Aside from having groups of cities that will join the enemy if a city with a palace is taken, what is the exact effect other than reducing corruption? You say that this new building would act like a palace but it just seems to be more Forbidden palaces which has a problem since this may well aid military civs that are alread too strong. You have an early war gain a GL, rush build this small wonder, repeat against another nation. Also I see it as having limited effect as corruption doesn't make cities entirely useless so its unlikely that any civ is going to build more than 2 or 3 of your small wonder until the very late game where there is nothing else to build.
New "Corruption Vs Palace" model
- Thread starter hclass
- Start date
Mojotronica
Expect Irony.
Now that I understand that the rate of growth penalty is permanent, the idea makes more sense. Expansion of any kind is measured like a rep hit that makes your empire permanently less effiicient. The speed of expansion accelerates the process. A large sprawling empire then will have the same level of productivity as a much smaller one.
It seems like it would have to have an upper limit though -- at some point the %C hit could not get any worse -- and at some point every remaining empire in the game will hit that threshold. At that point getting the Sm Wonder that eliminates corruption would be a game winning goal in and of itself -- and keeping your rivals from getting it.
I see an exploit too -- Civs that raze the cities of large builder Civs will not grow and thus maintain the same level of efficiency. If the AI or rival Civ replaces those razed cities, they take a penalty. A whole strategum could be built around chipping away at the AI until it's economy grinds to a halt, and keeping it from getting enough cities to build the Sm Wonder.
It seems like it would have to have an upper limit though -- at some point the %C hit could not get any worse -- and at some point every remaining empire in the game will hit that threshold. At that point getting the Sm Wonder that eliminates corruption would be a game winning goal in and of itself -- and keeping your rivals from getting it.
I see an exploit too -- Civs that raze the cities of large builder Civs will not grow and thus maintain the same level of efficiency. If the AI or rival Civ replaces those razed cities, they take a penalty. A whole strategum could be built around chipping away at the AI until it's economy grinds to a halt, and keeping it from getting enough cities to build the Sm Wonder.
Hello Dell19,
"Aside from having groups of cities that will join the enemy if a city with a palace is taken, what is the exact effect other than reducing corruption?"
Your lost a number of cities which is your most valuable assets (which can generate income) and your enemy gains it. What a big loss.
"You say that this new building would act like a palace ..."
It is a PALACE (not like a palace), of course you may named it with your favorite term, that does not matter. It serves to cut down corruption (except the C%, please take the time to revise my model) within a limited area and a center to bind cities nearby into group. Of couse if there is only 1 Palace built and you have a lot of cities, all these cities fall under a single group. If the city with the sore Palace is captured, you loss!
"You have an early war gain a GL, rush build this small wonder ..."
There is a condition, you must reach N cities (which is a high number, beyond the imagination of those who never rearch 80 or always build < 45 cities) before building the small wonder mentioned. So no need to rush it, because chances is if you reach the N, you are at the sure-win-state. The SMALL WONDER just allow you to loudy pronouce WOW, see how big and beautiful my empire is, OK?
"Aside from having groups of cities that will join the enemy if a city with a palace is taken, what is the exact effect other than reducing corruption?"
Your lost a number of cities which is your most valuable assets (which can generate income) and your enemy gains it. What a big loss.
"You say that this new building would act like a palace ..."
It is a PALACE (not like a palace), of course you may named it with your favorite term, that does not matter. It serves to cut down corruption (except the C%, please take the time to revise my model) within a limited area and a center to bind cities nearby into group. Of couse if there is only 1 Palace built and you have a lot of cities, all these cities fall under a single group. If the city with the sore Palace is captured, you loss!
"You have an early war gain a GL, rush build this small wonder ..."
There is a condition, you must reach N cities (which is a high number, beyond the imagination of those who never rearch 80 or always build < 45 cities) before building the small wonder mentioned. So no need to rush it, because chances is if you reach the N, you are at the sure-win-state. The SMALL WONDER just allow you to loudy pronouce WOW, see how big and beautiful my empire is, OK?
Okay I get the idea now. I think I was confused as you posted this as being similar to Mojo's idea when in reality this idea is to allow large empires to be managed successfully whilst me and Mojo both want to implement some system that would make it harder to gain or keep a large nation whilst still being possible.
Hello Mojotronica,
"It seems like it would have to have an upper limit though -- at some point the %C hit could not get any worse "
Definitely. That is why I suggest a certain percentage of basic corruption, it won't rearch 100%. In fact, if you look at current CIV3 corruption implementation, it is also determined by expansion but as a result rahter than at its rate. To simpify the idea, overall current CIV3 corruption rate increase with expansion (or decrease when shrink), my model alter it to change according to the RATE of expansion.
"I see an exploit too -- Civs that raze the cities of large builder Civs will not grow and thus maintain the same level of efficiency. If the AI or rival Civ replaces those razed cities, they take a penalty. A whole strategum could be built around chipping away at the AI until it's economy grinds to a halt"
If I understand your "exploit" correctly, you want to keep razing the few cities at the border (they are easier target) and leave the AI Player replace them quickly so that she face boost in corruption...
It won't happen so can not be exploited. I think you forget about one critical point, if you raze quite a number AI player's cities in a few turns, she will get a boost in level of efficiency. Remember that C% drops quickly if one shrink instead of expand. So let say after razing those cities, you leave the AI player a chance to add them back quickly, yes that mean a quick expand and hence a boost to the C%, however, overall since the later boost in corruption is contra off by the ealier drop of corruption, it is therefore not a way to "corrupt" the AI player.
"It seems like it would have to have an upper limit though -- at some point the %C hit could not get any worse "
Definitely. That is why I suggest a certain percentage of basic corruption, it won't rearch 100%. In fact, if you look at current CIV3 corruption implementation, it is also determined by expansion but as a result rahter than at its rate. To simpify the idea, overall current CIV3 corruption rate increase with expansion (or decrease when shrink), my model alter it to change according to the RATE of expansion.
"I see an exploit too -- Civs that raze the cities of large builder Civs will not grow and thus maintain the same level of efficiency. If the AI or rival Civ replaces those razed cities, they take a penalty. A whole strategum could be built around chipping away at the AI until it's economy grinds to a halt"
If I understand your "exploit" correctly, you want to keep razing the few cities at the border (they are easier target) and leave the AI Player replace them quickly so that she face boost in corruption...
It won't happen so can not be exploited. I think you forget about one critical point, if you raze quite a number AI player's cities in a few turns, she will get a boost in level of efficiency. Remember that C% drops quickly if one shrink instead of expand. So let say after razing those cities, you leave the AI player a chance to add them back quickly, yes that mean a quick expand and hence a boost to the C%, however, overall since the later boost in corruption is contra off by the ealier drop of corruption, it is therefore not a way to "corrupt" the AI player.
hclass said:
I agree with those points up to a 90% so to say. I also think the Palace, Forbidden Palace, Courthouse, Police Station, ... should be included in effecting corruption and waste, but may I suggest another idea to get maybe very similar effects. Effectively answering hclass's points b), c) and d) (and even hclass's pleasure remark) for the largest part (the ones I agree upon !?), but in another way. What I am talking about is CONNECTIVITY. Throughout history we see the HUMAN NETWORK growing allowing better circulation of food and resources (increased productivity), communication (faster sharing of technologies), but also deseases (pressure on population)! I think this should be included.
Connectivity of a city (Ci) is measured as the sum of the reciproke of (not integer!) smallest movement points needed to travel to the other cities in your empire (Ci = Sum(1/MPij) where MPij is numer of MP's needed to travel from city i to city j following the shortest MP-path, and this for ALL cities j unequal to i). Movement points depend on terrain, even after a road is built (so road is a bonus, but not an all-or-nothing one). The higher the connectivity of a city with the other cities in the empire, the lower the corruption and waste there or the higher its prodcutivity. The total picture corruption/waste/productivity for the city in casu is then a weighted sum of a general effect (total connectivity of that city (Ci)) and a local effect (palace-related, like the distance corruption in C3C), the weigths depending (still strongly) on governement type.
General positive effects of high connectivity (good infrastructure) of cities:
- lower corruption and waste, higher productivity;
- empires with high connectivity are in good shape. But empires growing too fast without paying attention to their road and/or harbor infrastructure, suffer high corruption and waste in their new poorly connected cities. You'll need to put energy in this infrastructure first, effectively slowing down growth first (but greater effect later). Those cities and their surrounding workers might be more vulnerable as well to neighbouring empires;
- natural occurence of new centres of power in frutile and easy workable terrain or coastal areas, as the (road) network will spread easier there. This might allow a smoother shift of your centre of power in your empire to the sometimes more interesting regions. I.e. transition after a Palace shift to that interesting region is also not so dramatic, as the high connectivity of the older central network still keeps it healthy after Palace shift, despite the loss of the Palace there;
- higher cultural assimilation (stronger bond with "homeland") effecting flips;
General negative effects of high connectivity of your cities:
- higher chances of diseases appearing, the more if you have a big empire;
- higher degree of sharing information, possibly pressuring the grip of some (despotic) regimes, i.e. decreasing effect of military police;
City improvements effecting connectivity:
- Harbors (!), Airports, maybe others...
Suggested technologies effecting connectivity:
- The Wheel, Map Making (Harbors are possible), Engineering (Road movement across rivers), Astronomy, etc...;
- Writing, Printing Press, Computers, Sattelites for technological reasons;
These could all be very small but accumulating effects. What I mean is, suppose in the corruption/waste/productivity equation there is a factor f. This factor f could be decreased slightly with every such tech discovered;
Warfare effecting it:
- Destroying strategic infrastructure (bombing/pillaging) without taking cities, drops connectivity so productivity as well.
What do people think of this connectivity concept?
Regards,
Jaca
Mojotronica
Expect Irony.
hclass said:
I thought that C% was a permanently rising # -- it could not decrease only increase, based on rate of expansion. If it decreases based on shrinkage, then the calculation should fluctuate based on number of cities held and pop in those cities. That is closer to the way the system works right now though.
Hello Mojotronica,
"If it decreases based on shrinkage, then the calculation should fluctuate based on number of cities held and pop in those cities. That is closer to the way the system works right now though"
It is much better than current Civ corruption system. Overall, current Civ corruption system is based on distance (from Palace) and total #cities built, so expanse of empire size normally adds to both of the factors, shrinking of the empire drops them and is therefore agree with what you have stated. But because the formula I have suggested for the C% has the #population grown as the denominator, it simply means change to #cities alone (increase or decrease) does not change corruption much and even it does it is only for short term.
Let me illustrate the formula in another way:
Fro any city in your empire, Corruption rate = C% + D%
C% is the basic corruption rate (same value apply to all cties) which depends on the ratio of "change to #cities" and "change to population" (calculated N turns back from the current one)
D% is corruption per city. It depends on distance of a city from all the nearby Palaces. (Remember Palace effect has a limited scope and can be captured)
1) The D% works almost like current Civ3 corruption system except that its value can be reduced by more than 1 Palace (and can be very high if all Palaces are too far to be effective)
2) C% is a value once calculated will be applied to all cities. Palaces and city improvemnets can do nothing to it (untill the Small Wonder is built which will be allowed only if the empire really get big, say over 80 cities)
Now lets go back to the exploit case, if a few cities is razed in 1 turn (assuming none with a Palace). For any city, the D% will still remain unchaged (so long as all the Palaces help to cut its corruption still there). The C% will change. The change of #cities is immediate and obvious however, adding/removing few cities does not change the growth of population immediately. (Not every city adds population every turn) So as an immediate reaction, C% will generally raise and drops when few cities are quickly added or removed. However, its change is only for short term. Before I forget, I would like to highlight few points about this C%:
1) If you maintain a fix #cities for long enough period, C% is zero. Because there is no change to #city. (So all cities now has its corruption rate based only on D%)
2) During any expansion period, C% tends to increase. During any improving period (you keep a fix #cities, concentrate on impoving them or other activities) C% tends to drop.
3) If you expand not too quickly, things like capture/build a new city then have a delay (e.g. improve city) and continue the expansion, C% should maintain or drop.
"If it decreases based on shrinkage, then the calculation should fluctuate based on number of cities held and pop in those cities. That is closer to the way the system works right now though"
It is much better than current Civ corruption system. Overall, current Civ corruption system is based on distance (from Palace) and total #cities built, so expanse of empire size normally adds to both of the factors, shrinking of the empire drops them and is therefore agree with what you have stated. But because the formula I have suggested for the C% has the #population grown as the denominator, it simply means change to #cities alone (increase or decrease) does not change corruption much and even it does it is only for short term.
Let me illustrate the formula in another way:
Fro any city in your empire, Corruption rate = C% + D%
C% is the basic corruption rate (same value apply to all cties) which depends on the ratio of "change to #cities" and "change to population" (calculated N turns back from the current one)
D% is corruption per city. It depends on distance of a city from all the nearby Palaces. (Remember Palace effect has a limited scope and can be captured)
1) The D% works almost like current Civ3 corruption system except that its value can be reduced by more than 1 Palace (and can be very high if all Palaces are too far to be effective)
2) C% is a value once calculated will be applied to all cities. Palaces and city improvemnets can do nothing to it (untill the Small Wonder is built which will be allowed only if the empire really get big, say over 80 cities)
Now lets go back to the exploit case, if a few cities is razed in 1 turn (assuming none with a Palace). For any city, the D% will still remain unchaged (so long as all the Palaces help to cut its corruption still there). The C% will change. The change of #cities is immediate and obvious however, adding/removing few cities does not change the growth of population immediately. (Not every city adds population every turn) So as an immediate reaction, C% will generally raise and drops when few cities are quickly added or removed. However, its change is only for short term. Before I forget, I would like to highlight few points about this C%:
1) If you maintain a fix #cities for long enough period, C% is zero. Because there is no change to #city. (So all cities now has its corruption rate based only on D%)
2) During any expansion period, C% tends to increase. During any improving period (you keep a fix #cities, concentrate on impoving them or other activities) C% tends to drop.
3) If you expand not too quickly, things like capture/build a new city then have a delay (e.g. improve city) and continue the expansion, C% should maintain or drop.
Hello Jaca,
Thanks for your input.
The model I have suggested is on a macro level (with respect to Palaces) to how corruption system can be in Civ4. In a more detail level, of course, other micro-condition like connection among cities, type of government and other factors will also play a role.
My main purpose is to get the major play corrected first. I did play standard map (non-war way before) and in that case I don't really bother with corruption much. However, when come to "Conquer", getting BIG and keep building even though you know you are winning, corruption in Civ3 is totally unacceptable.
Thanks for your input.
The model I have suggested is on a macro level (with respect to Palaces) to how corruption system can be in Civ4. In a more detail level, of course, other micro-condition like connection among cities, type of government and other factors will also play a role.
My main purpose is to get the major play corrected first. I did play standard map (non-war way before) and in that case I don't really bother with corruption much. However, when come to "Conquer", getting BIG and keep building even though you know you are winning, corruption in Civ3 is totally unacceptable.
Joey_Ramone
Warlord
- Joined
- May 20, 2004
- Messages
- 229
I really don't like the idea of corruption at all, which is why I turned it off completely in my game. I understand that some people like it, which is why I like it the way it is now, where people who like it can keep it, and those that don't can get rid of it like I did.
Hello Joey Ramone,
"I really don't like the idea of corruption at all, which is why I turned it off completely in my game"
Using the game editor?
Corruption is like war weariness, they both exist since CIV2. I think they are very important otherwise there will be too little control over those who expand crazily (like the AI players always do) However, since Civ3 Vanilla, corruption is very badly adjusted, and that is why I would strongly suggest a redo of the system. The very basic principle is to give control back to (human) player. Take war weariness as an example, it forces warmonger to slow down but it never impedes warmonger to carry on with wars. However, Civ3 corruption system only works well when #cities is around 40, beyond that, it totally force (human) player to:
1) Stop expanding beyond 40 cities, unless you don't mind all the rubbish (fully corrupted cities) you will collect.
2) Stop playing the big empire. Turn your direction or plan to win with around 40 cities.
Whatever one who like to argue for the above 2, here are important questions to the game producer, if Civ3 corruption system is considered RIGHT:
1) Why there is a LARGE and even a HUGE map option to start the game with?
2) Why give player a choice to win only (only check) the "Conquer" victory option.
Personally, whenever I pick Huge map + ONLY win by conquer (take every cities of your rivals), I can't finish a Civ3 game. It is not because I loss, I am bored when looking at the big rubbish that I myself have built or conquered. In term of anti-snowball, corruption system in Civ3 is a total failure in this case. When my empire go beyond 80 cities, I am already a big snowball that means corruption does not work in this case. The only thing it does is, it make me feel disgusting looking at what I have done...
"I really don't like the idea of corruption at all, which is why I turned it off completely in my game"
Using the game editor?
Corruption is like war weariness, they both exist since CIV2. I think they are very important otherwise there will be too little control over those who expand crazily (like the AI players always do) However, since Civ3 Vanilla, corruption is very badly adjusted, and that is why I would strongly suggest a redo of the system. The very basic principle is to give control back to (human) player. Take war weariness as an example, it forces warmonger to slow down but it never impedes warmonger to carry on with wars. However, Civ3 corruption system only works well when #cities is around 40, beyond that, it totally force (human) player to:
1) Stop expanding beyond 40 cities, unless you don't mind all the rubbish (fully corrupted cities) you will collect.
2) Stop playing the big empire. Turn your direction or plan to win with around 40 cities.
Whatever one who like to argue for the above 2, here are important questions to the game producer, if Civ3 corruption system is considered RIGHT:
1) Why there is a LARGE and even a HUGE map option to start the game with?
2) Why give player a choice to win only (only check) the "Conquer" victory option.
Personally, whenever I pick Huge map + ONLY win by conquer (take every cities of your rivals), I can't finish a Civ3 game. It is not because I loss, I am bored when looking at the big rubbish that I myself have built or conquered. In term of anti-snowball, corruption system in Civ3 is a total failure in this case. When my empire go beyond 80 cities, I am already a big snowball that means corruption does not work in this case. The only thing it does is, it make me feel disgusting looking at what I have done...
Gengis Khan
Deity
The more you post on this subject, the more I'm convinced you don't know what you're talking about.
The OCN # for a huge map is like 100+ cities. (108 IIRC)
Then you can go to to Communism(yes this is what it's for) and build the SPHQ, with corruption reducing improvements in all your cities you can have 200 or so cities with very managable corruption.
At the point when you have like 300 cities, why are you complaining that you're empire is a mess & you can't finish? It's inevitable that you're going to steamroll over your enemies. It doesn't matter whether you have 0% corruption or 50%, winning is just a matter of time.
edit- Forgot to answer the questions.
1. Because some people like to play them & have the computer to do it. Hence the increase in OCN & tech costs.
2. This question doesn't have anything to do with the subject. You can raze a city when going for Conquest just as easily as when going for a Space win.
The OCN # for a huge map is like 100+ cities. (108 IIRC)
Then you can go to to Communism(yes this is what it's for) and build the SPHQ, with corruption reducing improvements in all your cities you can have 200 or so cities with very managable corruption.
At the point when you have like 300 cities, why are you complaining that you're empire is a mess & you can't finish? It's inevitable that you're going to steamroll over your enemies. It doesn't matter whether you have 0% corruption or 50%, winning is just a matter of time.
edit- Forgot to answer the questions.
1. Because some people like to play them & have the computer to do it. Hence the increase in OCN & tech costs.
2. This question doesn't have anything to do with the subject. You can raze a city when going for Conquest just as easily as when going for a Space win.
Hello Gengis Khan,
"The more you post on this subject, the more I'm convinced you don't know what you're talking about."
Base on your impulsive response, I can guest where is your level of intelligence. But please make sure you understand:
"You don't know what I am talking about" is very different from "I don't know what I am talking about"
"The OCN # for a huge map is like 100+ cities. (108 IIRC)"
and it is a crap in design...
"Then you can go to to Communism ..."
Sorry that is one of what I don't like. I am suggesting a change to the very basic thing - the corruption system, so that a I don't have to force myslef to go for thing like communism in Civ4.
"It doesn't matter whether you have 0% corruption or 50%, winning is just a matter of time"
It matters. May be it is too difficult for you to win. But for me, winning seems not a big problem. My problem is there is no satisfaction even before I win (where I already know I am winning) by looking at all the rubbish. If what you have stated is true (sorry I have not impusively bought PTW and Conquest like you do), then any time when one choose to play huge map and conquer only victory, he/she MUST choose comunism as well. Don't you think something is wrong with that?
"edit- Forgot to answer the questions. ..."
Please forget about answering if you are unable to relate my question to the conditions they are based - "if the corruption system is considered RIGHT"
"The more you post on this subject, the more I'm convinced you don't know what you're talking about."
Base on your impulsive response, I can guest where is your level of intelligence. But please make sure you understand:
"You don't know what I am talking about" is very different from "I don't know what I am talking about"
"The OCN # for a huge map is like 100+ cities. (108 IIRC)"
and it is a crap in design...
"Then you can go to to Communism ..."
Sorry that is one of what I don't like. I am suggesting a change to the very basic thing - the corruption system, so that a I don't have to force myslef to go for thing like communism in Civ4.
"It doesn't matter whether you have 0% corruption or 50%, winning is just a matter of time"
It matters. May be it is too difficult for you to win. But for me, winning seems not a big problem. My problem is there is no satisfaction even before I win (where I already know I am winning) by looking at all the rubbish. If what you have stated is true (sorry I have not impusively bought PTW and Conquest like you do), then any time when one choose to play huge map and conquer only victory, he/she MUST choose comunism as well. Don't you think something is wrong with that?
"edit- Forgot to answer the questions. ..."
Please forget about answering if you are unable to relate my question to the conditions they are based - "if the corruption system is considered RIGHT"
Similar threads
- Poll
