 |
|
Crimson Shadow
|
|
One solution could be that each era would reduce corruption by 1, regardless of government. That effect would be the first to apply to calculation.
- Middle Age: +1 production; +1 trade
- Industrial Age: +1 production; +1 trade
- Modern Time: +1 production; +1 trade
To better reflect usefulness of knowledge and research, table could be progressing.
- Middle Age: +1 production; +1 trade
- Industrial Age: +2 productions; +2 trade
- Modern Time :+3 production; +3 trade
In my opinion that would not be hard to implement, but question is if Firaxis is willing to implement such feature.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TheEmerged
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
Top five ways to avoid distance-corruption issues:
1. Palace movement
2. Proper placement of FP
3. Communism
4. Play a commercial Civ
5. Play smaller maps
If you're getting this problem after conquering cities, you could always adopt a scorched earth policy and use workers to build invasion roads. |
Mind if one of those "long-gone Civ2 players" another poster mentioned de-lurks for a moment?
Nice advice. You're effectively telling me to...
1> Waste time rebuilding something I already have
2> Build something I have little chance of rushing at a location far enough away that I'd be lucky to get 1 shield a turn at
3> Use a form of government that historically is among the most corrupt, and doesn't work well with a peaceful civ...
4> Limits the number of civs I can actually play, and
5> Not play on support map sizes.
Right. And you wonder why those of us who like Civ2 and consider Civ3 to be a lesser product aren't posting on these boards much?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zurai
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Williams
What I'm complaining about here is the way corruption is instituted. As it has often been said, the current corruption model would make Washington (and Las Vegas, if you consider that to be the location of the FP) the least corrupt city in the country. At the same time, Alaska and Hawaii would never produce anything, and would be more corrupt than any place in the continental U.S. What I'm complaining about primarily here is what I see as the massive hole in gameplay brought about by a drastic over-simplification in the current system governing corruption and waste. |
That's highly amusing, considering it's not applicable at all. What are the distance corruption modifiers for a map the size of Planet Earth? How many tiles is it? What's the Optimum City Number?
Oh, that's right, there aren't any, because it's not a game, and the game isn't made to resemble real life more than superficially.
If you want a real life simulator, go play Europa Universalis. Or, better yet, get a 10-hour a day job. That'll give you plenty of reality.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Williams
|
|
Ithaca, NY
Apr 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
How come whenever you complain about something in a game, for almost any reason, there are always people who post something like "it's just a game dummy?"
I am aware that planning and all that can help deal with corruption, but no amount of planning or investment can deal with the inherent problems in the way it works. I think corruption and waste are very nessecary parts of the game, but Fraxis took the low road in programming them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
annoyed
|
|
well with some looks at the editor its easy to satisfy both the people who are in favour and the people who are against corruption , .....
__________________________________________________
________________________________________
actually the editor has fairly limited options for everything, including corruption
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fried-Psitalon
|
 |
Not just another pretty face.
Dec 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheEmerged
Mind if one of those "long-gone Civ2 players" another poster mentioned de-lurks for a moment?
Nice advice. You're effectively telling me to...
1> Waste time rebuilding something I already have
2> Build something I have little chance of rushing at a location far enough away that I'd be lucky to get 1 shield a turn at
3> Use a form of government that historically is among the most corrupt, and doesn't work well with a peaceful civ...
4> Limits the number of civs I can actually play, and
5> Not play on support map sizes.
Right. And you wonder why those of us who like Civ2 and consider Civ3 to be a lesser product aren't posting on these boards much? |
Erm, no.
1) I'm telling you to rebuild something in a more efficient location. Efficiency is good and companies, governments, and just about everyone else spends some time streamlining and making things more efficient all the time, as the needs of the entity change. Why should this be different?
2) Build something that is a good use of a GL, or will take a fair amount of time in return for a significant bonus.
3) Use a form of government which may be historically corrupt - which is irrelevant - but works fairly well for the game, if you choose to expand to a size where it is needed.
4) I'm telling you that if you feel corruption is too much and it is worth trading another advantage to get a lowering of that one- here is an option for you. In exchange for losing another bonus, you can build cities further away from your main capital.
5) I'm assuming you meant "Not play on supported map sizes" and again, no- I'm saying that if it bothers you that much, play on smaller maps where games tend to resolve faster and Civs have less room to expand, thereby limiting corruption through competition.
And no, I never said that Civ3 was everything it could've been, or Civ2 wasn't better in some ways. Civ3 is currently too much of a warmonger's game. There are other problems. I'm merely offering options.
A king whose name escapes me once stamped his cannons with the phrase "The Last Argument of Kings." Firaxis has done the same thing with the Editor.
Don't like something? Feel free to use it. I have. In the meantime, keep posting useful suggestions in the hopes that Firaxis will do something to change it.
Respectfully, in the hopes that more of the old Civ2ers will return....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Azeem
|
|
Speaking of the corruption model, is there a way we can alter it in the editor? It's been a while since I used the editor so I've forgotten.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
annoyed
|
|
I did give it a good look, I understand how to use the editor, it is very limited and quite non-specific in its application. No I do not no how to use the quote thing, as for the little lecture face thing, use it on your children, if you have something of use to say, try that. I am not flaming the game, as I play it often, and with the mods and understanding the editor, I enjoy it, but I wish some things could be done that cannot.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-01-2003 01:41
). Perhaps it should be that the larger your empire, the more corruption you have in ALL cities (Courthouses and Police Stations should reduce corruption, of course). Say you have 10 cities (without courthouses and police stations) in your nation and about 5 corruption and waste in each city. Add 2 more cities and you now have 6 corruption. Kind of extreme, but Courthouses and Police Stations should reduce corruption by 25%. Markets and Stock Brokerages may even have the potential to increase corruption in a metropolis (how about 1 corruption and waste for every 3 or 4 citizens beyond a population of 12?) a bit (piracy and insider trading 
). This way, you'll have a corruption model that makes somewhat more sense. Distance could be a factor somewhat. But cities have to be extremely far (such as the other side of the world) to have a bit more corruption. Other factors should include happiness. Unhappy people should cause corruption and waste. When your cities get too populated, you end up with a bunch of unhappy people so their unhappiness ought to damage you further.
|