 |
| |
|
|
nationalist
|
 |
None of your Goddamned business
Nov 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
Corruption in this game is implemented horrendously! I can understand why a recently conquered city would be corrupt and unproductive, but why would a city founded by its own citizens be completely useless simply because it is a long way from the capital? It doesn't make sense, especially under Democracy. Why wouldn't a democracy be able to keep control over its own citizens just because the city is far away from the capital? Honolulu is a long way from D.C., but it isn't crippled by corruption!
My biggest complaint is super corruption. I define super corruption as being the point where a city loses everything to corruption exept for 1 shield and 1 commerce, and that corruption can't be relieved through the building of courthouses and other improvements. After you grow to a certain point, every new city becomes super corrupt and you can't do a thing about it. This takes the fun out of expansion because, once that point is reached ( it can be reached fairly quickly) any new city becomes a resource sucking liability. In my opinion, cities founded by your own citizens should never become super corrupt under any government except Despotism, and even then it should only effect cities that are very far away from the capital. My solution to the corruption problem is to tie most of corruption's effects to the nationalities of the citizens of the city.
The lower the percentage of your citizens that reside in a city is, the more corrupt that city should be. If a city is composed of less than 20% of your own nationality, and has a large population of a nationality that you are at war with (even if they aren't resisting), then and only then should a city become Super Corrupt. During peace time, a city that is populated by a large percentage of other nationalities should be more corrupt than a city at the same distance made up of mostly your own nationality. The corruption caused by the other nationalities should lessen after time due to assimilation, eventually disappearing.
Distance should affect corruption in ancient governments and ancient times, but not as much as it does now. As for the modern governments, Communism should have mild distance related corruption. Democracy should not lose production in cities that are dominated by its own nationality ( when 80% or more of the population of the city belongs to the civilization's nationality), no matter how far away the city is from the captial. The super corruption that now exists (even in modern democracies!) is ridiculous! It takes alot of the fun away from the game for me, especially because there is nothing that can be done about it short of changing the game rules yourself! I think that the game should be balanced and playable as is, without manually changing the rules. What do others think?
Last edited by nationalist on 20-01-2002 at 11:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaybe
|
 |
Las Vegas, NV USA
Sep 2001
time: 21:17
|
|
Personally, I think you are just not adjusting to the "reality" of the game, regardless of how "unrealistic" the model may appear. The culture model is also an "unrealistic" way to define borders. It's just the best we have yet.
If you accept that not all your cities will be productive, but may just be adding a little culture and expanding your borders, denying real estate to your opponents, you might enjoy the game more. A game is all it is, after all.
BTW, in the Editor, Improvements and Wonders tab, the Palace is defined as "Center of Empire." What would happen if you unchecked that (and also with Forbidden Palace)??? Would there be no corruption attenuation from distance to capital if there was NO "Center of Empire"??????
JB
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PaulNAdhe
|
|
Little Rock, AR USA
Dec 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
I've read Firaxians explain the decision to make corruption so prominent as their way to make the empires smaller and force the players to be more diplomatic with the AI civs.
It seems a ridiculous waste of programming resouces when the AI will declare war without any provocation. I don't mind going to war, it's kind'a fun.
But, when the declared goal of Firaxis was to force diplomacy and then they set the trigger for war so low, it seems schizophrenic to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MonsterMan
|
 |
Stockholm, Sweden
May 2001
time: 06:17
|
|
I'm playing a game on Monarch level, 250x250 archipelago map with eleven opponents -- and no #city corruption. I set the optimal number of cities to 175. I'm in the industrial age, and although I found iron, horses, saltpeter and coal within my empire, it's not a walk in the park.
Not long ago I went over to Communism and changed my economy to war-time. What an excellent opportunity for the AI to start a world war against me :-) I'm impressed, and it really invigorated my game.
On an interesting note, I set up a kind-of trap for one of my rival civs; I decided on one of my cities on our shared continent (my empire was on another) to be my second capital, and it held Shakespear's Theater and Forbidden Palace. I'm not kidding, the Persians amassed probably *75* land units to bring down that city. I kept the save game if anyone wants to check it out.
The trap worked, and I disintegrated what must have been 90% of the Persians offensive units, and I'm on my way to conquering their whole empire. Sometimes I love this game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Murtin
|
|
Sweden
Dec 2001
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaybe
If you accept that not all your cities will be productive, but may just be adding a little culture and expanding your borders, denying real estate to your opponents, you might enjoy the game more. A game is all it is, after all.
|
Yeah, that's one effect of corruption that I really like: That you have to decide whether to build that distant city just to deny your opponents the use of that territory, knowing full well that the city will always cost you a lot more than it will produce.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nationalist
|
|
None of your Goddamned business
Nov 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
Zach,
I agree with you that maintaining a vast empire should be more dificult than maintaining a small one. However, my point is that historically much of the difficulty in maintaining a large empire (British empire, USSR, etc.) comes from the fact that many of the people that are in the empire aren't from the empire's nationality. For example, Indians resented being ruled by the British, and Kazaks resented being ruled by Russians. This resentment would lead to corruption. ( I define corruption as being the loss of potential shields to inefficiency and commerce to theft. The other nationalities wouldn't care as much about the empire, so they wouldn't work as hard as the main nationality, causing less shields to be produced than there should be. They would also be more likely to skim off the top, reducing the empire's benefit in taxes (commerce)) But if the city was founded and populated solely by the civilization's own nationality, and is under a democratic government,then it should be a productive part of the empire, no matter where in the world the city is located. My solution to the empire problem takes his into account. The more nationalities exsist in a ciy, the more corruption there is likely to be until they are assimilated. I just don't think that super corruption is a good way to represent the difficulty in running an empire, because no city could ever be that corrupt without the army coming to ensure production.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cavebear
|
 |
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
Super-corruption is the cancer of Civ3. To my mind (and I am a builder of Civs, not a militarist - it's called "Civilization", not "War"), the utter and built-in inability to overcome corruption is the single worst feature of the game. And to think that they did it *deliberately*! If they thought their idea would force more diplomacy, then their AI program is a complete and utter failure.
Now, please understand, I accept the presence of warfare as a wholly legitimate part of the game. War is real, it happens. But, considering that they were trying to make diplomacy, culture, and trade more important, they failed.
Sure, you can play this as a war game, it works that way. But there are lots of war games out there, and I won't buy those that are advertised as such (no moral objection, they just don't interest me).
Civ3 fails because the expressed focus of the game is at odds with the reality of the playing of it. The corruption problem is a major part of that failure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RickBlaine
|
|
I have not been playing much Civ lately and the primary reason is corruption. IMO, all the arguments whether this is realistic modeling or not are irrelevant--Civ3 is utterly unrealistic in virtually all of its aspects; it is an abtract strategy game vaguely modeled on world history, not a simulation. (If you want a simulation, try something like EUII, which I am playing around with now, It seems like a great game, but oh boy, what a steep learning curve.)
To me, the question is not whether it is realistic, but whether the game is fun or not, and corruption leaches much of the fun right out of it for me. This starts early on, well before I hit the editable default limit on optimal cities. My playstyle in Civ has always been development oriented, I rarely fight unless forced to (or when I have opened a large tech lead on my opponents). The Civ3 AI forces me to expand even faster than I did in Civ2, but when I start placing cities a dozen or more tiles from my capital (I play on large maps), I run right into corruption. It is most frustrating to build a factory on a worked tile only to see it add yet another red shield. And even more frustating for the charmless Domestic Advisor to tell me to build the Forbidden City, when it is 100+ turns in any location where it would do any good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
quote:
And even more frustating for the charmless Domestic Advisor to tell me to build the Forbidden City, when it is 100+ turns in any location where it would do any good. |
And then she asks if you want to scrap it two turns before it's finished and build a hospital instead.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
quote:
Use a Leader to build the Forbidden Palace. |
Unfortunately, in Civ, Leaders come from fighting only. The gentleman specifically said that he rarely fights except in certain extenuating circumstances.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
 |
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ceasar David
I'm on my second game - and i'm in trouble. I have a continent to myself & considered my civ quite safe. However, i've just been invaded and due to super corruption, i cant fight back. My empires huge - stretching my supplylines, but everything i have close to the front line will take 20 turns just for a basic unit. The enemy are raiding my cities and just raising them to the ground. In short, i'm screwed. |
Yes, you sound a little overextended. The challenge will just make your eventual victory all that much sweeter.
The solution to that one is to have the Legions where you need them, when you need them. When Jerusalem rebelled, there was only one Roman cohort (600 Legionaires) on garrison, but a Legion close by in Syria. Oops! The worst part was that the Legion didn't have seige equipment, had to withdraw and wait for reenforcements. All these military units were built in Rome and brought forward.
Once you have Conscription, of course, no problem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jumping Choya
|
|
You know what would be an amazingly easy fix to the Forbidden Palace problem?
Make it rushable (without a leader, that is), that way you can give it a significant boost, if not complete it, where it would actually be relevant.
I haven't spent much time in the editor, but my guess is that you probably can't change it there because Small Wonders aren't supposed to be rushable.
So, I guess we would have to wait for Firaxis to change it (and there's no telling when that might be).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Civfan
|
|
Toronto, Canada
Sep 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
Corruption can be changed in the editor. problem solved! I think!
Last edited by Civfan on 21-01-2002 at 05:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RickBlaine
|
|
quote:
Play on a smaller map, at least while figuring out how to deal with corruption.
Use a Leader to build the Forbidden Palace. |
As to the first comment, I do not like small maps (the fun of the game to me is primarily development, so I want room and later contact with other civs) and I know how to deal with corruption, having won multiple times. Unfortunately, "dealing" with corruption in Civ3 primarily consists of ignoring it, as suggested elsewhere in this thread. Having cities with such high corruptin (and the distance factor is not editable IIRC) is just no fun IMO, and I find it annoying that the game really gives you no tool to deal with corruption once you reach a certain point. If a courthouse made a real dent in corruption, either by itself or in concert with other improvements, I would have no gripe. But it does so little, that it is really not worth building (or more likely buying) where it is needed.
As to the second comment, as Libertarian noted, I seldom fight in the early game and have never yet had a leader until relatively late in the game. I know many people really enjoy the tactical warfare aspect of Civ, but I do not 
BTW, I recently started a game after editing the optimal number of cities for corruption (the only edit I have made other than civ color). I am now early in the Middle Ages, have almost 20 cities and cannot build the Forbidden Palace yet, which was alwayd available in the past long before this point. Did that edit make a change or am I missing something else?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Unregistered
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Is increasing the "optimal # cities" in the editor the best/only way to do this? Some of the real-world maps that have been made are excellent, but too huge. I happen to like the idea of some corruption (or even a lot), but yes, the 99% corrupt cities are irksome.
What would answer nationalist's concern could be a tech trigger. Once you discover something, say electronics, corruption would reduce in the more distant cities. That way, the ancient era cities would be corrupt (which seems very realistic to me - squeezing gold out of a distant city was difficult work for any ancient regime), but more modern times would reduce it significantly. |
I like this idea. & if they made the % corruption change involved parameter driven thru the editor it would be even better. 'Cause I bet my idea of 'significant' wouldn't match yours...
Or maybe several historical triggers, each w/ small, but cumulative effects.
Thanks,
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Marquis de Sodaq
|
 |
... no, a Marquis.
Jul 2000
time: 23:17
|
|
Yes, whatever level of corruption one might find acceptable will be booed by someone else. Thus the editor. Besides the tech trigger idea and the optimal cities, there is another easy fix -
REDUCE THE BUILD COST OF THE FORBIDDEN PALACE!
People complain it will take 100 turns to build. Well, change it so that it is only 50 turns.
Some other FP building tips:
Last night I started a FP in a town ~60 tiles from my capitol. Corruption isn't 99%, but it's very high. I rush build a courthouse, resulting in access to a few shields. Then I rush build a temple to expand the city radius. Meanwhile, I pour in settlers to the surrounding area, building about 8 more towns. Also, I pump settlers into the FP town, bumping it up to size 10. Now I have a city producing about 7 shields per turn. Very corrupt, but functional.
A horde of workers is busy mining the terrain and clearing forest around this town. (Post-patch, once per tile) When I started building, the full-cost FP would take 71 turns, iirc. Ten turns later, I have only 13 turns to go. It's very workable if you just plan ahead.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
Seems odd that cutting trees would add to a small wonder.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-01-2002 11:09
...4-6 luxury resources is plenty.
|