GeZe
elmo knows where you live
Being recunstructed completly, back soon with version 2.0
The Unified Corruption Theory
- Thread starter GeZe
- Start date
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Hi Geze,
First up, as I've mentioned elsewhere, although I feel that corruption should still be represented as a single entity, I think it should be possible to break it down into three constituent parts-with different improvements and specialists able to effect different parts of it. You should be able to click on your city's corruption 'bar', or whatever, and have it show you what its comprised of!
'Crime' should cause the loss of both a city's income AND any 'processed' goods in the city.
'Corruption' should simply lead to a loss of income-though income losses through 'Corruption' are greater than those caused by 'Crime', as this represents things like embezzlement, corporate collapses and pork-barrelling/Kickbacks. Both crime and corruption are exacerbated by the distance from the capital, though at what distance the this exacerbation starts to kick in is decided by a combination of both tech and infrastructure levels. Crime is mostly caused by a combination of overpopulation, hunger, contraband and underemployment, and corruption is usually the result of excessive wealth, contraband, overreliance on luxuries and too many Elites and Beaurocrats!
Waste is largely related to technology and city size, with smaller cities suffering more from waste than larger cities. Also new technologies might start out 'wasteful', but become less wasteful as technology improves. Waste is also a factor in vectoring of food and shields to other cities-as defined by my Wastage factor model. Waste can also be exacerbated by high levels of corruption
Waste consumes raw shields and possibly even raw food, and releases pollution.
Anyway, aside from the factors I mentioned above, the other factors which effect baseline levels of crime, corruption and waste are government types, social engineering settings and Civ Characteristics. Also, increasing the % of police can reduce crime, whilst increasing the % of tax collectors can reduce corruption. Lastly, reducing the % of engineers in a city can reduce waste.
Anyway, hope that helps you GeZe!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
First up, as I've mentioned elsewhere, although I feel that corruption should still be represented as a single entity, I think it should be possible to break it down into three constituent parts-with different improvements and specialists able to effect different parts of it. You should be able to click on your city's corruption 'bar', or whatever, and have it show you what its comprised of!
'Crime' should cause the loss of both a city's income AND any 'processed' goods in the city.
'Corruption' should simply lead to a loss of income-though income losses through 'Corruption' are greater than those caused by 'Crime', as this represents things like embezzlement, corporate collapses and pork-barrelling/Kickbacks. Both crime and corruption are exacerbated by the distance from the capital, though at what distance the this exacerbation starts to kick in is decided by a combination of both tech and infrastructure levels. Crime is mostly caused by a combination of overpopulation, hunger, contraband and underemployment, and corruption is usually the result of excessive wealth, contraband, overreliance on luxuries and too many Elites and Beaurocrats!
Waste is largely related to technology and city size, with smaller cities suffering more from waste than larger cities. Also new technologies might start out 'wasteful', but become less wasteful as technology improves. Waste is also a factor in vectoring of food and shields to other cities-as defined by my Wastage factor model. Waste can also be exacerbated by high levels of corruption
Waste consumes raw shields and possibly even raw food, and releases pollution.
Anyway, aside from the factors I mentioned above, the other factors which effect baseline levels of crime, corruption and waste are government types, social engineering settings and Civ Characteristics. Also, increasing the % of police can reduce crime, whilst increasing the % of tax collectors can reduce corruption. Lastly, reducing the % of engineers in a city can reduce waste.
Anyway, hope that helps you GeZe!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
kulgan
New Noble
Corruption of the people themselves could be taking into consideration. Ie there has always been political influence, community groups and militants in primative and modern society thus effecting revolts, being acted upon in terms of insurgents from other civilsations and other such disruptions to the otherwise totalitarian rule of the player.
Police Stations, Courthouses and jails are after all the method of executing the judgements and penalties of the legislature and would suppress naturally the extremist and ensure that there is alway only a minority of comunity corruption.
Places like schools & churches effect the way people think. Likewise Universities might increase the objection to a governments line of thinking.
Therefore as the modern civ city grows and includes these facilities, the people will have less of a chance to want to join another society. Thus increasing the desirablilty as well as decreasing the corruption overall.
Police Stations, Courthouses and jails are after all the method of executing the judgements and penalties of the legislature and would suppress naturally the extremist and ensure that there is alway only a minority of comunity corruption.
Places like schools & churches effect the way people think. Likewise Universities might increase the objection to a governments line of thinking.
Therefore as the modern civ city grows and includes these facilities, the people will have less of a chance to want to join another society. Thus increasing the desirablilty as well as decreasing the corruption overall.
rcoutme
Emperor
GeZe said:
I realize that there are many in this forum who do not have English as a first language. I am not trying to seem pompous, I am only correcting the spelling errors.
exepted===> accepted; theroy===> theory; relgion===> religion;
===============================================================
I agree with breaking some of the corruption down into different items (crime, corruption, waste) however I am not certain that having different fixes is going to be universally accepted as a good thing. Such a move will cause more micro-management and most people who have posted want less micro-management.
Maybe the culture of the civ should affect the crime and corruption. A Civ that has lots of ancient temples and/or cathedrals and a Civ that has lots of ancient courthouses could be designated as one that has a 'tradition' of piety/law abiding and therefore gets some bonus for having produced these buildings early.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
What, you mean like the Italians 
!
Seriously, though, I don't think that it would be any more micromanagement than trying to decide what buildings increase culture, and which increase happiness, and which decrease corruption in civ3. Basically, the civilopedia will tell you what effects different buildings have, on the various aspects of corruption, and you can decide your course of action accordingly.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
!Seriously, though, I don't think that it would be any more micromanagement than trying to decide what buildings increase culture, and which increase happiness, and which decrease corruption in civ3. Basically, the civilopedia will tell you what effects different buildings have, on the various aspects of corruption, and you can decide your course of action accordingly.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
rcoutme
Emperor
Aussie, don't we already do that? What I meant was, if I have to have tax collectors to decrease graft, police to decrease crime, garbage collectors to decrease pollution and clerics to increase honesty, then I am going to get lost in micro-management. I have no problem with creating courthouses, police stations and the like. I just think that having separate items to decrease separate types of corruption would greatly add micro-management.
BTW, I don't actually happen to ascribe to the belief that my idea of culture affecting honesty was actually plausible.
I was just suggesting that for game purposes, it could be used.This is a very useful thread about one of the main gripes of all civ players.
The fact is that corruption was introduced only for one reason: To stop ever-expanding empires from growing unbeatable. C3C however introduced Communism v2 which really rocks and is absolutely uber for large empires...
The problem is, how to keep large empires in check and prevent annoyance by around 90% waste in outlying cities and so on?
THIS IS MY SOLUTION:
Let productivity and income depend even more on the type of government!
This would require more sophisticated and different forms of government.
e.g. governments getting production bonuses for troops, but mali (I mean negative bonus - excuse my English) for buildings and moderate monetary income.
Plus certain specials for every government: Slaves are only allowed in some forms of government e.g.
Some governments get more money from trade, others research faster but are too liberal and must pay high unit support and so on...
Corruption and Waste would - as nowadays - also depend on the type of government. I would also like the concept of a limited number of provincial capitals, that act as a FP or palace, as it was before the changed corruption rules, that create new "cores".
Right now an overseas invasion is usually not worthwhile, the city is too far away and worthless except in communism.
I think the limiter for large empires should be a tax based on number of cities and roads/railroads, but production/waste should be less of a limiter. This would perhaps also reduce the cluttered railroads everywhere thing.
I agree with the initial poster on this:
"Corruption would also be influenced by government and religion type."
I also like the idea of certain buildings and/or troops helping to reduce corruption. But my point is to make the government type and monetary income the limiter, not so much waste and production.
The fact is that corruption was introduced only for one reason: To stop ever-expanding empires from growing unbeatable. C3C however introduced Communism v2 which really rocks and is absolutely uber for large empires...
The problem is, how to keep large empires in check and prevent annoyance by around 90% waste in outlying cities and so on?
THIS IS MY SOLUTION:
Let productivity and income depend even more on the type of government!
This would require more sophisticated and different forms of government.
e.g. governments getting production bonuses for troops, but mali (I mean negative bonus - excuse my English) for buildings and moderate monetary income.
Plus certain specials for every government: Slaves are only allowed in some forms of government e.g.
Some governments get more money from trade, others research faster but are too liberal and must pay high unit support and so on...
Corruption and Waste would - as nowadays - also depend on the type of government. I would also like the concept of a limited number of provincial capitals, that act as a FP or palace, as it was before the changed corruption rules, that create new "cores".
Right now an overseas invasion is usually not worthwhile, the city is too far away and worthless except in communism.
I think the limiter for large empires should be a tax based on number of cities and roads/railroads, but production/waste should be less of a limiter. This would perhaps also reduce the cluttered railroads everywhere thing.
I agree with the initial poster on this:
"Corruption would also be influenced by government and religion type."
I also like the idea of certain buildings and/or troops helping to reduce corruption. But my point is to make the government type and monetary income the limiter, not so much waste and production.
Corruption is the means to keep civilizations from making over 100 cities on one map like in civ 1 so they will not do much to really eliminate it on a map wide scale but on a "continental" scale I could see it. And is the "Provincial Capital" real or an idea because if you remember from England Provincial capitals tend to go rebel and form there own governments.
I actually like the Idea of a tax based idea as the concept is already there. Have high upkeep for PC and have the FP become obsolete after PC become available that would let over sea colonies exist while if the tax rate ever gets over 80% and happiness is low well does anyone remember 'taxation w/out representation
'. Of course the phone, Internet, and the like would reduce that as well.
Adding crime should cut corruption in to crime and waste because corruption is basically a smart word for crime.
(capital indicates nearest one Palace, FP, or PC)
1. harbor only lowers distance to capital if road or rail is longer
2. road lowers distance to capital by 1/3
3. railway lowers distance to capital by 1/2
4. highway lowers pollution but to say it lowers corruption would not work (please not a third type of land travel)
5. airport lowers distance to capital by 1/2
6. phone 'red line
' (as a invention add not a City Improvement) lowers the chance of a PC rebelling
7. Internet again lowers the chance of a PC rebelling but raises war weariness
8. Police station lowers crime in city
9. Labor Union (new idea) lowers waste in city
and that's my ideas it lets the FP exist to the lower eras and the PC (with all its problems) to the middle to upper eras and does not change to much of the original use of corruption
About religion its been said the government of china had considered making Christianity its state religion do to its better work ethic than w/out one.
I actually like the Idea of a tax based idea as the concept is already there. Have high upkeep for PC and have the FP become obsolete after PC become available that would let over sea colonies exist while if the tax rate ever gets over 80% and happiness is low well does anyone remember 'taxation w/out representation
'. Of course the phone, Internet, and the like would reduce that as well.Adding crime should cut corruption in to crime and waste because corruption is basically a smart word for crime.
(capital indicates nearest one Palace, FP, or PC)
1. harbor only lowers distance to capital if road or rail is longer
2. road lowers distance to capital by 1/3
3. railway lowers distance to capital by 1/2
4. highway lowers pollution but to say it lowers corruption would not work (please not a third type of land travel)
5. airport lowers distance to capital by 1/2
6. phone 'red line
' (as a invention add not a City Improvement) lowers the chance of a PC rebelling7. Internet again lowers the chance of a PC rebelling but raises war weariness
8. Police station lowers crime in city
9. Labor Union (new idea) lowers waste in city
and that's my ideas it lets the FP exist to the lower eras and the PC (with all its problems) to the middle to upper eras and does not change to much of the original use of corruption
About religion its been said the government of china had considered making Christianity its state religion do to its better work ethic than w/out one.
I dislike the idea that many corruption reducing things mentioned are related to modern times.
This will even add to fact that modern times in Civ3 are mass unit movements and battles, think of the hordes of workers in the industrial age.
It will also cause ancient empires to stay smaller due to corruption and less efficient methods in fighting corruption - but they are inherently SMALL, you rarely reach your peak expansion before the Middle Ages.
So the questions arises if the concept of "X lower corruption/crime" is really good at all -> will it stop empires from ever expanding and hold them in check?
This will even add to fact that modern times in Civ3 are mass unit movements and battles, think of the hordes of workers in the industrial age.
It will also cause ancient empires to stay smaller due to corruption and less efficient methods in fighting corruption - but they are inherently SMALL, you rarely reach your peak expansion before the Middle Ages.
So the questions arises if the concept of "X lower corruption/crime" is really good at all -> will it stop empires from ever expanding and hold them in check?
GeZe
elmo knows where you live
Update:
1. added waste from Aussie_Lurker
2. formatted stuff
3. fixed spelling that rcoutme pionted out (English is my first language, I just really suck at spelling!)
1. added waste from Aussie_Lurker
2. formatted stuff
3. fixed spelling that rcoutme pionted out (English is my first language, I just really suck at spelling!)
rcoutme
Emperor
These ideas should be combined with my ideas in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=89344. The corruption models might not even be needed much if the civ-splitting ideas are adopted. See, especially, the bonuses to research on page 3.
Trade-peror
UET Economist
Hello GeZe,
The Unified Corruption Theory? That sounds rather familiar to another thread I know of...
This is a very interesting thread, with plenty of applications to current Civ economics, but I of course would be most disappointed to see that economic model appear again in future versions of Civ. Therefore, any corruption suggestions of mine would apply only to my Unified Economic Theory, so I shall only observe.
Also, I do agree with the essence of the models proposed thus far. Good work!
The Unified Corruption Theory? That sounds rather familiar to another thread I know of...
This is a very interesting thread, with plenty of applications to current Civ economics, but I of course would be most disappointed to see that economic model appear again in future versions of Civ. Therefore, any corruption suggestions of mine would apply only to my Unified Economic Theory, so I shall only observe.
Also, I do agree with the essence of the models proposed thus far. Good work!
GeZe
elmo knows where you live
Ya, I got the idea (for the name of the thread) from that thread.
Update:
1. Added detailed religion+government corruuption stuff
2. added rural areas.
Update:
1. Added detailed religion+government corruuption stuff
2. added rural areas.
GeZe
elmo knows where you live
Update,
-lots of little things
yay
, now at version 1.2.6
-lots of little things
yay
, now at version 1.2.6GeZe
elmo knows where you live
Updated. Please respond, add ideas and discuss. I NEED input.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
As I once indicated in this posting here and explained in more depth in another posting, I don't find anymore right now 
, corruption (including the idea of waste) and crime are simultenously linked to different things :
Wealth just means, that you hardly can corrupt someone if you have nothing to offer. In turn, the wealthier your city/nation is, the more likely it is that corruption will happen
"Tradition" just means that if your people are used to face a good law enforcement force, they will less likely try to commit crimes.
Size just means that the bigger the community grows, the more anonymous people will be, making it easier to go away with "less criminal" acts, as corruption is regarded being a less criminal act in most modern societies.
This would eliminate the concept of ranking and distance, as the foundation date of a certain community has no influence at all on corruption or crime. The distance has, but just in an indirect manner, since distance influences not the corruption / crime, but the probability of having law enforcement in place and working.
So, even a distant city with "old, experienced" courthouses (to stay with this Civ3 example) would face lower corruption / crime than a city very near to the capital / FP / whatever, if not having a courthouse for a longer set of turns.
Additionally, the more wealth is available locally, the more likely it is to be confronted with corruption there. Additionally, the wealthier your nation is, the more likely it is to have an "overall" corruption percentage.
All this could easily be included, with just a counter for each city/law enforcement building - combination and a small calculation routine working for each city and on nation level.
The effect would be, that you would have a more "realistic" distribution of corruption which in turn would make your empire become more realistic.
Let's have a look at a C3C big empire: you have an effectivly working core and peripheric cities, which just don't do anything except for struggling with corruption and producing culture. For sure, those peripheric cities don't do, what they are doing (have been doing in history) in reality: providing the empire with military and / manpower on an overall basis.
In C3C, they just cannot produce units, because they loose too much of their production and the later units are just too expansive in manner of shields.
In reality, it is just the other way around - the more distant cities provide manpower to the empire, if their economy is less than the one of the main area.
Thoughts?
, corruption (including the idea of waste) and crime are simultenously linked to different things :- wealth of the city
- wealth of the nation
- "tradition" of law enforcement means
- "tradition" of the governmental system
- size of city
- size of nation
Wealth just means, that you hardly can corrupt someone if you have nothing to offer. In turn, the wealthier your city/nation is, the more likely it is that corruption will happen
"Tradition" just means that if your people are used to face a good law enforcement force, they will less likely try to commit crimes.
Size just means that the bigger the community grows, the more anonymous people will be, making it easier to go away with "less criminal" acts, as corruption is regarded being a less criminal act in most modern societies.
This would eliminate the concept of ranking and distance, as the foundation date of a certain community has no influence at all on corruption or crime. The distance has, but just in an indirect manner, since distance influences not the corruption / crime, but the probability of having law enforcement in place and working.
So, even a distant city with "old, experienced" courthouses (to stay with this Civ3 example) would face lower corruption / crime than a city very near to the capital / FP / whatever, if not having a courthouse for a longer set of turns.
Additionally, the more wealth is available locally, the more likely it is to be confronted with corruption there. Additionally, the wealthier your nation is, the more likely it is to have an "overall" corruption percentage.
All this could easily be included, with just a counter for each city/law enforcement building - combination and a small calculation routine working for each city and on nation level.
The effect would be, that you would have a more "realistic" distribution of corruption which in turn would make your empire become more realistic.
Let's have a look at a C3C big empire: you have an effectivly working core and peripheric cities, which just don't do anything except for struggling with corruption and producing culture. For sure, those peripheric cities don't do, what they are doing (have been doing in history) in reality: providing the empire with military and / manpower on an overall basis.
In C3C, they just cannot produce units, because they loose too much of their production and the later units are just too expansive in manner of shields.
In reality, it is just the other way around - the more distant cities provide manpower to the empire, if their economy is less than the one of the main area.
Thoughts?
Similar threads
