player1 fanatic
Fanatic
I would have no problem if diminishing returns would be much greater for gold and science instead of shields.
Waste is un-fun if as high as it is.
Waste is un-fun if as high as it is.
Has Sid realised they got Corruption wrong?
- Thread starter Beeblbrox
- Start date
Beeblbrox
Warlord
Here's food for thought that occured to me, largely along the replacement suggestion lines, but very much belongs to this thread:
Given that in Free market Economies at least , from what I understand (and I am by no means educated in any of the mechanics of economics so I trust any economists out there will correct me), the potential of unlimited growth is a requirement to the succesful running of that economy, hence the regular bulletins 'the Economy has grown 10 points!', hand in hand with this growth grows the expectations of a nation for living standards to increase.
At the moment a city of 20 citizens requires X quantity of luxuries (not resource luxuries you understand, the actual spend of commerce) - regardless of the cities/nations income. This means that while the nation is poor (experiencing poor growth or even a slump) the city requires a large percentage of its income to keep them happy. However, if for some reason the nation experiences unprecedented ecenomic growth and wealth, the citizens still require the same quantity X of luxuries to keep them happy - which may in relative terms mean everyone is given a free loaf of bread by the state when the state could in fact afford to put Gold plating on each and every citizens motor cars and have change left over.
Obviously this could hardly happen irl - the leader would be out on his backside toot-sweet. Addressing this inequity in Civ, while I am not qualified or disposed to make the necessary mechanical suggestions, can perhaps be seen as a pretty sure-fire way to help curb the extreme power large economies in a non-OCN model would experience?
Edit Note: This principle need not only apply to democracies/republics - look what happened to the French aristocracy when they got too greedy, and the shockwaves it sent round Europe afterwards
Given that in Free market Economies at least , from what I understand (and I am by no means educated in any of the mechanics of economics so I trust any economists out there will correct me), the potential of unlimited growth is a requirement to the succesful running of that economy, hence the regular bulletins 'the Economy has grown 10 points!', hand in hand with this growth grows the expectations of a nation for living standards to increase.
At the moment a city of 20 citizens requires X quantity of luxuries (not resource luxuries you understand, the actual spend of commerce) - regardless of the cities/nations income. This means that while the nation is poor (experiencing poor growth or even a slump) the city requires a large percentage of its income to keep them happy. However, if for some reason the nation experiences unprecedented ecenomic growth and wealth, the citizens still require the same quantity X of luxuries to keep them happy - which may in relative terms mean everyone is given a free loaf of bread by the state when the state could in fact afford to put Gold plating on each and every citizens motor cars and have change left over.
Obviously this could hardly happen irl - the leader would be out on his backside toot-sweet. Addressing this inequity in Civ, while I am not qualified or disposed to make the necessary mechanical suggestions, can perhaps be seen as a pretty sure-fire way to help curb the extreme power large economies in a non-OCN model would experience?
Edit Note: This principle need not only apply to democracies/republics - look what happened to the French aristocracy when they got too greedy, and the shockwaves it sent round Europe afterwards
At one time I would have agreed with your premise but my mind was changed because I tried playing with less corruption. I did not change the OCN but I modifed the corruption/waste levels so I would only have a maxium of 25% waste in any city no matter how far away from my capitol it was. The expansion phase of the game was no different but after that it quickly became much to easy. Since all captured cities could quickly become almost as productive as my core cities it became terribly easy to outpace the AI.
The effect it had on science output alone was staggering, almost like being in a perputal golden age. Playing on emperor level it usually takes me until the end of the industrail era to catch the AI in tech, using less corruption rules I was ahead by the halfway point of the middle ages. I was able to get tanks before most of the AI's had riflemen, while this was fun for a few turns it wasnt much of a challenge.
I like how the game works now, taking cites does not lead to a snowball effect of ever increasing power that you get with no corruption/waste. But there are still very important reasons to take cities: control of resources/luxeries, a base of operations, high score(if thats your objective), and control of wonders just to name a few.
Beeblbrox
Warlord
Thats fair comment 
I would point out though that non-OCN is not quite the same as a blanket cap on corruption - I have a number of cities in my non-OCN game that are around 60% corrupt due to capitol distance.
I would point out though that non-OCN is not quite the same as a blanket cap on corruption - I have a number of cities in my non-OCN game that are around 60% corrupt due to capitol distance.
Roland Johansen
Deity
As there is some discussion about the OCN, it is good that we can mod it. I'm on Beeblbrox side here, I also don't like the OCN. I've won deity games with and without the low OCN number and the moment you are strong enough to beat AI players is earlier than the moment you go over the unmodded OCN number (+ forbidden palace and courthouse bonus on OCN number) in my games.
The cities that produce the units to conquer the AI cities are usually old strong cities and not the newly conquered ones. The moment the conquered cities become really effective is usually too late (for cities conquered after you reached the OCN number).
The reason why most people who hate the OCN number hate it, is because they don't like to have parts of their empire which will never be effective (I think). It's the perfectionist in all of us (I think).
There is one other thing about the OCN that I don't like and that is the bad effect it has on the AI controlled empires. An example: In a mulitplayer game with a friend of mine (together against the AI's), one of the AI controlled players got very big (75-85 cities against 35 of mine, huge world, deity). It had a lucky starting position and crushed a much weaker AI neighbor (jungle start). If the game would be programmed in a way I like, then I would be afraid about the productive power of this AI player. But I'm not because I know that the OCN number will make its empire only slightly more productive than mine.
In a deity game you only have to get your OCN number of cities and then the AI controlled empires will not be a danger to you enymore. Even if they're 5 times as big. Is there a deity level player here who lost the game after he/she got his/her OCN number of cities? It never happened to me.
Now this really doesn't have to do anything with the deity level, but just with the fact that people playing on that level won't do something stupid. And the AI can't get really stronger than after it reached it's OCN number of cities.
In my next post I'll do a suggestion for a different mechanic to allow different strategies to succes.
The cities that produce the units to conquer the AI cities are usually old strong cities and not the newly conquered ones. The moment the conquered cities become really effective is usually too late (for cities conquered after you reached the OCN number).
The reason why most people who hate the OCN number hate it, is because they don't like to have parts of their empire which will never be effective (I think). It's the perfectionist in all of us (I think).
There is one other thing about the OCN that I don't like and that is the bad effect it has on the AI controlled empires. An example: In a mulitplayer game with a friend of mine (together against the AI's), one of the AI controlled players got very big (75-85 cities against 35 of mine, huge world, deity). It had a lucky starting position and crushed a much weaker AI neighbor (jungle start). If the game would be programmed in a way I like, then I would be afraid about the productive power of this AI player. But I'm not because I know that the OCN number will make its empire only slightly more productive than mine.
In a deity game you only have to get your OCN number of cities and then the AI controlled empires will not be a danger to you enymore. Even if they're 5 times as big. Is there a deity level player here who lost the game after he/she got his/her OCN number of cities? It never happened to me.
Now this really doesn't have to do anything with the deity level, but just with the fact that people playing on that level won't do something stupid. And the AI can't get really stronger than after it reached it's OCN number of cities.
In my next post I'll do a suggestion for a different mechanic to allow different strategies to succes.
Roland Johansen
Deity
The problem with no diminishing returns is that one can grow exponentially in strength and there is a best strategy to do so, namely expand, expand, expand (that is the main argument given in this thread I believe).
Now how to give alternative strategies to expansion. These are just crude ideas, so probably not that good.
Make your own cities grow stronger in a more than linear way. A city of size 6 should be more than double the strength of a city of size 3. This could be done by creating buildings in ancient age that are cheap and increase production. Also city growth shouldn't decrease as the city grows but increase (size 7+ cities need more food, so grow slower in productivity in the normal game). This gives the alternative of fewer big and far more productive cities to lots of small and unproductive cities after expansion.
An example:
Your city will stay in fase 1 for say 20urns and then become size 2 for 16 turns and, size 3 for 14 turns, size 4 for 12 turns, size 5 for 11 turns, size 6 for 10 turns, etc. (just an example). If you build a settler in fase 3 it will take you longer to regrow to size 3 again then if you build it when the city is size 5 and want to regrow to size 5. This way you will want to build up your cities more before expanding. This is already in the game a bit when your first city has some foodbonusses, but not if it hasn't (all assuming despotism, start of game).
Conquering: Make conquered cities grow slower. If you disband them than the population will go to other cities of yours or disallow disbanding of foreign cities. Starving of cities will cause rebellions and make citizens in other cities of yours protest against your policy (reduced happiness?). The captured population will eventually come to like your empire and grow as fast as your own, but it will take a while. During this period the conquered cities will also produce less. You may not build workers or settlers from foreign population.
Lets see, can we think of other mechanisms.
Corruption mechanisms:
Make it so that corruption decreases with tech improvement (you can do that in Civ3 by allowing FP type buildings with certain techs). In the beginning of the game corruption is bad. Only a few cities can be managed effectively. After a while, with certain techs, a larger empire can be managed.
Make corruption decrease with age of the city. If a city belongs to your empire longer its loyalty grows and becomes less corrupt.
Ok, I'm out of ideas for the moment. Maybe you don't like some of these ideas or even hate some of them. Think of some better alternatives then. I can't believe that the OCN number is the best way to limit growth. We civfanatics must be able to think of better altenatives.
edited: spelling mistakes.
Now how to give alternative strategies to expansion. These are just crude ideas, so probably not that good.
Make your own cities grow stronger in a more than linear way. A city of size 6 should be more than double the strength of a city of size 3. This could be done by creating buildings in ancient age that are cheap and increase production. Also city growth shouldn't decrease as the city grows but increase (size 7+ cities need more food, so grow slower in productivity in the normal game). This gives the alternative of fewer big and far more productive cities to lots of small and unproductive cities after expansion.
An example:
Your city will stay in fase 1 for say 20urns and then become size 2 for 16 turns and, size 3 for 14 turns, size 4 for 12 turns, size 5 for 11 turns, size 6 for 10 turns, etc. (just an example). If you build a settler in fase 3 it will take you longer to regrow to size 3 again then if you build it when the city is size 5 and want to regrow to size 5. This way you will want to build up your cities more before expanding. This is already in the game a bit when your first city has some foodbonusses, but not if it hasn't (all assuming despotism, start of game).
Conquering: Make conquered cities grow slower. If you disband them than the population will go to other cities of yours or disallow disbanding of foreign cities. Starving of cities will cause rebellions and make citizens in other cities of yours protest against your policy (reduced happiness?). The captured population will eventually come to like your empire and grow as fast as your own, but it will take a while. During this period the conquered cities will also produce less. You may not build workers or settlers from foreign population.
Lets see, can we think of other mechanisms.
Corruption mechanisms:
Make it so that corruption decreases with tech improvement (you can do that in Civ3 by allowing FP type buildings with certain techs). In the beginning of the game corruption is bad. Only a few cities can be managed effectively. After a while, with certain techs, a larger empire can be managed.
Make corruption decrease with age of the city. If a city belongs to your empire longer its loyalty grows and becomes less corrupt.
Ok, I'm out of ideas for the moment. Maybe you don't like some of these ideas or even hate some of them. Think of some better alternatives then. I can't believe that the OCN number is the best way to limit growth. We civfanatics must be able to think of better altenatives.
edited: spelling mistakes.
Beeblbrox
Warlord
I feel like the Cavalry has just arrived....
/Beeblbrox weeps with happiness
/Beeblbrox weeps with happiness
Beeblbrox
Warlord
Catt: as you rightly point out, this is more of an issue for addressing in suggestions for Civ4 - I will concede that OCN is probably the most effective mechanic that exists for preventing rampant ICS in Civ3. I have bent my mind to a few alternative idea suggestions in the 'Ideas for Civ4' sticky. I would really appreciate your opinions, as I feel you are one of the few main protaganists against my stance that has an appreciatiation of my views. Page 54 of the thread if you do feel inclined to have a look.
Whilst I am here I feel I ought to address the fact some people believe I have been 'insulting'. This may be attributed to my 'Optimal Turd Quotient' example, and that any supporters are loonies. This was not meant to be an insult to anyone that feels 'Optimal City Number' is a valid mechanic to be used in Civ - perhaps the similarity in description is what leads to this feeling of insult.
Rather, it was an insult to anyone who, if Firaxis lost their marbles and implemented such an absurd mechanic as the 'Optimal Turd Quotient', would still play Civ and maintain that it was a valid mechanic purely on the basis they can still play a victorious game with it in place. Nobody that I have debated against in this thread, I believe, held that position - nor can I really see it occuring. It was meant as an illustration of the fact that we do not have to accept such a mechanic purely because it has the Firaxis badge on it. If you are happy to accept an Optimal Turd Quotient, please, feel insulted, because I am happy to insult you.
I hope that clears up some of the animosity and vitriol that has occured
Whilst I am here I feel I ought to address the fact some people believe I have been 'insulting'. This may be attributed to my 'Optimal Turd Quotient' example, and that any supporters are loonies. This was not meant to be an insult to anyone that feels 'Optimal City Number' is a valid mechanic to be used in Civ - perhaps the similarity in description is what leads to this feeling of insult.
Rather, it was an insult to anyone who, if Firaxis lost their marbles and implemented such an absurd mechanic as the 'Optimal Turd Quotient', would still play Civ and maintain that it was a valid mechanic purely on the basis they can still play a victorious game with it in place. Nobody that I have debated against in this thread, I believe, held that position - nor can I really see it occuring. It was meant as an illustration of the fact that we do not have to accept such a mechanic purely because it has the Firaxis badge on it. If you are happy to accept an Optimal Turd Quotient, please, feel insulted, because I am happy to insult you.
I hope that clears up some of the animosity and vitriol that has occured
I think you missed why long time members of this board became not insulted but annoyed at your original posts.
It took me a long time to get an understanding of this game and the amazing tactics used by a variety of members to address situations that I could not have gotten out of. That said tactics to throw the world into chaos and drag the whole world down to "your" level to beat them up is an effect human tactic. The AI will enter a republic and produce much more than a human can at higher levels. If the AI is left alone, the AI will waaaay out pace the best human player so that leaves Machiavellian tactics as a superior tactic and if you can balkanize and seed hate amongst the AI you can take on the AI at even the highest levels.
Other considerations were taken into account when producing this game. Issues like alternate methods of winning and CPU speed. Particularly on CPU speed, a company has to set the OS and CPU speed as low as possible to allow the maximum number of players. As the CPU speed decreases so does the complexity of the AI but increases potential buyers...
That said the civ model for a game is pretty complex but not perfect. I doubt that as complex as civ is that a group of programmers can ever make the game truly real. There will always be divergences of the game and reality. One divergence of history from civ would be the British Empire collapsing and forming a multitude of independent countries. How would a programmer model that? Which brings me to the nature of responses to your posts as being annoyed and not insulted.
PS *edit* OCN makes a subtle contribution through out civ 3 and to remove OCN would be to upset certain balances within the game. For example, OCN is 25% larger for commercial. Unless you think commercial civs are overly powerful, this would reduce their advantage by 25% and that would be one unmentioned change. I am sure there are other changes that would occur that I do not know about since I am still learning this game.
I tried to get the best solution by adding new small wonders like forbidden palace. They had to be difficult to build - supreme court requiring 25 couthouses and university advance; F.B.I requiring 25 police stations and radio advance etc. Of course I also maxed the map size and hist the max city limit before I had even researched code of laws.
I don't think I want to play unless I can play the way I want.
I don't think I want to play unless I can play the way I want.
ahman
Warlord
No, It's not at all complex, and that's what's annyoing. Just putting in two kinds of corruption on a otherwise great game was a big mistake of the programmers. Seems like a thing that was used when the release date was nearing? They should've taken at least a week to think about better solutions, and they probably would've come up with good ideas like Roland Johansen's, and certainly more that that.
Playing without OCR may be linear, but playing with OCR is too.
Edit: Setting an OCR for each map size (as a programmer or game designer) can mean nothing else than you want to force all civilizations to be of the same size.
darski
Regent in Training
Similar threads
