Curroption is CRAP!

[Hygro]

PTW does NOT make armies obsolete.

You could always move units in stacks in 1.29f with the "J" key.

You cannot and never could without an army ATTACK in stacks. Period.

I agree that corruption should be lowered based on distance it takes a unit to move to that city from the capitol.

 

[Overlag]

Communisum reduces distance effect on Curruption, but increases it in core cities.

Makes Communisum better for huge Civs........

(think Communisum is spelt right)

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Overlag
Communisum reduces distance effect on Curruption, but increases it in core cities.

Makes Communisum better for huge Civs........

(think Communisum is spelt right)

It's communism ... or atleast I think it is....

Anyway.... I think we've managed to prove that there are thousands of ways to decrease corruption in Civ3.

 

[YNCS]

Originally posted by MadScot
Personally, I like the way it works right now.

Corruption as currently implemented forces you to PLAN your massive empire if you go that route, not just plonk down cities and improvements in a random fashion.

If I have a large continent all to myself or if I have an archipelago, then I will be "plonking" down cities. Especially with an archipelago, corruption becomes a major concern. With the game as it is, I can have my palace centrally located and the cities farthest away are producing two useable shields out of 30 or more. I put Forbidden Palace in my next largest landmass and, again, far away cities aren't producing much. All other landmasses are just plain out of luck with 40 turns to build a harbor.

It seems that some people here want to have the production system handed to them on a plate. The AI has enough difficulty keeping up with a human that anything that makes exponential human expansion easier would be a very bad thing.

At Chieftain level, maybe that's true. However, at Regent or Monarch levels and higher, the AI has enough advantages that their production outstrips the human player's production even without considering corruption.

And, IMHO, corruption as implemented is a pretty good reflection of the way the world works. Democracies do not build everything the government wants, and nothing else, to a nice centrally planned schedule. So why does anyone think that it should work like that in this game??

In democracies the government doesn't build all that much, certainly not things like factories and banks. The only things that governments build are the equivalent of Wonders. The largest bank in the U.S. is BankAmerica, which is a west coast company headquartered 3,000 miles from the capital and not built by the government.

If you want a huge empire that's productive, build the already-existing city improvements that reduce corruption, plan your palace and FP locations carefully, and you'll run out of AI rivals before you run out of production capability.

I go to democracy asap, I rush buy courthouses and police stations, and I still have minimal production out of large cities distant from the palace and FP. BTW, I usually play the game out to a cultural or spaceship victory and all the AI players are still intact at the end of the game.

 

[MadScot]

'plonking' meant without consideration for corruption effects. If you have the continent to yourself, then you are presumably managing the city distribution to minimize, where possible corruption. One obvious tactic being not to ICS, since that hits against the OCN limit faster for a given land area.

Any city with 21+ base shields is going to be producing at least 2 unwasted shields; the 95% cap will ensure that. Depending on the location you might be better rushing a factory and a plant, rather than the courthouse/policestation combo - it all depends if the C+PS will get you below 95%. If they wont, you can use the fact that 50% of 2 is 1, and 50% of 1 is also 1, so the city would then have 4 shields. (I agree, thats still fairly pitiful, but it's something). If you force the city into WLTKD, you can probably unwaste another shield, at least.
And dont forget you can generate all the science and tax revenue from specialists, reagrdless of corruption. So that totally corrupt 2 shield city may be capable of a decent science or tax rate contribution. (If I had a 30 shield city at 95% corruption, I'd abandon working 9 of the shields, and use those citizens as science or taxmen)

If you've got such a huge empire that both FP and Palace can't provide enough anti-corruption, then surely if there were no corruption (or much less) it would just reduce the end of the game to a pseudo-milking exercise. Your massive territorial strength would translate directly into output and the AI would be squished like a proverbial bug.

Corruption provides a way to handicap the stronger players, by identifying their strength through the size of their civ, and using that to key the corruption. Reducing it will make life no easier for the weaker players, while reducing the challenge to the strong.

Obviously this is very much a personal taste thing; it's clear that some think its too much and others dont. I agree its frustrating to conquer a bunch of territory, only to find its not as useful as you had wished or expected. But the game design decision appears sound, to me.

 

[EuropeanPotato]

Originally posted by Vdog
Why do all these newbies come and complain about everything, seriously, its starting to piss me off. Half the time they dont know what they are talking about, why dont you just adjust corruption in the editor?

Our bad "Vdogg" or other. Maybe it's annoying to hear people complaining about people who "complain."

Now to make this reply non-wasteful like his.

Hmm, yeah, corruption can be a problem. But that factor works for me. If you use nations like Canada and Russia for example I assume that there are a lot of people that are just totally backwards on politics and laws and just have fun killing each other and witch hunting and other rural Canadian sports like that. Maybe it should be as much as distance from capital but based on commerce and distance from the city closest to it. Hearsay happens... people can commute to see family from city A to city B. lol, even around the... 1700s people got mail every 2 months ;-)

 

[YNCS]

Originally posted by MadScot
One obvious tactic being not to ICS, since that hits against the OCN limit faster for a given land area...If you force the city into WLTKD....

ICS? OCN? WLTKD?

Sorry, I'm new to this forum and need a translator.

However, your other point about having tax collectors/scientists in distant cities is one I hadn't considered. Thank you.

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by YNCS


ICS? OCN? WLTKD?

Sorry, I'm new to this forum and need a translator.

However, your other point about having tax collectors/scientists in distant cities is one I hadn't considered. Thank you.

ICS and OCN I don't know, but WLTKD means "We Love The King Day." Hope that helps some

 

[DiamondzAndGunz]

ICS- Infinite City Sprawl- building cities as close together as possible

OCN- Optimal City Number- The max number of cities that you on a map before you start getting corruption from large amounts of cities.

WLTKD- We Love the King Day- Self explanatory, I believe. When there are no unhappy people, and lots of happy people, there is a WLTKD.

 

[JollyRoger]

No corruption in Los Angeles and California? How often is productivity (and money) lost in LA due to riots? Politicians in California getting into bad deals that cause rolling blackouts. Orange County going through the largest municipal bankruptcy in history. Generally accepted to have the highest proportion of the population outside of the political mainstream. Biggest export to the other states - entertainment - which causes a drain on the money, values, and productivity of ones who overconsume it. I see the Forbidden palace as Washinton and the palace as jumping to whatever state the current president is from.

 

[Pembroke]

Go to the editor and change the word "corruption" to "bureocracy" or "management costs".

It's just a word. It's called "corruption" because that's what civ1 called it.

Basically it's just a simple model of diminishing returns: a constant increase in production costs more and more in investments the higher you get.

The civ solution is not a perfect simulation because it's simple and because no simulation is ever perfect because otherwise it would be a parallel universe.

But the civ corruption nevertheless works and fulfills its role in the game:

1) Diminishing returns is how the real life functions.
2) Diminishing returns is how you create a game that continues to be fun and challenging even when you grow bigger.

The idea is that it's difficult. You are not supposed to take over the world.

If you insist that you really really want to conquer the whole fu... err... darned world then you definitely shouldn't expect it to be easy.

As others have mentioned there are lots and lots of strategies to fight corruption. The simplest of these is probably the one where you don't get in the situation in the first place... Why do you want that 33rd city if it tips you over the clity limit corruption line? If you conquer it from someone then simply raze it or give it to some weak civ.

(BTW isn't OCN the half-point of the corruption limit? I.e the massive corruption hits you when you have more than 2*OCN cities?)

 

[Strikefang]

Originally posted by Erik Mesoy
P.S. Monarchy and Republic have the same level of corruption.

I guess I stand corrected. But in the manual it states that its not as severe as a Monarchy, though I haven't been using Republic enough to verify it, I guess the manual lies? Oh well, back to the drawing board.

 

[troytheface]

i would assume that politicians around the world whine about corruption and wonder how come they are not richer....
Modding the game is a cheat for those that want to make it -(easier? what is the point, why play? that is like playing chess against low rated players, yeah you'll win , but when a real player shows up, what will u do? complain about the rules?)
however , i will say this-in mp the top players always try to get the best conditions to match their civ-and i have found that some will not attempt or play in conditions that do not favor this.
Without resorting to changing the rules there are ways to adapt and use things to ur advantage.
on a stronger note....what a whiner. Can't u play the game under the current conditions and win? play chiefton or checkers.

 

[warpstorm]

troytheface, modding corruption doesn't always make the game easier. Increasing the OCN for example makes the AI players want to control more land. They pretty much stop expanding once the OCN related corruption effects kick in.

In addition, some people feel that they don't like the rules not because of difficulty, but rather feel of the game.

When I play single player I play a modded game that is in general harder than the normal game although corruption is slightly less. I wanted to fight against large AI empires and that wouldn't happen as often under the standard rules.

When I play MP or GOTM, I play under standard rules (or whatever rules the person setting up the game likes).

 

[troytheface]

always exceptions however, i will, for the sake of arguement,
suggest that modding will not really give a "better" game (unless flavor units) rather will always unconscuoisly favor the one making the mod. because as humans it is in us to change the environment to favor our position. now if one states "it is my desire to play a game in which ai civs get better bigger and to accomplish this i will mod..." i would say that one probably has in mind a plan to overcome big ai civs....so making it "harder" is in acuallity making it easier...a human with a plan ready to deal with a specific rule...against an AI with no plan against a new rule. Who is favored?

 

[troytheface]

i will add that modding for the sake of creativity- feel- might suggest that something akin to art or personal taste is the guide, and both have broad definitions these days, however there still are general "rules" even here -balance. repetition, design, color, expression, ect.

 

[warpstorm]

troy, have you tried modding the game?

I've played many, many, many games (every team at least 5 times now (not counting MP games)) of Civ3 under standard rules and I like the feel of my mod better. The AI is tougher and puts up more of a fight at all levels. I carefully test my mods to make sure that the AI 'gets it'. There are many design flaws and bugs in the standard rules and some of these are easily fixed in the editor. (For example, the Koreans can't capture cannons).

I know for a fact that the guys at Firaxis use my mods, so they must not be purists either.

 

[troytheface]

lol, good first question.
No, but i would like to try to extend age of sail and add bi planes
(flight) .....Advanced flight would give u fighters and bombers ect.
and add a government series
and too, I like the snoopy mod much better for terrain.
I have held off for the above stated reasons but it sounds like u may be an intellectual notch above me, i would not trust my tests
as i fear i might find what i want to find.
However, if i knew how to edit comfortably i am sure i would do it,
and specific changes that are agreed upon (such as ur firaxis acceptance) would be a welcome sight in mp to keep the game exciting.
Side note:
Koreans either don't know how to work a cannon so its destroyed- or they know how to work it, but their ammo is all for the hwachi thing so they destroy it....makes sense

 

[warpstorm]

I'm not an intellctual notch above, just willing to make changes and then test them out to see if they did what I thought they would. The keys are backing up what came before and testing your changes one at a time.

 

[troytheface]

perhaps i am suffering from a case of, "i don't understand it, therefore don't like it"