Firaxis: Corruption Breakdown

[Kuciwalker]

Yeah, and "communal" should be seperate for the slider - so you can not only specify a government to have evenly distributed corruption, you can specify how much corruption that is.

[Risa]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Jesse:

This piece of code...

{omitted}

obviously calculates the rank with only one center, the real capital. My solution would be to execute it n times with different capitals (n being the number of capitals - Palace, FP, SPHQ, may be more in scenarios) and to take the least calculated rank. I would code it, but I don't know i what variables/classes you keep the # of capitals and their coordinates.

It doesn't need a new loop, I think. Changing iRealCapitalDist to iClosestCapitalDist will solve that.

Of course, iTempDist should also change as Jesse said.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Risa
It doesn't need a new loop, I think. Changing iRealCapitalDist to iClosestCapitalDist will solve that.

Of course, iTempDist should also change as Jesse said.

No, this would mess it up in a hideous way, kind of "Mexico is closer to Washington than Bangkok is to Moscow. Which city will get a higher rank?". And iTempDist is just a variable name. You can call it all you want, the content remains the same.

[Harovan]

By the way, my proposed solution has one downside. It allows some kind of "negative capital related RCP", will say that if a city has the same rank relative to palace and FP, this rank exists only one time (and not twice as it should). Albeit this is a really minor "bug", it can be addressed too. The cleanest way to sort this out is to calculate all ranks relative to all capitals (you get n tables with ranks, n is the # of capitals) and then assign the ranks to cities one by one, beginning with the least. Cities, which have a rank assigned, shall then be removed out of all tables, that does the trick.

This sounds complicated, but it doesn't have to be recalculated every turn. Only if a city is built, a city is lost or a palace/FP/SPHQ is finished, it needs to be computed.

[Risa]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

No, this would mess it up in a hideous way, kind of "Mexico is closer to Washington than Bangkok is to Moscow. Which city will get a higher rank?".

I don't understand it. Assuming you have a palace in Washington and a forbidden palace in Moscow, and Bankok and Mexico are your other two cities, Bangkok will get higher rank.

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

And iTempDist is just a variable name. You can call it all you want, the content remains the same.

Oh no no no.
I mean changing iTempDist to

iTempDist = vectorDist(pClosestCapital->getX(), pClosestCapital->getY(), pLoopCity->getX(), pLoopCity->getY());

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Risa
I don't understand it. Assuming you have a palace in Washington and a forbidden palace in Moscow, and Bankok and Mexico are your other two cities, Bangkok will get higher rank.

No. They both could get the same rank (1), if they are the closest to their particular capital. The whole sense of the action is, that every capital gets the whole set (1, 2, 3, 4, ...) of ranks. Your proposed method would share only one set of ranks between all capitals, for instance cities closer to Washington get rank 1, 4, 5, 6, ... and cities closer to Moscow get 2, 3, 7, 8, ... get it? That was roughly the same the FP worked in 1.0. People complained, and right so.

[thorpey]

Am I getting it wrong or is this what is "intended" ?

1. The addition of the new specialists like city engineer mean the FP should be reduced in power.
2. The addition of SPHQ has added greater complexity to the corruption calculation and therefore needed a rethink.

Imagine this:

1. The palace has an effective radius of 25 squares
2. The FP and the SPHQ have an effective radius of 17 squares

Any city outside of either range is effectively corrupt and unproductive but with careful use of specialists can still be useful.

The numbers 25 and 17 are random numbers and just used to illustrate my point, but I think something like this is what is intended. ie the Palce remains the "core" and the FP/SPHQ are "lesser cores".

In PTW I added a second FP (Summer Palace), and with all three in place I effectively had a huge and unstoppable empire.

I think the guys at Firaxis don't want that and therefore have tried to sort this out in C3C, adding a benefit for FP and SPHQ but not an overwhelming benefit.

Does that sound about right?

[steven8r]

Silly me. I can't even look at the code w/o getting a headache.

But thank you, Jesse, for the info.
Between your efforts and those of other posters here, I think I'm beginning to understand, or at least better appreciate y'all's efforts.

I just modded PTW so that almost all improvements reduced corruption. Of course, that made Court Houses and Police Stations less useful, but I could live with that.

I intend on playing several regular/patched C3C before making a new 'Low Corruption C3C Mod'--just so I can better appreciate the lower corruption when I play it.



Steven

[Theseus]

That's dedication... working on corruption on New Year's Day!

(as opposed to working on a hangover... or maybe BOTH)

[E_T]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
By the way, my proposed solution has one downside. It allows some kind of "negative capital related RCP", will say that if a city has the same rank relative to palace and FP, this rank exists only one time (and not twice as it should). Albeit this is a really minor "bug", it can be addressed too. The cleanest way to sort this out is to calculate all ranks relative to all capitals (you get n tables with ranks, n is the # of capitals) and then assign the ranks to cities one by one, beginning with the least. Cities, which have a rank assigned, shall then be removed out of all tables, that does the trick.

This sounds complicated, but it doesn't have to be recalculated every turn. Only if a city is built, a city is lost or a palace/FP/SPHQ is finished, it needs to be computed.

If that city has the same rank in comparison to the Palace AND the FP, then it should 'polarize' to the one that has the higher culture. That should fix that problem nicely....

E_T

[Risa]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


No. They both could get the same rank (1), if they are the closest to their particular capital. The whole sense of the action is, that every capital gets the whole set (1, 2, 3, 4, ...) of ranks. Your proposed method would share only one set of ranks between all capitals, for instance cities closer to Washington get rank 1, 4, 5, 6, ... and cities closer to Moscow get 2, 3, 7, 8, ... get it? That was roughly the same the FP worked in 1.0. People complained, and right so.

I see the point now. You are right that vanilla/PtW versions don't work like what I suggested.

However, I do think the new version is, at least, worth a try. In that version, building FP will weaken the original core (by raising several cities' rank), yet still strengthen the overall economy (by lowering distance corruption of the 2nd core).