So... does everyone agree that corruption isn't the prob we thought it was last week?

[Il Mafioso]

By now, those of us who didn't cheat our way out of corruption should have all realized that having cities celebrate WE LOVE THE KING day is a surefire cure for corruption.

Today I actually had a chance to *SEE IT HAPPEN* as I was moving a unit right near a city... turn changed, We love the King started and the label on the city changed from "Library 40 something turns" to "Library 3 turns"

The city had a Temple, a colosseum and was well connected to all other cities. Both the Temple and the Colosseum were started at about 9 waste 1 good shield, run for 6-7 turns then rushed with population.

Rushing INFRASTRUCTURE under Despotism is imho a big key to the game. One of the *hopefully many* effective strategies.

Also, an amendment to my "Build the forbidden palace near your capital, then move the capital in spurts"

Bad idea. Celebrating WLTK day is a much more effective way, and it has all sorts of other side effects.

As someone pointed out in my "using forbidden palace differently" while it's not possible to leaderfree rush a Forbidden Palace, it should be possible to rush a Palace (it not being a wonder) so this could be another alternative.

At any rate... at this point, playing hte Greeks, somewhere around 1000AD, WLTK is exploding everywhere in my 12 cities, the worst waste I'm facing is about 50% in a city that is still working on it's temple and increasing population. I'm now at Monarchy, actually in anarchy for Republic... and should have skipped Monarchy altogether.

I'll have to look into other aspects of the game but at this point I think Monarchy is a waste of time.

Alessandro

 

[DarkSchneider]

Nope, corruption is still a problem just as it was last week and the week before (most likely still a problem next week )

 

[donsig]

I haven't made up my mind about the corruption problem yet. I'm still on my first game (easiest level) and have planted my first overseas cities. The corruption in these cities is horrific but over all corruption is taking only about 10% of my income and is offset nicely by my trading income. I'm in democracy. I never did like the no corruption in democracy idea in Civ II (from a reality perspective - love it when playing a democracy in Civ II). So I won't complain about corruption in Civ III (yet).

Despite the large corruption in my far away cities I have been able to buy improvements for them and I'm taking a wait and see attitude. If these corruption levels remain through-out the game then it may be a problem. Either that or I just didn't figure out how to reduce the corruption. I look forward to seeing what WLTP day does to corruption in these cities.

 

[Avenger]

You cannot rush build a Palace. Neither a forbidden palace, nor a regular palace. A forbidden palace costs 287 shields. A regular palace costs 387 shields. It is not a viable strategy to move your palace, and actually cheaper to build the forbidden palace.

We Love The King works, but costs alot in terms of micromanagement.

--Avenger

 

[exorcist]

Just like in civ2... its all about democracy. That has been my one step solution. And as for getting there? Well, courthouses are one of the first things I build and under monarchy, it aint horrendous.

O, and anarchy is ridiculous.

 

[Vlad_The_Impale]

I thought that the corruption system was skewed too when I first started playing, I had played the first two civ games and SMAC ALOT. When I first started playing CIV3 I was seriously pissed about the corruption system but after about 20 games on Monarch I think I have a handle on the problem. As the old saying goes "Location,Location,Location" where you start off makes ALL the difference in the world (a costal capital on a large land mass = misery). Once you get into the late middle ages things seem to start working a little better, I was having a hard time just surviving in the first games but in my current game I am on top and taking those damn aztec cities left and right (they should not have bullied me in the ancient time). bottom line just work the problem you will figure it out, I think I have

 

[Sam_Catchem]

I have just started playing this game recently on Warlord Level. I have a played a few times and failed most of them. Corruption is why I chose the Religous civs. I know it is not supposed to help by default (I think that is commercial, nicht war?) but...cheap temples and cathedrals are a very effective way to keep your peoples happy. The religous civs just seem to work out better for me.

Also for those long lost cities on another continent, Build the forbidden palace there if you can. That wayyyyyy helps. Also..with temples and cathedrals in those cities can knock off some of the AI's cities (usually 1 or 2 really) right quick making you a major player on their turf.

The other bonus to the religous civs is that you do not have to wait that annoying 3 turns of anarchy to change into another government.

Anyways..that is what is working for me now.

 

[ironfang]

Nah. Corruption isnt the problem I thought it was last week... its MUCH BIGGER.

Hehehe. I guess its my own fault though. I am still a monarchy, and my neighbors are just so scrumptious. I cant stop gobbling up their cities long enough to have an secure period of Anarchy. However, the Forbidden Palace has helped me ALOT with the half of India that I conquored. I think its effects should reach up into the parts of Persia that I am conquoring. Or at least I hope it does.

I know the only way to go after this is a full blown democracy.... why? Because there are other continents to conquor!

ironfang

 

[Le Petit Prince]

i want realism...

in today's world even if we are not in WLTKD there is less than 10% of corruption!!! SHould the yankees win world series so that New York corruption goes from 50% to 10% ???!!!

 

[Clubber]

Corruption is just another part of the game. This isn't Civ II, we're all going to have to adapt our old and develop new strategies to deal with this.

 

[Jake]

I'm a democracy, I have courthouses, and the cities have almost 50 percent loss to corruption. My furthest cities with no courthouses get NO BENEFIT from my being a democracy. THIS IS STUPID! Once again the makes of the game fail to take into account the fact that some peole like huge maps. I'm mad I spent so much money on a game that is such a pointless pain in the butt. Can someone make a mod pack so that the corruption is brought down to a reasonable level?

Democracy is supposed to have a low level of corruption. Well that is simply not the case on a huge map it doesn't seem to make hardly any difference at all.

 

[Sarcastro]

[calm, soothing tones] Yes, that's right...just keep blaming the makers of the game for your problems...ignore the good ideas for dealing with it up above there...shh....there, there. [/calm, soothing tones]

 

[dowski]

I think that Civ3 does a better job of modeling the "real world", including corruption. It really forces the player to rely on their country of origin for resources and the like. Captured (or founded) cities on other continents should not be as productive as those on your mainland.

Whether or not this more realistic modeling of corruption enhances/detracts from the gameplay remains to be seen, IMHO.

-dowski

 

[exorcist]

Like many people, I have got to say that it was nice to ***** about corruption for a few days but get over it yall. I mean seriously, we are playing civ3, not civ2. You can't get pissed at the devolopers taht you're old strategies dot work in a new environment. Survival of the fittest, change your style of play to win... dont ***** and lose.

 

[DarkSchneider]

The best way to think about Corruption is to consider it's effect on gameplay, realism and fun, here goes:

Gameplay: It's good to add this additional element, as long as there are reasonable ways to deal with it. Courthouses seem to do next to nothing in towns with over 95% to begin with. I think corruption is good in general, but the designers left out the ways in which culture and technology help to combat it.

Realism: I think corruption in Civ 3 is definately more realistic than in Civ 2, but overshot the mark considerably. In reality, there were Empires that spanned oceans, and today there are nations than span continents. To be realistic, the game engine will need to take in many more factors than are currently being unaccounted for. Plus shouldn't Democracy increase corruption in the capital

Fun: Corruption levels over 85% for individual cities are clearly no fun, as are overall corruption levels of 50% for an empire. I think that the maximum level of corruption in an individual city should be capped under each form of government, IE 85% for Despotism, 75% for Monarchy, 50% for Democracy, etc.

 

[Pacific_Wing]

Personally, I think the corruption “problem” is the biggest pain in the ass this game has to offer. I don’t think they should change it in any way. It seems rather realistic, to me, to have remote cities plagued by corruption and I think we players have develop a more accommodating strategy for this realistic environment.

If you look back into history and study some of the situations where humanity was forced to establish new settlements in remote areas for one reason or another, you will see that corruption has been rampant. Take western America in the mid to late 1800’s. They didn’t call it the “Wild West” because it was civilized and uncorrupt. Or perhaps one should analyze the rampant lawlessness of the Klondike settlements. History is riddled with examples of what humanity is like when they are far away from any “civilized” culture or the center of their government. Even the great empire of Rome collapsed under its own weight when it expanded too far. I think this added level of realism is the best thing to happen to civ3.

As mentioned above, there are already solutions being created to deal with these problems. My advice is, get over it. If you have a city that is remote and corrupt, deal with it. It isn’t the end of the world.

My 2 cents,

-Pacific_Wing

 

[Il Mafioso]

Originally posted by DarkSchneider
Fun: Corruption levels over 85% for individual cities are clearly no fun, as are overall corruption levels of 50% for an empire. I think that the maximum level of corruption in an individual city should be capped under each form of government, IE 85% for Despotism, 75% for Monarchy, 50% for Democracy, etc.

I see your point.

But wait... having all your cities under democracy go into civil disorder isn't *FUN*

Bombarding a city from the ocean with 5 ironclads and only
having one hit, isn't *FUN*

Having to clean up Pollution isn't *FUN*

Losing a city isn't *FUN*

Having someone else build a wonder when you're 2 turns away from completing it isn't *FUN*

I really don't see how Corruption (especially in new continents) is any different. Heck you had to ship units over to conquer it, so set up a route and keep getting more troops, workers etc. over there by ship.

Oh wait... you only built 1 Galleon and you expect to go colonize a new continent?

As far as city improvements, the new colony should be able to get improvements every 2 turns. 1 turn to start it, the next one to rush it with cash.

Oh wait... you don't have the cash for that? And you expect to colonize a new continent?



Corruption Rocks!

Alessandro Di Sciascio

 

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Il Mafioso
By now, those of us who didn't cheat our way out of corruption should have all realized that having cities celebrate WE LOVE THE KING day is a surefire cure for corruption.

I've maintained from the start that anyone who thinks corruption is a problem just doesn't know how to play the game. Your strategies mirror mine - rush build temples, etc. in high corruption cities, and get the trade network set-up and loaded with luxury items (ALL of them, if possible).

New game, new strategies....

 

[eyrei]

I agree. I actually enjoy the challenge of minimizing corruption. Of course, I rarely build a city on a different continent expecting it to produce much. Usually, I just need the strategic resources or luxuries nearby.

 

[Heffalump]

I think DarkSchneider had a good point when he said "Corruption levels over 85% for individual cities are clearly no fun". And I think what he meant (and others who've complained about the effect) is not that it makes the game too hard and they're not up to the challenge (as some here seem to imply) but that its arbitrary and has the feel of something thrown in only for the purposes of limiting old player exploits of the AI.

Well fine add new challenges, but do so in a creative and meaningful way. Civ is best when it sticks to parallels with the real world we all know. There are a lot more meaningful things that make it difficult to support far-flung cities. At least in a modern democracy.
*supply (things are expensive in Hawaii because it's so far away. So make things cost more in far-flung cities)
*lack of ethnic/national loyalty (if you're building on a far-flung continent it's unlikely every citizen will be of your nationality. So make every second or third new citizen of the dominant nationality in the area. This will make these cities more prone to revolt.)
etc etc.

So while we all agree that it should be more difficult to conquer the world than as per civ II, I think their main impediment to this could have been more creatively thought out. And it's this sense of it being arbitrary that I think has made corruption so irritating.