Corruption issues

Originally posted by playshogi
If people would stop building 50+ cities, maybe they'd have less problems with corruption. In my most recent game, the FP worked just fine for me, but then I only had 13 cities most of the game.
Click to expand...

The present FP is broken. It is not an issue of 50 versus 13 cities. The very function of the FP - to act as a second palace for corruption purposes - has been emasculated. It now acts as a second palace for distance corruption purposes, but has a negative effect on city rank corruption. The player has a choice, under this version, of retaining his/her developed core and suffering mildly higher distance corruption, or establishing an FP and enjoying reduced corruption from distance around the FP but increased corruption in the palace core due to increased ranks of "palace cities." Combined with the RCP "fix" (how exactly does rank work in the buggy FP environment?) corruption is greatly increased.

Under present circumstances, unless the FP is available in an ideal or near ideal location, at the very, very early game, it strikes me as very rarely making sense to build the FP in this initial C3C release. That result is not the intent of the developers, nor is it a natural consequence of trying to grow one's empire.

I too am experimenting / playing with smaller empires; but the design was not intended to demand smallish empires. It is a bug.
 
Originally posted by playshogi
If people would stop building 50+ cities, maybe they'd have less problems with corruption. In my most recent game, the FP worked just fine for me, but then I only had 13 cities most of the game.
Click to expand...
Some people can beat any level just about any game any time, so the only reason they're still playing is for high scores. Since scores are based of population and territory...:rolleyes:
 
Aww, come on guys, give us a break.:( What are we supposed to do when other nations keep begging to give us their cities and wealth and techs. It would be positively rude to turn them down.;)
 
Seems to me tha the easy fix would be to calculate corruption based on the distance to the nearer of the FP or Palace. As (I believe) was the intent with the PTW corruption model.

If they want to stuff RCP, then fine, but do it by (say) the order that the cities were founded.
 
Originally posted by ainwood
Seems to me tha the easy fix would be to calculate corruption based on the distance to the nearer of the FP or Palace. As (I believe) was the intent with the PTW corruption model.
Click to expand...
But this is done already in C3C for the distance part of the corruption, and it works as it should AFAIK.

The problem is the rank part of the corruption. IMHO, a sensible solution would be to first divide all cities in two groups: a palace group and a FP group. Each city goes into the group that belongs to the (forbidden) palace it is closest to - which matches the (forbidden) palace it should count distance corruption towards.

Then, for each city in both palace groups, rank corruption is computed for those cities only, totally ignoring the cities in the other group. This way, a FP really will work as a second palace for corruption purposes.

If they want to stuff RCP, then fine, but do it by (say) the order that the cities were founded.
Click to expand...
Yes, each palace group needs a tie-breaker when two cities have the same distance, and build order is as good as anything else.
 
Maybe the development of Internet should remove the distance factors included in corruption calculation, so that the distance to Palace or FP would no longer affect corruption. ;)
 
Originally posted by TheNiceOne

But this is done already in C3C for the distance part of the corruption, and it works as it should AFAIK.

The problem is the rank part of the corruption. IMHO, a sensible solution would be to first divide all cities in two groups: a palace group and a FP group. Each city goes into the group that belongs to the (forbidden) palace it is closest to - which matches the (forbidden) palace it should count distance corruption towards.

Then, for each city in both palace groups, rank corruption is computed for those cities only, totally ignoring the cities in the other group. This way, a FP really will work as a second palace for corruption purposes.


Yes, each palace group needs a tie-breaker when two cities have the same distance, and build order is as good as anything else.
Click to expand...

I think we're both saying the same thing. :)
 
Originally posted by V for Victory
Is it possible to mod corruption levels?
Click to expand...

Yes, just go into the editor. Under Difficulty Levels, change the corruption slider to less than 100%. Voi la: less corruption. Works very nicely. :goodjob:

--CK
 
Back to basics: Corruption was managable in previous releases but the RCP fix does not use the right mats. So I would be completely happy with a fix that provides both pre-Conquests corruption levels AND fixes RCP. Imo this just comes down to solving the equidistant city issue with an FP and not much else.

Issues I see with solutions around a city age based solution:
- Civ already has a mechanism keeping track of city age, i.e. if an AI capital is captured it will resolve production close to your own captial in upkeep. So a former captial city far away could have less corruption compared to a new city close to your own capital?
- How to deal with equidistant cities build at the same time?

Also it completely makes sense for cities about halfway Palace and FP to get some benefit from both.

So, instead of working with a ranked list each turn why not simply calculate the distance to Palace / FP once a city is build or changes hands and keep this number with city stats? And just recalc once there is a Palace Jump or a FP is build.

Might be missing s'thing.
 
Well don't forget - the FP rank bug that exists in PTW. That was also fixed, and I want it to stay that way.

We either need 2 lists, or the FP increases OCN.
 
Originally posted by Colonel Kraken
Yes, just go into the editor. Under Difficulty Levels, change the corruption slider to less than 100%. Voi la: less corruption. Works very nicely. :goodjob:

--CK
Click to expand...
The corruption slider is buggy - it gives incorrect amounts of corruption in cities when not set to 100%.
 
I guess I don't understand corruption. But why not compute corruption based on distance from Palace, distance from FP, and distance from SPHQ and the city receives its best score. At that point, you can modify it for the other corruption variables, like OCN, government and civ traits.
 
After reading this thread, if I understand correctly the corruption calculations were modified in C3C ONLY to prevent the RCP exploit.
That sucks.
Corruption worked really fine for people who played without exploiting. And just because some fanatics ;) found an exploit and overused it, they tried to correct it and went all wrong ? Blah, I say blah (I'm quite angry, yes).
How many people used RCP ? Heck, I can figure it's about placing your cities in circles (Einstein here I come), but if you played without RCP, corruption was NOT that annoying.
The thing I still want to know is this : is the new corruption in C3C good in its principle, but calculations are flawed (in that case, we can expect a patch quickly), or it is the principle in itself that is flawed (in that case, well... :( )?
 
Originally posted by anarres
The corruption slider is buggy - it gives incorrect amounts of corruption in cities when not set to 100%.
Click to expand...

anarres, would you please explain to us what you mean by this?
 
much obliged.
:thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by Beammeuppy
Issues I see with solutions around a city age based solution:
- Civ already has a mechanism keeping track of city age, i.e. if an AI capital is captured it will resolve production close to your own captial in upkeep. So a former captial city far away could have less corruption compared to a new city close to your own capital?
- How to deal with equidistant cities build at the same time?
Click to expand...

The city age isn't supposed to be the first thing to consider when computing the rank of the city.
It is only considered when you have two cities at the same distance. Then the oldest one get the best corruption (only rank corruption).
Civ 3 keeps track of the order, if you open the F1-Screen, you see the order of your cities, so the one which is founded first is first, even if it is in the same round.
 
What I want to see is a public acknowlegment of the bug by Atari/Breakaway/Firaxis and a statement saying that they are working on a fix.
The longer they go without saying anything, just leads me to believe that they have adopted a ostrich like mentality with regards to this problem. (Stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
communism, corruption,OCN
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
justanick
J
SayHayKid
[C3C] Do The Forbidden Palace OCN Effects Stack?
Replies
2
Views
630
Herbert George
H
Predator145
Seafaring trait and distance corruption
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
Takhisis
Takhisis
K
Policemen
Replies
6
Views
654
kaskavel
K
GeneralZift
CCS: Counter-Yields
Replies
6
Views
371
MutilationWave
MutilationWave
Back
Top Bottom