realistic and workable solution to corruption (kindof) :-)

[jdogg]

I've been playing Civ3 since it came out now. Now while I generally like the game, I think it would be nice if firaxis would rework the corruption rules a bit since I have to say I somewhat miss the global spanning empires I built in Civ2. Here are my suggestions:

Size of city becomes a factor in how corrupt a city is. Once a city hits say size 5, it regains 5% of all production/commerce it lost due to corruption. For every "size 1" increase thereafter, it regains another 1%. Ergo ... a size 20 city that was 100% corrupt would be able to produce at 20%. On the flip side, this really wouldn't affect non-corrupt cities as a size 20 city with 2% corruption would only regain 20% of 2% or .1% of that lost to corruption. This would allow for a greater empire with keeping balance in the game (if you can build up a size 20 city so far away from your "core cities" that it is completely corrupt I am guessing you really didn't need that city anyways).

Troop occupation should really play a part in corruption as well. Maybe 1% corruption is regained per troop (or two troops) fortified in a town. Like with the previous example, this won't affect your core cities that much as there is diminishing returns, but come on now, if you have 100 riflemen posted in a city, just how much corruption would there really be?

I think adding these two things in would allow for more global empires (like that of the England cerca 1900s) without severly affecting balance as it is.

Any comments/suggestions?

 

[Apollo]

I actually think the exact opposite would work better and make more sense. The smaller a city is, the less corruption it would have. I often hear people complaining about how their size-one city founded on another continent as a beachhead has so much corruption that it can't build anything. It has trouble building an airport/harbor to link with the capital, and a courthouse and police station to reduce the corruption. If those first few shields remained with the city rather than going to corruption this wouldn't happen. Also, in real life things are usually less-corrupt when they are small and the corruption increases proportionally as the thing grows, whether it be a business, government, city, etc.

 

[jdogg]

your idea is good, but a bit flawed.

1.) If small size cities had less corruption EVERYONE would just make a "small cities" empire thus unbalancing the game.

2.) Way back when, when governments were no more then lords who payed homage to a king, i think corruption was much higher than now because with size it becomes harder to hide profits. With only a couple of pesants, a lord could say to a king "hey, i can only give you one shield of prodution because that is all i produce!" ... however, in a big city, there is no way all that production can be hidden. Production needs to be higher in a bigger city simply for the fact that it produces SO much more.

 

[damunzy]

I like your ideas but unfortunately there is no way we, the game players, can make those changes. I was hoping you had a way for us to reduce corruption. The search continues.....

 

[Ezekyel]

What i did to deal with corruption , as i read in a thread in this forum, is to increase the maximun number of cities in a map to manage corruption, plus making the libraries to decrease corruption. Those two changes turn my games pretty cool, cuz the corruption level of the cities far away from the core of my empire are realistic , not only one shield of production, and remebers me how they were on my Civ 2 games..