Corruption Corruption! Tell me why it works this way?

[Drakken]

I want people to tell me the reason why corruption is so horrible in this game? I think it is insane and completely ruins the game.

I was just playing the GOTM and have quit because I think the game is very flawed. I had some colonies overseas to the south only 18 spaces from washington dc. I have a Republic for gov. The colonies were producing 1 whole shield with 9 lost to corruption. Maybe by the year 2050 they would have worked up to being shanty towns.

What were the idiots who made this game thinking? If colonies in the real world worked like this, the British never would have wasted the effort to keep the Americas. they would have said good riddens!

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Drakken
I want people to tell me the reason why corruption is so horrible in this game? I think it is insane and completely ruins the game.

I was just playing the GOTM and have quit because I think the game is very flawed. I had some colonies overseas to the south only 18 spaces from washington dc. I have a Republic for gov. The colonies were producing 1 whole shield with 9 lost to corruption. Maybe by the year 2050 they would have worked up to being shanty towns.

What were the idiots who made this game thinking? If colonies in the real world worked like this, the British never would have wasted the effort to keep the Americas. they would have said good riddens!

What is this? A corruption whine? Hmmm. Must flame!

No. Must resist temptation. Alright, a couple constructive comments.

Dude. There are many strategies for dealing with corruption. As far as why it works that way, I will answer your question about the british colonies. The British did get resources and luxuries from the colonies. Plus, in game terms, they may well have built their Forbidden Palace here. There was certainly no need for it in England because of the small size of the country. Also, think of how much tax money was NOT paid by colonists to the crown. That would qualify as corruption in game turns.

 

[jimmytrick]

There are ways to deal with corruption. I can't give you all of the detail because Firaxis has not told us the real skinny but I can tell you some of it.

Corruption lessens over time. I am not certain why. Courthouses reduce corruption. When you build one you will not see a big immediate impact but it will come. I only wish I knew the details of it.

It may be that:

1. courthouses reduce corruption over time
2. culture plays a part, reducing corruption....over time
3. normal population growth may reduce corruption...over time
4. marketplaces which can increase happiness my reduce corruption as well....over time
5. WLTKD reduces waste...perhaps incrementally over time...
6. Changing to a more advanced form of government may reduce corruption and waste...maybe over time...

It may be a combination of all of these things. Unlike Civ2 and SMAC, I suspect that the benefits of some things are phased in over time rather than being immediate.

Or it could only be my imagination. Someone will do a study and figure it out or Soren will perhaps clarify. Sooner or later.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
2. culture plays a part, reducing corruption....over time

I didn't think culture had any influence on corruption. I could be wrong, in fact I would be happy if I were wrong, because that would explain why I have so little corruption.

 

[jimmytrick]

Maybe even the Forbidden Palace effects increase over time. Maybe there is a change in the regular Palace formula over time...maybe something kicks in when entering new ages.

 

[sealman]

New concept for me but it makes sense. After all, it took the Untouchables time to lower corruption in Chicago back in the '30's.

And... despite the governement and close proximity to Washington, D.C.... New York still has the mob and probably has some cops on the take.

In the real world was run like civ3, there would be no corruption in DC.

Don't get me wrong. I also hate those 1 shield cities in the middle of an otherwise prime industrial site.

 

[hothead2]

you can always raise the optimal number of cities aswell.

 

[muppet]

I think you can also raise the 'percentage of optimal cities' as well in the difficulty levels tab. I still don't know exactly if this setting applies to player only, or both player and AI -- does someone out there know?

 

[FrantzX]

Changing the percentage of optimal cities is the easiest and most effective way of lowering corruption.

 

[cephyn]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
There are ways to deal with corruption. I can't give you all of the detail because Firaxis has not told us the real skinny but I can tell you some of it.

Corruption lessens over time. I am not certain why. Courthouses reduce corruption. When you build one you will not see a big immediate impact but it will come. I only wish I knew the details of it.

its your imagination. Here's what you're seeing -- corruption is high, so you build a courthouse -- then it lessens. Later in the game you check again -- it seems better! Did it lessen over time? no -- corruption AFAIK is a %age of your total.

so when you build the courthouse, youre making 9 sheilds, and it makes it so that 1/3 is corrupt -- so your effective production is 6. Later, when youre production is 30 sheilds, your effective would be 20 sheilds. So youre building stuff faster. BUT also -- maybe the first time you were in monarchy, and second time you checked you were in democracy or republic -- these governments are more resitant to corruption! so it may SEEM to lessen over time, but in fact its a combination of factors.

 

[Ram Michaeli]

Maybe just more citizens were borned, so they've produced more shields - with corruption or without it.

 

[Homie]

Drakken I definetely agree with you, and we`re not the only ones
who believe that corruption has gotten out of hand in this game.

Yes, there are ways to slightly reduce corruption, but after you`ve done everything you possibly can, there is still way too much left.

And the forbidden Palace takes way to long to build, almost 200 turns in most cases.

I hope Firaxes fixes this problem, or else you can`t play the game without The Corruption Solution patch.

 

[Homie]

I`m sorrry, I meant Cure for Corruption Patch

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Drakken
If colonies in the real world worked like this, the British never would have wasted the effort to keep the Americas. they would have said good riddens!

The British did not get rich from taxes collected from the colonies, but from the sale of resources. This is directly parallel to Civ3. Plant a town in a far off region which has a resource. Sell this valuable resource to rich European powers. Take your money and build improvements in London. Build minimal improvements in the colony -- just enough to maintain control.

It was the American colonialists who said good riddance!

 

[Maleficence]

For the most part, I find historical comparisons to be a bit lacking when it comes to imperialism and colonialism in regards to corruption.

First off, the Americas were mostly colonized with the intent to exploit the lands, for the most part. Few people, other than those fleeing persecution really sought to establish a life in the new colonies.

Take Spain, for example, most of its colonies consisted of settlements set up to exploit the native workforce. Galleons of gold and other supplies were constantly shipped to Spain, and most of the viceroys and nobles living in the colonies were deemed as inferiors to those living in Spain. The few that were there were trying to carve a name out for themselves to later return to Spain and enjoy the grace of his majesty for services rendered to the crown.

Portugal for the most part did something similar, sending african workers to its settlements in what's now brazil.

England was basically the same thing. The few colonies established by the English crown itself were basically run with the intention of producing cash crops which would enrich the crown, meanwhile other charters were given to unwanted people and those sought by religious persecution. Not to mention the crown placed restrictions on what could be made in the New World. Production of weapons and certain industries were discouraged, the crown wanted these colonies as vassals not flourishing towns.

And as for Australia, it was prison for crying out loud. Corruption was hardly an issue as it wasn't even a true city.

So, the intentions of each of these powers was to keep their authority centralized and use these lands for their resources. Which is exactly what happened. It wasn't because corruption was rampant, therefore the colonies operated in this manner, despite the best attempts to try and curve this corruption by european powers. Just like the colonies we have in the game, which mimick exactly these historical colonies. In essence, a small colony that doesn't really grow and only brings in goods.

I doubt that's the intention most players have when trying to set up a string of cities in a prime industrial area, fertile grounds or some commercially advantageous position. We want that city to grow and prosper and sometimes we're not even looking for resources, but to expand our territory.

Besides, if I wanted to play the world according to history, I'd go and read a book. I want my game to play out on its own, without it having to rely on history. I just find it vexing that we must limit ourselves to what has been already done in the past, and deny ourselves the world of possibilities of what could have been.

The fact remains that the extents to which corruption cripples a city's production and commerce are staggering. Any city functioning at such a level of discord should collapse on itself or rebel and oust the current governor.

Honestly, this isn't a world simulator. And just because the game is "playable" as opposed to "enjoyable" under the standard modes of corruption in larger maps, does not invalidate people's qualms with the way corruption has been dealt with.

Just like my computer running WinXP is "playable" without a mouse, but it sure as hell isn't "enjoyable".

Honestly, if you like high corruption, because you find it challenging and it encourages your play style rather than hamper it. Then that's all good. Other people just want the same opportunity to play enjoyably, and the solution does not lie in one party losing versus the other, hell no one even need compromise.

All we really need is for Firaxis to actually deliver the customizable game they promised, and let us edit the variables influencing corruption. The range a palace's sphere of influence has, the calming effects various institutions have on corruption, etc... Currently, jacking up optimum number of cities to some astronomical number seems like a crude fix, and I'm sure we'd all appreciate more options.

-cheers
Maleficence

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Maleficence
The fact remains that the extents to which corruption cripples a city's production and commerce are staggering. Any city functioning at such a level of discord should collapse on itself or rebel and oust the current governor.

Any production in the colonies was not available to the king. I'm sure that the people of India still made many things during the colonial period, but those items never left the village. It must be the word "corrupion" that is throwing everybody.

Concerning gameplay, distant cities will prosper but that requires time and investment.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Zachriel

Concerning gameplay, distant cities will prosper but that requires time and investment.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Hoe Maco]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Concerning gameplay, distant cities will prosper but that requires time and investment.

I have seen the opposite of that...
I have many cities (sorry, not counted yet, but over the optimal), many of them far from my capital. These were producing some shields in the middle of the game, under monarchy, but when I got to the 20th century, and got democracy, these cities now only produce one shield usable, and up to 27 "wasted", and similarly
with commerce. With the buildings' maintaince costs, these
cities only make deficit, even though some have 12-15 pop.
Now this makes conquering the other civs (what remained of them) absolutely meaningless, unless you want to win by
war and not spaceship etc. So now i only have a small
army to defend my cities. (Okay, this was on chieftain level,
just for testing civ3 the first time. I couldn't dominate so much
territory on a hard level, still one could think that an easy
level would have less corruption).

I agree with all who think this corruption and waste is ridiculous (am i spelling that right?).

Btw, the "waste" are those shields that go to pollution or
what is it?

Hoe Maco

 

[BillChin]

Phooey on corruption! A pox on all that support the existing rules.

In the current GOTM I have a city three tiles from my Forbidden Palace city. It produces 5 shields but loses 2 shields to corruption. This is 40% corruption three tiles from the FB! The problem is that I have "too many cities" according to the game balance bean counters. I am Republic, it is about 1700 A. D., I have about 35 cities on a small map. This city is over 2000 years old--so much for the rumor that time reduces corruption.

I admit, that given a choice between no corruption and the existing rules, I would choose the existing rules. However, I think there are minor changes in the corruption rules that would make the game a lot more fun without making the game too easy. The current rules funnel players into a narrow set of strategy options. This is not fun. Modest changes can give players many more play style options. Again, more options means more fun.

The corruption supporters would give more weight to their arguments if they played Game of the Month or other common games with common set ups and common starting conditions. I don't believe anyone can get to 7% overall corruption like Eyrei, on a tourney type game and get any kind of decent score. Sure someone could limit themselves to ten cities (small map, 20 standard, 30 large, etc), but again, this limits the options available to the player and makes the game less fun to play.

Again Firaxis, please make the game more fun, while avoiding making it too easy. More options for the player means more fun. Less options means less fun. The editor is for cheesers and does nothing for people playing under common rules (GOTM and probably upcoming multiplayer).

/ end of rant /

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by BillChin
The corruption supporters would give more weight to their arguments if they played Game of the Month or other common games with common set ups and common starting conditions. I don't believe anyone can get to 7% overall corruption like Eyrei, on a tourney type game and get any kind of decent score. Sure someone could limit themselves to ten cities (small map, 20 standard, 30 large, etc), but again, this limits the options available to the player and makes the game less fun to play.

OK. I do not get really high scores (4178 on monarch being my highest), but I do not play for score, nor have I ever won a domination or conquest victory. 7% is where my corruption normally stands when my score is around 2500. That is not a small empire by any means, but it is also far from a large one. In games where I get higher scores due to more cities and more territory, my corruption is usually around 10-13%. Keep in mind, that because I focus almost entirely on micro-managing my empire, and trade, most of my cities are in a nearly perpetual WLTK day. They also all have courthouses, and most will have police stations. This is my playing style, and it apparently reduces corruption. I do happen to agree with many that the number of cities should have far less effect on corruption than it does. As long as the cities are spaced strategically, and managed well, it should not matter how many of them there are.