 |
|
dexters
|
 |
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
Checking F1 empire status screen, overall corruption increasely only marginally. So that's good. But it still feels like corruption is running higher than expected... about 132 on income of 800 (before foreign income)
 Attachment: ocn2.jpg
This has been downloaded 533 time(s).
Last edited by dexters on 23-12-2003 at 15:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
What "everybody" wanted? I certainly never wanted it; at least not to anywhere near this degree. With the ability to establish a second core, a civilization that started on a relatively small land mass could establish a second core on a larger land mass to build a stronger economic base without effectively throwing away most of its investment in its original cities. Now that option no longer exists. Either you settle for your original land mass with its weak economic potential (possibly gaining relatively marginal additional value from conquests on other land masses) or you move your palace to a new land mass and watch the original core you worked so hard on lose most of its value. For me, as a builder who views warmongering as a way to acquire additional territory to build in, that is not a choice that makes the game more fun!
(The "Son of So Very Cold" Apolyton University game is a classic example of how, with enough hard work, a combination of a well-placed Forbidden Palace and a subsequent palace move could be used to turn a nation that started on a small continent into a superpower with a huge economy. Under the C3C rules as of the current patch, with starting position having so much larger a long-term effect on a civ's destiny, the starting position in that game would be both less playable and less enjoyable in the ultimate fruits of success.)
Also consider the impact on civs that start on the far tip of a land mass. (That is especially likely to happen to Seafaring civs, since they are essentially guaranteed coastal starts.) Under the old rules, such a civ would normally use its FP either to establish a well-centered core or to provide a counterbalance at the other end of the land mass. Under the new rules, moving the palace is the only way to get lower overall distance corruption, and building a new palace is vastly more expensive than building a FP (at least by the time the investment in a new palace can be spared). If the cost of a palace would be reduced to a hundred shields or so, that would be no big deal (and would also, incidentally, go a long way toward killing the use of a palace as a prebuild for wonders). But as things stand, it strikes me as a serious problem.
I'll admit that good use of a second core gave us humans a huge advantage over the AIs in previous versions of Civ 3. But if the value of the FP is to be largely destroyed, other balance issues need to be considered to deal with problems of small, somewhat isolated starting land masses and off-center starting locations.
Nathan
Edit: P.S. The idea of potentially having to move a civilization's only core far from its original territory in order to have a good economic base also has serious problems from a roleplay perspective. If my Roman (or Dutch or whatever) people succeed in fighing their way out of a bad starting position and becoming the world's greatest superpower, I don't want their "reward" to be that the natives of the nation's original homeland have to live in cities with rampant waste and corruption.
Last edited by nbarclay on 25-12-2003 at 00:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fishman2
|
|
Having tried V1.12 with a previous game and with a new game I regret to conclude that the FP / corruption issue is not fixed to my satisfaction.
My findings:-
Pre patch - adding FP increases the corruption to main core cities around the palace.
FP does however provide a half reasonable 2nd core.
FP WORTH HAVING.
Post patch - adding FP doesn't noticably increase corruption to main core but FP 2nd core is crap.
Yes perhaps 1 extra usable shield in the cities near to the FP - frankly not worth the effort of building the FP.
FP NOT WORTH HAVING.
REALLY, REALLY, DISAPOINTED......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
Maybe he meant to say "secondary", not "second".
That would suggest not being equal.
I have to say I'm disappointed. I miss the old FP, and if it was broken all along, it seems a bit late to "fix" it.
If it wasn't broken, but has been adjusted to help fix corruption, it doesn't seem like a "good" fix.
Either way, I rarely _depended_ on the second core, but it sure will be missed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dexters
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
I haven't tested if they changed this, but ore v.1.12 officers almost always add at most 1 corrupt shield and 1 corrupt commerce back into non-corruption when used. This is in a moderately corrupt city. In really corrupt cities, they have no effect. We'd almost always be better off using other specialists (taxman, civil engineer), giving either 2 tax or 2 shields in any city you use them. I feel officers need to be tweaked to make them more useful. There should be a diminishing returns algorithm where officers are more powerful on really corrupt cities and gets decreasingly so closer to your capital.
I personally prefer to have a second core, but the argument that this was changed for the AI's sake is a convincing argument. Still, I find corruption to be higher.
I loaded up my PTW game and the differences were starling. In v 1,12 c3c I'm running 20% plus of corruption to total income (not including wall street and foreign trade income) under democracy.
Last edited by dexters on 25-12-2003 at 04:23
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
dexters
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
I'm hoping someone from Firaxis (Mike?) who is I'm sure on their holidays right now can spend maybe 5 minutes to explain the rationale for the way FP works right now.
It seems like they went way over their head trying to fix the RCP exploit with C3C and now, everyone is stuck with a fix to the initial fix that appears to be hated ( or at least disliked) by a large part of the community.
Nathan makes strong points in favour of a second core, and on the other hand, I can see how a weaker FP can remove the human advantage of good FP placement.
Speaking frankly however, part of the fun with Civ games is having large empires and the FP's second core plays a large part in this. If FP is weakened, will large empires be even worth having other than to shoot for a domination victory where a few core cities carry the entire civ?
On top of this, I don't think they've modified the 'police officer's' corruption fighting powers. Yeah, nice that we get 1 shield and 1 commerce in moderately corrupt cities. Try using them in really corrupt cities (1 good shield cities) and you won't get anything-- but these are where police officers are most needed, not the cores. Totally counterintuitive, and very underwehlming and useless as a specialist.
P.S. - Was the Secret police HQ working after switching out of communism fixed?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
dexters
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
oh. never even built it yet. I had heard, i believe this was in the bugs thread, that when you are in communism and build the SPH and then switch out of it, the SPH effect remains in the unpatched version.
Last edited by dexters on 25-12-2003 at 15:24
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-12-2003 15:03
But yes, preferably a smarter AI is better.
- time to play more 80% water archipelago maps 
) the SPH will not work nor have any effect on your civ. 
|
