Curroption is CRAP!

[Stapel]

Thunderfall's solution will indeed help a lot. The whole 'problem' with w/c is that is way too much!

But I think Strider's idea is the best. It could be combined though:

Under democray this would give something like this:

Begin: 32 - (32 * 80%) = 6.4 sheilds
After mapmaking: 32 - (32 * 70%) = 9.6 shields
After Navigation: 32 - (32 * 60%) = 12.8 sheilds
After radio: 32 - (32 * 50%) = 16 shields
After satellites: 32 - (32 * 40%) = 19.2 sheilds

 

[Park Ranger]

I'm skeptical about TF's solution: I think the 50% cap under democracy is too high, it wouldn't slow the player down much in a conquest campaign at all.

Notice that Trondheim easily has enough surplus food to force a WLTKD, which coupled with a rushed courthouse should bump production up to (I'm guessing) around 7 shields. That's enough to get going (with a bit of cash) on building a temple/library, then the police station should be up in about 20 turns.

What might be better, IMHO, is a distance cap on w/c, so that Trondheim is the worst example.

I like the idea of linking tech to w/c, though I question whether the techs that would really reduce w/c are communications techs or social ones. In addition to government types, having, say, a written constitution (a tech or small wonder?), or taxation law, or whatever.

 

[Pembroke]

Just stop whining and swallow your medicine. Corruption is good for you.

Seriously. I mean it.

Corruption is an empire stopper. Consider a civ game that had corruption removed entirely. What would happen is that bigger civs grew ever bigger faster and faster. More cities mean more production which means faster expansion and more power. Exponential growth.

One civ covering half of the world with hundreds of cities makes a very boring game. Even two giants who share an entire world map between themselves only create a big two-side simple war where the bigger beats the weaker. Also boring.

Corruption hinders the growth rate of your empire and when the double-ONC corruption kicks in the growth of your empire practically halts. It may be frustrating. But it's still good for you. It keeps the game interesting.

If you can't fill the entire world with your cities then the weaker civs can still exist there and perhaps unsportmanly gang-up against you. But that's good for you, too, because it makes the game a challenge.

Here's a tip for an alternative style for a change: Go to the editor and _halve_ the ONC numbers. Yes, it will _increase_ the corruption effect. That's the point. 16 cities on a standard map won't cover much of the world, and because the same applies to the AI civs there's going to be lots of unused space that allows the weaker civs to expand and recover creating a dynamic game.

 

[Mercade]

Originally posted by Strider
I think corruption should work this way:

Corruption should be VERY bad at the start, but as you research certain techs it starts to drop (IE: Map Making, Navigation, Radio, Satellites.) The main part being is the corruption is from lack of commuication. As more easier ways to communicate come your corruption drops.

Very sensible suggestion. I wouldn't make it (much) worse from the beginning, but it could certainly drop a bit when time progresses and you learn some specific techs.

The argument that corruption in Civ3 also reflects the trouble of getting stuff back to the central government may be true for the money going into the central treasury, but not for the loss of shields. After all, a local grainery or hospital is a local building made with local resources by local management for the benefit of the local people.

 

[Zachriel]

When the U.S. conquered Kabul, Kabul became a drain on the treasury. If and when the U.S. conquers Baghdad, Baghdad will become a drain on the treasury. The Phillipines and Vietnam were once colonies of the U.S., but they did not immediately become a new Chicago or Denver. They were a net drain on the treasury. That's just the way it works.

As far as U.S. homeland cities go, the distance from New York to Los Angeles is about 12 tiles on a standard map. With the Capital in Washington and the Forbidden Palace in Hollywood, there would be negligible corruption in a Civ3 world.

The standard strategy is to build the core of your civilization into an economic powerhouse, then use this income to develop the colonies. Modifications of the game might be ok, but certainly aren't required to make the game fun or winnable.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Pembroke
Just stop whining and swallow your medicine. Corruption is good for you.

That's right. Eat your spinach!

 

[Hygro]

Zachriel that made a helluva lotta sense. I'm only disapointed that you didn't include a link to something in your webiste

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Stapel
Thunderfall's solution will indeed help a lot. The whole 'problem' with w/c is that is way too much!

But I think Strider's idea is the best. It could be combined though:

Under democray this would give something like this:

Begin: 32 - (32 * 80%) = 6.4 sheilds
After mapmaking: 32 - (32 * 70%) = 9.6 shields
After Navigation: 32 - (32 * 60%) = 12.8 sheilds
After radio: 32 - (32 * 50%) = 16 shields
After satellites: 32 - (32 * 40%) = 19.2 sheilds

Glad someone liked my idea....

Also corruption can also drop as a road is connected to the city that is connected to the capital. When a railroad is built from the city to the capital it decrease's even more. I think that is the way it is right now though.

 

[Hygro]

railroads do extra?

I thought it was simply 15% less corruption after being connected (harbor, road/rails, airport) to the capitol.

 

[redhat]

I think corruptions should work this way.
In ancient and medieval era, corruption rate will be extremely high.
During industrial era, corruption rate will be moderate.

In modern era, corruption rate will be low due to efficient information exchange (due to modernized transportation and the methods of distance communication). However, newly conquered cities have high corruption and waste, and they will last a long time.

 

[Woody]

I think corruption shuold be a function of how long you have had control of the city. Newly conquered cities will have high corruption no matter what age you are in but the longer you control them the better it will get. Something like 10% less corruption every 20 turns.

 

[rubicon]

I think the solution to corruption would be for firaxis to utilise leaders in a better way. Civs should not have leaders leading stacked armies around. This is obslete, since units, in Civ3-PTW, can now move and attack in stacks, without leaders. Leaders, instead, should have the ability to become provincial governors in distant cities in order to suppress ( or in someway alleviate) the corruption so rampant in the far-flung reaches of a civilization's realm. By having leaders establish a provincial capital in one of these far-flung cities players should be able to bring 10 surrounding cities under his/her influence and to stifle corruption threin. If Firaxis could develop a patch with this idea it would greatly increase the enjoyment of the game.

Just an idea!

 

[Praetorian]

I say that it just one those frustrating thins that make the game fun.

p.s. Promote Lt. Killer to Capt. Killer!!!!

 

[Strikefang]

Calling it a rip-off is an over-statement. Civ 3 (as said before by wilbill in one form or another) doesn't just let you go off and conquer the world, you have to manage more than in Civ 2. You have to manage culture among other things, and yes corruption plays a big part. But thats just part of the challenge and fun, isn't it? If you have problems with high corruption, try going to one of the higher forms of government, I suggest Republic. But Democracy is good too, but since I play as Germany, I'm usually under Monarchy or Republic.

But honestly, coping the corruption is just part of the game, just like coping with culture flips (exept I declare war for those!! :tank: )

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Oh, and there is a cap. 95%. Everz 20 shield or commerce will get you one extra of output, this is why Trondheim is putting out anything at all.

And as for newbie whining, what irrtates me MORE is the medium whining.

If Firaxis could develop a patch with this idea it would greatly increase the enjoyment of the game.

And all too often, no idea of basic game mechanics or of editor use.
E.G. earlier here, let great leaders become provincial governors.
I was about to say 'impossible' when I decided to answer it instead.
You can do something like this: Make a building with FP effect, cost 540K shields so only buildable with a leader.

Medium whining, for impossible patches or editor things are horrible. I remember someone asking Firaxis to put out a patch where on the Start-Up Screen, there would be an option to turn off culture flips.

P.S. Monarchy and Republic have the same level of corruption.
PPS. If you want techs to reduce corruption, make those techs allow a 10-shield ("free") building that reduces corruption.

I hope I had some good ideas here.

 

[YNCS]

You can do something like this: Make a building with FP effect, cost 540K shields so only buildable with a leader.

Unlike a lot of people, I don't play militaristic games. I've produced exactly ONE leader in all the games I've played. Your solution isn't viable for those of us who play rational games instead of CIV-Mortal Kombat.

No, I've used the editor so that Forbidden Palace is buildable in several cities. It works for me.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Me neither! My record was a Large Map as the Germans, by using Elite Panzers I got a total of 5 leaders.
My point was not to make an extra use for leaders, but to show how you can make leaders into "provincial governors".

And if the FP is buildable in several cities... How many? All? Remember, FP city has 0% corruption unless you have above OCN! And since the FP increases OCN, you will have loads of cities with no corruption.

I pray the AI builds at least one of these.

 

[NewDestroyer]

Hey eric mosey im not a f*ckin newb. I play on regent and can get to the industrial age by 1000 a.d. what im saying is: its just so messed up the way curruption works because if u control alot of land ,half of it doesn't do crap for u and u spent all that time and shields into taking it. I like thunderfall's idea about percentage's it would make having a huge empire possible.

 

[warpstorm]

You can change this in the editor to a great extent. There are many ways to do it, each with minor differences.

Firaxis isn't going to make changes to the default values because they like it this way (I know, I asked).

If they were to make a change, the way that would make the most sense to me is to have disatance based corruption not be based on actual distance, but rather on the number of turns a nominal movement one government official unit took to make a round trip from the capital (or FP) to the city of interest. This would make improving the transportation net doubly important.

 

[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.

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.

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??

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.