Corruption: the return

[Naokaukodem]

What if civ5 to allow a government switching into the corruption mode? In Civ4, we have the concervative point of view: extend too much cripples your economy. But what about the corruption mode, just like it was in Civ3, Civ2 and Civ? Could this be a valuable point of view also? I'm all excited.

 

[Balderstrom]

You might want to add another sentence or two to your post. So people have a clue what you are even talking about.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Come on, doesn't the word corruption ring a bell?

 

[Balderstrom]

I bought CIV III after CIV-IV, planned to have a gander at it at some point, since I tend to prefer older games in general. Never opened it. Gave it to my brother-in-law for xmas last year - since he has a lower-end system than mine. I played it for about 30-45 mins after install to get a feel for it and make sure it was working fine.

Loved the Advisors. Hated the interface. Know a bit about corruption from the CIV-III fanatical postings here on CFC.
You assuming anyone reading your thread has an in-depth knowledge of CIV-III is a little arrogant honestly. You reply to my post. And re-edit your original Thread to add "just like it was in Civ I, II, III" - again adding absolutely no value to your original post at all.

[Unsubscribed]

 

[Naokaukodem]

I bought CIV III after CIV-IV, planned to have a gander at it at some point, since I tend to prefer older games in general. Never opened it. Gave it to my brother-in-law for xmas last year - since he has a lower-end system than mine. I played it for about 30-45 mins after install to get a feel for it and make sure it was working fine.

Loved the Advisors. Hated the interface. Know a bit about corruption from the CIV-III fanatical postings here on CFC.
You assuming anyone reading your thread has an in-depth knowledge of CIV-III is a little arrogant honestly. You reply to my post. And re-edit your original Thread to add "just like it was in Civ I, II, III" - again adding absolutely no value to your original post at all.

[Unsubscribed]

LOL. No need to be such a bastard. Calm down. I am a human, I can make errors. But if you don't know what is the corruption system, I don't know what you are doing on those forums and the most of all, replying at my topic. Move on.

 

[toft]

I bought CIV III after CIV-IV, planned to have a gander at it at some point, since I tend to prefer older games in general. Never opened it. Gave it to my brother-in-law for xmas last year - since he has a lower-end system than mine. I played it for about 30-45 mins after install to get a feel for it and make sure it was working fine.

Loved the Advisors. Hated the interface. Know a bit about corruption from the CIV-III fanatical postings here on CFC.
You assuming anyone reading your thread has an in-depth knowledge of CIV-III is a little arrogant honestly. You reply to my post. And re-edit your original Thread to add "just like it was in Civ I, II, III" - again adding absolutely no value to your original post at all.

[Unsubscribed]

He might have assumed too much, but saying that his post is arrogant is wrong. I am almost offended by your posts in this thread.

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: All of you - calm down. Debate the topic, not each other. Anymore allegations of arrogance, calling people 'childlike' etc will earn infractions.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[r_rolo1]

To say the truth I dislike both Civ III and IV handling of empire size... Civ III makes cities partially improductive just because you have lots of them, and Civ makes you pay a astronomical fee for having more cities ( until you get to the " conqueror's plateau".... never understood the reasoning behind this one: small empires pay huge to be a little bigger, but bigger empires pay a lot less to grow the same )

I would really prefer that something in line of the RFC or revolutions mod were applied: in RL cities are not less productive because they are far of the Capital and they don't pay necessarily more in maintenance, but they can start boiling really bad if they feel they are being forgotten by the faraway governement. Maybe putting a unstable factor ( that could add some in certain situations or to spam rebels ) in faraway cities would be the way to go... it would not cripple your empire directly, but it would force you to spend a lot more ( not necessarily money: troops, resources,... ) to keep them.

 

[Jazzmail]

C4 Maintenance applies a more effective break on empire growth than C3 corruption did.

Landgrab was everything in the corruption model as it always gained you and at the same time deprived your opponents. Tax and science farms always made a profit even if it's not as much a core city.

In civ4 you really need to invest in buildings and improvements to make large empires work. A well developed city remains valuable.
Contrast with civ3 where corrupted cities were only valuable if undeveloped and you didn't want any buildings there.

 

[r_rolo1]

True enough...

But...

Civ IV model does not put a break in the empire growth, because it has the "conqueror's plateau" in maintenance. It only makes dificult to get to big sizes, not maintaining there ( your 4th city will cost much more in maintenance growth than the 31th ).

Like I said I would strongly prefer a model that made big empires to be dificult to manage ( like they are in RL ) , but without touching in the cost of cities maintenance.

 

[Jazzmail]

The conqueror's plateau is only a small part of the civ4 application of the the maintenance model. It's not fixed. Higher difficulty levels push back the conqueror's plateau.

Maybe the plateau could've been eliminated or pushed back even further, but on the whole I think the civ4 maintenance model functions well enough.