The Shepherd
Chieftain
---AutomatedTeller said:I'm confused - why is CivIII atrocious at handling corruption? It's annoying, but I think it's a pretty elegant, if complex, solution.
Just because humans expand in such a way that makes for a lot of corrupt cities doesn't mean the handling is bad...
Personally, I think the corruption model adds a lot to the game.
My Island has all the cities adjascent to my capital, they all have couthouses, they all celebrate "we love the Sir day", yet even after I switch from despotism to monarchy (Which supposedly has a loyalty factor, there is still corroption in my realm of net -8 at times. I thought corruption was supposed to get worse every increment you get away from the capital, and that all that other stuff is supposed to mitigate it, so why not 0 corruption? In civ 2, it was possable for your small civs to have 0 corruption. I don't like the default assumption that corruption must be inevitable, or the assumptionm that I (the sir) can't be corrupt (no corruption in capital city. Who's to say I don't take bribes just as readily as my governers would, or back on the other hand, that I couldn't judge my governers character when hiring them to not appoint folk who would take bribes, etc forms of corruption.