How effective should Forbidden Palace be in Conquests?

[nihil8r]

they're trying to oppress you! don't let that happen!

 

[Commander Bello]

@nihil8r:

 

[Capt Buttkick]

 

[Muchembled]

Yeti's first solution doesn't solve PTW bugs. The only solution is to compute as many ordered lists as there are Palace-like buildings (Palace, FP, or anything else in several mods) : the rank of the city is the lowest rank among all these lists.
There's no point modifying OCN.

Given D(x) the distance from the city x to the closest center, the corruption formula has been initially designed so that the corruption in a city A doesn't increase if you add a new city B whereas D(A) < D(B). This justifies the city rank : else, it would be easier to replace it by a corruption only based on the number of cities.
Indeed, I think the game is more interesting if we can invest in new cities without seeing the corruption increasing all the time.
I also think FP placement is more important in that case. Yes, it would penalize the AI if it can't place it cleverly, but it is exactly for this reason that it would be the best solution.

C3C 1.12 only allows one core. The FP reduces overall corruption but it has a diffuse effect.

Distribution of corruption and overall amount of corruption are 2 different things. I prefer PTW distribution with bugfixes, but it may be too powerful, especially in mods that allows more than 2 Palace-like buildings. We could reduce the size of additionnal cores by decreasing OCN and increasing computed distance for those cores.

 

[Muchembled]

I must clarify what I said about the AI.

- Cons: The AI is not good at placing the FP, and therefore human players gain a substantially greater benefit from the FP. It creates an environment where the palace jump trick/exploit thrives.

First, the palace jump trick/exploit thrives if bugs aren't fixed...
And if we forget it, it isn't a drawback at all. It's precisely there the human can beat the AI, as long as it's not exploitive or irrealist.

 

[akots]

Originally posted by Muchembled
We could reduce the size of additionnal cores by decreasing OCN and increasing computed distance for those cores.

What makes me mad about the current corruption model that on higher levels dues to very high rank coefficients, you can easily get to maximal 95% corruption even if you are below OCN! And these coefficients MUST depend on map size. Now, only distance corruption coefficients depend on map size. It is obvious that on larger map, the player/AIs and gameplay would benefit from this.

One can say that distance corruption does not depend on difficulty but only on map size. However, at higher levels, distance corruption is negligible compared to rank corruption because of these coefficients. Which makes gameplay pretty much strainghtforward: Build as many cities as you can in distance 4 or 5 and then ... it does not matter, they all get 95% corrupt. There is little thinking and desicion-making indeed.

So at the present, it would be more enjoyable for most players and challenging to play at Monarch with, lets say, poor starting location aiming for the fastest victory.

On Demigod/Deity player cannot substantially benefit from optimally placing cities. However, there are other benefits including good trade deals with AI which has more money. And also fast tech pace if going for Diplomatic/Spaceship victories.

In the current version, these differences are very distinct, i.e., want to test you city placement and production/trade management skill with lots of wars, go for lower difficulty. Want to test trading/AI management skill with less wars, go to higher difficulty. There are probably a couple of levels where both skills are important, in particular, Emperor level. My impression is that even with this FP you can still play a more or less enjoyable/thinking style balanced game. Though it is considerably more difficult than it was in PTW especially during the later stages.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by SirPleb
Given a choice I usually preferred to move my Palace to a new region instead of rushing an FP there, either by jumping the Palace or by rushing it with a leader. If I was jumping the Palace there was no choice - the new region would have Palace, original would have FP. If I was rushing the Palace, I might rush FP instead. But in many cases I'd build FP in the original core and rush Palace, because that way I could "re-center" the original core. (Vs. retaining the original Palace location which is usually constrained by the start position and is often not central in the first core.)

I'm surprised that you think this is worth the trouble or cost. I think it generally doesn't matter much whether your palace is "centered" in your core, or not, because rank corruption tends to be the main issue, at least by the time you're to the point of building/developing a second core. Distance corruption is considerably less significant once you have courthouses and an advanced government (i.e., not despotism), and assuming you're building a fairly tight city pattern (which is usually the best route to an early victory).

Some players may experience the opposite effect, i.e. overall the FP having a bit more effect with the fix. If a player generally rushes FP (seldom building FP in the original core and then jumping or rushing Palace elsewhere with a leader), and the player generally settles less densely in the second region (sometimes a good idea I think because dense builds pay off most in the early game), then that player will get the opposite result, generally finding FP a bit more productive when the bug is fixed.

Well, I'd say my second core is almost always less dense, just because it's an AI's former territory, and the AI players build less densely than I do. I guess in principle I could fill in the gaps with more cities, but as you say, density isn't so important at that point, and it usually makes more sense to just build up those existing cities (while filling in obvious holes).

 

[Longasc]

I think the whole corruption system plainly... I will not say the word!

There should never be such things like 95% corruption in any city, even if it is on the other side of the world!!!

how about 75% as the absolute max?

I think corruption reducing means, including Forbidden Palace, Courthouses and whatever should be


* MUCH * more effective than right now (C3C with 1.12 Beta, corruption fixed)

While corruption is nice to prevent someone to become too powerful just because of mass, it is the only real annoyance in ANY civilization 3 game I had so far. It's cumbersome and really turning me off!!

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by DaviddesJ
I'm surprised that you think this is worth the trouble or cost. I think it generally doesn't matter much whether your palace is "centered" in your core, or not, because rank corruption tends to be the main issue, at least by the time you're to the point of building/developing a second core.

I guess I implied too much, I said "many cases" and "given a choice", it does come off sounding like I think it is good general practice. In practice I think I do it significantly less than 1/2 the time, and it depends on the situation and the final goal (fast conquest of a small map vs. milking of a huge one at two extremes ) I do find that often the region around the Palace gets built with the Palace far off center, and if that's because of pressure from a close neighbor then later on if I take over that neighbor, that can increase corruption in cities I've improved. It is nice to have the Palace centered when possible to avoid that.

Originally posted by DaviddesJ
Well, I'd say my second core is almost always less dense, just because it's an AI's former territory, and the AI players build less densely than I do.

So you were unknowingly being set back by the Palace rank bug. Oh oh. The rest of us are really in for it when that bug is finally relegated to history I guess the good news is that RCP will be gone at the same time. (For those who wonder why I would say that in this context, click here )

 

[betazed]

I WANT MY PTW FORBIDDEN PALACE BACK!

It is because of conquests corruption issues that I am not a civfanatic anymore. {haven't played a civ game in almost a month now.}

The old FP was understood well. I do not mind learning the intricacies of a new FP as long as it is documented clearly what it is supposed to do and clearly does so. (and no long 20 page post treatises of what it does. Some clean equations relating corruption of a city to all relevant factors - Why is this so difficult to write? ). Till then....

I WANT MY PTW FORBIDDEN PALACE BACK!

 

[Padma]

Originally posted by betazed
The old FP was understood well. I do not mind learning the intricacies of a new FP as long as it is documented clearly what it is supposed to do and clearly does so. (and no long 20 page post treatises of what it does. Some clean equations relating corruption of a city to all relevant factors - Why is this so difficult to write? ).

We (beta testers + Firaxis) are working on that issue "as we speak". The final patch will have clear and concise (I hope) documentation on how the FP (and SPHQ) work. If it doesn't rest assured that there are enough of us working on this (including alexman!) that you will find a definitive guide on this website.

Originally posted by Soren Johnson (in reply to alexman)

you made me doubt my own understanding of corruption as often you seem to know more about it than I do!

 

[betazed]

Thanks Padma! I know I can rely on you (and everyone else) in this amazing forum!

p.s. Just as an aside betazed is led to wonder if the world would have been a better place if as many talented souls as are working on this corruption issue were involved in solving RL problems! hmmmm..... maybe... maybe not...

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by betazed
I WANT MY PTW FORBIDDEN PALACE BACK!

Firaxis has decided to use the 1.12 Forbidden Palace model with further adjustments in 1.15. And therefore probably in future. Despite the results of this poll it looks like this will mean a weaker FP than CivIII/PTW had.

I'm sure there will be a good and exact description available which we can all use to understand the new corruption model. (Probably alexman will do it ) I don't think it will be as intuitive as before because placing the FP far away from one's capital may or may not be a good thing, depending on your long term goals. But I think it is safe to use the following as an initial rules of thumb for the new model:

1) Build your Forbidden Palace as soon as you can spare a city's production for a while to do so. (To be more exact, try to get it finished before you reach OCN, for those who know what OCN is.) Build it in a city near your Palace, in the direction from your Palace where you expect to most expand your core. This will get you most of the potential gain of the new FP model.

2) If planning to use Communism, build SPHQ somewhere (anywhere.)

3) Build Courthouses and Police Stations everywhere except your core-most cities which don't need them at all.

 

[Longasc]

I hope the new corruption system is easier understandable than the previous tries.

I could have studied math instead of reading all that stuff how corruption really works... well, Gauss can be complicated, too, but after all... this is a game, and it should be fun, not burden.

I hope that after the final patch I will not have to complain about corruption anymore.

 

[LordKestrel]

Originally posted by betazed
I WANT MY PTW FORBIDDEN PALACE BACK!

Just do what I do, and don't play c3c, play ptw. Once an official patch comes out, and it's well documented as to how everything works, I'll look at playing again. Also, I'd really, really like to have Shift-D back to being *only* diplomacy, as those two things (corruption/fp and the ui changes) are all that's keeping me from playing c3c.

 

[werewolf]

I'm definately for lower on the fringes, and in distant cities. I like the idea of having multiple cores. SPHQ should be built only in communism, but work in other govs. Corruption reducing improvements should work noticeably. Those who argue about the palace jump exploit... well, let's have the palace jump to the city with most culture and not the most population (that's logical!)

Some would say lower corruption would unbalance the game, and lead to too much tax revenue... that's a good point. However, for democracies I would suggest raising unit support to 2 gold each, reflect the better treatment of soldiers in democracies. Maybe give 1 free unit support for each metropolis, just so it's not sooo bad. All the extra $ from democracies will be spent on keeping soldiers or 'gifts' for appeasing your neighbours. If you want to or will have to fight soon, you may want to hold off on the 'democratic revolution'. You will have to choose your government more carefully!

You can balance different game elements to expand playability... now, if you have a big empire, many of your cities will be hopelessly corrupt and there's little or no recourse... that's the issue demanding change but obviously the majority of fans.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by SirPleb
3) Build Courthouses and Police Stations everywhere except your core-most cities which don't need them at all.

I'm doubtful that Police Stations are (or will be) cost-effective. I think if you look at the length of time that it takes, after you build them, for them to even just pay back the cost of building them, plus the cost of maintaining them, and then you take into account the time value of money, that they are a lousy investment, even in a long game (e.g., space race).

 

[genghis_khev]

One idea I had to help reduce correption in larger empires but limit its early use and human advantage would be to add an industrial or modern age science with corresponding government type, say "Humanitarian Democracy" with a much lower corruption rate but with a much higher unit cost (3 or 4 gold/unit), no conscription, old style (civ I or II) senate/parliament to stop war-mongering, etc. Give us the lower corruption / higher productivity but make us pay for it. Such a high unit support would still allow for a large defenceive army but little extra for any major offenceive capabilities.

What do people think?

 

[kb2tvl]

I wanted to comment on this topic eventhough many have discussed it and a discision looks to be had...

First, I would like to see an FP give 1/2 the corruption reducing benefit of the palace but the police HQ(I think it is) would give the remaining 1/2 corruption benefit. Both could be placed in the same city or different cities and if they are placed in the same city, the benefit would be culmative. Now, if both are placed near the palace, the overall corruption would be reduced so that you could have one core radaiting out from your palace.

Now, the calculation inside of the optimal distance would weight toward corruption based on distance from the palace. However, if the FP was placed outside of the optimal range, the FP would take on the 1/2 corruption value and act as a palace.

 

[socralynnek]

I think, we need one more building that reduces corruption, which we have earlier than police stations (maybe something like 'Local Magistrate'). If this also increases OCN, then you're able to build a large, productive empire.