19-11-2001 20:16									#1
	Corruption vs. Expansion Got spare money?

Another poster suggested on this forum last week that the high corruption in Civ3 makes it easier for the player, not the computer. His rationale was that the players were better able to handle corruption, with rush-building, while the AI was stuck with the governors.

I decided to test this out this weekend. I modified the civ3mod.bic file to set the "Optimal # of Cities" to an arbitrarily high level. This did not eliminate corruption, as it was still very high in my furthest cities. However, once the citizens were happy and a courthouse was built, the cities did more than just take up space.

How did the AI respond? Well, I'm playing a 60% Pangea Tiny map and it seems that the world is divided into two separate continents. I've just finished clearing my continent and have 17 cities. I can't see the other continent, and have no contact with other civs. However, Pliny just gave his list of the "Five Richest Civilizations", and listed only me and the Japanese. That means that the Japanese have also completely eliminated their rivals.

I don't think I remember ever playing a game where it was down to only two civs before the Industrial age. Apparently, the Japanese have not had any trouble expanding past their enemies. I don't know if this is a result of lifting corruption or whether it's a fluke, but it is an interesting anecdote.

One note: I will be entering the Industrial age around 1200. Obviously, this is too early. I'm guessing that the lowered corruption ( = more money for science) had a lot to do with this. On a Tiny map, the advancements only cost 80% of normal. I'll set this to 100% and see if it slows down science to a more reasonable pace.

Also, I think I'm only going to trade "tech for tech" now, because selling techs just makes the game way too easy. Firaxis might need to balance that somehow.

	19-11-2001 20:53									#2
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Interesting Ray - the optimal cities total may be designed to keep many Civs into the modern age...hmmm...

I changed my civ3mod.bic and doubled the cities numbers - I wonder if this will affect an already in progress game. However, I have eliminated the two otehr Civs from my continent, am assaulting the Aztecs who own another, and four other Civs share a big continent on the other side of the world. For what that's worth...

Venger
P.S. Allen huh? Plano here...

	19-11-2001 21:22									#3
	Re: Corruption vs. Expansion Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ray K Firaxis might need to balance that somehow.

Any balancing that Firaxis did went out the window when you changed the "Optimal Number of Cities".

But, unmodified, trading techs did make the game somewhat easier (I'm playing on Regent level).

	19-11-2001 22:06									#4
	Re: Re: Corruption vs. Expansion Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Stuie Any balancing that Firaxis did went out the window when you changed the "Optimal Number of Cities". But, unmodified, trading techs did make the game somewhat easier (I'm playing on Regent level).

Gimme a break. The "gold for tech" exploit exists in every game. It does make the game too easy, regardless of the corruption levels.

Keep in mind that when you reduce corruption, it is reduced for the AI as well. This could make the game more challenging if corruption hurts the AI more than it hurts you (since you can handle it better).

The corruption change was done experimentally, but l will admit that the game has been far more enjoyable. This will also be the first time I've had a significant opponent in the Industrial age.