Conquests Beta Patch Now Available

[akots]

Originally posted by Marlor
Basically, I bought Conquests with the expectation that it would make it easier to fight corruption - but at the moment it seems to be the opposite.

I have played only 3 full games yet. However. To me it looks like the corruption has been decreased. I will try to run a couple of tests today or tomorrow. Just create the same map in PTW editor and C3C editor with same cities and improvements to see what happens to gpt income. And also try FP in the main core or in another. It might be less just for the feeling of it but the change is still subtle. Bad thing is that police and couthouses SHOULD work. Make 2-3 shields out of 1 with total 50, but there should be something happening. Otherwise it is stupid. Speaking of the math point, why do they have it slide all the way down to zero instead of some approximation. It is 1 shield + 0% of total production but it better be 1 shield + 10% of total production or even 5%. Better 20%. However, this is very easy to implement and should not be so fiercely fought for. If the players want (they do), why not them have it?

 

[Grille]

originally posted by Marlor:

Maybe I have unrealistic expectations, because I wanted Civ3 to basically be a "historic version of Alpha Centauri", or "Civ2 with borders", but I keep coming back to a line in the manual:

One of Democracy's greatest advantages is its ability to squelch corruption and waste. Both are minimal in your cities.

Having cities with 90% corruption at the edges of my empire doesn't seem to be minimal to me. 50% would be acceptable, but the current situation is just over the top... and now with the patch seeming to lessen the performance of one of the great tools to fight corruption (the Forbidden Palace), I am not happy at all.

Welcome to CFC!

You seem to be a bit disappointed about the comparibly heavy corruption in Civ3 in general, but unlike in SMAC, civ1&2 corruption is now a real issue from the start to the end of a game. It's pretty much normal to have quite a lot of ultra corrupt cities (95% no matter what) at some point. And that was intended.
So if it's that what really annoys you, you could tweak the rules in the editor: there's a corruption slider and if you lower it, you may decrease corruption to a level you like (you could also adjust OCN).
Although this measure might have an impact on the game balance, maybe you could enjoy the game.

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
Of course. In a perfect world, they'd also supply the reasoning behind implementing the system.

A long time ago, in a manual far far away, there was a game called Civ3. It stated that the new emphasis was to have smaller more productive empires. This was the reason for all the corruption in the original release. It was part of the 'plan' for civ3.

The problem then appeared that players did not like it and considered it as ruining gameplay. Since firaxis was, at the time, more concerned with making the game FUN, it kept getting reduced until we ended up with what we had in PTW 1.27.

I suspect someone at firaxis found the original specs for gameplay and forgot that it was changed to improve player enjoyablity. Perhaps there was a different development group for C3C than PTW... i dunno.

Don't forget thier constant drive to reduce the advantages the human has over the AI. The problem is that instead of improving the AI itself, they add handicaps to the human. I mean really... what is the reason for Sid level?? One of the first things Soren wanted to know was "has anyone beaten deity?" and i am certain he was disappointed when it was possible. (i have never attempted it nor do i plan to in the foreseeable future)

 

[Marlor]

Originally posted by Grille

It's pretty much normal to have quite a lot of ultra corrupt cities (95% no matter what) at some point. And that was intended.
So if it's that what really annoys you, you could tweak the rules in the editor: there's a corruption slider and if you lower it, you may decrease corruption to a level you like (you could also adjust OCN).
Although this measure might have an impact on the game balance, maybe you could enjoy the game.

Thanks, I'll have a look at this once I have some spare time, although I would be a little worried about unbalancing the game by doing so.

However, it seems like a very strange design decision for 95% corruption to be normal and unavoidable, especially when the manual states that Democracy should have minimal corruption.

I really think that there should be some way of fighting corruption effectively, to allow for expansion beyond a small civilization, and that is what I was hoping that C3C would add. The massive corruption really cripples production in most cities away from your capital, and makes the game slow to a snail's pace. I find it hard to believe that this was the developers' intention.

Maybe once I play the game some more, I will find that C3C provides a way to reduce corruption to a manageable amount (i.e. 60% maximum in outlying cities). However, based on the posts in this forum thread, this doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Justus II]

I am also frustrated by the lack of clarity, at the least, regarding this new implementation of the FP. I think, based on everything that has been discussed (and thanks to Alexman, SirPleb, and everyone else that has given us test results) that regardless of whether it was intentional or not, the implementation IS different than both C3C Pre-Patch and Vanilla/PTW. However, neither the documentation supporting the patch OR the Civilopedia in C3C make any mention of a change of function from the original.

This means that it may or may not be intentional, may or may not be balanced, and may or may not be changed back in the next patch. All of which makes me that much less inclined to experiment with it to determine whether it is beneficial or not, or even where the optimal placement would be. If Alexman's suggestion is correct (a conquered neighbor near my core), I might prefer that, as that was intuitively where I used to place it when I first started playing. But just because it fits my "playing style" doesn't mean it is a good thing for everyone else, and certainly not if it isn't obvious WHY it goes there. Nor do I want to develop/realearn habits that may have to be changed in a week or a month or whenever the next patch comes out.

I (as many people here) have a limited amount of time I can put into game-playing, and I don't like the idea of "wasting" hours either testing a game feature that may or may not be accidental to begin with, or working my way through a game only to have to start over when the next patch comes out. As it is, I am lucky to have time for GOTM, and recently a couple SGs to try the Conquests, and haven't even played through more than a couple of the Conquests myself. I had actually been waiting for the patch to start an epic game of Conquests, and try all the changes, but it looks like that will wait until next year.

I appreciate the efforts that Firaxis has made to get the patch out for the holidays, and I realize it is "beta", and accept that there may be bugs in the patch. However, I have to agree with SirPleb that it seems they changed the functionality of the FP at the very time they were trying to get this patch out to fix a bug with the original implementation. Unlike many posters, I am not a programmer or mathematician but that seems to me like changing two different variables in the same iteration of an experiment, and I remember being taught not to do that even in high school.

 

[Commander Bello]

The more I play C3C, the more unsatisfied I feel.

And having read the last statements about the corruption / FP issue, makes me even more sad. I really get the impression - this may be a bold statement, but I real feel like this - that the developers just don't know how to work with a computer.

Well, of course they know about programming. They do, don't they?

But, look at the way how rules are implemented and set up. They are like the rules for a board game. And then they shuffled them a little bit around to make it 'more interesting'. Bah!
To make corruption being dependant from the distance of a given city from the capital is absolutely counter-productive in a game, which is based on the idea of expansion. But is simple to be implemented. Not enough with that, the more cities you have the more corruption you will encounter.
Then they learn, that this makes the game almost unplayable, since corruption lifts off like a rocket.
Ok, so we don't change the simple concept, we just add a second capital. From the civilopedia:
"Forbidden Palace: Gives the benefits of a second <Palace> located in the city that builds it. Cumulative with <Secret Police HQ>"
"Palace: The Palace marks the capital city and center of your empire. It eliminates <corruption / waste> in the capital and decreases it in nearby cities"
"Secret Police HQ: Gives the benefits of a second <Palace> in the city that builds it. Cumulative with <Forbidden Palace>"

Now, does the palace eliminate corruption? No, it don't. It does it to a high degree, that's all.
Does the Forbidden Palace elimininate corruption? Even less. And sometimes, it just doesn't do this at all. It just doesn't do, what is it's purpose.
That is, as if in a flight simulator you could by a new engine which successfully prevents you from taking off.

The problem - as far as I see it - is based on the simplicity of the original concept. It really looks like the adoption of a board game. Ok, Civilization indeed WAS a board game.
But, if you adopt a board game to a computer, you just have to ways how to do that:
Make the adoption being one to one. Then you can stick with simple rules. But then most people feel unsatisfied. Why should anyone play a board game on the computer, when it is much easier to play it as board game?
So, you have to add some features. But then, you should make use of the calculating power of the machine! Then you really should develop algorithms which are elaborated and which WORK!

What you never should do is to add just some handicaps here and there. Why not?

We just learn about the reason: (apocryphe record from the latest developers' meeting)
"Oh, hmm.. did work for six cities... Doesn't work anymore for 15 cities. Hmmm.. ok, let's put in this.... Oooops... That's strange... Hmmm... Then we will additionally put in this... Aaaargh! And this! Oiiiiiii! And this! And this! And this! And....!!!!!!"

The effect is, we now have a game, which in total has costed us appr. 100 $. It is some years old, has been patched and patched, has been playtested by appr. a million people, and doesn't follow any rules any more. At least not the rules which are stated for the game.
So, I assume that those guys either have never read the documentation, or just don't care about it. Why stick to the rules, if my idea as of last night is soooo nice?

All we can do, is to hope that for Civilization IV a new developer team will be formed. Maybe some people who just think, before the shuffle the lines of the code....

 

[Ankka]

I'm not sure wehter this has been discussed or not, but I saw someone say at CDG that the 1.02 patch should be installed before this one, and here I see tat it is included in thos one... I'm speaking of a ROW version, I think.

 

[alja]

This discussion could end immediately if Firaxis decides to make a statement what is intended.

We would all not be too happy if FP is not working correctly but we could stop wasting time to figure out how this current modell is working and simply wait for the official patch.

 

[kettyo]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
What I still fail to understand is why the developers seems so hesitant to share basic game-mechanical info, like exactly how the FP is supposed to work. It can hardly be be to prevent number-crunchers from 'exploiting' the info, since past experience should tell them that it will be retroengineered if they don't share it, with the same end result. So why not earn some cheap gratitude and customer happiness by simply telling us?

Probably they are on holiday now.

 

[Nexushyper]

I agree with Marlor, 90% corruption SHOULD NOT be the norm cities on the edges of your empire. Civ was a game designed to build and expand your civilization. Not to build a small, productive civilization. I have always loved Civ for that fact, if I want to have a small empire I can, if I want to have a large one I can and without a penalty for doing so! Not just C3C, but Civ3 in general has gone way off course of what Sid put in the first two Civ games.

Again, I agree with Marlor, at most 60% corruption in SOME far outlining cities is ok, but in Democracy, you should excpect little to no corruption if you have all corruption fighting improvements built!

Here is how to fix this: (Please note large amount of sarcasim)

File -> Import -> Civ2 corruption code

 

[kettyo]

Setting corruption to 70% must not be unbalancing.
Firaxis used this setting in some conquests at all difficulty levels.

 

[The Last Conformist]

kettyo: Holiday or no holiday, this hesitancy has been in evidence several times before, too.

 

[kettyo]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
kettyo: Holiday or no holiday, this hesitancy has been in evidence several times before, too.

You are probably right.

But reading this topic could get you a feeling that C3C is unworthy playing.
Though i think it's the best civ game yet.

AI civs make serious wars, massive campaigns on each other at last. Nothing like this in other civ games.
Anti-air capability at last.
AI civs use different government types at last not everybody uses republic when available (this always annoyed me).
You can set the rules that the game must end by a victory condition fulfilled at last (not by reaching time limit).

And when you find default corruption is too high for you, you can set the level you're most satisfied with (firaxis also plays with corruption level in the conquest scenarios)

So creating a feel that this is a crap game is quite unjust i think.

And patches will come and solve bugs.
Btw don't you know that there are still a lot of bugs in Civ1?

In my opinion the two best civ games are Civnet and C3C.

Stop and go play (and beta test )

 

[Birdjaguar]

I have not used the editor before, if I want to adjust the corruptin slider, how do i do it? Is there a thread somewhere on this? What is the file you have to edit? Will the effect take place in all games or just epic games?

 

[kettyo]

Originally posted by Birdjaguar
I have not used the editor before, if I want to adjust the corruptin slider, how do i do it? Is there a thread somewhere on this? What is the file you have to edit? Will the effect take place in all games or just epic games?

Extract the file below to \conquests\scenarios folder.
Start the scenario 'lower corruption'.

It won't affect other games.

In this 'scenario' corruption slider is set at 70%.

Altering corruption is quite easy.
Open the scenario file with windows explorer.
Then go to rules in the menu.
Choose edit -> difficulty levels
There you could set the corruption (incl. waste) level for each difficulty level (from chieftain to sid) in the slider at the center (value shown in percentage relative to default).
Don't forget to save the changes.
You could create many 'scenarios' with different corruption settings.

I hope it -s

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thanks very much. can I use this scenario and Snoopy's art at the same time?

 

[planetfall]

Old Timers-- thank you for the review of how C1 and C2 worked. I didn't realize C3 changed so much for you.

Corruption-- is about 5% lower overall on small empire than 1.02. I have not tested with an empire larger than 24 cities.

FP-- Definitely major significant change. After playing one epic game with the changes:

1__ Cost of FP is too high for the benefit. Since it seems to only increase the OCN slightly and some unclear effect for distance, it is over priced. Price is based on previous effect of FP and not current effect.

2__ Game takes longer because there is more micromanagment with specialistists. It took me awhile to figure out how civ eng and policemen worked.

[ summary for new players begin]
Civ Eng--
a) only work on city improvements, not military units
b) still need food
c) each engineeer can supply 2 shields which are not effected by corruption.
d) when go military unit, if you don't change civ eng to something else, you pay food for engineer and gain no gold or shields or science

Policemen--
a) still need food
b) reduce corruption and usually increase shields by one. NB: this is not always true. It depends on the city.
[/end summary for new players]

3__ All new specialists, police/civ eng, have to be reassigned as they revert to general workers when a government change takes place.


Game Play Review--
As most I don't like having to change so much about game play when a new patch comes out. I expect changes with a new Expansion Pak. I do not expect and strongly dislike changes in point releases of patches to the game.

Since I didn't figure out the new specialists until partway thru the last game, I don't yet have a feeling on how to use them. What I don't like about them is it now takes too much time micromanaging cities. I doubt the governor uses them, but that would be an interesting experiment.

I hurried and hurried and finally burnt a leader for the FP. What a waste, it seems more effective to think of the FP as Courthouse-Courthouse-PoliceStation since it no longer effects neighboring cities.

Next time I will think harder about installing a beta patch. Yes it is stable, i.e. I have not had any crashes, but it sure was a huge time sink trying to figure out all that has changed. Corruption percent improvement was nice, but I expect I will go back to pre 1.12 patch play style and just forget about the FP.

== PF

 

[Little_Star]

A lot of unhappy faces in this discussion.
Well,I'm not one of them.
To me C3C is better with the 1.12 patch than without it.
I had a lot of corruption in nearby cities + a lot of pollution
occured in cities,size under 20.

In my current game I did built the FP 8 tiles away from
my capital to see the corruption effect.I compared two
cities each 16 tiles away from my capital.The one closest
to the FP has less corruption than the other city.Same counts
for other cities near the FP.The difference is about 15%-20%
in corruption.Not so much,but the overall corruption especially
in the faraway cities is less worst than in C3C without the 1.12
patch.And I'm talking about 38 cities on a huge map in a monarchy
at warlord level as the Maya + each city has a courthouse.It's
now one of the first improvements I build in a city.I haven't build
any police stations yet.New found cities aren't more corrupt
as older faraway ones.
To me the new implementation of the FP is a good one.

 

[Marlor]

Originally posted by kettyo

Extract the file below to \conquests\scenarios folder.
Start the scenario 'lower corruption'.

Thanks. You've saved me some time searching through the editor for the right settings. I'm very grateful

I'll have a play with this some time over the next few days, it certainly seems promising.


Hopefully a future patch can resolve the FP confusion, and the micromanagement issues Planetfall mentioned, then I might finally be as satisfied with Civ3 as I was with it's predecessors.

However, I'm stilll not sure why corruption is so high in the default Civ3 and C3C rules, especially when you compare it to Civ, Civ2 or Alpha Centauri.

 

[kettyo]

Originally posted by Birdjaguar
Thanks very much. can I use this scenario and Snoopy's art at the same time?

Of course.

When you use snoopy's graphics as a mod (scenario) you could set the corruption slider in that scenario file the same way.

When you have replaced the default graphics with the snoopy one (like i have) you'll have snoopy graphics in all scenarios and conquests that don't have an own terrain graphics set and in the main game as well .
(so you get snoopy graphics by default)
If you would like this and don't know how to do it i shall be happy to help you out.