Today I Learned (about Civ3)

[justanick]

The technical details (for Conquests) are at this page. I don't pretend to have fully analyzed the formula, but the order is, from worst to best:

Catastrophic < Rampant < Problematic < Nuisance < Minimal

Although the difference between Problematic and Nuisance is often described as being Minimal.

Usually the differences are smallish. The difference between Nuisance and Minimal tends to matter not much.

Catastrophic is anarchy. That is 100% corruption without a chance to lower it. So that is category of it own.

Problematic is monarchy and feudalism. That is the default level of corruption.

Rampant is despotism. You get a 50% increase in distance corruption. Together with +25% distance corruption when not being connected to the capital this can get up to +87,5%. Distance corruption matters early one while later in the game courthouses and police stations each cut distance corruption in half.

Nuisance is republic and fascism. You get slightly lower rank corruption. You will hardly notice the difference to Problematic.

Minimal is democracy. In addition to the slightly lower rank corruption you get a 25% discount on distance corruption. In 4000 BC democracy would be quite powerful, but by th time you actually can becone a democracy a republic already has courthouses and it soon can have police stations, thus it is not worth the hassle of anarchy.

Communal corruption is better than minimal in the long run. It is a catagory of it own. If you exclude this special setting, then the remaining settings are already in the right order. Higher up in the editor means less corruption.

 

[templar_x]

I'm having a hard time following your analogy can you do something more relatable to the average person like strands of rats

Hmm... what about spiders?

Minimal is there's one spider who lives in the corner and helps keep other bugs under control. You rarely notice the spider.

Nuisance is a spider keeps building new webs that you brush against the web as you walk by, but it isn't worth hunting down the spider.

Problematic is spiders dropping down from the ceiling onto your head and startling you several times per week. Something like this happened at a hotel I stayed at once; it did not receive a positive review.

Rampant is going down into your grandfather's poorly illuminated basement that no one has entered in years and there are cobwebs all over the place, some of which include living spiders.

Catastrophic is like rampant, but so bad that you hire an exterminator to take out the spiders before you dare venture down into the basement.

I think Ruin was making a joke.
Or is that just me? Bc that would be my kind of humour?
But then, is Quintillus responding because he did not understand it is? Or is that just humour so far beyond what I can grasp?

Anyway, I really enjoy your posts!
t_x

 

[timerover51]

Usually the differences are smallish. The difference between Nuisance and Minimal tends to matter not much.

Catastrophic is anarchy. That is 100% corruption without a chance to lower it. So that is category of it own.

Problematic is monarchy and feudalism. That is the default level of corruption.

Rampant is despotism. You get a 50% increase in distance corruption. Together with +25% distance corruption when not being connected to the capital this can get up to +87,5%. Distance corruption matters early one while later in the game courthouses and police stations each cut distance corruption in half.

Nuisance is republic and fascism. You get slightly lower rank corruption. You will hardly notice the difference to Problematic.

Minimal is democracy. In addition to the slightly lower rank corruption you get a 25% discount on distance corruption. In 4000 BC democracy would be quite powerful, but by th time you actually can becone a democracy a republic already has courthouses and it soon can have police stations, thus it is not worth the hassle of anarchy.

Communal corruption is better than minimal in the long run. It is a catagory of it own. If you exclude this special setting, then the remaining settings are already in the right order. Higher up in the editor means less corruption.

Living near Chicago in Illinois most of my life, I have major problems with Democracy being rated at Minimal corruption. It is a rare year when one of Chicago's alderman are not convicted of taking bribes, and then there are the number of governors convicted of the same office. Quite simply, corruption, also known as "pay to play", is a given factor in Illinois politics, and has been for over a century. For Chicago, rampant at times would be more accurate. Overall, I rate Democracy as Problematic.

 

[justanick]

It is a rare year when one of Chicago's alderman are not convicted of taking bribes, and then there are the number of governors convicted of the same office.

That can be a good sign as anti-corruption-mechanisms are working. Compare it to current russia and you may start to understand why Winston Churchill stated in November 1947:

Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.

Winston Churchill - Wikiquote

en.wikiquote.org

But that is going beyond the scope of a thread for Civ3.

 

[Fergei]

I learnt a MPP against you at end of turn can result in a declaration of war against you before your next turn even starts (i.e. before you can even move a unit or attack anyone) even if military alliances are disabled. Admittedly I had units in someone elses territory, but give a guy a chance to retreat and make nice!

I also learnt the AI and myself are equally stupid when it comes to MPPs. I offered Abe 5x techs for a MPP against England, who I was at war with, and he declined. The very next turn he declared war of his own volition, against England (without getting any techs).

 

[MrSweetchuck]

I learned that right-clicking on a gold amount in the trade negotiation screen lets you re-edit the amount

 

[SayHayKid]

I learned that blitz only works with multi-move units. I never thought about it until starting to mod the game. I wanted to have all foot units to only have 1 MP, but still keep the "characteristics" of the some of the UU like the Impi. So, I figured I'd remove the extra MP and give them blitz. Doh!

 

[Theov]

I learned that blitz only works with multi-move units. I never thought about it until starting to mod the game. I wanted to have all foot units to only have 1 MP, but still keep the "characteristics" of the some of the UU like the Impi. So, I figured I'd remove the extra MP and give them blitz. Doh!

Yup, blitz is "attack multiple times in one turn"?
So yeah, the more mp the more attacks, but normal units can only attack once regardless of mp.

 

[Spoonwood]

In reality a courthouse can have any number of functions, but this is C3C and it has only two. 1. reduce corruption 2. maybe propaganda, #2 is a bit nebulous. Since the capitol has no corruption, it really is not going to need a CH. It just
struck me funny.

tjs put "useless" in quotes. I think you've missed a third function. It has a similar function to a factory in a captured city in a highly corrupt area.

Spoiler :

So you can sell the courthouse for some gold.

 

[Ruin]

tjs put "useless" in quotes. I think you've missed a third function. It has a similar function to a factory in a captured city in a highly corrupt area.

Spoiler :

So you can sell the courthouse for some gold.

I get sadistic delight from selling courthouse, bank, stock market, factory, and usually marketplace. Then I (usually mentally but admittedly sometimes aloud) chide the AI for having built so many dumb buildings instead of units. They never listen.

 

[Spoonwood]

I get sadistic delight from selling courthouse, bank, stock market, factory, and usually marketplace. Then I (usually mentally but admittedly sometimes aloud) chide the AI for having built so many dumb buildings instead of units. They never listen.

Why sell the market and make the people unhappy?

 

[Ruin]

There will be time for happiness once they've been ethically cleansed via starvation, had their mines irrigated, and learn a real trade like Science or Tax Collecting.

 

[Spoonwood]

There will be time for happiness once they've been ethically cleansed via starvation, had their mines irrigated, and learn a real trade like Science or Tax Collecting.

I laughed at first. But, then I thought "wait ... is that supposed to be "ethically cleansed" or "ETHNICALLY cleansed"?" And I'm still not sure after writing this. *laughing more*

 

[BlackBetsy]

There will be time for happiness once they've been ethically cleansed via starvation, had their mines irrigated, and learn a real trade like Science or Tax Collecting.

I've been operating under the assumption that changing someone to a scientist makes a city less likely to flip. So if you end resistance, and you turn all 11 citizens into Scientists, the chance of culture flip is 0? So then I starve them down to 1 citizen and let them build up as citizens of my culture, and at city size 3, my citizens are a majority. Am I correct about that?

 

[Bartleby]

I don't think that assigning specialists affects flip chances.

 

[Ruin]

I've been operating under the assumption that changing someone to a scientist makes a city less likely to flip. So if you end resistance, and you turn all 11 citizens into Scientists, the chance of culture flip is 0? So then I starve them down to 1 citizen and let them build up as citizens of my culture, and at city size 3, my citizens are a majority. Am I correct about that?

@Spoonwood or some other titan of the game, step in if I'm wrong, but foreigners being scientists don't make the city less likely to flip because they're still foreign citizens. (Them not being unhappy citizens reduces chance of disorder & increases WLTK day but this is marginal). But you're right about starving them to death making them die and then there's less foreigners.

Culture Flip Formula - Apolyton Civilization Site

apolyton.net

 

[justanick]

I've been operating under the assumption that changing someone to a scientist makes a city less likely to flip. So if you end resistance, and you turn all 11 citizens into Scientists, the chance of culture flip is 0?

No, you are more or less completely wrong about that.

D=2000, in flip formula

Hey all, I've been trying to track this one down for some time. We all know (or should know) the flip probability formula. P=[(F+T)*Cc*H*(Cte/Cty) - G]/D where: P = probability that it will flip this turn F = # foreigners, with resistors counting double T = # working tiles under foreign...

forums.civfanatics.com

So then I starve them down to 1 citizen and let them build up as citizens of my culture, and at city size 3, my citizens are a majority.

Being the majority has no meaning, except for culture production under a fascist government.

While starvation can be somewhat useful in reducing the chances of a flip the most convenient solution is of course simply eliminating the home nation, thereby eliminating the flip risk without the need to eliminate citizens.

In most governments every foreign citizen has a chance of 2% per turn to be assimilated into your culture. That can be a viable alternative to starvation. In the meantime turning foreign citizens into workers or settlers can accelerate the reduction in flip risk.

 

[BlackBetsy]

My assumption was that "specialists" are not treated as "citizens" / "foreigners" in the math. Anecdotally I've felt like I've had fewer flips when I've converted citizens to specialists, but I may just be 100% wrong.

As for being the majority, I guess I was wrong but factually, reducing the pop to 1 and growing from there means that you only have 1 foreigner.

 

[justanick]

My assumption was that "specialists" are not treated as "citizens" / "foreigners" in the math. Anecdotally I've felt like I've had fewer flips when I've converted citizens to specialists, but I may just be 100% wrong.

Well, specialists only means that you will prevent riots. Riots can more than double the flip risk.

 

[vorlon_mi]

As I read the formula, I can make the biggest difference by getting the city out of disorder (reduce the H factor), quelling resistance (reduce the F factor), and build local culture (reduce both Cc and T). Once I can get the border to pop with my culture, the tiles under foreign control (T) go down.

Scientists or other specialists are foreign citizens (F factor) but they are content, so they help keep the city from rioting. Using the governor to "Manage city mood" is useful in the short term to reduce the riot risk. The governor often uses clowns/entertainers to manage moods, which can result in some starvation also. For most cities that I conquer, I worry most about flip risk in the first 5 turns or so. I will usually keep the governor on for those cities until I negotiate peace or eliminate the civ. "War against our motherland" leads to unhappy faces, while the war is ongoing.

A key exception is when I capture an AI core city or its capital. The local culture (Cc) will be very high for them, especially if they have built any wonders in their core. Just popping some local culture is not enough. Making a worker or settler to shrink the city, allowing it to grow back with citizens of *my* nationality, will reduce F more quickly.

Since I like to generate a border pop with culture in ALL of my cities, I can usually get the ratio (Cte/Cty) less than 1.0 because my culture (Cty) is large. Rush building a culture building (temple or library, whichever is cheaper) gets me a quick border pop in conquered cities.