Corruption replaced with Increased Maintainance cost-Good or Bad?

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Guys,

Well, as we discovered from the 1Up preview Corruption-the great bane of all truly dedicated Civers-has not been removed, as so many people both feared and hoped, but has been replaced with the concept of Increased Maintainance Costs for these cities.
I think this will have a HUGE impact on reducing the Bigger=Better phenomenon in a way which does not unrealistically cripple distant cities.
Of course, their are a number of questions I would like to still see answered, such as:

1) How do Health, Distance and City Size tie into increased maintainance costs-if at all?

2) Do you still pay maintainance on individual buildings? (I hope yes)

3) Will there still be ways for cities to lose hammers and commerce due to crime rather than corruption? (Crime, to me, has far less to do with city distance, and has much more to do with government type, happiness and city size)

Even without these questions answered though, I think this marks a HUGE step forward for the Civ genre, and goes to prove that, just because its 'part of the Civ experience', doesn't necessarily mean it has to stay in every franchise !
Anyway, please tell me your thoughts in this poll!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[HourlyDaily]

Without doubt the civil war concept or just plain unrest should come into it if no remedial action is taken. Otherwise, as people have said, the monetary penalty may not mean much to a rich civ who controls strategic resources around that city.

Good concept though and it seems a step forward. Plus your crime idea makes sense to, most Roman provinces were hotbeds of crime due to lack of control and some lassiez faire governing principles (not necessarily because of distance alone.)

 

[mudblood]

I'm waiting for more details before I decide. I didn't think clearly about what would replace corruption, and the proposed solution may not be that different from corruption. Still, even if the rules of implementation are a lot like the old-style corruption (distance from capital city, etc.) it would still be a huge improvement.

My dream solution, by the way, would be a proper bureaucracy, its structure changing with your government type, regional governors that you have to control or prevent from breaking away, corruption that you have to root out, and that can be infiltrated wit agents and spies ("sire, our agent has become governor of Bavaria, what would you like to do?"). But of course, suggestions for Civ IV are too late and belong in another forum.

 

[josephstalin]

I still want more info before I decide.
Health is unrelated to any financial operations.
Yes, you pay maintainance.
Not sure about #3.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

Definitely glad to see corruption retooled. I was dismayed at how quickly my cities became cripplingly corrupt in Civ III. Perhaps I was too addicted to Communism in Civ II, but I usually could have two continents of relatively productive cities. In Civ III, I was lucky to have one.

I wouldn't have minded pollution so much if I could have just set my workers to "Wait for pollution" (i.e. be on standby until pollution pops up within my borders, then go clean it, then go back to standby). Still, it wasn't so bad, but I won't mind seeing it improved.

Overall, though, I need to know (and play) more about the systems that will replace them before I know for sure.

 

[JavalTigar]

I think this Idea could be exactly what we have all wanted. To make it work though they must have revamped the income ratios. If a small city with a library, granary, barracks & marketplace still cost 4 gold per turn. A civ of 10 cities just like this will cost 40 not counting 'Maintainance'. So they must allow more wealth aquired for certain terrain and certain improvements.

My big question is this: Without pollution, what the heck happens when you drop a nuke? If they still have the damaged terrain, then it must remove all terrain improvements and damage them. Its the only way it makes sense. But there would be no reprisals for "bombing a counrty to the stone age". (no global warning or pollution effects)

 

[RegentMan]

I like the Civ II and III corruption/pollution models. Call me an old veteran.

 

[Urederra]

I have to see it working. When you reach the asintotic (or big becomes bigger) effect in SMAC (no corruption, free military support if you choose your civics wisely, and the transcendents producing a lot), the game is finnished. You are bound to win, but you have to do your milking and it costs time, but you know that the winner of the game is decided. So, I wasn't against the corruption model of Civ III, although I know that it has a lot of deffects. I hope that the new system works much better, but we have to try it in order to be able to judge.

 

[Himalia]

Sounding very good at the moment at least in principal.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Hi Guys,

2) Do you still pay maintainance on individual buildings? (I hope yes)

I hope so too

3) Will there still be ways for cities to lose hammers and commerce due to crime rather than corruption? (Crime, to me, has far less to do with city distance, and has much more to do with government type, happiness and city size)

If crime was a feature, they would have mentioned it, but you loose production to unhappy workers, if that helps.

I think I'd have to play it before I could give a complete answer, though

 

[eg577]

I felt the old system would have worked fine if the maximum corruption level was low enough that you never had a completely useless city. In the new system it sounds like while you will now be able to build improvements in very distant cities but it would be ridiculously prohibitive to do so, so they'll end up with little to no improvements just like in the old system. On the other hand, distant cities will be able to produce units without any downsides. The catch is how much production will you get without many happy improvements or factories?

 

[Roland Johansen]

I think, it is a very good method of having a corruption system which isn't unfun. The fun/unfun aspect of game mechanics seems to be a major guideline for the programmers, which is in itself a good thing (as long as the game retains a certain level of complexity).

Of course, it could have been done in a better way (in my opinion), but then again, my ideal corruption model also wouldn't be everyones perfect corruption model.

For one, I would have liked to make the civics options have a large influence on the level of corruption. Things like a centrally organised government vs a decentralised government, representation vs absolute rule, treatment of conquered cities (assimilation vs slavery), level of freedom of religion and other options. Also technologies that improved communication should greatly influence corruption. Technologies like radio, railroads, television and a national postal service should help increase the effectiveness of a government. This would mean that early in the game, large empires would be very difficult to control and as technology opens up new civics options and new communication methods, larger empires become more feasible.

 

[Jaybe]

I felt the old system would have worked fine if the maximum corruption level was low enough that you never had a completely useless city. ...

That has been available in C3C for quite some time: Lower the corruption slider (within the Editor). Implemented long time ago in Rhye's of Civilization.

CFC - Completed Modpacks - Rhye's of Civilization - the fastest loading mod - PART II

 

[Ramalhão]

Well, crimes existed in Civ3 inside corruption. Crime isn't a good word to be used in a game, so they put it inside an existing concept.

The maintainance concept needs more explanations: how it will work, how and why money will decrease and what we must do to avoid or lesser maintainance. Beta testers may answer these questions, but I think they aren't allowed to release a single word about Civ4.

I feel maintainance won't be affected by distance and health, maybe city size will affect it. I'm almost sure we'll pay for every building and units.

At least we can be happy: pollution no more . Health concept seems a huge improvement, with the advantage we don't need to have several workers to clean pollution and spend time seeing those units going north and south and west and east, wasting our time .

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, actually we now do know that cities further from your 'Palace' will be more expensive to maintain, but we still don't know if Health or Population will play a role. I hope so, though, because both poor living standards and overcrowding can play a role in high crime rates (which, as someone rightly pointed out, is part of what 'Corruption' represents).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sullla]

I would like to know a lot more about how exactly this is going to work. Until then, I won't be able to tell whether it's a step forwards or backwards. Getting rid of corruption would make the game more fun, but would it still be balanced? I hope that they're working on that now.

 

[Louis XXIV]

BTW, large populations will begin to loose efficiancy as unhappy people get added, since unhappy people will no longer work.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Though I cannot be 100% certain, without more facts, I have a suspicion that the balancing factor of this new system is that it substantially tones down the so-called 'Snowball Effect'. After all settlers, workers and military units all require ongoing funding-as does science and culture/entertainment. Therefore, the more cities you have, the more it is costing you to maintain them (at least initially) meaning the less money you have to put into advancing your techs and your culture.
Thus, civs which expand too far, too fast, will very likely fall behind smaller civs in the technology and culture stakes-thus creating a system where nations with a few, much larger cities can at least keep pace with their larger bretheran technologically, culturally and economically.
Another side issue is that, because money invested in culture also creates happiness, then not having enough money for culture may well lead to more unhappy and-therefore-more unproductive citizens.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Commander Bello]

Good idea, but they should have linked it to "soft" factors as city wealth, "tradition" of law enforcing units / improvements at that town and at the state level and (with a low influence) to the distance measured by the speed of the "riding messenger" until invention of either railroad or telegraphe.

For better understanding allow me to quote myself from some years ago (at that time this was a proposal for Civ3):

As I have stated earlier somewhere else, I regard the current corruption model as not very convincing.

So, I would propose another approach to it, which I think would be more 'realistic'.
When will corruption occur?
1) In the absence of law enforcement authorities
2) If there is something / somebody to corrupt
3) If corrupting seems to be a matter of survival
4) If people are not used to obey the law - because there is no tradition to enforce it
5) In any case, just due to human egoism

That means, you will face corruption always and everywhere (pt.5). What will be different is just the level of corruption (pt 1-4).

That would mean, that you will face higher corruption, if:
your city is either rich (producing a good amount of gpt - that would be as in pt. 2),
your city is very poor (low income, but high population - that is pt. 3),
your city will lack law enforcement authorities (courthouses, policemen, police stations, and maybe local headquarters - that is pt. 1 & 4)

If this theory would be put into code, it could result in the following:
a) At your capital, you may face a low corruption, since it is expected that your capital has a rather good income/populaton ratio. Since the highest authorities reside in that town, corruption will be decreased at the maximum level, thus making it very low.
b) At the richest cities of your empire, regardless of the distance from the Palace, you will face the highest corruption, since there are all necessary ingredients for corruption: high population, high income. Nevertheless, at these cities you are expected to be able to put law enforcement means into place at an early state, thus decreasing the corruption almost from the beginning
c) At the medium cities you will have less corruption than in the richest cities, but your law enforcement means will be put into place later, since there is less production capacity.
d) At the poorest cities, you will again have high corruption. Since the production capacities are low, it will be difficult to built up an effictivly working law enforcement power.

Since d) would make any new town very corrupt in the beginning of the game (and maybe to a lesser degree during the whole game) the adoption of the 'riding summoner' surely would make the game being more 'realistic'.
With the invention of railroads (or, as I would like it more, with highways as giving unlimited movement) the distance to the capital would become unimportant, since state authorities could reach any city connected by those means in almost nil time.
The inversion of this would be, that the invention of the railroad/highway would have some negative effect in the beginning. As far as I see it, this would balance things as the railroads in the moment are just very positive. They don't cost you gold, but boost growth and economy significantly.

Regarding pt. 4 from above, I would propose to make any law enforcement building become more effective, as time goes by - similar to the (cultural) effectiveness of temples, colosseums and cathedrals. Maybe, they could double every 500 years (just a proposal).

Of course, there still has to be a cap, an upper limit.
As in another thread it already has been stated that corruption (this term used for corruption AND waste) becomes so bothering due to the loss in shields, less due to the loss of gold, that cap should be lower for the waste component. An upper limit of 66 or maybe 75% seems fair to me. For the corruption component, it could still be at 90%.

Since corruption now would be based on both, distance from the headquarter (measured in travel time), gold/population ratio in the given city and presence of any law enforcing means (boosted by the time being in place), this would mean the the most outside town is expected to have the highest corruption, that is, 75/90% waste/corruption. Every town more inside your empire would face less corruption.
At first glance, it may look unlogical that building a town far outside should lower corruption at the inside towns but this would simulate the effect that with expanding borders 'civilisation' and 'culture' are expanding as well (as happened in the american west).
If there would be a linear relation between distance and corruption, might be a matter of discussion. Under the assumption (to make it easier to understand) that there would be such a linear relation, the calculation per turn could be:
Distance between capital and most outside town: 20
Distance of a given city (A) to calculate corruption for: 7
Distance ratio: 7/20 = 35%
Upper limit of corruption: 90% => corruption in city (A)= 31.5%
Upper limit of waste: 75% => waste in city (A) = 26,25%

Against both values the law enforcement component would work.

Of course, any modifiers for wartime, government, unhappiness, whatever can be applied as well.

I suppose, that this logic could be:
easily implemented (at least it seems not more complicated than the current system)
easily be explained (half a page in the civilopedia should be sufficient)
acceptable.

Any comments are welcome!

 

[Legionary37]

Very good idea and concept. The "Useless cities" were just not fun.