Civ3: Do you modify corruption?

[damunzy]

I have just finished a 20% corruption game and before that I had corruption at 0%. I must say that those games were the most fun for me out of any other Civ3 games I played. The last one was a Monarch level and modifying corruption was the only major change to the game. I am dreading going back to 100% corruption to play some GOTM and HOF games but figured I might as well try it again.

So what corruption do you play at?

 

[Silence]

Actually it never occured to me to modify the corruption, usually I just play it as standard setting.

I really hate when it tells me 'The rules of this scenario have been modified'...feels somehow like I'm cheating.

Now that someone's pointed it out though, I can see grand vistas of pure, law abiding citizens stretching before me.
Well, mostly anyway.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

He PaleHorse, remember to good old days of sprawling empires without capital, thus wothout corruption?????

I'm at 75% right now and like it, but 50 is nice too, and when I'm in a kill-em-all mood I go to zero!

 

[Zouave]

This partly depends on the type of land mass you have and the number of civs against you. The more spread out you are, the more corruption, obviously. So, perhaps that level should be adjuseed to the type of geography and number of civs - corruption doesn't matter too much if you're a compact civ.

I've become convinced the inabiltiy to explore and settle, even by caravels, is related to the corruption issue. There's hardly any point if they produce so few shields - another reason Settler Diarrhea is illogical.

So my levels are adjusted to geography, but they are certainly lower than the basic rate, and high corruption for Democracy is unrealistic.

 

[damunzy]

Got some votes, a few posts. The ratio isn't as high for standard corruption as I thought it would be. That is a good thing, it shows that people do use the editor.

 

[Marx]

I play it on the standard level. In future I`ll play it with less coruption, in my games I played I was irritating myself on the
corruption levels.
I didn`t installed the corruption mod yet.

>>I didn't play the game for a couple of months. (My social-life is not compatible with such a addictive game) But in summerholiday there is time enough to play it.

 

[cracker]

I am sticking with standard corruption for now because even though it really does make the game less fun in many ways, it is the only way to develop skills that will make you competitive in GOTMs and tournaments.

Its just a different game with the standard corruption levels and that means that some game types are almost infeasible.

I do not play huge maps or true island hopping type games at this time because the corruption levels truly turn these games into terminal torture type experiences.

Unless you can build a standard empire core of 12 to 15 cities around your capital and have that be a basis for winning the game, then the current corruption settings and desgin factors are way out of line with how an enjoyable and still challenging game must be played.

 

[TheEvilCheater]

I play at 20%. U have a little currpution but not bad also put optimal cities up higher

 

[God]

I have yet to mess around with the editor. I really should try out some stuff because so far I've played only standard rules games for GOTM and HOF.

 

[SKILORD]

why?

 

[Arioch]

I use the standard settings, mainly because it would feel too much like I'm cheating to alter the corruption levels so they are easier to manage.
That said I don't play on huge maps so it's not as big a problem for me anyway.

 

[Paalikles]

Up to this point, it seems like most people stick to standards.
Hey - why spend your time "cheating" when you can have all of the frustration of Civ3 for free without the extra work

Allthough I would like to try a game with a little less corruption

Edit: oh - I voted standard...

 

[Traquenard-fx]

I always change because I always play on 256*256 map and in this circonstances corruption was too crapy.

 

[MuddyOne]

I play with standard settings. I see corruption as an obstacle in the game. I don't see obstacles as a problem in a game, they are generally what makes a game. The more obstacles to overcome, out do, work with, or around, the more enjoyable.

 

[JFL_Dragon]

I dont adjust it at all, it feels like Im cheating if I do. Im mean where do you stop ?

I leave everything as default.

 

[saintides]

Corruption .. whatever. I just attack .. kill, build bases. I see horrible corruption. Don't worry about it. I don't modify it with mods, don't care that it happens. I build a FP in a good place .. still, my corruption is bad. Whatever

Can't wait for mp ....

 

[Evie]

I lower the corruption to about 50% of the usual value, too. I was already editing the abilities of ships and various units (no creating super-units, though), giving the "leathal bombing"* ability to various units and so on, so I figure why not set that.

My current project is to try a game with a much overhauled bombardment/naval capacity. I'm a fan of naval power, so it irritates me to no end how poor naval power is in the game.

 

[Masquerouge]

I stick to standards. I'm ok with corruption, it's a bit more realistic than 0 corruption, I think. And since the Ai has the same problem...
Now I've heard corruption-fighting through police station and forbidden palace has been improved. Since I play only on huge maps, I was curious to know if the change was great or... ??

 

[Shabbaman]

I use the standard game setting most of the time.

 

[JollyRoger]

Since I have read the threads relating to fighting corruption, playing at the standard level feels a little bit like cheating. The only way to remove the guilt is to increase corruption. Besides, soon Firaxis will cave in to pressure and give us artillary units with the ability to fight corruption.

In response to the "Settler Diarrhea" diarrhea that turns up in so many threads - take some first person shooter medicine and get over it. The European settlement of the new world comes to mind of an example of settler diarrhea run rampant. I concede it is not a perfect parallel to the game, but the urge to expand and settle has often caused tension, conflict, and warfare throughout the history of civilization. The American revolution can be seen as a model (though concedingly not perfectly parallel model) of corruption and city flipping. The colonies could never be as productive for the crown as English cities and the colonies flipped (though concedingly not to the native culture). England tried to take the colonies back through warfare, but failed to do so.

Corruption in modern day America? What percentage of Hawaii is owned by Asian interests and thus not fully benefitting the U.S.? Environmentalists have caused us not to make full use of the productive resources of Alaska (although why would anybody settle there anyway - too much tundra). You think South Central Los Angeles helps contribute fully to the productive capacity of Southern California? Texas and California politicians and corporations are responsible for rolling blackouts in California, thus causing corruption and waste. A little of an off topic rant, but CivFanatics has the Zouave Wonder which increases science through making valid points about shortcomings of the game but causes unhappiness through repetition.