Is it just me or is corruption the biggest fun-killer in Civ3?

[vesuvius_prime]

Hi there,

I've been playing Civ3 for a while now and I have come to the definitive conclusion that corruption takes away almost all of the fun I've ever had in the civilization series. I have endless fields of useless cities and I cannot stop wondering "Is that the case in real-world civilizations?"

While I can relate to big corruption in ancient times when distance was a *big* factor, what can we say of more recent times? Should we assume that simply because Honolulu is so far away from Washington, it has to be a trash city with practically no production and no contribution to the budget or science of USA? How should distance be measured in Civ3? By physical kilometers/miles, or by the time it takes to reach from point A to point B (i.e. by the time it takes my Imperial Revisors to reach some city and teach its corrupt Governor/Mayor a lesson)?

Corruption absolutely must depend on things like railroads, radio, flight, etc. I see nothing like that in Civ3. What type of real-world simulation is that? And where is the fun in having so many good-for-nothing cities?

Is something wrong with me or are there others who think that Firaxis should redesign this aspect of the game? Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the concept of corruption in principle. But *such* corruption is ridiculous.

(I have already reached the point where I'm considering selling my copy of Civ3. Such rampant corruption is no fun at all. It makes the "eXpand" part of Civ3 meaningless.)

 

[al_thor]

Corruption can indeed be a nuisance. Some people like to calculate the optimum Palace Placement, and actually move their Palaces to fight corruption. I have never done this, and I play at Emporer & Demigod levels.
Things that help fight corruption:
1. Proper placement of the Forbidden Palace
2. Proper (micromanagement) use of Civil Engineers and Policemen.
3. If I have expanded beyond my limits to control corruption, I will only build necessary improvements like Temple & Market in those outlying cities, and then I turn them to Income and leave them be. I can't be bothered with a city that takes 75 turns to create a Mechinized Infantry or something like that.

One thing that does irritate me:
If I was building something Civil and so have Civil Engineers, but that completes and I order up something Military, the program should automatically change my Engineers to Police. AFAIK, the Engineers are wasted when building 'non-civil' items. Same goes for Income - if I switch a city to Income, the Engineers should auto-switch to Tax Collectors. Maybe this would happen if I turned the Governor on, but I have never used him, just like I no longer Automate Workers (except to Clean-up).

 

[Greyhawk1]

Corruption is annoying but it is countered with planning and cash. Communism is a good government to make outlying territories at least get more than 1 shield. But the idea is that Republic & Democracy you buy all the improvements and in Communism you build 'em instead or use forced labour if you are in a cruel bent.

At least with corruption, losing outlying colonies is just annoying rather than catastrophic. So you lost a 1 shield, 1 gold city...big deal...

With good Forbidden Palace placement you can minimize corruption quite effectively. Try to get a Great Leader as early as possible to rush the FP somewhere where it will do some good.

 

[Roland Johansen]

This game also has an excellent editor with which you can change many aspects of corruption. You can make it more or less dependant on number of cities you've build and you can just just lower it by changing a percentage.

Probably you want it less dependant on number of cities build, because if you change it that way corruption still exists in the game but can be fought effectively by building courthouses/ police stations.

 

[DoTheMath]

Originally posted by Roland Johansen
This game also has an excellent editor with which you can change many aspects of corruption. You can make it more or less dependant on number of cities you've build and you can just just lower it by changing a percentage.

Probably you want it less dependant on number of cities build, because if you change it that way corruption still exists in the game but can be fought effectively by building courthouses/ police stations.

Also, build workers in distant cities, use them to improve tiles, then build hospitals to put them in core cities, as well.

 

[vesuvius_prime]

Thank you, guys. I appreciate all advices so far.

I have cases where the Forbidden Palace + Courthouse + Police Station + a few Policemen have an almost nil effect on corruption. This cannot be normal. It doesn't work like this in real life. Again, refer to my example with Washington & Honolulu. It seems to me that there's a huge flaw in the corruption system in Civ3.

Yeah, I guess I'd have to use the editor. Otherwise, to me the game is not fun. As it is at the moment, I hardly see any point in expanding on other continents, for example, except in those rare cases when I want to secure some strategic resource.

By the way, I've only played 3-4 games on Civ3 by now and it sure seems that the AI cheats on the Emperor level. For example, *extremely* early in the game the Carthaginians managed to build the Pyramids. That sure aggravated me and I decided to Retire and see what they had been doing. As it turned out they were *alone* on their continent, no rival civs, and somehow they managed to produce two Great Leaders, one of whom rush-built the Pyramids. How can that happen? I thought Great Leaders only appeared after an elite unit won a combat, and only against other civs, not against barbarians. I can assure you that it was so early in the game that they, being alone on their continent, couldn't have possibly contacted, let alone fought, another civ. Is that cheating or what?

 

[Stevenpfo]

You can also get SGL (scientific great leaders) if you are the first to learn a new tech ... I believe every time you research a tech first you get a 5% chance of a SGL ... A higher % if you are a scietific civ.

Also ... I've been messing around with ideas i've seen from others in the past to reduce corruption. I've added 5 new FP's ... Called State Capitals that are available from 5 different techs ... democracy, rr, flight and ... two others (i forgot ). There are some other changes too. i'll attach the scenario and you can check it out. I only use it every now and then on huge maps to mess around.

it's a conquests scen ....

Edit: I also changed airports to reduce corruption ... For obvious reasons.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I believe that the 1.15 patch reduces corruption (or at least makes corruption fighting builds more effective). I've been playing Civ since Civ 1 and corruption has never bothered me. A poorly producing city is just that, I accept it and adjust my play accordingly.

 

[rychan]

I agree with you that each communication and transportation technology should reduce corruption slightly. Writing, roads, railroads, telegraph, radio, flight, telephone, television, internet, etc. Management advances should also reduce corruption. I had a NASA administrator tell me that the greatest triump of the Apollo program might be its advances in management technique - coordinating 10's of thousands of people doing highly connected, complex tasks.

Your real world ponderings are right on. Hawaii is not largely corrupt. The government and workers there have near-real-time accountability just like someone in a suburb of washington DC. They can visit the capital by flying half a day, they can talk to their senators in DC seamlessly on a phone. If something happens there it will be on the evening news everywhere. Distance is just not a big factor in modern civilization.

Likewise I think as you gain technologies, the number of cities you're managing is not as big a factor, because management techniques have come a long way. That's one nice thing about a heirarchical government. city govt, county govt, state govt, etc... you get many levels of oversight.

 

[Commander Bello]

Although managing corruption has been made much easier with the 1.15 patch, I agree that the current concept is just ridiculous.

Corruption may be enhanced by distance to the central power in early times, but is much more influenced by the sheer chance of getting some benefit from the act of corrupting. That means, corruption will occur more if a given entity has a high commerce value.

We can only hope that this concept will be completely revised for Civ4.

 

[Longasc]

1.15b reduced corruption a lot. The new specialists help, too.

I HATE CORRUPTION. It was and is the part of the game that annoys me the most, even if I see the necessity to stall everexpanding empires.


BUT: Go COMMUNISM!

Huge map, 100+ cities, 5-10% corruption, this is close to

NO CORRUPTION at all.

I really love communism and can really recommend it to warmongering expansionists. It is just great. Productive cities at the ass of the world, really good.

 

[Greyhawk1]

Corruption in Vanilla Civ is way over the top and unrealistic. I think that much is pretty obvious. I mean we (the UK) have a colony 6,000 miles away in the south atlantic (The Falkland Islands or Malvinas ) and that place is no more corrupt than any other English town.

The advent of Radio and mass communication should virtually eliminate corruption altogether. But then civ isn't realism, I guess corruption is a game balance issue more than anything else.

 

[kaslks75]

...if corruption is the number one 'fun spoiler', pollution comes in as a strong second place!

 

[bonscott]

I've never had a problem with corruption. I just deal with it. When you get to big then go Commie or something. OR, just don't get too big.

As for pollution: It's called a ton of workers on automatic cleanup detail. I never worry about pollution. My 50 workers will clean it up the turn it appears. No fuss, no muss.

 

[kaslks75]

....that is the problem with pollution - you need an army of workers to deal with it and when you are attacked you lose workers, you build workers, you put workers on auto, you take workers off of auto, then you put them back on auto, then you protect them with armies, then you put them in cities for protection etc..etc..etc.. - a real pain in the a$$

 

[StarG]

I agree with bonscott. Just deal with it and enjoy the other parts of the game.
I have learned to simply consider my corrupt cities as pure land grab. I use my faraway cities to deny the AI land, resources, chokepoints, etc. or as military staging for further conquest. I consider it having two classes of cities - core producing cities and land grab cities.
While I normally try to build temples or libraries just to expand my space, I completely ignore my dozens of corrupt cities for the purpose of producing units, money or science. If you are way over the optimum city limits then you probably have already won the game. On a huge map, (I like to play at Monarch & Regent), I won't even bother to micro-manage the far away cities - just the core.
My 2 cents.

 

[TomOC]

Originally posted by StarG
I have learned to simply consider my corrupt cities as pure land grab. I use my faraway cities to deny the AI land, resources, chokepoints, etc.

I just used faraway cities to deny the Aztecs horses! They may be corrupt... but not useless! I agree with StarG... land grab. I think far away cities being corrupt makes the game more challenging, although I agree... not like real life.

 

[Oddible]

Same here, its not like I can expect a city that I capture in a distant land to produce as well as my home town. I find dealing with corruption to be a rather enjoyable part of the game. Like trying to defend against a Civ that is way more advanced than you. Its a struggle, its diffucult, but its just another hurdle to be overcome. If you want to complete your world domination quicker, you'll have to work out another means than to expect primo production from your newly captures conquests.

Or play on smaller maps.

 

[vesuvius_prime]

Well, I guess it all comes down to individual preferences. I seek to build a vital empire, not only to grab land and have only a handful of core cities to do the whole job. And sometimes I like to play the game not only to win at any cost, but to build a peaceful democratic civilization that I would enjoy. Relying on communism to combat corruption doesn't make me feel good. Democracies should have a chance to expand effectively, especially in later times.

I would enjoy as much realism as possible without hurting the gameplay. This would mean that corruption should not be the *only* thing that should keep a lid on my early expansion. (Civil wars could also be a factor, among other things.) In fact, in real life some cities may be located on a busy trade route or may be otherwise more important to me than some cities closer to the capital, so I should be able to keep special attention on them (maybe through greater "imperial presence") -- something like the city with the Forbidden Palace, but not only one. And I should be able to direct my focus on such cities *immediately*, without having to wait a bazillion turns for them to build the FP. And as time passes and discoveries are made, human factors like ambition, greed, etc. should play a more important role on corruption than distance.

Distance has been an important factor on corruption in the past, but I must agree with Commander Bello that corruption seems more dependent on commercial & political benefits than on distance. It might even be the case that in relatively recent times distance doesn't matter at all. In fact, as somebody pointed out in another thread, the capital is likely the most corrupt place in the empire (at least with regard to politics and special interests).

I personally think the current corruption model is ridiculous and is hurting the game. Naturally, others may think otherwise. We are different and we like different things.

 

[vesuvius_prime]

A reply to Oddible:

I've never expected primo production from the newly captured cities. I was talking about corruption, not production.

Corruption should not be so dependent on distance.