Corruption - fix suggestions here please

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

since the official patch/update suggestions thread has grown rather long and cumbersome to search through, please post your corruption solutions here.

Here`s mine:

Governours Mansion : can be built once per 8 cities that are larger than size 5 (!). It costs four times as much as a courthouse, requires "Republic" and it`s construction is carried by the capital.

What you do is set your capital to "Governours Mansion", when it`s done you get a pop-up asking you where to build it and then it appears in that city,

It will cut corruption same as a Forbidden Palace.

The FP gets full capital bonus (the city can`t flip).

 

[Dinorius R.]

Why not just kill the concept of corruption altogether? It's one of the most annoying and pointless aspects of this version of Civ (yes, yes, I know millions will disagree, but this is my opinion alright?). At least in Civs I & II, it was manageable and didn't unduly distort the game.

My private attempt at eliminating corruption is to make the "Optimum number of Cities" (in the Editor) a much larger number than its default value. I'm not sure if this will work though. Maybe someone more savvy at this can tell me....

.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Hey Dinorius R.!

Been there, done that! But it doesn`t really solve the unproductivity problem with faraway islands. Like I take over the entire little island of some Civ 30 tiles off my coast because I want a ressource they have and won`t trade - and those cities never go over 1 gold 1 prod.......

Irrealistic, since they belong to my empire and the actual distance to capital isn`t really the factor here.....

 

[Dinorius R.]

Cripes. Look, I don't want to get as "negative" about Civ III as some on this forum, but what the heck were the designers on when they came up with this corruption thing? Did they think we'd actually enjoy it, jeez!

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

I don`t think they playtested big maps. So the testers came back and said "Corruption`s, too high!" so they whittled it down some - and that`s what they delivered to the stores. Anyone who ever played high levels and standard map several times (i.e. until he stands a chance) will tell you that corruption sucks. But I guess they never got that far and simply didn`t realize what a pain in the a** it is......

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Sounds good to me,am all for it

Guess we can close this thread now...


Oh well,it will never stop anyway,well I like the idea,other possibilities:

Adding the I.R.S as a small wonder,they haven´t deserved it in rl but might come handy in Civ.
Am not sure if it should have some negative effect,like making citizens unhappy since they suddenly realize,their great empire isn´t free and that they have to pay for it
Maybe adding a slidebar "low,medium,high /effective control" thus making more ppl unhappy at higher levels.

Another idea would be introducing a new specialist,the police or I.R.S agent,this one is sticky since it hampers small cities who need lower corruption at the most and don´t have that many if any specialists.

Lowering corruption in general.
Simply increasing the effectiveness of the corruption lowering methods,which already excist,might be best.


The problem is that corruption (allthough totally out of hand in Civ3) serves a purpose.Don´t agree with the concept of ideal CP btw.

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Hm you both are talking about corruption lowering methods,well increasing optimum CP,will only help if you have more cities ofcourse,I added anti-corruption checks to certain buildings with the editor,am not sure if they work on the wonders,well gave it to wonders that are mostly religous,also gave the temple and cathedral an anti-corruption use.I justify this with "the fear of god".Makes sense to me
Don´t think it´s enough though.Any of you seen corruption decreasing in modern times?Heard a rumour it does but didn´t see any of it.

 

[eyrei]

I find it very hard to believe people are still having such difficulty with corruption since the patch. I was actually only a little annoyed with corruption and waste before the patch, and now I have no problem with it at all. Sure, if you are trying to take over the world militarily, you will not get much productivity out of recently conquered, distant cities, but that should be expected. If you plan ahead, and place your cities and Forbidden Palace in good spots, corruption and waste will simply make your border cities less useful than your central cities. They will however, still be quite useful. One strategy you guys might try, is holding off on building the forbidden palace until you are reasonably sure you have completed your wars of conquest. Then you can build it, and possibly move your palace, in a place that benefits your conquered territory. I believe Firaxis intended the corruption and waste in civ3 to affect even the late game, unlike civ2 where modern governments eliminated these factors. Again, if your empire is not sprawling, you should, with some work, be able to reduce corruption and waste to about 10%.

As far as changing the corruption levels in the mod, remember you are also aiding the AI's 'desire' to colonize all territory on the map.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

hey eyrei!

If you`re so happy with corruption, just check out the GOTM. I quit in frustration. leading in points, at around 1600 A.D. Simply am fed up with despot rush and micromanagement.....

 

[Ironikinit]

Looking back at notes of an old game, I've gotten corruption as a democracy under 15% of income from cities. Maintainance and science were the big expenses. I'm not talking about a weakling tiny civ, either, this was when I was leading or at worst in second. The level was monarch.

I'm curious as to why people find corruption unacceptable when other expenditures are more. Is it because in Civ 2 you could completely eliminate corruption just by going to democracy?

Is it the waste? In the same game I had some off shore cities that were pretty corrupt, but if I kept them in WLTK status they'd produce. One was quite far away.

Is 15% really that bad? So bad that you can't adjust it further with the editor and live with it? I'm willing to bet that in my current game it's even lower, going to go check.

Heh, Apolyton had the same discussion happening.

I checked. In my current game, corruption eats up 12% of my income from cities. Now, I don't have the stats right here in front of me but I'm pretty sure that the IRS (US tax service) misses out on more than 12% of the taxes it could be collecting, just on black market alone. I think I should make it clear that I haven't modified my game, either. 12%, that's it. Again, I'm in the lead, too. Monarch level. I have an emperor level game saved, but I bet the corruption is higher because I did a lot of conquering and I hadn't got my patterns down as good as I do now.

I'm not even sure if 12% corruption is anything to brag about, but I sure can live with it. As I said, it's probably low compared to the current corruption levels in the US.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

get away from the stupid "distance from capital" sheme and 15 % is OK! But when I`m on a long narrow continent and the AI has round ones, when they produce faster anyway - that`s just *******. My city produces 1, similar AI city 2 (size 6 town, 15% corr overall) this goes on in about 12 cities =

 

[macaskil]

I too can't understand the problem with corruption.

I concentrate production and science on my core cities, the ones near the capital and forbidden palace.

The remote cities are only there to

- occupy space on the map to deny it to enemies
- claim resources

I only bother to build cultural items if I wish to flip neighbouring cities or if I have an unhappiness problem (unlikely if they are growing slowly). If I want to garrison units I send them from the cities specialising in military production.

I don't expect them to be economic powerhouses.

This is why the AI builds apparently useless pop 1 cities everywhere!

Perhaps if "corruption" were to be renamed "crime", "pilfering" or "inefficiency" then it might be better; or if the remote towns were give a production handicap to reflect long supply lines, local seperatist feelings, etc.

In historical terms it makes sense that remote cities are less productive than ones in your homeland. I tend to think of the Wild West, the Klondyke or the Siberian towns where the Russians sent their exiles. In Britain, Inverness, the largest town in the North of Scotland, has existed since the time of Macbeth but being remote from the main centres of population has only got to a population of 30,000. New Towns built in the London area have reached 100,000 or more in less than 50 years.
I doubt if Inverness is actually "corrupt" but it undoubtedly suffers from remoteness, even with modern road, rail and air transport. Only with the coming of the internet is there a sign that remoteness is becoming less of a problem.

If corruption was eliminated the cities that the AI plants everywhere in gaps in your empire would instantly grow to size 13. No thanks.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Killer
get away from the stupid "distance from capital" sheme and 15 % is OK! But when I`m on a long narrow continent and the AI has round ones, when they produce faster anyway - that`s just *******. My city produces 1, similar AI city 2 (size 6 town, 15% corr overall) this goes on in about 12 cities =

I think that number of cities is at least as big a factor in corruption and waste as distance from the capital. One way to deal with one of these continents is to build less cities, further apart. I do agree, these continents suck.

 

[Ironikinit]

That's why a map exchange would be cool. If you have a game you like, you could post it for others to play.

Alternatively, you could make your own in the editor, or tweak a random one a bit. Unfortunately when I tried that I tweaked way too much and had a runaway start. Plus it was almost more tiresome than starting totally random games because I had to restart until I got the position I wanted.

 

[eyrei]

In civ2 I was usually very happy if I started on an island by myself, but in civ3, with the addition of strategic resources, I sometimes restart, because these islands are all grasslands. You have no chance of getting oil or saltpeter, and very little chance of coal or iron (because there are usually few hills). Even though these islands are great for growing impressive cities, your military will be woefully inadequate. I usually play pangea maps anymore.

My last game, I got a pretty nice starting position. Enough room to expand to an average size, 2 sources of iron, 1 horse, and 2 saltpeter (haven't made it to the industrial age yet). Plus 5 sources of dyes and 2 sources of silk. Probably will have at least one source of coal, as I have a good deal of jungle. A medium sized desert will hopefully provide oil. Rubber may be a problem, but lacking one resource is playable. I also am on a subcontinent connected to the main land mass by a easily defensible chokepoint, with the Indians on one side (they actually control the chokepoint) and the Zulu on the other. Both have been good allies and trading partners (the Zulus only because they are small and lacking many resources). My capital is in the midst of two rivers, with 8 hills and 14 grasslands within the radius. This is the sort of starting position I die for.

Corruption is at 15% under republic, making this a very efficient empire. My capital is pretty much in the middle of my empire, surrounded by a circle and then a larger semicircle of cities. I have not even built the forbidden palace yet, and will probably save it, as the Indians are being annihalated by the Aztecs, and I will probably have to claim their land to keep it from the Aztecs and claim the chokepoint.

 

[Traquenard-fx]

corruption only affect gold but not production
What do you think?

 

[Blohn]

Corruption should have ha 50% roof. That way, corruption is still a matter to count on, but your frontier cities are still useful, even under despotism and monarchy.

A second small wonder like the forbidden palace would also work wonders.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Traquenard-fx
corruption only affect gold but not production
What do you think?

Corruption is the loss of commerce. Waste is the loss of shields. They are already separated. I think that corruption was toned down more in the patch than waste was. I still don't think it is much of a problem, and I hope Firaxis does not tone it down anymore.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by eyrei


Corruption is the loss of commerce. Waste is the loss of shields. They are already separated. I think that corruption was toned down more in the patch than waste was. I still don't think it is much of a problem, and I hope Firaxis does not tone it down anymore.

wait a minute, I seem to have been missing something here: is corruption seperated from waste now????? because what pissed me off way more is waste!

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Killer


wait a minute, I seem to have been missing something here: is corruption seperated from waste now????? because what pissed me off way more is waste!

I think they were always separated. When people discussed them they were lumped together and collectively called corruption. I am not sure, but I think this is why (pre-patch) courthouses seemed to have no effect. They may have only affected loss of commerce. I could be completely wrong here.