Proof that corruption can be dealth with (image attached)

Originally posted by FortyJ
Is it possible that corruption is directly linked to happiness?

Yes. I've had little to no trouble with corruption once I had all the luxury resources coming in (either owned or traded for) and I start every city with a temple (and rush it if need be in order to get the culture going). I really think people are overreacting to the corruption thing; yes it is worse than Civ2, but once you figure out how to deal with it it's not so crippling.

Or you can cheat and edit the files or go play Civ2. I'd rather figure out the new strategies needed to play the game.
 
Originally posted by Il Mafioso


Something you might want to post:

1. Are any of those cities that are producing so poorly on other continents? If so do you have harbors?

2. Are you keeping your people happy with luxury resources?

3. What year is it? In my experience so far, corruption (waste, whatever, other side of same coin) seems to have gone significantly down with time. And by this I mean mid to late 19th century. This is realistic if you ask me.

Alessandro.

1. nope, all my cities are on the same continent, well 3 are on an island but i didnt pull the stats off from those cities, i got those stats from a border city from the same continent as my rest of my cities. I have a network of railroads connecting every square that has a potential to be used by the city and all the cities are connected to each other.

2. Im relying almost exclusively on luxury resources, i have managed to trade bout 7 of them from other civs pritty much eliminating the need to have any money going into luxiries.

its around the mid 1700's right now
 
Originally posted by kensai


I took over all of North and South America, yet my corruption was only about 15%... with a little bit of planning, it's not that difficult to combat waste and corruption even in a large empire.

I dont need proof, I've adjusted to the game, unlike the whinners who complain about the corruption is out-of-hand, and I have subdued corruption just fine, never more than about 15-17% corruption anytime...
 
I'm playing a game now on Regent, as the (non-Commercial) Babylonians, large map. I have about 25 cities, all but three on one continent. Corruption was quite bad in the outlying regions until I got the Forbidden Palace up, and no, I didn't use a leader (still haven't gotten one), though a Golden Age was sure helpful. At that point (~600 AD) under Republic, corruption was reduced to below 20% in all cities, well below 10% in cities close to either Palace. You just have to bite the bullet.

Some Firaxian (Soren?) suggested that the existence of the Palace reduces corruption regardless of location, though the reduction is larger for cities near the FP. This was borne out in my game -- cities on the other side of the empire from the FP also saw a large reduction. Don't worry about building it on the absolute far edge, just get it built somewhere.

I have also been running a high-culture game, lots of temples and cathedrals, four luxuries and marketplaces. Happiness is fairly high. I know WLTKD reduces corruption, but I have not been in that.

Like Alessandro said, you just can't play Civ 2. Never mind the two-pop settlers, it's corruption that killed ICS.
 
Originally posted by RouTaran


1. nope, all my cities are on the same continent, well 3 are on an island but i didnt pull the stats off from those cities, i got those stats from a border city from the same continent as my rest of my cities. I have a network of railroads connecting every square that has a potential to be used by the city and all the cities are connected to each other.

2. Im relying almost exclusively on luxury resources, i have managed to trade bout 7 of them from other civs pritty much eliminating the need to have any money going into luxiries.

its around the mid 1700's right now

I really don't remember how bad corruption was in my game in the 1700s.

But why don't you take 2 minutes and download the zipped save game I posted and take a look to see if your corruption seems much worse, and if so what I may have done different.

One thing I can tell you is that If it was cultural or happying and I could afford it, I built it. If it was cultural or happying and I couldn't afford it, I built it anyway... chop trees, disband old units, rush, whatever it would take.

But now writing it out it seems like all I did throughout the game was chore after culture. It was a natural thing, mostly done thru queues, and for the most part, when I had a city defended and I said "build me a cathedral" I didn't really care if it said 8 or 72 turns, I just said, BUILD THE SUCKER. Then I tried to build roads on every worked square to increase commerce, and made entertainers when necessary at the cost of growth to keep the fireworks going.

Alessandro

P.S. I just started a game at Regent (or whatever the spelling for that is) ... it's currently 630BC on a Normal map and I have maybe 8 cities which I haven't improved at all. I can see how corruption is starting to rear it's ugly head so I think I'll rush a couple of temples before my last two settlers get built.

P.P.S. I hate to go on and on, but heck we're trying to solve a strategy issue right? So here's another observation... In different games so far I've noticed that I'm much more successful at building a say 20 city empire (I'm not sure how many cities the one I posted had, but I've had 20 something in a game) if I started out with a core of maybe 9-10 max, built them up, assimilated some from others, built those up, founded a couple more, built these up and on and on. I think this *IS* how they worked to prevent ICS, not so much by preventing you from having a 30 city empire, but preventing you from having one from the beginning.
 
Originally posted by HomeAir
didn't anyone notice that there were only 8 cities. if there were more, it would have a scroll bar beside the cities. The corruption problems have to do with massive (at least large) empires. Did you only have 8 cities?

Uhhh...there is a scrollbar
 
Back
Top Bottom