Post all corruption ideas/links here!

[GeZe]

As you all should know, someone in Fraxis has suggested that they will remove corruption. This is very disturbing, and as such, has made me start the The Intergrated Civ4 Corruption Theory (as you can see in my signiture). This is to convince Fraxis that improving corruption is better then elimiating it.

I need input so...

post all ideas, links to ideas etc. here.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Corruption is a bandaid, IMO.

It's designed to limit the strength of huge empires, especially ones forged through warfare.

IMO, there should be a better way to limit the strength of warmongers and civs that are blessed with a huge amount of land to themselves.

I believe the best way to do this is to make improved cities (with a number of city improvements) much more valuable than non-improved ones. However, expansion should cost a lot of population and shields in order to limit what the core cities can build. This way you can focus on expansion or internal development. Currently you can do both since Settlers are so cheap and there are so few things to build in your cities.

If there were more things to build in cities and Settlers were more expensive, then that would limit the strength of the larger empires. The same goes for militarist ones, because instead of spending resources on cities they're spent on units.

I believe that's the best way to limit the strength of empires and a good way to eliminate the need for corruption.

 

[ybbor]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86944 you probably know about it, you wrote it
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85582 i'm sure there's something in it that mentions corruption
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85846 same

 

[Gogf]

I doubt they are eliminating it.

 

[GeZe]

any more ideas?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I agree, Trip, that the way corruption has been implemented in both civ2 and civ3 was just a band-aid to limit over-expansion. That said, though, we shouldn't go 'throwing the baby out with the bath water'-so to speak.
The fact is that, like it or not, corruption is a fact of life-especially for democracies, and some form of corruption model SHOULD be retained in civ4.
What should be done to improve it, though, are to do some of the following things:

1) Break corruption down into 3 core components-Crime, Waste and 'Decadance?'.

2) Crime and 'Decadance', within a city, should be more factors of overpopulation, wealth, lots of contraband and overreliance on Luxury resources to create happiness.

3) Distance should have an effect on crime, but that distance factor should be mitigated by increasing technology. For example, the 'Wild West' was VERY wild in the 19th century but, by the 1920's its crime rates were really no worse than anywhere else in the USA!

4) Waste should be the result of small cities and new tech improvements. For instance, a low population city probably can't make as efficient use of resources as a larger city (economies of scale?!), and improvements are often inefficient when they are first introduced-but improve over time (like coal power or solar cells, for instance!)

So what can reduce the various components of corruption? Well improvements and small wonders should still have their part. Other things would be a balanced population, improving technologies and increased legalism/decreased libertarianism. The main point is that corruption would no longer be a 'bandaid' fix to overexpansion, but a decent model of the social issues which a leader ACTUALLY has to deal with!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.