04-02-2002 21:14									#1
	dealing with waste? Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

How do I reduce waste in captured cities?

I find that even when dominating in most areas, many of the cities I have captured along the way have 'waste' levels that consume all but one of my shields. This is even if I build temples, and perhaps libraries, cathedrals or other improvements. Shifting up the scale of gov't helps somewhat, but even under democracy I still lose over half my shields in many cities to waste.

What am I overlooking?

	04-02-2002 21:37									#2
	Re: dealing with waste? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by thing1 How do I reduce waste in captured cities? I find that even when dominating in most areas, many of the cities I have captured along the way have 'waste' levels that consume all but one of my shields. This is even if I build temples, and perhaps libraries, cathedrals or other improvements. Shifting up the scale of gov't helps somewhat, but even under democracy I still lose over half my shields in many cities to waste. What am I overlooking?

Nothing, that's the way the game has been designed. Your only current option is to build a Forbidden Palace somewhere near those areas you want to make more productive, or maybe a Courthouse and Police Station will help. Temples, etc. do nothing for corruption/waste, except to bring about a "We Love The King Day", which will boost your production.

However, you can go into your editor and raise the number of optimal cities on the World Sizes screen, or add the "Reduces Corruption" flag to other improvements. Or you can create more versions of the Forbidden Palace using the Civ3MultiTool utility. Otherwise, you're SOL.

	04-02-2002 21:39									#3
	Full PM-box? Change here!

You make nothing wrong. It's an intended game concept. Some like it, some hate it.

There are a few things that slightly lower the waste (like the "We love the * Day", or building a courthouse), but in general it's the way the game wishes to tell you, that either your empire is too big, or you have gotten too many cities.

Also, there are a few settings (cheats) in the editor, e.g. you can add "courthouse effect" to all improvements and wonders, or set the optimal number of cities to 512, but that imbalances the game and IMHO makes it too easy.

	04-02-2002 21:48									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph Also, there are a few settings (cheats) in the editor, e.g. you can add "courthouse effect" to all improvements and wonders, or set the optimal number of cities to 512, but that imbalances the game and IMHO makes it too easy.

It's not a cheat, it's a customization!

	04-02-2002 21:59									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Willem It's not a cheat, it's a customization!

Yea , sure!

	05-02-2002 00:03									#6
	Put an end to popups!

How does it imbalance the game Ralph??

It applies to the AI as well

	05-02-2002 01:22									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Good point, may be the AI even benefits from it, because it builds cities on all crappy locations, regardless of the distance to the capital, till the map is full.

With "imbalanced" I meant rather, that it allows you to grow a huge and prosper empire in despotism. A swordsman/horseman rush against the AI isn't hard to win if you have a living brain . And if even every conquered city can participate in fast unit building, it would make winning too easy.

As a matter of fact, there is no real empire that covers 50% of the Earth's landmass (and never has been). In Civ2 (and CTP1/2) this is easily possible. I think the corruption (though it looks ugly and, to be honest, sucks) is just to limit your (and the AI's) expansion, to give all civs a decent place to settle.

	05-02-2002 02:27									#8
	Remove this text

Actually, there's plenty you can do to reduce corruption and waste, even in conquered areas on another continent far from your capitol.

But all of them take careful planning, and time to achieve results. Many people are looking for an easy, quick-fix solution, and there just is no substitute for something I like to call "strategy". Unfortunately, there are too many people who play strategy games and expect to win consistently and overwhelmingly without the need for this strange concept I call "strategy".

One solution is placement of your Forbidden Palace. Early in the game, you should be developing your expansion plans, and decide where you think you'll build it, long before you actually do. When it's there, if you've made a wise choice, you will minimize corruption and waste because you will be able to cover the maximum area of your own civilization with your two palaces.

WLTKD is a great way to reduce corruption and waste in far-off cities. Problem is, it takes time. Most people are too impatient to allow WLTKD go on for the 20, 30, or 50 turns it takes to get any real results. But it does get results. Hook up your trade route to get luxuries in, and rush-build marketplaces and religious improvements. The religious improvements will have the added bonus of adding culture points, expanding your border and providing some protection against flips.

Courthouses and police stations help too. But like WLTKD, they're not quick fixes. You have to plan and build them, and over time they will reduce corruption and waste. Be patient, plan ahead, and don't expect instant results.

Most importantly, know what you want and can realistically expect from each city, and plan your development for that city accordingly. For example, if you build a city in the middle of a bunch of flood plains, it will be great for building workers and settlers, but there's not much point in putting a factory there and expecting to build a bunch of wonders. Likewise, you may plop a city on a far-off island just to get the rubber or coal that's there. So you build a harbor and a few defenders, and not much else. Don't invest a lot trying to make that city ever produce much. It doesn't have to. You've got your coal or rubber, the rest of your civ benefits, that's all that that city is there for, don't expect anything more. You don't need anything more from that city. Bottom line here, not all cities are all things to all civs, plan your cities and know what you want from them, and develop in a way to get what you need from them. It all comes back to that annoying "strategy" thing.

None of these will eliminate corruption/waste completely, but using a combination of all of these tools will greatly reduce the overall effects.

I could cite numerous real-world examples of how the Civ3 corruption/waste model (and the cultural/city-flipping model as well) reflect real-world realities, but there's really no point in that, and it would just generate side-tracked arguments.

Play the game, enjoy it, and learn how to employ strategy to win consistently. Just don't expect everything all at once, that's not what strategy is all about.

	05-02-2002 02:44									#9
	Put an end to popups!

What you call "Strategy" I call tedium and "boredom inducing". There is also strategy involved in having all cities being able to produce with out corruption and what you call realistic I call unrealistic. On a tiny map if I get outside the the normal view of the captial city my satelite cities quickly become less usefull. I do not doubt that corruption requires you to use a different strategy, I think it is good that it is there, I just wish I could turn it off. Is that too much to ask for?

	05-02-2002 03:24									#10
	Increase Your PM Length

Actually, it is too much to ask for. Consider the following:

I really hate it when the enemy units attack my units. I mean, if I take some warriors and leave them out in the open, when the enemy attacks them they take damage and frequently get destroyed.

Now I know I could employ strategy to avoid this, like finding defensive terrain or upgrading to better units, but that would be tedious and boring. I'd much prefer if I could just set it so the enemy would never attack my units, or if they did it wouldn't damage them.

Is that too much to ask for?


I really hate that it's possible to lose the game. I think I should be able to turn this feature off, so that no matter what, I can't lose. Is that too much to ask for?

I mean, I shouldn't be expected to play by the rules, should I? I paid good money for this game, it should be exactly what I want it to be and nothing less, right? Why should I have to settle for a game that somebody else designed, when I don't have the time or the know-how to design one for myself?

The game is what the game is. If you don't like it, don't play it. But don't expect it to be the exact game you would have designed unless you designed it yourself.

	05-02-2002 04:08									#11
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Quote-
"I just wish I could turn it off. Is that too much to ask for"

Well, I am not sure on how to go about turning corruption off, but if you follow the suggestions posted earlier in this thread, you can make corruption fade to almost nothing if you so desire.
Personally, I leave it as is. Slows down the uber expansion of AI civs. Or renders it ineffective as far as making their civ stronger and tougher to beat.
Also, puts a cap on my own civ. If I am lucky enough to have more room to expand than the other civs (like if I get a sizable land mass to myself at the start) my civ becomes pretty well unbeatable right from the start.

	05-02-2002 05:01									#12
	Corruption & Power Balance Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph in general it's the way the game wishes to tell you, that either your empire is too big, or you have gotten too many cities.

Agreed. Distance corruption/waste is FAR FAR more powerful than # of cities corruption/waste tho. I can pack 60 cities into a small area & corruption/waste will be of little concern. If you have 10 cities with 5 of them on the other side of the world (say you're England putting cities in Australia), unless you have a forbidden fortress there you will NEVER get more than 1 shield from those cities (maybe 2 shields if you're in a high shield area with a factory, courthouse, police, & WLTK on). And if you're England forget trying to colonize more than 1 area (like both America & Australia)... it's better to focus on taking over France & other nearby Civs or abondon England. When growing your empire there is a certain distance you will find that distance corruption/waste will drown any efforts you make (aside from relocating your palace or forbidden palace).

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph Good point, may be the AI even benefits from it, because it builds cities on all crappy locations, regardless of the distance to the capital, till the map is full.

That is why heavy corruption/waste makes the game easier for the human player & hurts the AI more. Remember the AI is programmed to rapidly expand in the beginning & can do it better/faster than many human players. Corruption/Waste severely limits this potential.

2nd, read Salvor's post... the AI is not smart enough to do all that. And it has NO idea how to use leaders, forests, & courthouses to fight corruption/waste. I often see it building warriors/units in far off corruption cities instead of trying to fight the corruption. I wonder if it's even smart enough to place down it's Forbidden Palace in a good place (if at all).

Now you might think corruption/waste hurts the warmonger human player more... but again not as much as it hurts a warmonger AI. Thus, corruption/waste is far more annoying for a human player, but it hurts the AI more.

However, currently the heavy 'distance corruption/waste' is the *only* thing stopping the strongest player from winning sooner. Removing this will lead to faster/easier victories. Yet, if there was something more exciting than corrpuption/waste to challenge the strongest player (usually the human) from quick conquest, than distance corruption/waste could/should be lowered. In particular, a balance of power... currently the AIs never seek to balance the power in the game. None of the AI Civs team up against the potential human winner. This explains the posts of people saying how after they get Cavalry they can just wipe everyone out... because the AI Civs just watch/help the human wipe out each Civ individually - making the strongest even stronger. If the AI Civs did team up, that would be FAR more exciting than fighting corruption as the late-game challenge... and involve more "strategy". The Civ3 AIs only live for the moment trying to get the best trade deal rather than focusing on the win. Likewise, if multiplayer worked - I don't care how nice you may have been to me... if I want to win & your tech/land is growing rapidly, I will try to stop you with help from others. The AI should try to win more.

	05-02-2002 05:22									#13
	Re: Corruption & Power Balance Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Pyrodrew That is why heavy corruption/waste makes the game easier for the human player & hurts the AI more. Remember the AI is programmed to rapidly expand in the beginning & can do it better/faster than many human players. Corruption/Waste severely limits this potential.

You did notice that I meant the AI benefits from a cheat, not from corruption/waste, did you?