA exploded with the apparition of railroads), with corruption it could work with courthouses / forbidden palace(s?). (or a special status of colony, with its pros and cons, that have still to be determined...)