courthouses

[Ronald]

So far a very rarely build courthouses in my games and I am still not sure if they are of any use.

Is there anybody who can enlighten me/us under which circumstances a courthouse is a good investment ?

Thanks for all thoughts

Ronald

 

[stormbind]

I build Courthouses everywhere, ussually after Marketplace and before Bank. A Courthouse will reduce corruption which helps build future improvements and makes more wealth available to the Marketplace/Bank.

For Communism, remember to build a Courthouse in cities with a (Forbidden) Pallace.

So, the short answer is that I do value the Courthouse but not as much as I value a Marketplace.

As a rule of thumb, I have found they are best in size 4+ towns but each town is different.

I think (but do not know) they save 1 gold/shield in every 4 lost to corruption.

 

[xxaaaxx]

I think courthouses are only useful in cities that are meduim-range away from the capital/FP. Cities up close don't need it 'cause they aren't that corrupt, and cities too far away will be Tammany Hall corrupt for the duration. Usually, I build courthouses in cities on the outer rim of my territory, but not too far out. I think of it this way: imagine a continent in the shape of the US, with the capital at Des moines, Iowa. On a large enough map, outposts like Maine and Florida are too far out, but cities around Chicago, Cleveland, etc. are close enough in to benefit from a courthouse.

 

[marceagleye]

Any city that is five tiles or more away from your palace and forbidden palace should definitely have a court house. In fact for cities on far edges of my empire I often build courthouse before any other improvement. If you're a commercial civ, you don't need them as early, since commercial civs are less corrupt. If you're a commercial civ in democracy with a courthouse in every city, it is probable that you have the LEAST corrupt civ in the game

 

[Beanzy]

If you are an expansionistic player, always build courthouses early and frequently. It will pay off more in the long run. If you need to build a library in a city without a courthouse, it will be more efficient to build the courthouse first. If your city produces 4 shields, but corrupts away 2, it will take you 40 turns for the library and 20 turns for the courthouse (I think that's right, I'm not positive how many shields they take though). If you build the courthouse first however, the library will take only 20 turns! Therefore, you will spend 20 turns on th courthouse and 20 on the library, as opposed to 40 on the library and then 20 on the courthouse. That's why you should always build them early on.

Keep in mind, the amount of turns is a quazi-estimate, though they may be right. But regardless, you get my point.

 

[stormbind]

Once in the situation where old cities are highly developed but far away cities are new and slow to build... I will always swap to Communism, which spreads the corruption evenly and beats Democracy hands down. My empire will perform best if the oldest cities were prepared for this and already had a courthouse - although it is generally the last thing i build in cities with low corruption.

In my games, all civ specific traits are dissables for an even playing field so I have no idea of how the effects of corruption may vary between civs.

 

[allhailIndia]

I'm not sure if courthouses cut down on waste of SHIELDS, but I am sure they cut down on TRADE losses.

 

[Sirp]

Courthouses do cut down on waste of shields.

If you can cut shield loss by 3 or more shields per turn, and some gold per turn, the courthouse is almost certainly worthwhile. Doing it for 2spt is marginal and 1spt probably isn't worth it.

A city which has 40-60% of its production taken away by corruption is the best candidate for a courthouse.

-Sirp.

 

[ChickenHawk]

I will build a courthouse in a city when it meets 2 criteria:

1) The net number of shields it produces must be greater than 1. This way I am know the city is not hopelessly corrupt.

2) At least 6 shields are lost to waste. This almost guarantees that you will recover 2 shields from waste.

 

[jeffelammar]

One thing to remember about courthouses is that they only reduce One type of corruption.

In civ3 there are 2 kinds of corruption.
1. Corruption due to distance.
2. Corruption due to # of cities.

Since courthouses (and police stations) only reduce type #1 corruption, they are next to useless in those cities that are far far away from your capitol even if you are in communism.

[EDIT: Actually I think that courthouses will help all cities in communism that have enough production to exceed the distance corruption percentage]

Note that the #2 type of corruption can cause ALL cities to be next to useless in a communist regime with huge numbers of cities. In that case you are better off in Monarchy because then you at least have a core of productive cities.


For more corruption info see
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19922

 

[caliskier]

Corruption sucks, they need to change that in the expansion pack. How much corruption is there in Alaska and Hawaii, and how many "squares" would they be from Washington. There are about 150 major cities in the US, and there isn't a lot of corruption in L.A., Sacramento, Portland, Seatle, Spokane, etc. I understand why it is in the game, to make it so you can't just totally obliterate everyone else once you get some more cites build up in their territory, but they need to tweek some improvements, add a tech or another small wonder like "Union" or "Commercial Watch Group" that would help reduce corruption or adjust the effects of police stations or courthouses. When the Enron scandle went down, all sorts of legeslation was introduced in congress to deal with that kind of "corruption" I think that the corruption aspect of the game is unrealistic in democracy and maybe also in republic. The penalties are too great. I would like to know how they justified making the penalties so harsh

 

[JJP]

I build courthouses to every city which is far from my capital or city with forbidden palace. Police station is also good to reduce corruption. Police station combined with courthouse and corruption is no more big problem.

 

[stormbind]

The game is not realistic.

The game is the way it is for ballance. There needs to be one government that is good for when your best cities are clumped together, and another for when they are spread over vast distances.

The best one for your empire will vary between games. If you always opt for Republic and later, Democracy, your Empire will underperform in some games.

I think there aren't enough government types but if Democracy was the best for more than one scenario, it would unballance the game.

 

[Leovigild]

Originally posted by caliskier
Corruption sucks, they need to change that in the expansion pack. How much corruption is there in Alaska and Hawaii, and how many "squares" would they be from Washington. There are about 150 major cities in the US, and there isn't a lot of corruption in L.A., Sacramento, Portland, Seatle, Spokane, etc.

There may be a lot of major cities in the U.S., but in civ terms, on a standard map, there would only be 10-12. Below the OCN limit. Have 10 cities in a democracy, and even cities relatively far from your capital will do well.

 

[caliskier]

This may be true, but lets say that the US owns the entire North American Contanent, and the Capital is say, Lincoln Nebraska, with 30 cities. If we then get Africa, and it brings 25 more cities, and then we get Australia and add another 10 cities. 100 years down the road there would not be the amount of corruption in Africa and Australia that there is in the game. Even if America was 10 times the size it is there would not be the corruption that there is in the game because of capitalism. People want to work hard to make more money for themselves, this is what raises the GNP and spurs the economy on. Communism and Socialism fail in this because people know that the extra effort will yeild them nothing. My point is that if people 10,000 miles from Washington know that working hard and by the rules will make them successful in life, they will do just that, the GNP will grow and there will be little waste.

 

[Siegmund]

Bear in mind that your ideas about corruption in the modern world don't reflect historical reality either.

It WAS very true in the American West that the local sheriff and/or gangster was THE law in those parts ... in 1850s Texas or 1903 Alaska, you could talk until blue in the face about people did business in D.C. and it wouldn't get you anywhere. (Or try doing business in the Russian Far East in the 1990s!) As communications improve, corruption-due-to-distance diminishes, but it was a real part of history.

It is diminished in CivIII by being connected to the capital by road or harbor -- probably it could be further diminished by the building of railroads and the discovery of radio or electronics, but that wasn't the way they chose to program it.

 

[caliskier]

It WAS very true in the American West that the local sheriff and/or gangster was THE law in those parts ... in 1850s Texas or 1903 Alaska, you could talk until blue in the face about people did business in D.C. and it wouldn't get you anywhere. (Or try doing business in the Russian Far East in the 1990s!) As communications improve, corruption-due-to-distance diminishes, but it was a real part of history.

That is a very good point, and I like what you said about railroads, they should have something like a telecommunications technology that provides a city improvement, or a worker action that reduces corruption. You mentioned the radio tech, maybe they could have a radio station improvement that reduces corruption in the city if it is connected to the capital by a railroad/Harbor, and then a picture tube tech that enables the TV which will further reduce corruption. We have seen media watch groups do that in out day. You are right though, 150 years ago there was more corruption.