FIRAXIS: v1.13 and Patch Information

[player1 fanatic]

I think the real probelm with corruption is in fact a problem in waste (shield lost).

I bet that if corruption only affected trade, nobody would ever complain.

But since it also affects shields and make 1shield cities, that completly different matter.



Although it would be intersting to change corruption model so it has MORE trade corruption and LESS shield corruption.

 

[Yeti]

player1 fanatic:

That is a great observation / idea! I hadn't thought of it like that, but I would love to see how things worked out if you say...

- Left corruption (gold) unchanged from PTW.
- Cut waste (shields) in half.
- Added a cap on waste at 50%.

So waste would both be lower in all cities, and cap at a value that would leave the city at least somewhat productive.

Although... if police stations and courthouses would work to reduce waste further, maybe that cap should be more like 60 or 70 percent so that cities aren't TOO productive after building CH/PS improvements.

 

[geofelt]

Waste is the biggest reason why I don't play civ3 much; I prefer civ2. The 1.13 patch helps. It's no good when you are given a problem, and there is no real solution to it. The application of enough solutions should be able to stop 90% of the waste. As it is now, you get minimal production in remote cities, and not enough production to do anything about it. How about a game setting that relates waste to difficulty level or some other game setting?

 

[Craterus22]

Just like Communism has a Secret HQ a democracy should have State capitals (multiple with weaker increase in corruption control).

Definitely would like Forbidden Palace to go back to the old way(acts as a new center, etc.).

EDIT- In the following post, Horse asks why the editor isnt used as much to fix the problems... Yes the editor is awesome, but last time a checked (a long time ago) they didn't allow you to save your scores in the HOF with an edited ruleset - that is a big mistake in my book (and a major inconvenience).

 

[HorseSoldier]

Just registered and i would firstly like to compliment the large majority of forum users on your civility (pun intended) - i have been reading your posts for about a year or more and share your passion for the game(s).

It is corruption that has prompted this post and i hope this is the correct thread...

That said, my question is - why all the singleplayer gnashing of teeth about corruption levels when we have the best tool to fight/alter corruption levels in the editor? I sometimes flag the Temple and/or Barracks and/or Cathedral as corruption reducers. Sometimes I create an additional FP small wonder or two - name 'em "Colonial Capitol" or "Overseas HQ" and make them available with Magnetism and Flight respectively (or somesuch).

I like huge archipelago maps (236 x 236) with the OCN proportionally raised. I like naval power/logistics and micromanagement. And I do so love to fight and conquer but only allow a Spacerace victory.

Yes, they broke corruption in C3C but have now fixed it (1.13) and will fix it even more with the next patch. If the intended levels are still too high or unrealistic (my beef) - then go to the editor. Of course this again is just a singleplayer option..........

Why so few posts on using the editor?

 

[werewolf]

My main point was not that corruption shouldn't exist, but rather that it should be controllable. If you build a city in the middle of nowhere... 95% corruption/waste is understandable and acceptable: it's the frontier, the wild west. But once the city is linked to the capital with a road/harbour, and once the police station and courthouse are built, the city should be at least self sufficient; and not requiring 50 game turns to built each city improvement. I'm not just talking about waste, but also science and taxes.

Corruption is definately a barrier for making your empire too big; or rather too big too fast. It shouldn't be a race to see who can place settlers faster. If you build a city away far from your core, you'd better be able to provide protection and investment to it. It should take time for distant and conquered cities to contribute $, science and shields to your overall empire. Eluding back to my first epic game: I HAD secured North America, I HAD spent hundreds of gold from my treasury rushing anti-corruption improvements; I deserved to see some dividends for that.

As for the AI I've noticed that it likes to expand as much as possible, so corruption hurts it just as much. All those people baying for a tougher AI, well there you have it: with the head start the AI gets at higher difficulties, it will certainly benefit from lower corruption at it's fringe territories, and thus will provide the extra challenge. Where and how it builds the fp would seem to be the problem in it's program.

What seems odd about the whole calculation of distance and rank is that it is the same in a huge map than it is for a tiny map. You could argue that a huge map is just a different scale, after all there are earth maps of various sizes. I think they should just cap the calculated/absolute corruption to say... 110%-125%. That way the CH and PS will get noticed. The fp should get it's own ranking system (again?) for cities around it.

The most noticeable problem I encounter with the AI, is that it can't coordinate it's attacks effectively. It will take it's galley deep into my territory only to drop off only one attacking unit next to one of my cities. I make quick work of it immediately... treat over! The AI is a bonehead, but you know, it really doesn't bother me that much, because what it lacks it brains it makes up with relentlessness. Since I'm a builder, I often am unprepared for the sheer number of units the AI sends against me. Although during those times, that particular computer opponent suffers i n the end once my war machine eventually gets going, all the other AI civs are catching up or surpassing me.

My earlier suggestions aside, this issue should be able to fix. It still baffles me why it hasn't. If Firaxis eliminated this 'inevitable 95% problem' I find it hard to believe anyone would complain: "please make sure my size 12 cities yield only 1 shield and 1 gold please". Some remain 'content' with this reality but most just hate it.

 

[werewolf]

HorseSoldier does bring up a good point. But I just don't like to tinker with the core game at all, as I'm happy with every other aspect of it. I don't want to have to edit every existing map and scenario... that feels a little contrived. The default corruption levels should be more balanced and managable. I guess for me the editor remains a final solution, should I be disappointed with the final patch for C3C.

 

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by werewolf

[...]
I think they should just cap the calculated/absolute corruption to say... 110%-125%. [...]

I agree with almost everything you wrote, except for the quoted sentence.
I regard it as a definite conceptual weakness when there is corruption of more than 100%. If the local economy makes a certain amount of money - let's say 100k bucks - then under no circumstances you may loose more than this due to corruption. If you have 6 eggs, you cannot break 7. Nor can you handle two of them in a careful manner, so that the result of the breakage then would be just 5 broken eggs.

A very good point was mentioned by player1fanatic. Indeed, waste of 95% just means total anarchy. In 'reality' that would mean that almost noone would settle in such an area. Never would such a town raise to a size which in the game is simulated by 6++ citizens.

The solution for that would be to raise all 'shield costs' significantly, but to lower the waste substantially. Under no circumstances you should loose more than let's say, 66 per cent. And all current corruption/waste fighting measures should show an immediate, significant effect.

What I have to admit is that the FP1.13 already provides some relief. A first step into the right direction, as I see it. Courthouses still seem to be rather weak, and I am much interested how police stations will work in my current epic game.

 

[planetfall]

Originally posted by HorseSoldier
Why so few posts on using the editor?

The problems with using an edited game are:

1. all edits are lost when new patch is released.
It can take several hours to restore preferences.

2. Editor tweaks make it difficult for players to give relevant advice
when the questioner's game is so different from standard.

For me the showstopper is problem #1. I simply don't have time to
play the game, browse the forums, AND update preferences
with each new patch that comes out.

== PF

 

[tomart109]

Originally posted by werewolf
...despite my democratic government, my happy population, and rush-building both the police station and the courthouse, my west-coast cities were still all essentially 90%-95% corrupt. What is this!!!!???? It was such a turn off.

I like to build a huge empire, a vast empire, a "great civilization", and yet any city a screen away from the capital is useless; it can't build anything for itself! Now I can't even produce an effective second core of cities with an fp. Why should I capture enemy cities? I should just raze them all, as their inevitable and complete corruptness makes them essentially worthless... (and counts against our OCN! - th) The game's supposed to be about building... well how can we in this game?

I agree that corruption is a major part of the game... but not 95% (or 90% now).

Thank you, werewolf! Another articulate member of the 'silent majority' speaks up, hooray! I agree with virtually everything you say (see my sig.) Perhaps your essay deserves its own new thread...?

Originally posted by werewolf
RCP: What's the big deal? I have trouble enough optimizing my city placement trying to put cities on rivers and lakes, and on coasts, while maximizing terrain usage and minimizing city overlap. That's enough of a challenge for me.

Well put!

Let me throw my support to the "Regional FPs", or "State Capitals", or whatever you want to call them. If wholesale waste/corruption reduction is unlikely, these would be a good interim, partial solution. (Adjusting their effects to different governments is an interesting idea, but way too complex to implement now.)

And planetfall is right, editing isn't the answer.* I think his point #2 is important. If everyone adjusts the waste/corruption slider to their own "reasonable" level (mostly downward, I'd wager!) or flags some Improvements as corruption reducers, we won't be playing the same game anymore. Werewolf is right: excessive w/c has sorely damaged an excellent game, and should be fixed.

* (even though I do it myself: lower w/c, higher OCN.)

 

[tomart109]

Originally posted by akots

Even though our opinion is not asked, it not only feels different, it actually feels very good from a couple of hours of gameplay in Rise of Rome with new corruption. These changes can certainly compensate for lack of rank sharing. It is indeed very good.

Akots, I'm playing RoR right out of the box (no patching.) Waste/corruption is way less in this scenario than in the standard epic game.

Also true of Age of Discovery, btw, and I applaud this! Gee, distant, overseas colonies can function fairly normally and be Worth Building, what a concept!!! They should have brought this lesson back to the standard game...

 

[akots]

Originally posted by Commander Bello
A very good point was mentioned by player1fanatic. Indeed, waste of 95% just means total anarchy. In 'reality' that would mean that almost noone would settle in such an area. Never would such a town raise to a size which in the game is simulated by 6++ citizens.

I would argue with this because it happens in real life. As a former Soviet Union citizen, I can tell you that corruption can be indeed over 100%. For example, there was an Uzbek Republic in the USSR. It was over 100% corrupt. Not only they have stolen everything from what they have! Uzbek survived on whatever food/cash/goods it was possible to get from Russia or other Republics and somehow managed to steal a part of this! And Uzbek had up to 12 children in the families so there was huge population growth and as a result, huge population in there. Now they are on their own. How do they survive? I don't know, looks like they are all over Moscow trying to sell or buy something on every corner. In general, since you live in a relatively small European state with low corruption, does not mean that if you spread for half-world, it would remain the same. People steal, it is in their nature.

 

[akots]

Originally posted by tomart109
Akots, I'm playing RoR right out of the box (no patching.) Waste/corruption is way less in this scenario than in the standard epic game.

It might be. But once you play on high difficulty starting from Emperor and spread through Eastern Europe/Northern Africa/Iberia, it is really bad with most of the cities making 1/1 shield/trade. After I built FP in Northern Italy nothing happened in out-of-the-box but in 1.13 patch it was 2/2 everywhere and often 3/3 or even more out of those completely corrupt cities. And cash flow increased greatly. I won in 6 turns in 50AD just rushing citizens, but without 1.13 I struggled almost till 130AD.

 

[Justus II]

Originally posted by akots


I would argue with this because it happens in real life. As a former Soviet Union citizen, I can tell you that corruption can be indeed over 100%. For example, there was an Uzbek Republic in the USSR. It was over 100% corrupt. Not only they have stolen everything from what they have! Uzbek survived on whatever food/cash/goods it was possible to get from Russia or other Republics and somehow managed to steal a part of this! And Uzbek had up to 12 children in the families so there was huge population growth and as a result, huge population in there. Now they are on their own. How do they survive? I don't know, looks like they are all over Moscow trying to sell or buy something on every corner. In general, since you live in a relatively small European state with low corruption, does not mean that if you spread for half-world, it would remain the same. People steal, it is in their nature.

Excellent post Akots, great real-world example. I have never been to the former Soveit republics, but know several people who have immigrated from there, and the stories they have told me back up what you are saying. (The problem is, under communism, it should have been communal corruption, equal everywhere, right??? Yet they certainly had a productive core, with corruption increasing on the edges....)

 

[akots]

Originally posted by werewolf
If Firaxis eliminated this 'inevitable 95% problem' I find it hard to believe anyone would complain: "please make sure my size 12 cities yield only 1 shield and 1 gold please". Some remain 'content' with this reality but most just hate it.

I do completely agree with this particular point. The problem is that for whatever reason, more simple calculation or lack of high school education by the programmer, at present, corruption linearly depends on distance and rank. This is ridiculous. There are many asymptotic functions that might approah the new 90% limit without exceeding it and which must be used instead of just simple linear model. In this case, the real value of corruption would never exceed 90% and all improvements would have to be effective.

 

[akots]

Originally posted by Justus II
The problem is, under communism, it should have been communal corruption, equal everywhere, right??? Yet they certainly had a productive core, with corruption increasing on the edges....

It is communal corruption in communism in Civ3, not in real life. Also, it was not communism indeed because communism does not exist. What they are using as communism in Civ3 is something that might resemble what is going on in North Korea. Communism or whatever government was in the USSR is indeed a system when all people are equally poor, or more or less equally. For example, take an Uzbek high school teacher who barely knows how to read and a teacher from Moscow who knows everything. And they had the same salary. Which means that their income is communally distributed. However, this income come 90% from the core and 10% from the remote areas. So, with communism, it is not important how much you make, but it is important how much you get which is not what you make. Basically, this is what programmers mean by communal corruption as I understand the concept correctly. However, with corruption over 100%, you get the thing averaged and for a very large empire it is possible to get over 100% corruption as a whole! This is certainly possible in the real life but looks weird.

Again, the point is that corruption is not what a certain city makes, it is what this particular city gets in the end after distribution.

Another analogy. Federal tax in US. Which goes directly to the Capital and gets distributed there. It is 30% of every trade income in the country which can be reflected in 30% less getting to a particular city than this city actually makes.

Do these things make sense?

 

[hclass]

I prefer to buy C3C as a final patch to the original Civ3. Unable to CONTROL corruption is one of the most "hold me back from buying" factor.
I just hate the idea of expanding the game before some very basic things are settled. (but I don't mind pay for a golden patch, if the game producer is really having a tight burget)

Be invited to share my preliminary warns before C3C is out and see how people are trying to talk me out of my "demands"
here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=65589

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

What you're suggesting is that corruption should be measured in some part by how you distribute your gold per turn between science/luxury/treasury? As in, you allocate 30% per turn to your treasury and that equates to 30% corruption in your cities.... meaning, the more money you allocated to build up in your treasury the less you would make
I just woke up ...

 

[akots]

Originally posted by mintyfreshdeath
What you're suggesting is that corruption should be measured in some part by how you distribute your gold per turn between science/luxury/treasury?...

Not exactly. But corruption is measured now in this way. Or it is possible to consider it being measured that way.

What I was trying to say that all you get in your hands in actually a tax. That tax you can bring back to the cities where it comes from in the form of luxuries or just byuing improvements. Everything to make your people happy.

Of those, who think that corruption is too strong, I want to ask one thing. How would you use that extra cash you get from that? The game at present is designed and balanced in such a way that no matter how big is the empire, there is enough cash under Republic/Democracy to support all mprovements in all cities and at least some military. Also, you can do some research and even spend some extra on luxuries or trades you need. It is impossible to buy in one turn all aqueducts/marketplaces/hospitals in all the cities which need them especially if there are really very many of these. But it does not happen in real life either. Empires were built over centuries.

Just imagine India in 1945 having everything what had English people back in London. Or imagine that British colonies in Northern America had the same quality of life as English had in 1770. Then, there would be no Independence War, US would not exist and Civilization would not be created.

Back to this extra cash you might have depending on playing skill and level. How would you use that? Gain some more score! By waging more wars and conquering neighbors and by keeping the people happy. If corruption is decreased substantially, the game becomes greatly unbalanced creating a positive feedback instead of negative. The bigger you get the better you are. Sounds like heaven on earth which does not exist. This is not so interesting and amusing to play. Now, there is a strong negative feedback. There is some balanced optimal size of civilization. Exceeding this size and seeing decrease in income and science and happiness is normal and is an essential component of interesting gameplay. And having to spend the income to improve the life of your people is at least fare.

Just to illustrate the point, we are talking here about really huge civilizations or really challenging difficulty. I think, on Chieftain and tiny map, with OCP, it is possible to get half of the world in your borders without corruption becoming devastating.

At present, there are indeed many means to fight the beast. Including OCP in the core and FP. Some players put a city every second square and wonder why corruption is different from Civ2 (just looked at Civ2 forums). Also, in Civ2, there were no cities ever producing 150 shields and 250 trade which is not even maximum in Civ3.

Again repeating myself, I'm happy with the corruption system in 1.13 but still there are some things to improve.

 

[kettyo]

Originally posted by planetfall

1. all edits are lost when new patch is released.
It can take several hours to restore preferences.

Just some major patches update the default rules file !