 |
| |
|
|
Ray K
|
|
Allen, TX
Nov 1999
time: 23:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
btw, I wouldn't say that the point of the high corruption is "fewer cities are better." It is simply the negative side of having a huge number of cities. Certainly, there are positive things about having that many cities!
In Civ2, more cities was always better, so it failed to qualify as an "interesting decision" (one of Sid's requirements for good gameplay...) In Civ3, we believe that having more cities is better under certain circumstances and having less cities is better under certain circumstances. |
Did anyone test the game on a Tiny map?
The map generation for that size has an annoying habit of providing very few rivers or fresh-water areas.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dennis580
|
|
Well thats one way to stop ICS dead in its tracks. You probaly should just concentrate on building a few big cities instead.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hose
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
The answer is simple; an inadequate amount of playtesting was done. I hope this issue will be fixed by an upcoming patch and that the game can be balanced to allow a military victory as well. Right now Fraxis has been so anti-military that controlling a colonial empire is virtually impossible. |
patch?? ahh, come on! the hole corruption thing is great! it's one of several more realistic facettes of Civ3.
Most of the strategies used in Civ2 don't work anymore and that's just great!
i didn't pay $60 just to play another Civ2 with some enhanced graphics...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Marcus
|
 |
Quebec, Canada
Jan 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
to resume the discussion about corruption: this is obviously an anti-ICS move, planned from the start by the team to imprint a more realistic struggle between strong civs til almost the end of a long game. So far Civ III's AI is strong when defending and attacking, and expand at a fast pace. The genocidal and extermination thing is much more hazardous to manage. I agree though the Forbidden Palace isn't as beneficial as it should for the cost. A good candidate for a fix in the first patch. Also, in distant cities the corruption should affect the gold income as it is now , but with a lighter side effect on the shields. This should be fixed, if possible, in a way where some of the good citizens of a distant city can logically work as hard as some nearer the capital, without the exaggerated inefficiency in the actual Civ III version, but the cash flow can still be a problem.
Just need a slight balancing with a FP fix, but so far I like how they did balance the empire thriving in the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ray K
|
|
Allen, TX
Nov 1999
time: 23:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joey703
I agree. Even though I havent tried out the smaller maps, i m playing on a large map and my civ has about 30 cities. Under democracy, and with the forbidden palace sm. wonder in a pretty central spot. Corruption is manageable. |
The "optimal cities" setting for a large map is 24 cities. With a forbidden palace, this is probably better.
Let us know how you border cities are functioning when you get to 40 cities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SuiteSisterMary
|
|
quote:
more advanced governments with modern communications
|
Lord knows that Roman Republic or Greek Democracy had great communications. :-)
Now, a couple of advancements should, in theory, reduce corruption. Computers, for example; better record keeping. That sort of thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Howling Chip
|
 |
Roseville, California
Sep 2001
time: 21:15
|
|
Playing for three days solid at Regent Level, large map, 8 civilizations. All my games I have gone gung ho for culture (temples as one of my first three builds). I grab all the luxury resources I can get with roads, and base my city builds on luxury items. I've yet to have more than 15-20 cities so far. And I have not made it to the third age in any game yet. The game I am currently playing was started four hours ago. I am up to 980 AD and am in good shape.
From my experience to date with corruption, it is not a bug. I have never had the extremes some have posted. I am not playing total conquest war mongering either. Not to say I have not had my share of wars. I do not start them (well I did goad the Romans into war more than once, and, uh, in my current game the Aztecs asked me if I wanted to give them gold or blood, "make my day" I replied).
Rules have changed from CIV II on how you play. It has been years since CIV II was a challenge at Prince Level. I get the impression that attention to detail will be required in CIV III until one understands how the relationships between cities, population, luxury, tax allocation, etc. etc. all work. I think its to early to think a "patch" or adjustment is required for corruption. Sure this is a challenge, but I am enjoying it. My successes in technology research, finance management, war, they all get better with each game.
I plan to stay with it, read the posts as others find the way to manage corruption and other aspects of the game, and share what works for me (like the culture and luxury angles in paragraph one).
PS: That strategy guide that many claimed would be useless has been very very helpful on figuring this game out in conjunction with the manual. That and three straight days of play.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chumly
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrodrew
It seems culture is extremely potent in this game & perhaps the 1 area the AI is lacking. I haven't read of anyone losing cities to an AI because of culture, but I've read plenty of people gaining multiple cities from the enemies by culture. Culture also helps with the happiness (and thus production) of your citizens from what I've read. It almost seems culture power is too powerful... especially given the quantity of cities to be gained & since it is not seen as war-like. Comments? |
I've read plenty of people playing on difficulties lower than Monarch as well. Yes, I've had the AI consume my cities via culture, several times (as well as combined military assaults, propaganda, etc)
This isn't a slam on people who like Chieftan, just a statement that drawing some conclusions based on many games at a given difficulty do not hold true in some areas of the game (AI most particularly)
World size and configuration are also a big part of the picture.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LtChambers
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by albiedamned
I actually did this in my game once or twice. I think right after I conquered a city which had massive corruption, a rush built a temple using forced labor. I felt bad though - I had just created an UberKrux "deathcamp". But it does work, and there didn't seem to be any lasting penalty other than the dead citizens!
|
Best solution for keeping your conquered cities happy is to quickly connect them to your central luxury delivery system (should I copyright that? :P), perhaps even with workers you capture from the enemy empire.
quote:
It is not a bug, and therefore should not be patched. Firaxis has geared Civ3 towards being a true Empire building game, not just a world conquest game. The military is certainly one part of your empire, but by no means is it as important as it was in Civ2.
Thing back through history - has anyone ever conquered the world? Even those that conquered large parts of it were always eventually brought down by barbarians, corruption etc. In the modern world, no one controls the whole world or even a whole continent (ok, except Australia). Yet there are still certain civs (like America) that are superpowers and dominate the world, despite controlling only a small portion of the landmass. I believe the same thing can happen in Civ3 if you play well. |
Amen! You make good points here - the only problem with Civ1 and Civ2 was indeed that the success of a civilization basically hinged on how big it was, instead of the impact it had over history. I don't want to sound egotistical, but it's really amazing (and interesting) to look at how American culture has both drawn and repelled foreign culture over the past century.
One thing that's great about Civ3 now is that you could be the Roman empire at 100AD (mid Pax period) and control a large portion of the world and the most significant amount of culture, and at that time you would have a huge score on the historigraph. Later though, your empire falls and you struggle to survive over the next 1800 years. Perhaps all the other empires also struggle so you end up having the best average historigraph score because of your earlier success! That idea of the averaged historigraph score makes SOOO many dynamic outcomes possible. 
I also have a warlord civilization on my modified standard size earth map (had to add rivers!...no rivers in Europe??!?!) and turned to perfectionism instead of expansionism. Once I had a central base of cities and better technology base than my opponents I could conquer them each in turn. The culture core of cities near my capital acted as beacons of light to the heathen masses and kept the corruption in check until I could build a FP in the center of the new captured area. Democracy has MUCH lower corruption than Republic, but like Civ2, more war weariness - so you have to be careful...
Hope this helps somebody...it's goddamn 5:18AM and I have class later today :/
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
iNMazer
|
|
The idea of making it more difficult to just have a ton of cities everywhere is great, but the effects of corruption need to be somewhat toned down. It is understandable that a despotism gov. or even monarchy will get into troubble when the civ gets too big, but more modern govs should be able to handle corruption WAY better than this! I play on a normal map and have 25 cities, gov: republic. Over 50% of my cities are knocked out by the corruption and I get 1 shield production while the rest go to waste, same for trade. Building a courthouse does not help one bit. Only 6 cities have less than 50% corruption!
My suggestion: The "modern" governments need to deal with corruption way more efficient than they currently do. It's just no fun not being able to have more than 10 cities on a normal sized map without corruption killing you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flurry-of-fun
|
|
Michigan
Sep 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
I doubt very much that this is a bug. I suspect it is merely a difference in expectations. Everyone here has a much different style of play than the people at Firaxis. I suppose after a time people here that continue to play will learn to conform to Firaxis expectations. Heck, I felt the same way about many aspects of the earlier Civ games. It takes time to find out the best way to abuse the computer game models. First learn how they expect you to play, then try abusing the system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:15
|
|
As I don´t have the game yet, I´m not able to comment on the general level of waste and corruption. Nevertheless, after doing some basic math I think that the current 'optimal cities' setting in the editor indeed results in extra hardship when playing on tiny maps.
Civ3´s normal map (100*100) is approximately 2.8 times larger than the tiny map (60*60); the huge map (180*180) is 9 times larger than the tiny map. Other things equal (land coverage etc.), the number of placeable cities is also 2.8 times resp. 9 times higher. The default number of civs is 4 on the tiny map, 8 on the normal map and 16 on the huge map. Therefore, the 'average' civ should be able to found more cities on the 'bigger' maps; the ratios are approximately 1.4 (normal compared to tiny map) and 2.25 (huge compared to tiny map).
In the 'optimal cities' setting that seems to define the number of cities with 'reasonable' waste and corruption for the different maps, one would expect to find the same ratios; however, this is not the case. The setting is 8/12/16/24/32 (the numbers for small and large maps included), i.e. the ratios mentioned above are 2 (instead of 1.4) and 4 (instead of 2.25). Therefore, waste and corruption will be much harder on tiny maps than on normal or huge maps, other things equal. I don´t know if this was done intentionally.
If it is deemed necessary to ease waste and corruption for tiny maps, I´d suggest that we assume the settings for the normal map - including an 'optimal cities' number of 16 - to be reasonably balanced by Firaxis. Adopting the ratios derived from map size and number of civs would then result in a new 'optimal cities' setting of 12/14/16/21/26, making waste and corruption easier on tiny maps and harder on huge maps.
Last edited by lockstep on 02-11-2001 at 19:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ray K
|
|
Allen, TX
Nov 1999
time: 23:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lockstep
If it is deemed necessary to ease waste and corruption for tiny maps, I´d suggest that we assume the settings for the normal map - including an 'optimal cities' number of 16 - to be reasonably balanced by Firaxis. Adopting the ratios derived from map size and number of civs would then result in a new 'optimal cities' setting of 12/14/16/21/26, making waste and corruption easier on tiny maps and harder on huge maps. |
Dude, thanks for the math! That makes a lot of sense.
I know that I am one of the few guys that like to play on the Tiny maps, but the corruption problem was not my imagination. Basically, corruption becomes more manageable as the map size increases if you use the game's default settings.
It's been frustrating listening to guys saying "well, I've got 25 cities on a large map and haven't had any problems - quit whining".
I greatly appreciate you pushing the pencil on this problem and will try the settings you suggest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason Beaudoin
|
|
Canada
Jan 1970
time: 00:15
|
|
What's corruption like under communism?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I have played Civ3 for about 6 hours. I am playing as the Greeks, there advantages are commerical and scientific. I made sure that I built at least a temple in all my cities and I built the forbined place small wonder as well. I also have a lot of goods to keep my people happy, and I do not have that much a problem with corruption. I think the reason why you guys have so much of an problem with corruption is that you have bad habits form Civ2. Some of the things that worked in Civ2 may not work in Civ3. If you make sure you have a strong culture and have lots of luxuries for your people I think corruption will not be that big of a problem. You guys most likely expanded beyond the influence of you culture and dont have all you cities connected to roads so that those cities can enjoy the luxuries you have.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
In short, if you want to minimize corruption make your people happy. Going to war, not having enough luxuries, not have that strong of a culture, not have roads to all of your cities so that they can have access to the luxuries you have all make corruption a really, really big problem. Rush buying courthouses and buildind the forbidden palace small wonder is not going to do it like in Civ2. You need to make sure your people are happy. If you do that corruption will not be that big of a deal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ray K
|
|
Allen, TX
Nov 1999
time: 23:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
In short, if you want to minimize corruption make your people happy. Going to war, not having enough luxuries, not have that strong of a culture, not have roads to all of your cities so that they can have access to the luxuries you have all make corruption a really, really big problem. Rush buying courthouses and buildind the forbidden palace small wonder is not going to do it like in Civ2. You need to make sure your people are happy. If you do that corruption will not be that big of a deal. |
Corruption is not as big of a problem on a larger map, because the "Optimal # Cities" is set proportionally higher. It's not scaled properly on the smaller maps (especially Tiny), and that's the cause of the problem.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2001 03:44
|