Firaxis: Corruption Breakdown

I think that real problem with distance factor is that gives disadvantrage too civs that start "at the edge of the continent".

They are unable to build cities all around the capitol.
 
A few people have mentioned that letting corruption levels be dependant on capital distance encourages dense city builds. They are of course right.

But game developers have more ways to influence the way we players will build an "optimal" empire in Civ4. They can make large cities be more productive and wealthy than small cities. This will encourage a more open build of cities with less overlapping tiles. A few suggestions how this could be accomplished:

1) Make buildings have a higher upkeep. If a marketplace has an upkeep of 5 gold per turn, then it isn't that usefull to build it in small cities while large cities will still gain a lot of money by building them.

2) Give large cities a tile bonus. This is already in the game as the center tile gets shield and commerce bonusses when the city grows beyond size 6/12. If these bonusses would be larger and dependant on the size of the city, then people would prefer large cities. An example: give cities +1 shield and commerce bonus for every 2 citysizes over 6 and +1 shield and commerce bonus per size over 12.

So we don't need the corruption formula to force people to build their empire in a certain way.
 
Playing a game from scratch with 1.15. I like the corrected Corruption Model. Extra Palaces have no corruption and reduce it in nearby cities. Also building Courthouses etc. will now reduce corruption in any city. Previously in civ3 when you had lots of cities you could build a courthouse and it had no effect at all.

Pity we can not see the OCN on the domestic advisor screen - as it now gets modified ingame.
 
Here is yet another idea to simulate and handle corruption.

The distance factor could be modified by technology. Sort of a 'speed of comunnication/travel' type of thing. In ancient civs, the distance from the capitol to the edge might be measured in hundreds of miles, in modern times, it would be thousands of miles. (I know map size does not relate to actual 'milage'.) For example, in the 'old west', fronteir cities were basicaly on there own, and coruption was common. Now these cites are concidered part of the main culture, and corruption is not as much. (As for the distance factor versus real life, many people consider Washington DC to be the MOST corrupt city in the us... ;-) )

Under this approach, when I certain tech is reached, (say printing press, or radio) communication and control is increased, so the distance factor could be lowered.

Other factors could be: on the same continent, continuous 'culture' link to the capitol, open trade route (no road/harbor=no way to supervise), era (simular to tech, but simplified)
 
JET FIGHTER's Require a Defence of 8!!!!!!!!!!!

Fighter's Require a defence of 4!!!!!!!!
Otherwise, the Changes were KILLER!! :thanx:
 
Originally posted by Roland Johansen
A few people have mentioned that letting corruption levels be dependant on capital distance encourages dense city builds. They are of course right.

But game developers have more ways to influence the way we players will build an "optimal" empire in Civ4. They can make large cities be more productive and wealthy than small cities. This will encourage a more open build of cities with less overlapping tiles. A few suggestions how this could be accomplished:

1) Make buildings have a higher upkeep. If a marketplace has an upkeep of 5 gold per turn, then it isn't that usefull to build it in small cities while large cities will still gain a lot of money by building them.

2) Give large cities a tile bonus. This is already in the game as the center tile gets shield and commerce bonusses when the city grows beyond size 6/12. If these bonusses would be larger and dependant on the size of the city, then people would prefer large cities. An example: give cities +1 shield and commerce bonus for every 2 citysizes over 6 and +1 shield and commerce bonus per size over 12.

So we don't need the corruption formula to force people to build their empire in a certain way.


This is already the case, and to say all it always have been like that. Not only bigger cities have a tile bonus, but they profit more from commerce (income + science) improvements such as the Library and the Market, and more again with the University and the Bank, and more again with the Research center and the other income building... so in late ages every tiles have its importance. But it is true too that when the game comes there, we usually have already a lot of money and science, and the game is nearly over. After all most of the game occurs in Ancient/Medieval/Industrial ages, so it seems not that stupid to sacrifice some potential efficiency to many other advantages like less corruption AND more cities during a large part of the game. Anyhow I'm playing now the Crusades C3C scenario (Emperor difficulty) with France and i think that this is a good example of how dense city built can be efficient to build AND pay an army. (and to hold/enlarge its frontiers)
As you see we have yet the choice between those two tendencies and profit from their respective advantages, which have always been implemeted in Civilization games from the first one. (Sid Meier's Civilization :D)

[EDIT]hmmm i would add that usually a closer city settlement is best indeed, when we are on a good terrain, but when on a bad one it is better to keep less superposing squares as possible.
Well anyway this is optimization, the corruption is not that different from one square to the next, except maybe on a tiny map. (especially when it comes to implent second capital distance cities)
 
Ok i hear all of this stuff about corruption.. and im hoping it has something to do with my Forbidden Palace not doing anything outside the city its built in. I am playing this map thats 362x362, and im a good 10 to 15 hours in and my palace isn;t reducing corruption. my whole game plan relys on this. Can someone help me? PLEASE
 
If you're using the 1.15 patch, then the FP only increases the OCN. On a gigamap like that, communism would be best. (Also, was it modded to increase the OCN from that of a huge map? i.e., 3 times as many cities).
 
I did not change the OCN. I don't like playing with the editor. I have found that since the original civ 2 editor that they have gone downhill. Or uphill and too complicated. Whatever
I don't see why they changed it, it was fine before
Out of all the civ games i do own (civ 1, civ 2, civ 2 gold, civ 3, civ 3 gold and conquest and civ call to power) that is the biggest mistake ive ever seen.
 
Well, wehen making very big maps, OCN should be increased too, otherwise you'll get a lot of corruption.

There is a reason why OCN in 16 at standard and 32 for huge maps.


P.S.
FP always decreases DISTANCE corruption (like real Palace), but distance from palace still matters since "number of cities corruption" (some would say "rank" corruption"), still depends from distance from palace (how many cities are closer to palace then this one).
 
As a rule of thumb (and if you don't wish to spend time to understand the difference between rank and distance corruption), just build the Forbidden Palace in a moderately corrupt city. The positive effects of it are greatest in such cities (in C3C 1.15).
 
Back
Top Bottom