Corruption gameplay mechanics in civ7?

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

What is 'Corruption'?
In previous civ games (up to Civ5 but not sure about 4). revenues (gold) generates by any city was first deduced to building and unit maintenances before it goes to Empire's treasury to be later allocated to science (and later towards citizen wellbeings), any surplus will then added towards gold sum. too often not every surplus cashes collected by a city were sent to the Empire's coffers, there were 'corruptions' where government officials inside a given city leeches cashes for themselves and not towards their superiors, in those games, corruptions may be suppressed by building two law enforcement buildings; Courthouse, and Police Station. and also some govenrnment systems (Republic and Democracy, back then the two governenments were 'differnet systems') discourages government workmen a corrupt practices. The other factors affecting corruption factor is (per game rules) also proximity to the capitol. in game rules. 'there is no corruption inside the capitol city as the Government inspector would quickly found out and report the Central Government to finish off that crooks quickly).
This may or may not reflects realism of bureaucratic corruption problems worldwide.
However this gameplay mechanics/rules disappeared since Civ5 and never returns.

First do you want 'Corruption' rules to return? And how should it be played out?
And do you think RF Governor rules should have any potentials with regard to Corruption rules/mechanics?

 

[Zegangani]

I don't see the necessity to have it back in Civ. However it's a nice way to aggravate the huge amounts of Gold Players generate in the Mid/Late Game a little bit, and it would also add a small penalty to Wide Play (because in Tall play you would be paying more attention to these kind of things and try to fix/overcome them), not enough to balance the Gold output of a Civ to normal Values and the Wide vs Tall Play, but it's a way in the right direction.

And Yes, the Governors would play a much bigger Role in the presence of a Corruption Mechanic. I can see some even worsening the Situation if Firaxis decides to make them more realistic (like many CivFans are suggesting - like not 100% Loyal Governors who act in their own interest independently of the Leader). I would welcome that.

 

[Leucarum]

I definitely feel as if corruption could be tied into loyalty in interesting ways. And the playerbase is perpetually crying out for some nerfs to wide play. I can see some sense in using a mechanic from Civ's past to enhance its future.

 

[Xandinho]

There is a lot of deflation in Civ6, in most of the time you have more gold than you can spend. We don't know how Civ7 will be, but anything that can balance the economy would be welcome. Corruption would be nice, as well as economic crises.

 

[Naokaukodem]

There was no corruption in Civ4 either, IIRC. This was the first Civ game with full yields going to you, that was a relief but at the same time, there was this city cost that was not obvious, alas.

The main problem with corruption, it is that it is ruled by distance from capital mainly. The problem was as it follows : when you popped out on a peninsula, you had little space to plant efficient cities, hence a huge penalty for your development. And the chances you popped out on peninsula/extremity of a pangaea was high.

To minimize this, as I have always said, there should be a formula that allows "empire stretch", it is to say the corruption (or rather, the non-corruption) should be like a quantity of liquid that fulfills the land, following it. A little like borders expansion with Civ5 and 6, but even better, as it would mary the land and not the water. (people don't live on/in water, this one has been very weak since Civ3 - the only thing that empowered it in Civ2 was the lighthouse, that provided +1 shield to all water tiles. There's room for better water tiles, but anyway water prevents from settling cities, and that will always be true no matter what)

I guess corruption from number of cities could work also. (as long as it is prevalent on distance from capital, if we don't abandon this totally) But here there's the problem of settled #number of each city, which could be problematic, unless you can change the numbers on will (which may be highly exploitable) or the corruption is equally dispatched in all your cities a la Civ6 amenities. (except your capital maybe) [by the way this is how works amenities in Civ6, just like corruption, however it is not clairly visible as before]

We could also use what I called for ""Loyalty"" usually, it is to say land accesibility : the less accessible your cities are, the more they suffer from corruption. But, distance from capital might be returning, unless we treat all cities as the capital (maybe need of a building or governor). I'll repeat myself here : cities separated by plains or grassland would have genuinely the less risks of corruption ; cities separated by woods or hills a little more (that depending on the number of wood tiles between the two cities), cities separated by jungle, mountains, or water before the invention of sailing would have very high corruption. But I guess it would be unfair for some spawns. So no. [unless you link your cities with roads, and depending on how you maintain them they could act as "grassland or plain everywhere", no matter how you create them, I think both Civ5 and Civ6 maneer could fit well]